Essentials of Sociology A Down-to-Earth Approach

Thirteenth Edition

James M. Henslin Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville

330 Hudson Street, NY NY 10013

Acknowledgments of third party content appear on pages CR-1–CR-7, which constitutes an extension of this copyright page. Cultural Diversity Around the World: Doing Business in the Global Village box contains art with the following credit: Demashita! Powerpuff Girls Z © 2009 Cartoon Network, Toei Animation & Aniplex. All Rights Reserved. THE POWERPUFF GIRLS and all related characters and elements are trademarks of and © Cartoon Network.

Copyright © 2019, 2017, 2014, 2012 by James M. Henslin. All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This publication is protected by copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise. For information regarding permissions, request forms and the appropriate contacts within the Pearson Rights & Permissions Department, please visit www.pearsoned.com/permissions/.

PEARSON and ALWAYS LEARNING are exclusive trademarks owned by Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates in the United States and/or other countries.

Unless otherwise indicated herein, any third-party trademarks that may appear in this work are the property of their respective owners and any references to third-party trademarks, logos or other trade dress are for demonstrative or descriptive purposes only. Such references are not intended to imply any sponsorship, endorsement, authorization, or promotion of Pearson’s products by the owners of such marks, or any relationship between the owner and Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates, authors, licensees or distributors.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Henslin, James M., author. Title: Essentials of sociology : a down-to-earth approach / James M. Henslin, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville. Description: Thirteenth edition. | Boston : Pearson, [2019] Identifiers: LCCN 2017048320 (print) | LCCN 2017052388 (ebook) | ISBN 9780134740041 (ebook) | ISBN 9780134736570 (student edition : alk. paper) | ISBN 9780134740003 (a la carte : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Sociology. Classification: LCC HM586 (ebook) | LCC HM586 .H43 2019 (print) | DDC 301— dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017048320

1 17

VP, Product Development: Dickson Musslewhite Portfolio Manager: Jeff Marshall Editorial Assistant: Christina Winterburn Development Editor: Jennifer Auvil (OPS) Program Team Lead: Amber Mackey Content Producer: Mary Donovan Director of Field Marketing: Jonathan Cottrell Field Marketer: Brittany Pogue-Mohammed Acosta Operations Manager: Mary Fischer

Operations Specialist: Mary Ann Gloriande Director of Design: Blair Brown Cover Art Director: Kathryn Foot Cover Design: Lumina Digital Studio Project Manager: Rich Barnes Full-Service Project Management and Composition: Integra Printer/Binder: LSC Communications, Inc Cover Printer: Phoenix Color/Hagerstown

Rental Edition ISBN 10: 0-13-473658-3 ISBN 13: 978-0-13-473658-7

Revel AC ISBN 10: 0-13-473989-2 ISBN 13: 978-0-13-473989-2

ALC ISBN 10: 0-13-473839-X ISBN 13: 978-0-13-473839-0

Instructor’s Resource Edition ISBN 10: 0-13-47385-4 ISBN 13: 978-0-13-473845-1

To my fellow sociologists, who do such creative research on social life and who communicate the sociological imagination to generations of students. With my sincere admiration and appreciation.

1 The Sociological Perspective 1

2 Culture 38

3 Socialization 68

4 Social Structure and Social Interaction 101

5 Social Groups and Formal Organizations 133

6 Deviance and Social Control 162

7 Global Stratification 195

8 Social Class in the United States 228

9 Race and Ethnicity 263

10 Gender and Age 303

11 Politics and the Economy 345

12 Marriage and Family 381

13 Education and Religion 415

14 Population and Urbanization 451

15 Social Change and the Environment 488

Brief Contents

iv

v

To the Student ... from the Author xviii

To the Instructor ... from the Author xix

About the Author xxxvi

1 The Sociological Perspective 1 The Sociological Perspective 3

Seeing the Broader Social Context 3 The Global Context—and the Local 4

Origins of Sociology 4 Tradition versus Science 5 Auguste Comte and Positivism 5 Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism 6 Karl Marx and Class Conflict 6 Emile Durkheim and Social Integration 7

APPLYING DURKHEIM 7

Max Weber and the Protestant Ethic 8 RELIGION AND THE ORIGIN OF CAPITALISM 8

Sociology in North America 9 Sexism at the Time: Women in Early Sociology 9 Racism at the Time: W. E. B. Du Bois 10 Jane Addams: Sociologist and Social Reformer 11 Talcott Parsons and C. Wright Mills: Theory

versus Reform 12 The Continuing Tension: Basic, Applied,

and Public Sociology 12 BASIC SOCIOLOGY 12 • APPLIED SOCIOLOGY 12 • PUBLIC SOCIOLOGY 12

Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology 14 Symbolic Interactionism 14

SYMBOLS IN EVERYDAY LIFE 14 • IN SUM 15 • APPLYING SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 15 • IN SUM 16

Functional Analysis 16 ROBERT MERTON AND FUNCTIONALISM 16 • IN SUM 17 • APPLYING FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS 17 • IN SUM 17

Conflict Theory 18 KARL MARX AND CONFLICT THEORY 18 • CONFLICT THEORY TODAY 19 • FEMINISTS AND CONFLICT THEORY 19 • APPLYING CONFLICT THEORY 19 • IN SUM 19

Putting the Theoretical Perspectives Together 19 Levels of Analysis: Macro and Micro 19 How Theory and Research Work Together 20

Doing Sociological Research 21

A Research Model 21 Selecting a Topic 21 Defining the Problem 22 Reviewing the Literature 22 Formulating a Hypothesis 22 Choosing a Research Method 22

Collecting the Data 22 Analyzing the Results 23 Sharing the Results 23

Research Methods (Designs) 24 Surveys 25

SELECTING A SAMPLE 25 • ASKING NEUTRAL QUESTIONS 26 • TYPES OF QUESTIONS 27 • ESTABLISHING RAPPORT 27

Participant Observation (Fieldwork) 28 Case Studies 29 Secondary Analysis 30 Analysis of Documents 30 Experiments 30 Unobtrusive Measures 32

Gender in Sociological Research 32

Ethics in Sociological Research 33 Protecting the Subjects: The Brajuha Research 33 Misleading the Subjects: The Humphreys Research 34

Trends Shaping the Future of Sociology 34 Tension in Sociology: Research versus

Social Reform 35 THREE STAGES IN SOCIOLOGY 35 • DIVERSITY OF ORIENTATIONS 35

Globalization 35 HOW GLOBALIZATION APPLIES TO THIS TEXT 35

Summary and Review 36 Thinking Critically about Chapter 1 37

2 Culture 38 What Is Culture? 40

Culture and Taken-for-Granted Orientations to Life 40 IN SUM 42

Practicing Cultural Relativism 43 ATTACK ON CULTURAL RELATIVISM 44

Components of Symbolic Culture 46 Gestures 46

MISUNDERSTANDING AND OFFENSE 46 • UNIVERSAL GESTURES? 47

Language 47 LANGUAGE ALLOWS HUMAN EXPERIENCE TO BE CUMULATIVE 48 • LANGUAGE PROVIDES A SOCIAL OR SHARED PAST 48 • LANGUAGE PROVIDES A SOCIAL OR SHARED FUTURE 48 • LANGUAGE ALLOWS SHARED PERSPECTIVES 48 • LANGUAGE ALLOWS SHARED, GOAL-DIRECTED BEHAVIOR 49 • IN SUM 50

Language and Perception: The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis 50

Values, Norms, and Sanctions 51 Folkways, Mores, and Taboos 52

Contents

vi Contents

Many Cultural Worlds 53 Subcultures 53 Countercultures 56

Values in U.S. Society 56 An Overview of U.S. Values 56 Value Clusters 57 Value Contradictions 58 An Emerging Value Cluster 58

IN SUM 59

When Values Clash 60 Values as Distorting Lenses 60 “Ideal” Culture Versus “Real” Culture 60

Cultural Universals 60 IN SUM 61

Sociobiology and Human Behavior 61 IN SUM 62

Technology in the Global Village 62 New Technology 62 Cultural Lag and Cultural Change 64 Technology and Cultural Leveling 64

CULTURAL DIFFUSION 64 • COMMUNICATION AND TRAVEL 65 • CULTURAL LEVELING 65

Summary and Review 66 Thinking Critically about Chapter 2 67

3 Socialization 68 Society Makes Us Human 70

Feral Children 71 Isolated Children 71 Institutionalized Children 72

THE ORPHANAGE EXPERIMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 72 • THE ORPHANAGE EXPERIMENT IN ROMANIA 73 • TIMING AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF GENIE 73 • IN SUM 73

Deprived Animals 73 IN SUM: SOCIETY MAKES US HUMAN 74

Socialization into the Self and Mind 74 Cooley and the Looking-Glass Self 74

IN SUM 75

Mead and Role Taking 75 IN SUM 76

Piaget and the Development of Reasoning 76 Global Aspects of the Self and Reasoning 77

Learning Personality, Morality, and Emotions 77 Freud and the Development of Personality 77

SOCIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 78

Kohlberg and the Development of Morality 78 KOHLBERG’S THEORY 78 • CRITICISMS OF KOHLBERG 79 • RESEARCH WITH BABIES 79 • THE CULTURAL RELATIVITY OF MORALITY 79

Socialization into Emotions 79 GLOBAL EMOTIONS 79 • EXPRESSING EMOTIONS: “GENDER RULES” 79 • THE EXTENT OF “FEELING RULES” 80 • WHAT WE FEEL 80 • RESEARCH NEEDED 80

Society within Us: The Self and Emotions as a Social Mirror 81 IN SUM 81

Socialization into Gender 81 Learning the Gender Map 81 Gender Messages in the Family 82

PARENTS 82 • TOYS AND PLAY 82 • SAME-SEX PARENTS 84

Gender Messages from Peers 84 Gender Messages in the Mass Media 85

TELEVISION, MOVIES, AND CARTOONS 85 • VIDEO GAMES 85 • ADVERTISING 85 • IN SUM 86

Agents of Socialization 86 The Family 87

SOCIAL CLASS AND TYPE OF WORK 87 • SOCIAL CLASS AND PLAY 87

The Neighborhood 87 Religion 88 Day Care 88 The School 89 Peer Groups 90 The Workplace 92

Resocialization 92 Total Institutions 92

Socialization through the Life Course 94

Childhood (from birth to about age 12) 94 IN SUM 95

Adolescence (ages 13–17) 95 Transitional Adulthood (ages 18–29) 96

“BRING YOUR PARENTS TO WORK DAY” 96

The Middle Years (ages 30–65) 96 THE EARLY MIDDLE YEARS (AGES 30–49) 96 • THE LATER MIDDLE YEARS (AGES 50–65) 97

The Older Years (about age 65 on) 97 THE TRANSITIONAL OLDER YEARS (AGES 65–74) 97 • THE LATER OLDER YEARS (AGE 75 OR SO) 97

Are We Prisoners of Socialization? 98

Summary and Review 99 Thinking Critically about Chapter 3 100

4 Social Structure and Social Interaction 101

Levels of Sociological Analysis 103 Macrosociology and Microsociology 103

The Macrosociological Perspective: Social Structure 104

The Sociological Significance of Social Structure 104 IN SUM 105

Components of Social Structure 105 Culture 106 Social Class 106 Social Status 106

STATUS SETS 106 • ASCRIBED AND ACHIEVED STATUSES 106 • STATUS SYMBOLS 107 • MASTER STATUSES 107 • STATUS INCONSISTENCY 107

Contents vii

Roles 108 Groups 108

Social Institutions 109 Comparing Functionalist and Conflict Perspectives 109

THE FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE 109 • THE CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE 111 • IN SUM 111

Changes in Social Structure 111 What Holds Society Together? 111

MECHANICAL AND ORGANIC SOLIDARITY 111 • GEMEINSCHAFT AND GESELLSCHAFT 112 • HOW RELEVANT ARE THESE CONCEPTS TODAY? 112 • IN SUM 113

The Microsociological Perspective: Social Interaction in Everyday Life 114

Symbolic Interaction 114 Stereotypes in Everyday Life 114 Personal Space 118 Eye Contact 119 Smiling 119 Body Language 119

APPLIED BODY LANGUAGE 119

Dramaturgy: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life 119 Stages 120 Role Performance, Conflict, and Strain 120 Sign-Vehicles 121 Teamwork 123 Becoming the Roles We Play 123

APPLYING IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 123

Ethnomethodology: Uncovering Background Assumptions 124

IN SUM 125

The Social Construction of Reality 125 Gynecological Examinations 126

IN SUM 127

The Need for Both Macrosociology and Microsociology 127

Summary and Review 131 Thinking Critically about Chapter 4 132

5 Social Groups and Formal Organizations 133

Groups within Society 135 Primary Groups 135

PRODUCING A MIRROR WITHIN 137

Secondary Groups 137 VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS 137 • THE INNER CIRCLE 137 • THE IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY 138

In-Groups and Out-Groups 138 SHAPING PERCEPTION AND MORALITY 138

Reference Groups 139 EVALUATING OURSELVES 139 • EXPOSURE TO CONTRADICTORY STANDARDS IN A SOCIALLY DIVERSE SOCIETY 140

Social Networks 140 THE SMALL WORLD PHENOMENON 142 • IS THE SMALL WORLD PHENOMENON AN ACADEMIC MYTH? 142 • BUILDING UNINTENTIONAL BARRIERS 142

Bureaucracies 143 The Characteristics of Bureaucracies 144 Goal Displacement and the Perpetuation

of Bureaucracies 146 Dysfunctions of Bureaucracies 147

RED TAPE: A RULE IS A RULE 147 • ALIENATION OF WORKERS 147 • RESISTING ALIENATION 148

Working for the Corporation 148 Self-Fulfilling Stereotypes in the “Hidden”

Corporate Culture 148 SELF-FULFILLING STEREOTYPES AND PROMOTIONS 148

Diversity in the Workplace 149

Technology and the Maximum-Security Society 150

Group Dynamics 151 Effects of Group Size on Stability and Intimacy 151 Effects of Group Size on Attitudes and Behavior 152

LABORATORY FINDINGS AND THE REAL WORLD 153

Leadership 155 WHO BECOMES A LEADER? 155 • TYPES OF LEADERS 155 • LEADERSHIP STYLES 155 • LEADERSHIP STYLES IN CHANGING SITUATIONS 156

The Power of Peer Pressure: The Asch Experiment 157 The Power of Authority: The Milgram Experiment 158 Global Consequences of Group Dynamics:

Groupthink 159 PREVENTING GROUPTHINK 160

Summary and Review 160 Thinking Critically about Chapter 5 161

6 Deviance and Social Control 162 What is Deviance? 164

A Neutral Term 164 STIGMA 164

Deviance Is Relative 164 How Norms Make Social Life Possible 166 Sanctions 166

IN SUM 166

Competing Explanations of Deviance: Sociobiology, Psychology, and Sociology 167

Biosocial Explanations 167 Psychological Explanations 167 Sociological Explanations 168

The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective 168 Differential Association Theory 168

THE THEORY 168 • FAMILIES 168 • FRIENDS, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND SUBCULTURES 168 • DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION IN THE CYBER AGE 169 • PRISON OR FREEDOM? 169

Control Theory 170 THE THEORY 170

Labeling Theory 172 REJECTING LABELS: HOW PEOPLE NEUTRALIZE DEVIANCE 172 • EMBRACING LABELS: THE EXAMPLE OF OUTLAW BIKERS 173 • LABELS CAN BE POWERFUL 173 • HOW DO LABELS WORK? 174 • IN SUM 174

The Functionalist Perspective 175 Can Deviance Really Be Functional for Society? 175 Strain Theory: How Mainstream Values Produce

Deviance 175 FOUR DEVIANT PATHS 176 • IN SUM 176

Illegitimate Opportunity Structures: Social Class and Crime 176 STREET CRIME 176 • WHITE-COLLAR CRIME 178 • GENDER AND CRIME 179 • IN SUM 180

The Conflict Perspective 180 Class, Crime, and the Criminal Justice System 180 The Criminal Justice System as an Instrument

of Oppression 180 IN SUM 181

Reactions to Deviance 181 Street Crime and Prisons 182 The Decline of Violent Crime 185 Recidivism 185 The Death Penalty and Bias 186

GEOGRAPHY 187 • SOCIAL CLASS 188 • GENDER 188 • RACE–ETHNICITY 188

The Trouble with Official Statistics 190 The Medicalization of Deviance: Mental Illness 191

NEITHER MENTAL NOR ILLNESS? 191 • THE HOMELESS MENTALLY ILL 192

The Need for a More Humane Approach 193

Summary and Review 193 Thinking Critically about Chapter 6 194

7 Global Stratification 195 Systems of Social Stratification 197

Slavery 198 CAUSES OF SLAVERY 198 • CONDITIONS OF SLAVERY 199 • BONDED LABOR IN THE NEW WORLD 199 • SLAVERY IN THE NEW WORLD 199 • SLAVERY TODAY 200

Caste 200 INDIA’S RELIGIOUS CASTES 200 • SOUTH AFRICA 201 • A U.S. RACIAL CASTE SYSTEM 202

Estate 203 WOMEN IN THE ESTATE SYSTEM 203

Class 204 Global Stratification and the Status of Females 204 The Global Superclass 204

What Determines Social Class? 205 Karl Marx: The Means of Production 205 Max Weber: Property, Power, and Prestige 206

IN SUM 206

Why Is Social Stratification Universal? 206 The Functionalist View: Motivating Qualified

People 207 DAVIS AND MOORE’S EXPLANATION 207 • TUMIN’S CRITIQUE OF DAVIS AND MOORE 207 • IN SUM 208

The Conflict Perspective: Class Conflict and Scarce Resources 208 MOSCA’S ARGUMENT 208 • MARX’S ARGUMENT 209 • CURRENT APPLICATIONS OF CONFLICT THEORY 209

Lenski’s Synthesis 209 IN SUM 209

How Do Elites Maintain Stratification? 210 Soft Control versus Force 210

CONTROLLING PEOPLE’S IDEAS 210 • CONTROLLING INFORMATION 211 • STIFLING CRITICISM 211 • BIG BROTHER TECHNOLOGY 211 • IN SUM 211

Comparative Social Stratification 212 Social Stratification in Great Britain 212 Social Stratification in the Former Soviet Union 212

Global Stratification: Three Worlds 213 The Most Industrialized Nations 214 The Industrializing Nations 217 The Least Industrialized Nations 218 Modifying the Model 218

How Did the World’s Nations Become Stratified? 221 Colonialism 221 World System Theory 222 Culture of Poverty 223 Evaluating the Theories 223

Maintaining Global Stratification 224 Neocolonialism 224

RELEVANCE TODAY 224

Multinational Corporations 224 BUYING POLITICAL STABILITY 225 • UNANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCES 225

Technology and Global Domination 225

Strains in the Global System: Uneasy Realignments 226

Summary and Review 226 Thinking Critically about Chapter 7 227

8 Social Class in the United States 228 What Is Social Class? 230

Property 230 DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN WEALTH AND INCOME 230 • DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY 231 • DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME 231

Power 234 THE DEMOCRATIC FACADE 234 • THE POWER ELITE 234

Prestige 235 OCCUPATIONS AND PRESTIGE 235 • DISPLAYING PRESTIGE 235

Status Inconsistency 236

Sociological Models of Social Class 238 Updating Marx 238 Updating Weber 239

THE CAPITALIST CLASS 240 • THE UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS 240 • THE LOWER-MIDDLE CLASS 241 • THE WORKING CLASS 241 • THE WORKING POOR 241 • THE UNDERCLASS 242

Consequences of Social Class 242 Physical Health 243 Mental Health 243 Family Life 244

CHOICE OF HUSBAND OR WIFE 244 • DIVORCE 244 • CHILD REARING 244

viii Contents

Education 244 Religion 245 Politics 245 Crime and Criminal Justice 246

Social Mobility 246 Three Types of Social Mobility 246 Women in Studies of Social Mobility 248 The Pain of Social Mobility: Two Distinct Worlds 249

Poverty 251 Drawing the Poverty Line 251 Who Are the Poor? 253

BREAKING A MYTH 253 • THE GEOGRAPHY OF POVERTY 253 • EDUCATION 254 • FAMILY STRUCTURE: THE FEMINIZATION OF POVERTY 254 • RACE– ETHNICITY 254 • AGE AND POVERTY 255

Children of Poverty 255

The Dynamics of Poverty versus the Culture of Poverty 257 Why Are People Poor? 257 Deferred Gratification 257 Where Is Horatio Alger? The Social Functions

of a Myth 259

Peering into the Future: Will We Live in a Three-Tier Society? 260

Summary and Review 261 Thinking Critically about Chapter 8 262

9 Race and Ethnicity 263 Laying the Sociological Foundation 265

Race: Reality and Myth 265 THE REALITY OF HUMAN VARIETY 265 • THE MYTH OF PURE RACES 265 • THE MYTH OF A FIXED NUMBER OF RACES 266 • THE MYTH OF RACIAL SUPERIORITY 267 • THE MYTH CONTINUES 268

Ethnic Groups 269 Minority Groups and Dominant Groups 269

NOT SIZE, BUT DOMINANCE AND DISCRIMINATION 269 • EMERGENCE OF MINORITY GROUPS 269

Ethnic Work: Constructing Our Racial–Ethnic Identity 270

Prejudice and Discrimination 270

Learning Prejudice 270 DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION 272 • LEARNING PREJUDICE FROM ASSOCIATING WITH OTHERS 272 • THE FAR-REACHING NATURE OF PREJUDICE 273 • INTERNALIZING DOMINANT NORMS 275

Individual and Institutional Discrimination 275 HOME MORTGAGES 275 • HEALTH CARE 276

Theories of Prejudice 276

Psychological Perspectives 277 FRUSTRATION AND SCAPEGOATS 277 • THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 277

Sociological Perspectives 278 FUNCTIONALISM 278 • CONFLICT THEORY 278 • SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 279 • HOW LABELS CREATE PREJUDICE 279 • LABELS AND SELF-FULFILLING STEREOTYPES 279

Global Patterns of Intergroup Relations 281 Genocide 281

IN SUM 282

Population Transfer 282 Internal Colonialism 282 Segregation 282 Assimilation 283 Multiculturalism (Pluralism) 283

Racial–Ethnic Relations in the United States 283 European Americans 284

IN SUM 285

Latinos (Hispanics) 286 UMBRELLA TERM 286 • COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN 286 • UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRANTS 287 • RESIDENCE 288 • SPANISH 288 • ECONOMIC WELL-BEING 289 • POLITICS 290

African Americans 290 RISING EXPECTATIONS AND CIVIL STRIFE 291 • CONTINUED GAINS 291 • CURRENT LOSSES 292 • RACE OR SOCIAL CLASS? A SOCIOLOGICAL DEBATE 292 • RACISM AS AN EVERYDAY BURDEN 293

Asian Americans 293 A BACKGROUND OF DISCRIMINATION 293 • DIVERSITY 294 • REASONS FOR FINANCIAL SUCCESS 294 • POLITICS 294

Native Americans 295 DIVERSITY OF GROUPS 295 • FROM TREATIES TO GENOCIDE AND POPULATION TRANSFER 295 • THE INVISIBLE MINORITY AND SELF-DETERMINATION 296 • THE CASINOS 296 • DETERMINING IDENTITY AND GOALS 297

Looking toward the Future 297 The Immigration Controversy 297 The Affirmative Action Controversy 299

A BRIEF HISTORY 299 • SUPREME COURT RULINGS 299 • THE BAMBOO CURTAIN 299 • THE POTENTIAL SOLUTION 299

Less Racism 300 Toward a True Multicultural Society 300

Summary and Review 300 Thinking Critically about Chapter 9 302

10 Gender and Age 303 Inequalities of Gender 305 Issues of Sex and Gender 305

The Sociological Significance of Gender 305 Gender Differences in Behavior: Biology or Culture? 307 The Dominant Position in Sociology 307 Opening the Door to Biology 307

A MEDICAL ACCIDENT 307 • THE VIETNAM VETERANS STUDY 308 • MORE RESEARCH ON HUMANS 308 • IN SUM 309

Gender Inequality in Global Perspective 312 How Did Females Become a Minority Group? 312

GLOBAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 313 • IN SUM 315

Gender Inequality in the United States 315 Fighting Back: The Rise of Feminism 315 Gender Inequality in Health Care 318

Contents ix

Gender Inequality in Education 319 THE PAST 319 • A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE 320 • GENDER TRACKING 321

Gender Inequality in the Workplace 322 The Pay Gap 322

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 322 • GEOGRAPHICAL FACTORS 322 • THE “TESTOSTERONE BONUS” 322 • REASONS FOR THE GENDER PAY GAP 324 • THE CEO POWER GAP—AND THE NEW FEMALE PREMIUM 325

Is the Glass Ceiling Cracking? 326 Sexual Harassment—and Worse 326

LABELS AND PERCEPTION 327 • NOT JUST A “MAN THING” 327 • SEXUAL ORIENTATION 327

Gender and Violence 327 Violence against Women 327

FORCIBLE RAPE 327 • DATE (ACQUAINTANCE) RAPE 328 • MURDER 328 • VIOLENCE IN THE HOME 329 • FEMINISM AND GENDERED VIOLENCE 329 • SOLUTIONS 329

The Changing Face of Politics 329

Glimpsing the Future—with Hope 330

Inequalities of Aging 330 Aging in Global Perspective 331

Extremes of Attitudes and Practices 331 IN SUM 331

Industrialization and the Graying of the Globe 332 THE LIFE SPAN 332

The Graying of America 333

The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective 335 Shifting Meanings of Growing Old 335 The Influence of the Mass Media 336

IN SUM 336

The Functionalist Perspective 337 Disengagement Theory 337

EVALUATION OF THE THEORY 337

Activity Theory 337 EVALUATION OF THE THEORY 338

Continuity Theory 338 EVALUATION OF THE THEORY 338 •

IN SUM: THE FUNCTIONALIST PERSECTIVE 338

The Conflict Perspective 339 Fighting for Resources: Social Security Legislation 339 “Old People Are Sucking Us Dry”: Intergenerational

Competition and Conflict 339 IN SUM: THE CONFICT PERSPECTIVE 340

Looking toward the Future 342 New Views: Creative Aging 342

Summary and Review 342 Thinking Critically about Chapter 10 344

11 Politics and the Economy 345 Politics: Establishing and Exercising Leadership 347 Power, Authority, and Violence 347

Authority and Legitimate Violence 347 Traditional Authority 348 Rational–Legal Authority 349

Charismatic Authority 349 THE THREAT POSED BY CHARISMATIC LEADERS 349

The Transfer of Authority 350

Types of Government 350 Monarchies: The Rise of the State 350 Democracies: Citizenship as a Revolutionary Idea 351 Dictatorships and Oligarchies: The Seizure of Power 353

The U.S. Political System 353 Political Parties and Elections 353 Polling and Predictions 354

SLICES FROM THE CENTER 355 • THIRD PARTIES 355

Voting Patterns 355 SOCIAL INTEGRATION 356 • ALIENATION 357 • APATHY 357 • THE GENDER AND RACIAL–ETHNIC GAPS IN VOTING 357

Lobbyists and Special-Interest Groups 358 LOBBYING BY SPECIAL-INTEREST GROUPS 358 • THE MONEY 358

Who Rules the United States? 359 The Functionalist Perspective: Pluralism 359

IN SUM 359

The Conflict Perspective: The Power Elite 360 IN SUM 360

Which View Is Right? 360

War and Terrorism: Implementing Political Objectives 361

Why Countries Go to War 361 THE FLESH AND BLOOD OF WAR 362

Terrorism 362

The Economy: Work in the Global Village 363 The Transformation of Economic Systems 364

Preindustrial Societies: The Birth of Inequality 364 Industrial Societies: The Birth of the Machine 365 Postindustrial Societies: The Birth of the

Information Age 365 Biotech Societies: The Merger of Biology and

Economics 366

World Economic Systems 367 Capitalism 367

WHAT CAPITALISM IS 367 • WHAT STATE CAPITALISM IS 367

Socialism 368 WHAT SOCIALISM IS 368 • SOCIALISM IN PRACTICE 369 • DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM 369

Ideologies of Capitalism and Socialism 369 Criticisms of Capitalism and Socialism 369 The Convergence of Capitalism and Socialism 370

CHANGES IN SOCIALISM: CONVERGENCE 370 • CHANGES IN CAPITALISM: CONVERGENCE 372

The Globalization of Capitalism 372 A New Global Structure and its Effects on Workers 372 Stagnant Paychecks 375 The New Economic System and the Old Divisions

of Wealth 375 The Global Superclass 377

x Contents

What Lies Ahead? A New World Order? 377 Unity and Disunity 378 Inevitable Changes 378

Summary and Review 378 Thinking Critically about Chapter 11 380

12 Marriage and Family 381 Marriage and Family in Global Perspective 383

What Is a Family? 383 What Is Marriage? 384 Common Cultural Themes 384

MATE SELECTION 384 • DESCENT 386 • INHERITANCE 386 • AUTHORITY 386

Marriage and Family in Theoretical Perspective 386 The Functionalist Perspective: Functions and

Dysfunctions 386 WHY THE FAMILY IS UNIVERSAL 387 • FUNCTIONS OF THE INCEST TABOO 387 • ISOLATION AND EMOTIONAL OVERLOAD 387

The Conflict Perspective: Struggles between Husbands and Wives 387 INEVITABLE CONFLICT 387 • CHANGING POWER RELATIONS 387

The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective: Gender, Housework, and Child Care 388 CHANGES IN TRADITIONAL GENDER ORIENTATIONS 388 • PAID WORK AND HOUSEWORK 388 • MORE CHILD CARE 389 • TOTAL HOURS 389 • A GENDER DIVISION OF LABOR 389

The Family Life Cycle 389 Love and Courtship in Global Perspective 389 Marriage 391

THE SOCIAL CHANNELS OF LOVE AND MARRIAGE 391

Childbirth 392 IDEAL FAMILY SIZE 392 • MARITAL SATISFACTION AFTER CHILDBIRTH 394

Child Rearing 394 MARRIED COUPLES AND SINGLE MOTHERS 394 • SINGLE FATHERS 394 • DAY CARE 394 • NANNIES 395 • SOCIAL CLASS 395 • HELICOPTER PARENTING 396 • THE RIGHT WAY TO REAR CHILDREN 396

Family transitions 397 TRANSITIONAL ADULTHOOD 397 • WIDOWHOOD 397

Diversity in U.S. Families 398 African American Families 398 Latino Families 399 Asian American Families 400 Native American Families 400

IN SUM 400

One-Parent Families 401 Couples without Children 401 Blended Families 402 Gay and Lesbian Families 402

CHILDREN REARED BY GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES 403

Trends in U.S. Families 403 The Changing Timetable of Family Life: Marriage

and Childbirth 403

Cohabitation 404 COHABITATION AND MARRIAGE: THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE 404 • DOES COHABITATION MAKE MARRIAGE STRONGER? 405

The “Sandwich Generation” and Elder Care 405

Divorce and Remarriage 405 Ways of Measuring Divorce 405 Divorce and Mixed Racial–Ethnic Marriages 407 Symbolic Interactionism and the Misuse of Statistics 407 Children of Divorce 408

NEGATIVE EFFECTS 408 • WHAT HELPS CHILDREN ADJUST TO DIVORCE? 408 • PERPETUATING DIVORCE 409

Grandchildren of Divorce: Ripples to the Future 409 Fathers’ Contact with Children after Divorce 409 The Ex-Spouses 409 Remarriage: “I Do” Again and Again 410

Two Sides of Family Life 410 The Dark Side of Family Life: Battering, Child Abuse,

Marital Rape, and Incest 410 SPOUSE BATTERING 410 • CHILD ABUSE 410 • MARITAL AND INTIMACY RAPE 411 • INCEST 411

The Bright Side of Family Life: Successful Marriages 411 SUCCESSFUL MARRIAGES 412

The Future of Marriage and Family 412

Summary and Review 413 Thinking Critically about Chapter 12 414

13 Education and Religion 415 Education: Transferring Knowledge and Skills 417 Education in Global Perspective 417

Education and Industrialization 418 INDUSTRIALIZATION AND MANDATORY EDUCATION 418 • THE EXPANSION OF EDUCATION 418

Education in the Most Industrialized Nations: Japan 419

Education in the Industrializing Nations: Russia 421 Education in the Least Industrialized Nations: Egypt 421

The Functionalist Perspective: Providing Social Benefits 422 Teaching Knowledge and Skills 422 Cultural Transmission of Values 422 Social Integration 423

INTEGRATING IMMIGRANTS 423 • STABILIZING SOCIETY: MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO 423 • INTEGRATING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 423

Gatekeeping (Social Placement) 423 Replacing Family Functions 424

IN SUM 424

The Conflict Perspective: Perpetuating Social Inequality 424 The Hidden Curriculum: Reproducing the Social

Class Structure 424 Tilting the Tests: Discrimination by IQ 425 Stacking the Deck: Unequal Funding 425 The Bottom Line: Family Background 426

REPRODUCING THE SOCIAL CLASS STRUCTURE 426 • REPRODUCING THE RACIAL–ETHNIC STRUCTURE 426 • IN SUM 426

Contents xi

The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective: Teacher Expectations 426

The Rist Research 426 How Do Teacher Expectations Work? 427 Self-Expectations 428

Problems in U.S. Education—and Their Solutions 429 Mediocrity 429

THE RISING TIDE OF MEDIOCRITY 429 • THE SATs 430 • GRADE INFLATION, SOCIAL PROMOTION, AND FUNCTIONAL ILLITERACY 430

Overcoming Mediocrity 431 RAISING STANDARDS FOR TEACHERS 431 • A WARNING ABOUT HIGHER STANDARDS 431

Cheating 431 THE SOLUTION TO CHEATING 432

Violence 432 The Need for Educational Reform 433

Religion: Establishing Meaning 434 What Is Religion? Durkheim’s Research 434

The Functionalist Perspective 434 Functions of Religion 434

MEANING AND PURPOSE 435 • EMOTIONAL COMFORT 435 • SOCIAL SOLIDARITY 435 • GUIDELINES FOR EVERYDAY LIFE 435 • SOCIAL CONTROL 435 • SOCIAL CHANGE 436

Dysfunctions of Religion 436 RELIGION AS JUSTIFICATION FOR PERSECUTION, WAR, AND TERRORISM 436

The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective 436 Religious Symbols 436 Beliefs 437 Religious Experience 437 Rituals 437

The Conflict Perspective 440 Opium of the People 440 Legitimating Social Inequalities 440

Religion and the Spirit of Capitalism 440

Types of Religious Groups 442 Cult 442 Sect 444 Church 444 Ecclesia 444

Religion in the United States 445 Characteristics of Members 445

SOCIAL CLASS 445 • RACE–ETHNICITY 445

Characteristics of Religious Groups 446 DIVERSITY 446 • PLURALISM AND FREEDOM 446 • TOLERATION 447 • THE ELECTRONIC CHURCH 447

The Future of Religion 447

Summary and Review 449 Thinking Critically about Chapter 13 450

14 Population and Urbanization 451 Population in Global Perspective 453 A Planet with No Space for Enjoying Life? 453

The New Malthusians 453

The Anti-Malthusians 455 Who Is Correct? 456 Why Are People Starving? 457

Population Growth 460 Why the Least Industrialized Nations Have

So Many Children 460 Consequences of Rapid Population Growth 461 Population Pyramids as a Tool for Understanding 462 The Three Demographic Variables 463

FERTILITY 463 • MORTALITY 463 • MIGRATION 463

Problems in Forecasting Population Growth 465

Cities and City Life 468 The Development of Cities and Urbanization 471

The Development of Cities 471 Urbanization 472

THE APPEAL OF CITIES 472 • FORCED URBANIZATION 472 • METROPOLISES 472 • MEGALOPOLISES 473 • MEGACITIES 473 • MEGAREGIONS 473

U.S. Urban Patterns 473 Uneven Urbanization 474 Shifting Resources and Power because of Urban

Migration 474 Edge Cities 474 Gentrification 475 Changes in Suburbanization 477

Models of Urban Growth 477 The Concentric Zone Model 477 The Sector Model 478 The Multiple-Nuclei Model 478 The Peripheral Model 479 Critique of the Models 479

City Life 480 Alienation in the City 480 Community in the City 481

SLUM OR LOW-RENT AREA? 481

Who Lives in the City? 481 THE COSMOPOLITES 481 • THE SINGLES 481 • THE ETHNIC VILLAGERS 482 • THE DEPRIVED 482 • THE TRAPPED 482 • CRITIQUE 482 • IN SUM 482

The Norm of Noninvolvement and the Diffusion of Responsibility 482

Urban Problems and Social Policy 483 Suburbanization 483

CITY VERSUS SUBURB 483 • SUBURBAN FLIGHT 484 • TOMORROW’S SUBURB 484

Disinvestment and Deindustrialization 484 The Potential of Urban Revitalization 485

PUBLIC SOCIOLOGY 485

Summary and Review 486 Thinking Critically about Chapter 14 487

15 Social Change and the Environment 488 How Social Change Transforms Social Life 490

The Four Social Revolutions 490 From Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft 490

xii Contents

The Industrial Revolution and Capitalism 491 Social Movements 492 Conflict, Power, and Global Politics 492

A BRIEF HISTORY OF GEOPOLITICS 492 • G7 PLUS 492 • DIVIDING UP THE WORLD 492 • FOUR THREATS TO THIS COALITION OF POWERS 493 • THE GROWING RELEVANCE OF AFRICA 494

Theories and Processes of Social Change 494 Evolution from Lower to Higher 495 Natural Cycles 495 Conflict over Power and Resources 495 Ogburn’s Theory 496

INVENTION 496 • DISCOVERY 497 • DIFFUSION 497 • CULTURAL LAG 497 • EVALUATION OF OGBURN’S THEORY 497

How Technology Is Changing Our Lives 498 Extending Human Abilities 498 The Sociological Significance of Technology: How

Technology Changes Social Life 499 CHANGES IN PRODUCTION 499 • CHANGES IN WORKER–OWNER RELATIONS 499 • CHANGES IN IDEOLOGY 499 • CHANGES IN CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION 500 • CHANGES IN FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS 500

When Old Technology Was New: The Impact of the Automobile 500 DISPLACEMENT OF EXISTING TECHNOLOGY 500 • EFFECTS ON CITIES 501 • CHANGES IN ARCHITEC- TURE 501 • CHANGED COURTSHIP CUSTOMS AND SEXUAL NORMS 501 • EFFECTS ON WOMEN’S ROLES 501 • IN SUM 502

The New Technology: The Microchip and Social Life 502 COMPUTERS IN EDUCATION 502 • COMPUTERS IN BUSINESS AND FINANCE 502 • COMPUTERS IN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT 503

Cyberspace and Social Inequality 505 IN SUM 505

The Growth Machine versus the Earth 506 The Globalization of Capitalism and the Race

for Economic Growth 506 A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 506

Environmental Problems and Industrialization 507 TOXIC WASTES 507 • FOSSIL FUELS AND CLIMATE CHANGE 508 • THE ENERGY SHORTAGE AND INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES 509 • THE RAIN FORESTS 510

The Environmental Movement 511 Environmental Sociology 512 Technology and the Environment: The Goal

of Harmony 513

Summary and Review 514 Thinking Critically about Chapter 15 515

Epilogue: Why Major in Sociology? 516

Glossary G-1 References R-1 Name Index N-1 Subject Index S-1 Credits C-1

Contents xiii

xiv

Down-to-Earth Sociology W. E. B. Du Bois: The Souls of Black Folk 10

Enjoying a Sociology Quiz: Testing Your Common Sense 21

Testing Your Common Sense: Answers to the Sociology Quiz 23

Loading the Dice: How Not to Do Research 26

Gang Leader for a Day: Adventures of a Rogue Sociologist 28

Heredity or Environment? The Case of Jack and Oskar, Identical Twins 70

Gossip and Ridicule to Enforce Adolescent Norms 91

Boot Camp as a Total Institution 93

College Football as Social Structure 105

Beauty May Be Only Skin Deep, But Its Effects Go On Forever: Stereotypes in Everyday Life 117

The McDonaldization of Society 145

Shaming: Making a Comeback? 170

Islands in the Street: Urban Gangs in the United States 177

The Killer Next Door: Serial Murderers in Our Midst 187

Rape: Blaming the Victim and Protecting the Caste System 202

Inequality? What Inequality? 213

How the Super-Rich Live 233

The Big Win: Life after the Lottery 237

What Do You Know about Poverty? A Reality Check 252

Poverty: A Personal Journey 258

Can a Plane Ride Change Your Race? 267

College Dorms and Contact Theory 272

The Racist Mind 274

The Man in the Zoo 280

Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack: Exploring Cultural Privilege 286

Surgical Sexism: Cold-Hearted Surgeons and Their Women Victims 318

Affirmative Action for Men? 320

Who Are the Suicide Terrorists? Testing Your Stereotypes 362

Community Colleges: Facing Old and New Challenges 418

BioFoods: What’s in Your Future? Threats to Scientific Research 458

Reclaiming Harlem: A Twist in the Invasion–Succession Cycle 475

Cultural Diversity in the United States Unanticipated Public Sociology: Studying Job

Discrimination 13

Miami—Continuing Controversy over Language 49

Race and Language: Searching for Self-Labels 50

Immigrants and Their Children: Caught between Two Worlds 89

The Amish: Gemeinschaft Community in a Gesellschaft Society 113

Social Class and the Upward Social Mobility of African Americans 250

Tiger Woods: Mapping the Changing Ethnic Terrain 265

The Illegal Travel Guide 287

Glimpsing the Future: The Shifting U.S. Racial–Ethnic Mix 298

Human Heads and Animal Blood: Testing the Limits of Tolerance 442

Cultural Diversity around the World Why the Dead Need Money 42

You Are What You Eat? An Exploration in Cultural Relativity 43

When Women Become Men: The Sworn Virgins 83

Human Sexuality in Cross-Cultural Perspectives 165

Female Circumcision (Genital Cutting) 314

A Fierce Competitor: The Chinese Capitalists 371

Arranged Marriage in India: Probing Beneath the Surface 390

Killing Little Girls: An Ancient and Thriving Practice 466

Why City Slums Are Better Than the Country: Urbanization in the Least Industrialized Nations 479

The Rain Forests: Lost Tribes, Lost Knowledge 510

Special Features

Thinking Critically about Social Life Are We Prisoners of Our Genes? 61

“Nothing Tastes as Good as Thin Feels”: Body Images and the Mass Media 122

If Hitler Asked You to Execute a Stranger, Would You? The Milgram Experiment 158

The Saints and the Roughnecks: Labeling in Everyday Life 174

Sexting: Getting on the Phone Isn’t What It Used to Be 182

What Should We Do About Repeat Offenders? “Three Strikes” Laws 184

Vigilantes: When the State Breaks Down 189

Open Season: Children as Prey 217

When Globalization Comes Home: Maquiladoras South of the Border 222

The Nation’s Shame: Children in Poverty 256

The Coming Three-Tier Society and the Militarization of the Police 260

New Masculinities and Femininities Are on Their Way 309

The Cultural Lens: Shaping Our Perceptions of the Elderly 336

School Shootings: Exploding a Myth 432

Cyberwar and Cyber Defense 503

Climate Controversy, the Island Nations, and You 509

Eco-sabotage 511

Sociology and Technology: The Shifting Landscape Lara Croft, Tomb Raider: Changing Images of Women in

the Mass Media 86

Virtual Reality and Diversity Training 149

Enjoy Your Security State (SS) 150

How Could the Polls Be So Wrong? 354

Online Dating: Risks and Rewards 385

What Color Eyes? How Tall? Designer Babies on the Way 393

Changing Religious Practices in the Digital Age 448

Weaponizing Space: The Coming Star Wars 504

Applying Sociology to Your Life The Sociological Perspective and Your Life

Course 98

Getting Promoted at Work: Making Impression Management Work for You 124

The New World of Work: How to Keep a Paycheck Coming in the New Global Marketplace 141

Do Your Social Networks Perpetuate Social Inequality? 143

“How Does Social Control Theory Apply to You?” 171

How Do You Use Techniques of Neutralization to Protect Your Self-Concept? 172

“The American Dream”: Social Mobility Today 247

How to Get a Higher Salary 324

Breaking through the Glass Ceiling 326

Your Work and Your Future in the Global Village 366

Finding Quality Day Care 395

What Kind of Parent Will You Be? 396

“What are Your Chances of Getting Divorced? The Misuse of Statistics” 407

You Want to Get Through College? Let’s Apply Sociology 428

Special Features xv

This page intentionally left blank

xvii

FIGURE 6.1 How Safe Is Your State? Violent Crime in the United States 179

FIGURE 6.5 Executions in the United States 188

FIGURE 7.4 Global Stratification: Income of the World’s Nations 215

FIGURE 8.11 Patterns of Poverty 253

FIGURE 9.6 The Distribution of Dominant and Minority Groups 285

FIGURE 10.6 Women in the Workforce 323

FIGURE 10.10 The Graying of the Globe 332

FIGURE 10.15 As Florida Goes, So Goes the Nation 335

FIGURE 11.1 Which Political Party Dominates? 354

FIGURE 12.14 The “Where” of U.S. Divorce 406

FIGURE 14.12 The World’s 10 Largest Megacities 473

FIGURE 14.13 How Urban Is Your State? The Rural–Urban Makeup of the United States 474

FIGURE 15.2 The Worst Hazardous Waste Sites 507

Guide to Social Maps

xviii

W ELCOME TO SOCIOLOGY! I’ve loved soci- ology since I was in my teens, and I hope you enjoy it, too. Sociology is fascinating because it is

about human behavior, and many of us find that it holds the key to understanding social life.

If you like to watch people and try to figure out why they do what they do, you will like sociology. Sociology pries open the doors of society so you can see what goes on behind them. Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach stresses how profoundly our society and the groups to which we belong influence us. Social class, for example, sets us on a particular path in life. For some, the path leads to more education, more interesting jobs, higher income, and better health, but for oth- ers it leads to dropping out of school, dead-end jobs, poverty, and even a higher risk of illness and disease. These paths are so significant that they affect our chances of making it to our first birthday, as well as of getting in trouble with the police. They even influence our satisfaction in marriage, the number of children we will have—and whether or not we will read this book in the first place.

When I took my first course in sociology, I was “hooked.” Seeing how marvelously my life had been affected by these larger social influences opened my eyes to a new world, one that has been fascinating to explore. I hope that you will have this experience, too.

From how people become homeless to how they become presidents, from why people commit suicide to why women are discriminated against in every society around the world— all are part of sociology. This breadth, in fact, is what makes sociology so intriguing. We can place the sociological lens on broad features of society, such as social class, gender, and race– ethnicity, and then immediately turn our focus on the smaller, more intimate level. If we look at two people interacting— whether quarreling or kissing—we see how these broad features of society are being played out in their lives.

We aren’t born with instincts. Nor do we come into this world with preconceived notions of what life should be like. At birth, we have no concepts of race–ethnicity, gender, age, or social class. We have no idea, for example, that people “ought” to act in certain ways because they are male or female. Yet we all learn such things as we grow up in our society. Uncovering the “hows” and the “whys” of this process is also part of what makes sociology so fascinating.

One of sociology’s many pleasures is that as we study life in groups (which can be taken as a definition of sociol- ogy), whether those groups are in some far-off part of the world or in some nearby corner of our own society, we gain new insights into who we are and how we got that way. As we see how their customs affect them, the effects of our own society on us become more visible.

This book, then, can be part of an intellectual adven- ture, for it can lead you to a new way of looking at your social world—and in the process, help you to better under- stand both society and yourself.

I wish you the very best in college—and in your career afterward. It is my sincere desire that Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach will contribute to that success.

James M. Henslin

Department of Sociology

Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville

P.S. I enjoy communicating with students, so feel free to comment on your experiences with this text. You can write me at [email protected]

To the Student ... from the Author

To the Instructor ... from the Author

REMEMBER WHEN YOU FIRST GOT “HOOKED” on sociology, how the windows of perception opened as you began to see life-in-society through the sociological perspective? For most of us, this was an eye-opening experience. This text is designed to open those windows onto social life, so students can see clearly the vital effects of group membership on their lives. Although few students will get into what Peter Berger calls “the passion of sociology,” we at least can provide them the opportunity.

To study sociology is to embark on a fascinating process of discovery. We can compare sociology to a huge jigsaw puzzle. Only gradually do we see how the smaller pieces fit together. As we begin to see the interconnections, our per- spective changes as we shift our eyes from the many small, disjointed pieces to the whole that is being formed. Of all the endeavors we could have entered, we chose sociology because of the ways in which it joins the “pieces” of society together and the challenges it poses to “ordinary” think- ing. It is our privilege to share with students this process of awareness and discovery called the sociological perspective.

As instructors of sociology, we have set ambitious goals for ourselves: to teach both social structure and social interac- tion and to introduce students to the sociological literature— both the classic theorists and contemporary research. As we accomplish this, we would also like to enliven the classroom, encourage critical thinking, and stimulate our students’ so- ciological imagination. Although formidable, these goals are attainable. This book is designed to help you reach them. Based on many years of frontline (classroom) experience, its subtitle, A Down-to-Earth Approach, was not proposed lightly. My goal is to share the fascination of sociology with students and in doing so to make your teaching more rewarding.

Over the years, I have found the introductory course es- pecially enjoyable. It is singularly satisfying to see students’ faces light up as they begin to see how separate pieces of their world fit together. It is a pleasure to watch them gain insight into how their social experiences give shape to even their innermost desires. This is precisely what this text is de- signed to do—to stimulate your students’ sociological imag- ination so they can better perceive how the “pieces” of so- ciety fit together—and what this means for their own lives.

Filled with examples from around the world as well as from our own society, this text helps to make today’s multi- cultural, global society come alive for students. From learn- ing how the international elite carve up global markets to studying the intimacy of friendship and marriage, students can see how sociology is the key to explaining contempo- rary life—and their own place in it.

In short, this text is designed to make your teaching easier. There simply is no justification for students to have to wade through cumbersome approaches to sociology. I am firmly convinced that the introduction to sociology should be enjoyable and that the introductory textbook can be an essential tool in sharing the discovery of sociology with students.

What’s New in This 13th Edition? Because sociology is about social life and we live in a changing global society, this new edition of Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach reflects the national and global changes that engulf us, as well as presents new sociological research. An indication of the thoroughness of the preparation that went into this 13th edition is the text’s hundreds of new citations. This edition also has more than 435 instructional photos. I have either selected or taken each of the photos. By tying the photos and their captions directly into the text, they become part of the students’ learning experience.

I am especially pleased with Applying Sociology to Your Life, a new feature introduced in this edition. Although Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach is well-known for how it shows students the relevance of sociology to their lives, this emphasis has been amplified in this 13th edition. This new feature focuses explicitly on how sociology applies to the student’s life. It is one thing to say to students that sociological research on bureaucracy is rel- evant because they might work in a bureaucracy, but quite another to show students how they can use impression management to get ahead in a bureaucracy. It is also one thing to review with students the average salaries according to college major, but quite another to show students how they can use sociology to increase their own salaries. We can point out what sociologists have found when they studied the glass ceiling, but sociology is much more relevant for our students if we can show them how they can use sociol- ogy to break through the glass ceiling. These three examples are part of the fourteen items that make up this new feature, Applying Sociology to Your Life.

And updates? As with previous editions, you can ex- pect that they run throughout this new edition. The updates are too numerous to mention, but to give you an indication of how extensively this edition is revised, following is a list of the new topics, boxed features, tables, and figures.

xix

Chapter 1 Figure 1.1 Suicide of Americans ages 18 to 24 Figure 1.6 Western Marriage: Husband–Wife Relationship

Chapter 2 Sociology and Technology: The Shifting Landscape:

The End of Human Culture? Artificial Intelligence and Super-Smart Computers

Topic: In the 1600s, killing cats was part of festive celebrations

Chapter 3 Topic: Ekman’s conclusions on the universality of the ex-

pression of human emotions is challenged by research among the Trobianders of Papua New Guinea.

Topic: Negative effects of nurseries depend on the age at which children are placed in day care

Chapter 4 Applying Sociology to Your Life: Getting Promoted: Making

Impression Management Work for You Topic: Transgender as a master status Topic: Students learn more from attractive teachers

Chapter 5 Applying Sociology to Your Life: The New World of Work:

How to Keep a Paycheck Coming in the New Global Marketplace

Applying Sociology to Your Life: Do Your Social Networks Perpetuate Social Inequality?

Sociology and Technology: The Shifting Landscape: Virtual Reality and Diversity Training

Topic: Investigation of JonBenet Ramsey as an example of groupthink

Topic: The experience and perspective of white males are being added to diversity training

Chapter 6 Applying Sociology to Your Life: How Does Social Control

Theory Apply to You? Applying Sociology to Your Life: How Do You Use Tech-

niques of Neutralization to Protect Your Self Concept? Topic: In murder trials, if the victim is white and the ac-

cused is black, juries are more likely to impose the death penalty than if the accused is white and the victim is black

Chapter 7 Topic: Face-recognition software can turn the police’s body

cameras into surveillance machines, able to identify everyone an officer passes on the sidewalk

Chapter 8 Figure 8.7 Physical Health, by Income: People Who Have

Difficulty with Everyday Physical Activities Figure 8.8 Mental Health, by Income: Feelings of Sadness,

Hopelessness, or Worthlessness Figure 8.10 An Overview of Poverty in the United States Figure 8.13 Poverty and Family Structure Figure 8.14 Poverty and Race-Ethnicity Figure 8.15 Poverty and Age Topic: The 20 richest Americans have more wealth than the

bottom half of the U.S. population combined Topic: Before they turn 65, about 60 percent of the U.S. pop-

ulation will experience a year of poverty Topic: The Jardin in Las Vegas sells a $10,000 cocktail and a

weekend Valentine package for $100,000

Chapter 9 Table 9.3 Race–Ethnicity and Income Extremes Topic: Arizona has agreed that the police will not stop peo-

ple solely to determine if they are in the country illegally. Topic: Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada became the first

Latina senator. Topic: Native Americans operate their own embassy in

Washington, D.C. Topic: The bamboo curtain: Asian Americans claiming they

are discriminated against in college admissions

Chapter 10 Figure 10.7 Master’s degree was added to this figure Applying Sociology to Your Life: How to Get a Higher Salary Applying Sociology to Your Life: Breaking through the

Glass Ceiling Topic: The effects of testosterone differ with the situation:

Women given testosterone in a competitive situation be- came suspicious and less trusting, but given testosterone in a situation where they were being trusted, they be- came more responsible and generous.

Topic: Many minority women feel that the feminist move- ment represents “white” experiences. Their attempt to change emphases has led to a clash of perspectives.

Topic: Among the CEOs of the largest U.S. companies, a reverse pay gap has emerged, with women outearning men by several million dollars a year.

xx To the Instructor … from the Author

Topic: The rate of sexual assault on boys and men is about one-tenth that of girls and women.

Topic: In Japan, more adult diapers are sold than baby diapers Topic: The Social Security dependency ratio has dropped to

3.6 (current workers to one beneficiary)

Chapter 11 Sociology and Technology: The Shifting Landscape: How

Could the Polls Get It So Wrong? Topic: From President Obama to President Trump used as

an example of the transition of authority in a rational– legal structure even when a newly elected leader repre- sents ideas extremely different from the predecessor

Topic: Kim Jong-un of North Korea had his vice premier for education shot for slouching during a meeting of parliament

Chapter 12 Figure 12.5 The Remarkable Change in Two- and Four-

Children Families Figure 12:16 Today’s Newlyweds: Their Marital History Applying Sociology to Your Life: What Are Your Chances

of Getting Divorced? The Misuse of Statistics Applying Sociology to Your Life: What Kind of Parent Will

You Be? Applying Sociology to Your Life: Finding Quality Daycare Cultural Diversity around the World: Arranged Marriage

in India: Probing beneath the Surface Topic: One-third of Americans who marry met online. Topic: The latest research on children reared by same-sex

parents Topic: For the first time since 1880, the percentage of young

adults who live with their parents is larger than those who live with a spouse or partner in a separate household.

Topic: “Adultolescence” is also known as “waithood.” Topic: The average age of those who are cohabiting is 39. Topic: Helicoptering, parents’ hovering over their children

to be certain they make the right decisions and have the right experiences, increasingly common in the upper- middle class

Topic: Implications for human evolution of CRISPR (Clus- tered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats)

Chapter 13 Applying Sociology to Your Life: You Want to Get Through

College? Let’s Apply Sociology

Sociology and Technology: The Shifting Landscape: Changing Religious Practices in the Digital Age

Topic: To increase graduation rates, community colleges are developing guided pathways.

Topic: A major change is occurring in Japan’s higher education—a shift to job training in its lower tier universities and more research in its top tier.

Topic: University salaries in Russia are so low that tens of thousands of academics have left Russia.

Topic: Tucson, Arizona, runs a “Teenage Parent High School,” where pregnant girls and those who have already given birth learn parenting skills as well as traditional subjects

Topic: High school teachers give twenty times more A’s than C’s.

Topic: Roman Catholics use Confessor Go to locate priests to hear confessions, and WhatsApp to discuss moral dilemmas with priests.

Chapter 14 Topic: The United States has 40 million immigrants. Topic: The world now has thirty-one megacities. Topic: Japan’s population is shrinking by a million people

a year. Topic: Update on Monsanto subverting GMO research. Topic: Tomorrow’s suburb: Attempts of suburbs to trans-

form themselves into cities.

Chapter 15 Topic: The United States has withdrawn from G7’s Paris

Accord on climate change. Topic: Global warming threatens the Earth’s coral reefs,

which hold chemicals to cure diseases. Venom from the cone snail, fifty times more potent than morphine, is be- ing used as a painkiller.

Topic: In coming distance learning classes, the simultane- ous translation of speech will allow students from differ- ent cultures to talk and to understand one another.

Topic: In coming distance learning classes, artificial intelli- gence will enable students to go on virtual field trips in other cultures that immerse them in different realities.

Topic: The Pentagon operates a Cyber Command with nine “National Mission Teams” of sixty military person- nel each

Topic: An Italian company sells “off-the-shelf” programs that allow someone to insert malicious code in comput- ers and mobile devices

To the Instructor … from the Author xxi

The Organization of This Text The text is laid out in five parts. Part I focuses on the socio- logical perspective, which is introduced in the first chapter. We then look at how culture influences us (Chapter 2), ex- amine socialization (Chapter 3), and compare macrosociol- ogy and microsociology (Chapter 4).

Part II, which focuses on groups and social control, adds to the students’ understanding of how far-reaching society’s influence is—how group membership penetrates even our thinking, attitudes, and orientations to life. We first examine the different types of groups that have such pro- found influences on us and then look at the fascinating area of group dynamics (Chapter 5). After this, we focus on how groups “keep us in line” and sanction those who violate their norms (Chapter 6).

In Part III, we turn our focus on social inequality, exam- ining how it pervades society and how it has an impact on our own lives. Because social stratification is so significant, I have written two chapters on this topic. The first (Chapter 7), with its global focus, presents an overview of the principles of stratification. The second (Chapter 8), with its emphasis on social class, focuses on stratification in the United States. After establishing this broader context of social stratifica- tion, we examine inequalities of race-ethnicity (Chapter 9) and then those of gender and age (Chapter 10).

Part IV helps students to become more aware of how social institutions encompass their lives. We first look at politics and the economy, our overarching social institu- tions (Chapter 11). After examining marriage and family (Chapter 12), we then turn our focus on education and re- ligion (Chapter 13). One of the emphases in this part of the book is how our social institutions are changing and how their changes, in turn, have an impact on our own lives.

With its focus on broad social change, Part V provides an appropriate conclusion for the book. Here we examine why our world is changing so rapidly, as well as catch a glimpse of what is yet to come. We first analyze trends in population and urbanization, those sweeping forces that affect our lives so significantly but that ordinarily remain below our level of awareness (Chapter 14). We conclude the book with an analysis of technology, social movements, and the environment (Chapter 15), which takes us to the “cut- ting edge” of the vital changes that engulf us all.

Themes and Features Six central themes run throughout this text: down-to-earth sociology, applying sociology to your students’ life, glo- balization, cultural diversity, critical thinking about social life, and the new technology. The theme of how sociology applies to the lives of your students is new to this edition. For each of these themes, except globalization, which is in- corporated throughout the text, I have written a series of

boxed features. These boxed features are one of my favorite components of the book. They are especially useful for in- troducing the controversial topics that make sociology such a lively activity.

Let’s look at these six themes.

Down-to-Earth Sociology As many years of teaching have shown me, all too often textbooks are written to appeal to the adopters of texts rather than to the students who will learn from them. In writing this book, my central concern has been to present sociology in a way that not only facilitates understanding but also shares its excitement. During the course of writing other texts, I often have been told that my explanations and writing style are “down-to-earth,” or accessible and invit- ing to students—so much so that I chose this phrase as the book’s subtitle.

This Down-to-Earth Sociology theme explores sociologi- cal processes that underlie everyday life. The topics that we review in this feature are highly diverse. Here are some of them:

• how a sociologist became a gang leader—for a day (Chapter 1)

• the experiences of W. E. B. Du Bois in studying U.S. race relations (Chapter 1)

• how gossip and ridicule enforce adolescent norms (Chapter 3)

• how football can help us understand social structure (Chapter 4)

• beauty and success (Chapter 4)

• serial killers (Chapter 6)

• sexting (Chapter 6)

• the lifestyles of the super-rich (Chapter 8)

• the American dream and social mobility (Chapter 8)

• college dorms and contact theory (Chapter 9)

• women navigating male-dominated corporations (Chapter 10)

• the coming Star Wars (Chapter 15)

This first theme is actually a hallmark of the text, as my goal is to make sociology “down to earth.” To help students grasp the fascination of sociology, I continuously stress so- ciology’s relevance to their lives. To reinforce this theme, I avoid unnecessary jargon and use concise explanations and clear and simple (but not reductive) language. I also use student-relevant examples to illustrate key concepts, and I base several of the chapters’ opening vignettes on my own experiences in exploring social life. That this goal of shar- ing sociology’s fascination is being reached is evident from the many comments I receive from instructors and students alike that the text helps make sociology “come alive.”

xxii To the Instructor … from the Author

Applying Sociology to Your Life As mentioned, this second theme is being introduced in this edition. There were a lot of challenges to overcome in producing this feature, and I am eager to find out how it works in your classroom. Please share the results with me.

Here is a partial list of the topics included in Applying Sociology to Your Life:

• making impression management work for you: getting promoted (Chapter 4)

• keeping a paycheck coming in the new global market- place (Chapter 5)

• how techniques of neutralization protect your self con- cept (Chapter 6)

• how to get a higher salary by applying sociology (Chapter 10)

• applying sociology to break through the glass ceiling (Chapter 10)

• applying sociology to parenting (Chapter 12)

• applying divorce statistics to your marriage (Chapter 12)

• finding quality daycare (Chapter 12)

• applying sociology to get through college (Chapter 13)

I hope you have as much pleasure using this new fea- ture in your classroom as I had in developing it.

Globalization In the third theme, globalization, we explore the impact of global issues on our lives and on the lives of people around the world. All of us are feeling the effects of an increasingly powerful and encompassing global economy, one that intertwines the fates of nations. The globalization of capitalism influences the kinds of skills and knowledge we need, the types of work available to us—and whether work is available at all. Globalization also underlies the costs of the goods and services we consume and whether our country is at war or peace—or in some uncharted middle ground between the two, some sort of perpetual war against unseen, sinister, and ever-threatening en- emies lurking throughout the world. In addition to the strong emphasis on global issues that runs throughout this text, I have written a separate chapter on global stratifica- tion (Chapter 7). I also feature global issues in the chap- ters on social institutions and the final chapters on social change: population, urbanization, social movements, and the environment.

What occurs in Russia, Germany, and China, as well as in much smaller nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq, has far-reaching consequences on our own lives. Consequently, in addition to the global focus that runs throughout the text, the next theme, cultural diversity, also has a strong global emphasis.

Cultural Diversity around the World and in the United States The fourth theme, cultural diversity, has two primary em- phases. The first is cultural diversity around the world. Gaining an understanding of how social life is “done” in other parts of the world often challenges our taken-for- granted assumptions about social life. At times, when we learn about other cultures, we gain an appreciation for the life of other peoples; at other times, we may be shocked or even disgusted at some aspect of another group’s way of life (such as female circumcision) and come away with a re- newed appreciation of our own customs.

To highlight this first subtheme, I have written a series called Cultural Diversity around the World. Among the topics with this subtheme are

• food customs that shock people from different cultures (Chapter 2)

• why the dead need money (Chapter 2)

• where virgins become men (Chapter 3)

• human sexuality in Mexico and Kenya (Chapter 6)

• female circumcision (Chapter 10)

• probing beneath the surface to understand arranged marriage in India (Chapter 12)

• female infanticide in China and India (Chapter 14)

• the destruction of the rain forests and indigenous peo- ples of Brazil (Chapter 15)

In the second subtheme, Cultural Diversity in the United States, we examine groups that make up the fascinating array of people who form the U.S. population. In this sub- theme, we review such topics as

• the controversy over the use of Spanish or English (Chapter 2)

• how the Amish resist social change (Chapter 4)

• how our social networks produce social inequality (Chapter 5)

• the upward social mobility of African Americans (Chapter 8)

• the author’s travels with a Mexican who transports un- documented workers to the U.S. border (Chapter 9)

• human heads, animal sacrifices, and religious freedom (Chapter 13)

• our shifting racial–ethnic mix (Chapter 14)

Seeing that there are so many ways of “doing” social life can remove some of our cultural smugness, making us more aware of how arbitrary our own customs are—and how our taken-for-granted ways of thinking are rooted in culture. The stimulating contexts of these contrasts can help students develop their sociological imagination. They encourage

To the Instructor … from the Author xxiii

students to see connections among key sociological concepts such as culture, socialization, norms, race– ethnicity, gender, and social class. As your students’ sociological imagination grows, they can attain a new perspective on their experiences in their own corners of life—and a better understanding of the social structure of U.S. society.

Critical Thinking In our fifth theme, critical thinking, we focus on controver- sial social issues, inviting students to examine various sides of those issues. In these sections, titled Thinking Critically about Social Life, I present objective, fair portrayals of posi- tions and do not take a side—although occasionally I do play the “devil’s advocate” in the questions that close each of the topics. Like the boxed features, these sections can enliven your classroom with a vibrant exchange of ideas. Among the social issues we tackle are

• our tendency to conform to evil authority, as uncovered by the Milgram experiments (Chapter 5)

• how labeling keeps some people down and helps others move up (Chapter 6)

• how vigilantes fill in when the state breaks down (Chapter 6)

• the three-strikes-and-you’re-out laws (Chapter 6)

• bounties paid to kill homeless children in Brazil (Chapter 7)

• children in poverty (Chapter 8)

• emerging masculinities and femininities (Chapter 10)

• cyberwar and cyber defense (Chapter 15)

These Thinking Critically about Social Life sections are based on controversial social issues that either affect the stu- dent’s own life or focus on topics that have intrinsic inter- est for students. Because of their controversial nature, these sections stimulate both critical thinking and lively class discussions. These sections also provide provocative topics for in-class debates and small discussion groups, effective ways to enliven a class and present sociological ideas. In the Instructor’s Manual, I describe the nuts and bolts of using small groups in the classroom, a highly effective way of en- gaging students in sociological topics.

Sociology and Technology: The Shifting Landscape In the sixth theme, sociology and technology, we explore an aspect of social life that has come to be central in our lives. We welcome our technological tools, for they help us to be more efficient at performing our daily tasks, from making a living to communicating with others—whether those people are nearby or on the other side of the globe. The significance of technology extends far beyond the

tools and the ease and efficiency they bring to our lives. We can more accurately envision our new technology as a social revolution that will leave few aspects of our lives untouched. Its effects are so profound that it even changes the ways we view life.

Sociology and technology is introduced in Chapter 2, where technology is defined and presented as a major as- pect of culture. The impact of technology is then discussed throughout the text. Examples include how technology is related to cultural change (Chapter 2), diversity train- ing (Chapter 5), the maintenance of global stratification (Chapter 7), and social class (Chapter 8). We also look at the impact of technology on dating (Chapter 12), family life (Chapter 12), religion (Chapter 13), and war (Chapter 15). The final chapter (Chapter 15) on social change and the environment concludes the book with a focus on the effects of technology.

To highlight this theme, I have written a series called Sociology and Technology: The Shifting Landscape. In this feature, we explore how technology affects our lives as it changes society. Among the topics we examine are how technology

• artificial intelligence and super-smart computers may bring the end of human culture (Chapter 2)

• affects our body images (Chapter 4)

• through virtual reality can be applied to diversity train- ing (Chapter 5)

• is allowing the creation of an overwhelming security state (Chapter 5)

• could allow us to get the presidential polls so wrong (Chapter 11)

• is changing the way people find mates (Chapter 12)

• is leading to a future where we order babies with spe- cific characteristics (Chapter 12)

• is having an impact on religion (Chapter 13)

Visual Presentations of Sociology SHOWING CHANGES OVER TIME In presenting so- cial data, many of the figures and tables show how data change over time. This feature allows students to see trends in social life and to make predictions on how these trends might continue—and even affect their own lives. Examples include

• Figure 1.5 U.S. Marriage, U.S. Divorce

• Figure 3.2 Transitional Adulthood: A New Stage in the Life Course

• Figure 6.2 How Much Is Enough? The Explosion in the Number of Prisoners

xxiv To the Instructor … from the Author

• Figure 8.3 The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Dividing the Nation’s Income

• Figure 12.2 In Two-Paycheck Marriages, How Do Husbands and Wives Divide Their Responsibilities?

• Figure 12.4 The Number of Children Americans Think Are Ideal

• Figure 12.5 The Remarkable Change in Two- and Four- Children Families

• Figure 12.9 The Decline of Two-Parent Families

• Figure 12.11 Cohabitation in the United States

• Figure 13.1 Educational Achievement in the United States

• Figure 14.11 How the World Is Urbanizing

THROUGH THE AUTHOR’S LENS Using this format, students are able to look over my shoulder as I experience other cultures or explore aspects of this one. These eight photo essays should expand your students’ sociological imagination and open their minds to other ways of doing social life, as well as stimulate thought-provoking class discussion.

VIENNA: SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND SOCIAL INTERACTION IN A VIBRANT CITY appears in Chapter 4. The photos I took in this city illustrate how social structure surrounds us, setting the scene for our interactions, limiting and directing them.

WHEN A TORNADO STRIKES: SOCIAL ORGANIZATION FOLLOWING A NATURAL DISASTER When a tornado hit a small town just hours from where I lived, I photo- graphed the aftermath of the disaster. The police let me in to view the neighborhood where the tornado had struck, de- stroying homes and killing several people. I was impressed by how quickly people were putting their lives back to- gether, the topic of this photo essay (Chapter 4).

COMMUNITY IN THE CITY in Chapter 5, is also from Vienna. This sequence of four photos focuses on strangers who are helping a man who has just fallen on the sidewalk. This event casts doubt on the results of Darley and Latané’s labo- ratory experiments. This short sequence was serendipitous in my research. One of my favorite photos is the last in the series, which portrays the cop coming toward me to question why I was taking photos of the accident. It fits the sequence perfectly.

THE DUMP PEOPLE OF PHNOM PENH, CAMBODIA Among the culture shocks I experienced in Cambodia was not to discover that people scavenge at Phnom Penh’s huge city dump—this I knew about—but that they also live there. With the aid of an interpreter, I was able to in- terview these people, as well as photograph them as they went about their everyday lives. An entire community

lives in the city dump, complete with restaurants amidst the smoke and piles of garbage. This photo essay reveals not just these people’s activities but also their social orga- nization (Chapter 7).

WORK AND GENDER: WOMEN AT WORK IN INDIA As I traveled in India, I took photos of women at work in public places. The more I traveled in this country and the more photos I took, the more insight I gained into gender relations. Despite the general dominance of men in India, women’s worlds are far from limited to family and home. Women are found at work throughout the so- ciety. What is even more remarkable is how vastly differ- ent “women’s work” is in India than it is in the United States. This, too, is an intellectually provocative photo essay (Chapter 10).

SMALL TOWN USA: STRUGGLING TO SURVIVE To take the photos for this essay, on a road trip from California to Florida I went off the beaten path. Instead of following the interstates, I followed those “little black lines” on the map. They took me to out-of-the-way places that the national transportation system has bypassed. Many of these little towns are putting on a valiant face as they struggle to survive, but, as the photos show, the struggle is apparent, and, in some cases, so are the scars (Chapter 11).

HOLY WEEK IN SPAIN in Chapter 13, features proces- sions in two cities in Spain, Malaga, a provincial capital, and Almuñecar, a smaller city in Granada. The Roman Catholic heritage of Spain runs so deeply that the La Asunción de María (The Assumption of Mary) is a na- tional holiday, with the banks and post offices closing. City streets carry such names as (translated) Conception, Piety, Humility, Calvary, Crucifixion, The Blessed Virgin. In large and small towns throughout Spain, elaborate processions during Holy Week feature tronos that depict the biblical account of Jesus’ suffering, death, and resur- rection. I was allowed to photograph the preparations for one of the processions, so this essay also includes “ behind-the-scenes” photos.

During the processions, the participants walk slowly for one or two minutes; then because of the weight of the tronos, they rest for one or two minutes. This process repeats for about six hours. As you will see, some of the most inter- esting activities occur during the rest periods.

A WALK THROUGH EL TIRO IN MEDELLIN, COLOMBIA One of the most significant social changes in the world is taking place in the Least Industrialized Nations. In the search for a better life, people are aban- doning rural areas. Fleeing poverty, they are flocking to the cities, only to be greeted with more poverty. Some of

To the Instructor … from the Author xxv

these settlements of the new urban poor are dangerous. I was fortunate to be escorted by an insider through a sec- tion of Medellin, Colombia, that is controlled by gangs (Chapter 14).

OTHER PHOTO ESSAYS To help students better un- derstand subcultures, I have retained the photo essay Standards of Beauty in Chapter 2. I have also kept the photo essay in Chapter 9 on ethnic work, as it helps students see that ethnicity doesn’t “just happen.” Because these photo essays consist of photos taken by others, they are not a part of the series, Through the Author’s Lens. I think you will appreciate the understanding these two photo essays can give your students.

PHOTO COLLAGES Because sociology lends itself so well to photographic illustrations, this text also includes photo collages. In Chapter 1, the photo collage, in the shape of a wheel, features some of the many women who became so- ciologists in earlier generations, women who have largely gone unacknowledged as sociologists. In Chapter 2, stu- dents can catch a glimpse of the fascinating variety that goes into the cultural relativity of beauty. The collage in Chapter 5 illustrates categories, aggregates, and primary and sec- ondary groups, concepts that students sometimes wrestle to distinguish. The photo collage in Chapter 10 lets students see how differently gender is portrayed in different cultures.

OTHER PHOTOS BY THE AUTHOR Sprinkled through- out the text are photos that I took in Austria, Cambodia, India, Latvia, Spain, Vietnam, and the United States. These photos illustrate sociological principles and topics better than photos available from commercial sources. As an ex- ample, while in the United States, I received a report about a feral child who had been discovered living with monkeys. The possibility of photographing and interviewing that child who had been taken to an orphanage was one of the reasons that I went to Cambodia. That particular photo is at the beginning of Chapter 3.

OTHER SPECIAL PEDAGOGICAL FEATURES In addi- tion to chapter summaries and reviews, key terms, and a comprehensive glossary, I have included several special fea- tures to help students learn sociology. In Sum sections help students review important points within the chapter before going on to new materials. I have also developed a series of

Social Maps, which illustrate how social conditions vary by geography. All the maps in this text are original.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES I have written learning objec- tives for the main points of each chapter. These learning objectives, which provide a guiding “road map” for your students, are presented three times: in a list at the begin- ning of the chapter, at the point where that specific mate- rial is presented, and again at the chapter ’s Summary and Review.

CHAPTER-OPENING VIGNETTES These accounts fea- ture down-to-earth illustrations of a major aspect of each chapter ’s content. Some of these vignettes are based on my research with the homeless, the time I spent with them on the streets and slept in their shelters (Chapters 1 and 8). Others recount sociological experiences in Africa (Chapters 2 and 10) and Mexico (Chapters 12 and 14). I also share my experiences when I spent a night with street people at DuPont Circle in Washington, D.C. (Chapter 4). For other vignettes, I use current and historical events (Chapters 7, 9, 13, and 15), classical studies in the social sciences (Chapters 3 and 6), and even scenes from novels (Chapters 5 and 11). Many students have told their in- structors that they find these vignettes compelling, that they stimulate interest in the chapter.

THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT THE CHAPTERS I close each chapter with critical thinking questions. Each question focuses on a major feature of the chapter, asking students to reflect on and consider some issue. Many of the questions ask the students to apply sociological findings and princi- ples to their own lives.

ON SOURCES Sociological data are found in a wide va- riety of sources, and this text reflects that variety. Cited throughout this text are standard journals such as the American Journal of Sociology, Social Problems, American Sociological Review, and Journal of Marriage and Family, as well as more esoteric journals such as the Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Chronobiology International, and Western Journal of Black Studies. I have also drawn heavily from standard news sources, especially the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, as well as more unusual sources such as El País. In addition, I cite unpublished research and theoretical papers by sociologists.

xxvi To the Instructor … from the Author

To the Instructor … from the Author xxvii

Acknowledgments The response from both instructors and students to this text’s earlier editions indicates that my efforts at making so- ciology down to earth have succeeded. The years that have gone into writing this text are a culmination of the many years that preceded its writing—from graduate school to that equally demanding endeavor known as classroom teaching. No text, of course, comes solely from its author. Although I am responsible for the final words on the print- ed page, I have received excellent feedback from instructors who have taught from the first thirteen editions. I am espe- cially grateful to

Reviewers of the First through Thirteenth Editions Francis O. Adeola, University of New Orleans Brian W. Agnitsch, Marshalltown Community College Sandra L. Albrecht, The University of Kansas Christina Alexander, Linfield College Richard Alman, Sierra College Gabriel C. Alvarez, Duquesne University Kenneth Ambrose, Marshall University Alberto Arroyo, Baldwin–Wallace College Karren Baird-Olsen, Kansas State University Rafael Balderrama, University of Texas—Pan American Linda Barbera-Stein, The University of Illinois Deborah Beat, Wichita State University Brenda Blackburn, California State University—Fullerton Ronnie J. Booxbaum, Greenfield Community College Cecil D. Bradfield, James Madison University Karen Bradley, Central Missouri State University Francis Broouer, Worcester State College Valerie S. Brown, Cuyahoga Community College Sandi Brunette-Hill, Carrol College Richard Brunk, Francis Marion University Karen Bullock, Salem State College Allison R. Camelot, California State University—Fullerton Paul Ciccantell, Kansas State University John K. Cochran, The University of Oklahoma James M. Cook, Duke University Joan Cook-Zimmern, College of Saint Mary Larry Curiel, Cypress College Russell L. Curtis, University of Houston John Darling, University of Pittsburgh—Johnstown Ray Darville, Stephen F. Austin State University Jim David, Butler County Community College Nanette J. Davis, Portland State University Vincent Davis, Mt. Hood Community College Andrea Deal, Madisonville Community College Lynda Dodgen, North Harris Community College Terry Dougherty, Portland State University Marlese Durr, Wright State University

Shelly Dutchin, Western Technical College Helen R. Ebaugh, University of Houston Obi N. Ebbe, State University of New York—Brockport Cy Edwards, Chair, Cypress Community College John Ehle, Northern Virginia Community College Morten Ender, U.S. Military Academy Rebecca Susan Fahrlander, Bellevue University Louis J. Finkle, Horry-Georgetown Technical College Nicole T. Flynn, University of South Alabama Lorna E. Forster, Clinton Community College David O. Friedrichs, University of Scranton Bruce Friesen, Kent State University—Stark Lada Gibson-Shreve, Stark State College Cynthia Glass, Kentucky State University Norman Goodman, State University of New York—

Stony Brook Rosalind Gottfried, San Joaquin Delta College G. Kathleen Grant, The University of Findlay Bill Grisby, University of Northern Colorado Ramon Guerra, University of Texas—Pan American Remi Hajjar, U.S. Military Academy Donald W. Hastings, The University of Tennessee—Knoxville Lillian O. Holloman, Prince George’s Community College Michael Hoover, Missouri Western State College Howard R. Housen, Broward Community College James H. Huber, Bloomsburg University Erwin Hummel, Portland State University Charles E. Hurst, The College of Wooster Nita Jackson, Butler County Community College Jennifer A. Johnson, Germanna Community College Kathleen R. Johnson, Keene State College Tammy Jolley, University of Arkansas Community College

at Batesville David Jones, Plymouth State College Arunas Juska, East Carolina University Ali Kamali, Missouri Western State College Irwin Kantor, Middlesex County College Mark Kassop, Bergen Community College Myles Kelleher, Bucks County Community College Mary E. Kelly, Central Missouri State University Alice Abel Kemp, University of New Orleans Diana Kendall, Austin Community College Gary Kiger, Utah State University Gene W. Kilpatrick, University of Maine—Presque Isle Jerome R. Koch, Texas Tech University Joseph A. Kotarba, University of Houston Michele Lee Kozimor-King, Pennsylvania State University Darina Lepadatu, Kennesaw State University Abraham Levine, El Camino Community College Diane Levy, The University of North Carolina—Wilmington Diane Lindley, The University of Mississippi Stephen Mabry, Cedar Valley College David Maines, Oakland University Ron Matson, Wichita State University

xxviii To the Instructor … from the Author

Armaund L. Mauss, Washington State University Evelyn Mercer, Southwest Baptist University Robert Meyer, Arkansas State University Michael V. Miller, University of Texas—San Antonio John Mitrano, Central Connecticut State University W. Lawrence Neuman, University of Wisconsin—Whitewater Charles Norman, Indiana State University Patricia H. O’Brien, Elgin Community College Robert Ostrow, Wayne State Laura O’Toole, University of Delaware Marla Perry, NSCC Mike K. Pate, Western Oklahoma State College Lawrence Peck, Erie Community College Ruth Pigott, University of Nebraska—Kearney Phil Piket, Joliet Junior College Trevor Pinch, Cornell University Daniel Polak, Hudson Valley Community College James Pond, Butler Community College Deedy Ramo, Del Mar College Adrian Rapp, North Harris Community College Carolyn Read, Copiah Lincoln Junior College Ray Rich, Community College of Southern Nevada Barbara Richardson, Eastern Michigan University Salvador Rivera, State University of New York—Cobleskill Howard Robboy, Trenton State College Cindy Rouzer, Rivier College Daniel Roddick, Rio Hondo College Paulina X. Ruf, University of Tampa Michael Samano, Portland Community College Michael L. Sanow, Community College of Baltimore County Lori Schreiber, Penn State University Ogontz-Abington Mary C. Sengstock, Wayne State University Walt Shirley, Sinclair Community College Marc Silver, Hofstra University Karl Smith, Delaware Tech and Community College-Owens Roberto E. Socas, Essex County College Susan Sprecher, Illinois State University Mariella Rose Squire, University of Maine at Fort Kent Jennifer St. Pierre, Harrisburg Area Community College Rachel Stehle, Cuyahoga Community College Marios Stephanides, University of Tampa Randolph G. Ston, Oakland Community College Vickie Holland Taylor, Danville Community College Maria Jose Tenuto, College of Lake County Gary Tiederman, Oregon State University Kathleen Tiemann, University of North Dakota Brandy Trainor, Gloucester County College Judy Turchetta, Johnson & Wales University Stephen L. Vassar, Minnesota State University—Mankato William J. Wattendorf, Adirondack Community College

Jay Weinstein, Eastern Michigan University Larry Weiss, University of Alaska Amanda White, St. Louis Community College-Meramec Douglas White, Henry Ford Community College Stephen R. Wilson, Temple University Anthony T. Woart, Middlesex Community College Stuart Wright, Lamar University Mary Lou Wylie, James Madison University Diane Kholos Wysocki, University of Nebraska—Kearney Stacey G. H. Yap, Plymouth State College William Yoels, University of Alabama Birmingham

I have had the pleasure of working with an outstanding team at Pearson. I want to thank Billy Grieco and Jeff Marshall for coordinating the many tasks that were necessary to pro- duce this new edition; Jenn Auvil and Mary Donovan who coordinated so many integrating tasks; and Kate Cebik for her photo research—and for her willingness to “keep on looking.”

I do appreciate this team. It is difficult to heap too much praise on such fine, capable, and creative people. Often going “beyond the call of duty” as we faced nonstop deadlines, their untiring efforts coalesced with mine to produce this text. Students, whom we constantly kept in mind as we prepared this edition, are the beneficiaries of this intricate teamwork.

Since this text is based on the contributions of many, I would count it a privilege if you would share with me your teaching experiences with this book, including suggestions for improving the text. Both positive and negative com- ments are welcome. This is one way that I continue to learn.

I wish you the very best in your teaching. It is my sincere desire that Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach contributes to your classroom success.

James M. Henslin

Professor Emeritus

Department of Sociology

Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville

I welcome your correspondence. You can reach me at [email protected]

P.S. With changing technology, I am now able to discuss various aspects of sociology with your students. This new feature, called Hearing  from the Author, is de- scribed in the publisher ’s overview of Revel, which fol- lows this note.

To the Instructor … from the Author xxix

Revel™ for Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach Revel is an interactive learning environment that deeply engages students and prepares them for class. Media and assessment integrated directly within the author ’s narrative lets students read, explore interactive sociology content, and practice in one continuous learning path. Thanks to the dynamic reading experience in Revel, students come to class prepared to discuss, apply, and learn from instructors and from each other.

Learn more about Revel www.pearson.com/revel

• Hearing from the Author Audio Clips are a new Revel feature in which Jim further personalizes the content of this edition by opening each chapter and commenting on sociological concepts, photo essays, individual photos of particular significance, tables, figures, and topics. This feature gives students additional context for under- standing more difficult topics, while the author’s interweaving of observations and personal experiences reinforces how sociology is part of the student’s everyday life.

This is a hallmark of the instructional design, as Jim’s goal is to make sociology “down to earth.” To help students grasp the fascination of sociology, he continuously stresses sociology’s relevance to their lives. As both instructors and students have commented, this helps make sociology “come alive.” And after all, as Jim emphasizes throughout Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach, sociology is a fascinating endeavor.

• Videos support the down-to-earth approach with news footage and stories that reflect real-life examples of sociology. Students can revisit major historical events including critical points in the Civil Rights movement and view videos through a sociological lens.

An original set of videos, including the Hearing from Students video series, is unique to Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach. These exclusive video interviews feature students discussing the highlights of each chapter. These videos give students the opportu- nity to hear from their peers who are sharing their thoughts on chapter topics and reflecting on how they can apply the sociological perspective of the chapter to their own lives.

xxx To the Instructor … from the Author

• Interactive figures and tables feature the technology of Social Explorer, which shows data in interactive graphs with rollover information. Examples in- clude Figure 10.4 Gender Changes in College Degrees, Table 11.1 Who Votes for

• Pearson Originals The Pearson Originals docuseries videos highlight stories that exemplify and humanize the concepts covered in Sociology courses. These videos illustrate a variety of social issues and current events, bringing key topics to life for students while creating opportunities to further develop their understanding of soci- ology. Therefore, students not only connect with the people and stories on a personal level, but also view these stories and individuals with greater empathy while contex- tualizing core course concepts.

• Interpreting the First Amendment: Regulating Protest in Minnesota • Gender Identity: Meant to Be Maddie • Domestic Violence in Rural America: Survivors’ Stories • The American Working Class: Voices from Harrisburg, IL • Taking a Stand Against Environmental Injustice

Videos can be easily accessed from the instructor Resources folder within the Revel product.

To the Instructor … from the Author xxxi

• Interactive Social Explorer Maps are based on the Social Maps Jim has created for Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach. Using Social Explorer, these maps illustrate how social conditions vary among the states and by regions of the country. Students can click through these maps, and can hover over their own state and consider how it compares with the rest of the country. Examples include Figure 6.1 How Safe Is Your State? Violent Crime in the United States and Figure 12.14 The “Where” of U.S. Divorce. Jim has also prepared global maps that give students a visual representation of how the United States compares with countries around the world. These Social Maps are original with Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach. Visit the in- structor Resources folder within Revel to access LiveSlide Powerpoint presentations that contain every Social Explorer visualization, making it easy to use these in class.

President?, Figure 12.2 In Two-Paycheck Marriages, How Do Husbands and Wives Divide their Responsibilities?

xxxii To the Instructor … from the Author

• Make a Guess interactive graphs invite students to interact with social data. Many of the figures and tables show how data change over time. This feature utilizes Social Explorer’s predictive graphing which allows students to see trends in social life and to make predictions on how these trends might continue—and how they might even affect their own lives.

• Interactive Review the Chapter, which uses flashcards that feature key terms and definitions, help students review and reinforce the chapter’s content.

• Assessments, which are tied to each chapter’s major sections, allow instructors and students to track progress and get immediate feedback. It is the same with the full chapter tests.

• Integrated Writing Opportunities help students reason and write more clearly. Each chapter offers the following writing prompts:

• Journal prompts invite students to reflect on a chapter ’s content and to con- sider how the sociological perspective applies in a variety of scenarios. There are two types of journal prompts: Apply It to Your Life and Apply the Sociological Perspective.

• Shared writing prompts invite students to reflect on and consider issues related to major features of each chapter. Many of the questions ask the students to apply sociological findings and principles to their own lives. The students’ responses are

To the Instructor … from the Author xxxiii

automatically shared with others, which helps them better understand the per- spectives of others and sharpens their critical thinking skills.

• Additional Interactive Assets engage students and invite them to interact with text, figures, and photos. Enhanced Images of historic photos and documents allow students to zoom in to gain different perspectives of the image. Simulations guide students through charts and graphs, helping them to see how the many parts of a topic are related.

• Writing Space allows you to develop and assess your students’ concept mas- tery and critical thinking through writing. Writing Space provides a single place within Revel to create, track, and grade writing assignments; access writing re- sources; and exchange meaningful, personalized feedback quickly and easily. For students, Writing Space provides everything they need to keep up with writing assignments, access assignment guides and checklists, write or upload completed assignments, and receive grades and feedback—all in one convenient place. For educators, Writing Space makes assigning, receiving, and evaluating writing as- signments easier.

It’s simple to create new assignments and upload relevant materials, see stu- dent progress, and receive alerts when students submit work. Writing Space makes students’ work more focused and effective, with customized grading rubrics they can see and personalized feedback.

And here’s another feature of Writing Space that you might find very helpful: Writing Space allows you to check your students’ work for improper citation or plagiarism by comparing it against the world’s most accurate text comparison database available from Turnitin.

Instructor’s Supplements Unless otherwise noted, the instructor ’s supplements are available at no charge to adopters—in electronic formats through the Instructor ’s Resource Center (www.pearsonhighered.com/irc). Instructors can also access these teaching tools from the Instructor Resources folder within the Revel product.

Instructor’s Resource Manual For each chapter in the text, the Instructor’s Resource Manual provides chapter summaries, chapter outlines, lecture suggestions, and suggested assignments. Also, this edition of the Instructor’s Resource Manual features many Revel-only components including the Journal Prompts and Shared Writing Prompts and a list of all Revel-specific interactive assets, such as the Pearson Originals docuseries videos.

Test Bank The Test Bank contains approximately 55 questions for each chapter in multiple-choice and essay formats. The questions are correlated to each chapter’s in-text learning objectives.

MyTest Test Bank The printed Test Bank is also available online through Pearson’s computerized testing system, MyTest. The user-friendly interface allows you to view, edit, and add questions, transfer questions to tests, and print tests in a variety of fonts. Search and sort features allow you to locate questions quickly and to arrange them in whatever order you prefer. The Test Bank can be accessed anywhere with a free MyTest user account. There is no need to download a program or file to your computer.

PowerPoint® Presentation Slides In order to support varied teaching styles while making it easy to incorporate dynamic Revel features in class, four sets of PowerPoint presentations are available for this edition: (1) A set of ADA-compliant lecture PowerPoint slides outline each chapter of the text. (2)  A set of “art-only” PowerPoint slides feature all static images, figures, graphs, and maps from each chapter of the text. (3) An additional set of the lecture PowerPoint slides include LiveSlides, which link to each Social Explorer data visualization and interactive map within the Revel product. (4) Finally, a LiveSlides-only PowerPoint deck includes every Social Explorer data visualization and interactive map within the Revel product.

A Note from the Publisher on the Supplements

xxxiv

This page intentionally left blank

xxxvi

Jim Henslin was born in Minnesota, graduated from high school and junior college in California and from college in Indiana. Awarded scholarships, he earned his master ’s and doctorate degrees in sociology at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. After this, he won a postdoctoral fel- lowship from the National Institute of Mental Health and spent a year studying how people adjust to the suicide of a family member. His primary interests in sociology are the sociology of everyday life, deviance, and international relations. Among his many books are Down-to-Earth Sociol- ogy: Introductory Readings, and Social Problems, now in its 12th edition. He has also published widely in sociology journals, including Social Problems and American Journal of Sociology.

While a graduate student, Jim taught at the University of Missouri at St. Louis. After completing his doctorate, he joined the faculty at Southern Illinois University, Edwards- ville, where he is Professor Emeritus of Sociology. He says, “I’ve always found the introductory course enjoyable to teach. I love to see students’ faces light up when they first glimpse the sociological perspective and begin to see how society has become an essential part of how they view the world.”

Jim enjoys reading and fishing, and he also does a bit of kayaking and weight lifting. His two favorite activities are

writing and traveling. He especially enjoys visiting and liv- ing in other cultures, for this brings him face to face with be- haviors and ways of thinking that challenge his perspectives and “make sociological principles come alive.” A special pleasure has been the preparation of Through the Author’s Lens, the series of photo essays that appear in this text, and Applying Sociology to Your Life, original with this author and first appearing in this edition.

Jim moved to Latvia, an Eastern European country for- merly dominated by the Soviet Union, where he had the experience of becoming an immigrant. There he observed firsthand how people struggle to adjust to capitalism. While there, he interviewed aged political prisoners who had survived the Soviet gulag. He then moved to Spain, where he was able to observe how people adjust to a declin- ing economy and the immigration of people from contrast- ing cultures. (Of course, for this he didn’t need to leave the United States.) To better round out his cultural experiences, Jim recently visited South Korea, Vietnam, and again India. He hopes to travel extensively in South America, where he expects to do more photo essays to reflect their fascinating cultures. Jim is grateful to be able to live in such exciting social, technological, and geopolitical times—and to have access to portable broadband Internet while he pursues his sociological imagination.

About the Author

1untitled, 2007, Marie Bertrand, (arcylics on paper)

Learning Objectives

After you have read this chapter, you should be able to:

1.1 Explain why both history and biography are essential for the sociological perspective.

1.2 Trace the origins of society, from tradition to Max Weber.

1.3 Trace the development of sociology in North America, and explain the tension between objective analysis and social reform.

1.4 Explain the basic ideas of symbolic interactionism, functional analysis, and conflict theory.

1.5 Explain why common sense can’t replace sociological research.

1.6 Know the eight steps of the research model.

1.7 Know the main elements of the seven research methods.

1.8 Explain how gender is significant in sociological research.

1.9 Explain why it is vital for sociologists to protect the people they study and discuss the two cases that are presented.

1.10 Explain how research versus social reform and globalization are likely to influence sociology.

Chapter 1

The Sociological Perspective

I quickly scanned the room filled with 100 or so bunks. I was relieved to see that an upper bunk was still open. I grabbed it, figuring that attacks are more difficult in an upper bunk. Even from the glow of the faded red-and-white exit sign, its faint light barely illuminating this bunk, I could see that the sheet was filthy. Resigned to another night of fitful sleep, I reluctantly crawled into bed.

I kept my clothes on. The next morning, I joined the long line of disheveled men leaning against the chain-link

fence. Their faces were as downcast as their clothes were dirty. Not a glimmer of hope among them.

No one spoke as the line slowly inched forward. When my turn came, I was handed a cup of coffee, a white plastic spoon, and a bowl of

semiliquid that I couldn’t identify. It didn’t look like any food I had seen before. Nor did it taste like anything I had ever eaten.

My stomach fought the foul taste, every spoonful a battle. But I was determined. “I will experience what they experience,” I kept telling myself. My stomach reluctantly gave in and accepted its morning nourishment.

2

The room was strangely silent. Hundreds of men were eating, each immersed in his own private hell, …

The Sociological Perspective 3

The Sociological Perspective 1.1 Explain why both history and biography are essential for the sociological

perspective.

You are in for an exciting and eye-opening experience. The sociological perspective (or imagination) opens a window onto unfamiliar worlds—and offers a fresh look at familiar ones. In this text, you will find yourself in the midst of homeless people in U.S. cities as well as Nazis in Germany and warriors in South America. Sociology is broad, and your journey will also take you to a group that lives in a garbage dump in Cambodia. As you view other worlds, you will also find yourself looking at your own world in a differ- ent light. In fact, this is what many find appealing about sociology. Ever since I took an introductory course in sociology as a freshman in college, I have been enchanted by the perspective that sociology offers. I have enjoyed both observing other groups and ques- tioning my own assumptions about life. I hope the same happens to you.

Seeing the Broader Social Context The sociological perspective stresses the social contexts in which people live. It examines how these contexts influence people’s lives. At the center of the sociological perspective is the question of how groups influence people, especially how people are influenced by their society—a group of people who share a culture and a territory.

To find out why people do what they do, sociologists look at social location, the corners in life that people occupy because of their place in a society. Sociologists look at how jobs, income, education, gender, race–ethnicity, and age affect people’s ideas and behavior. Consider, for example, how being identified with a group called females or with a group called males when you were growing up has shaped your ideas of who you are. Growing up as a female or a male or as a transgender individual has influenced not only how you feel about yourself but also your ideas of what you should attain in life and how you should relate to others. Even your gestures and the way you laugh come from your identi- fying with one of these groups.

Sociologist C. Wright Mills (1959) put it this way: “The sociological imagination [perspective] enables us to grasp the connection between history and biography.” By history, Mills meant that each society is located in a broad stream of events. This gives each society specific characteristics—such as its ideas about what roles are proper for men and women. By biography, Mills referred to your experiences within a specific historical setting, which give you your orientations to life. In short, you don’t do what you do because you inherited some

sociological perspective understanding human behavior by placing it within its broader social context

society people who share a culture and a territory

social location the group memberships that people have because of their location in history and society

The room was strangely silent. Hundreds of men were eating, each one immersed in his own private hell, his mind awash with disappointment, remorse, bitterness.

As I stared at the Styrofoam cup that held my coffee, grateful for at least this small plea- sure, I noticed what looked like teeth marks. I shrugged off the thought, telling myself that my long weeks as a sociological observer of the homeless were finally getting to me. “It must be some sort of crease from handling,” I concluded.

I joined the silent ranks of men turning in their bowls and cups. When I saw the man behind the counter swishing out Styrofoam cups in a washtub of murky water, I began to feel sick to my stomach. I knew then that the jagged marks on my cup really had come from another person’s mouth.

How much longer did this research have to last? I felt a deep longing to return to my family—to a welcome world of clean sheets, healthy food, and “normal” conversations.

Silence is common in homeless shelters. An optimistic view of life and exciting things to talk about are not part of the world of the homeless.

4 Chapter 1

internal mechanism, such as instincts. Rather, external influences— your experiences—become part of your thinking and motivation. Or we can put it this way: At the center of what you do and how you think is the society in which you grow up and your particular location in that society.

Consider a newborn baby. As you know, if we were to take the baby away from its U.S. parents and place it with the Yanomamö Indians in the jungles of South America, his or her first words would not be in English. You also know that the child would not think like an American. The child would not grow up wanting credit cards, for example, or designer clothes, a car, a smartphone, an iPad, video games, and a virtual reality headset. He or she would take his or her place in Yanomamö society—perhaps as a food gatherer, a hunter, or a warrior—and would not even know about the world left behind at birth. And whether male or female, the child would grow up assum- ing that it is natural to want many children, not debating whether to have one, two, or three children.

If you have been thinking along with me—and I hope you have—you should be thinking about how your social groups have

shaped your ideas and desires. Over and over in this text, you will see that the way you look at the world is the result of your exposure to specific human groups. I think you will enjoy the process of self-discovery that sociology offers.

The Global Context—and the Local How life has changed! Our predecessors lived on isolated farms and in small towns. They grew their own food and made their own clothing, buying only sugar, coffee, and a few other items that they couldn’t produce. Beyond the borders of their communities lay a world they perceived only dimly.

To see why sociologists use the term global village to describe life today, look at the labels on your clothing. You are likely to see China, Mexico, Brazil, Hong Kong, Brunei, or Macau. It is the same with the many other imported products that have become part of your daily life.

And communications? It is difficult to believe how slow they used to be. I am still amazed at what happened in the War of 1812, a war between the United States and Great Britain. Although the two countries signed a peace treaty in December 1814, two weeks later their armies fought a major battle at New Orleans. Neither the American nor the British forces there had heard that the war was over (Volti 1995).

Today, news flashes from around the world are part of our everyday life. We can grab our cell phone and use the Internet to communicate instantly with people anywhere on the planet. Although we are engulfed in instantaneous global communications, we also continue to occupy our own little corners of life. Like those of our predecessors, our worlds, too, are marked by differences in family background, religion, job, age, gender, race–ethnicity, and social class. In these smaller corners of life, we continue to learn dis- tinctive ways of viewing the world.

One of the beautiful—and fascinating—aspects of sociology is that it enables us to look at both parts of our current reality: being part of a global network and having unique experiences in our smaller corners of life. This text reflects both of these worlds, each vital in understanding who we are.

Origins of Sociology 1.2 Trace the origins of sociology, from tradition to Max Weber.

So when did sociology begin? Even ancient peoples tried to figure out how social life works. They, too, asked questions about why war exists, why some people become more

We all learn our basic views of the world from the group in which we grow up. Just as this principle applies to this girl of the Txukahamai tribe of Brazil, so it applies to you. You and she are likely to have little in common in how you perceive the world.

The Sociological Perspective 5

powerful than others, and why some are rich but others are poor. This was not science, however, because they often based their answers on superstition, myth, or even the positions of the stars. They did not test their assumptions.

Science, in contrast, requires theories that can be tested by research. Measured by this standard, sociology emerged about the middle of the 1800s, when social observers began to use scientific methods to test their ideas. Let’s look at three events that set the stage for the challenge to tra- dition and the emergence of sociology.

Tradition versus Science The first event that set the stage for sociology was the social upheaval of the Industrial Revolution. As agriculture gave way to factory produc- tion, masses of people moved to cities in search of work. The city’s greeting was harsh: miserable pay, long hours, and dangerous work. To help their family survive, even chil- dren worked in these miserable conditions, some of them chained to machines to keep them from running away. With their ties to the land broken and their world turned upside down, no longer could people count on tradition to provide the answers to the difficult questions of life.

The second was the social upheaval of political revolution. The American and French revolutions swept away the existing social orders—and with them the answers they had provided. Before this period, tradition had ruled. The reply to questions of “why” was “We do this because it has always been done this way.” A new social order challenges traditional answers and ushers in new ideas. The ideas that emerged during this period challenged tradition even further. Especially powerful was the new idea that each per- son possesses inalienable rights. This idea caught fire to such an extent that people were willing to die for it, forcing many traditional Western monarchies to give way to more democratic forms of government.

The third was the imperialism (empire building) of the time. The Europeans had conquered so many countries that their new colonies stretched across the world, from Asia and Africa to North and South America. This exposed them to radically different ways of life, and they began to ask why cultures differ.

At this same time, the scientific method—using objective, systematic observations to test theories—was being tried in chemistry and physics. This revealed many secrets that had been concealed in nature. With traditional answers failing, the next step was to apply the scientific method to questions about social life. The result was the birth of sociology.

Let’s take a quick overview of some of the main people in this development.

Auguste Comte and Positivism France was still recovering from the bloody upheavals of its revolution when Auguste Comte was born. Comte (1798–1857) knew that the crowds had cheered at the public execution of the king and queen of France, and he began to wonder what holds soci- ety together. Why do we have social order now, instead of the anarchy and chaos of the French Revolution?, he wondered. When society is set on a particular course, what causes it to change?

These were pressing questions, and Comte suggested that we apply the scientific method to understand the social world, a process known as positivism. Just as the sci- entific method had revealed the law of gravity, so, too, it would uncover the laws that underlie society. Comte called this new science sociology—“the study of society” (from the Greek logos, “study of,” and the Latin socius, “companion,” or “being with others”). The purpose of this new science, he said, would be not only to discover social principles but also to apply them to social reform. Comte developed a grandiose view: Sociologists would reform society, making it a better place to live.

science the application of systematic methods to obtain knowledge and the knowledge obtained by those methods

scientific method the use of objective, systematic observations to test theories

positivism the application of the scientific approach to the social world

sociology the scientific study of society and human behavior

Auguste Comte (1798–1857), who is credited as the founder of sociology, began to analyze the bases of the social order. Although he stressed that the scientific method should be applied to the study of society, he did not apply it himself.

Upsetting the entire social order, the French Revolution removed the past as a sure guide to the present. This stimulated Auguste Comte to analyze how societies change. Shown here are women marching to Versailles in 1791 to confront the king and queen of France.

6 Chapter 1

Applying the scientific method to social life meant something quite different to Comte than it does to sociologists today. To Comte, it meant a kind of “armchair philosophy”— drawing conclusions from informal observations of social life. Comte did not do what we today call research, and his conclusions have been abandoned. But because he proposed that we observe and classify human activities to uncover society’s fundamental laws and coined the term sociology to describe this process, Comte often is credited with being the founder of sociology.

Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), who grew up in England, is sometimes called the second founder of sociology. Spencer disagreed sharply with Comte. He said that sociologists should not guide social reform. If they did, he said, it would interfere with a natural pro- cess that improves societies. Societies are evolving from a lower form (“barbarian”) to higher (“civilized”) forms. As generations pass, a society’s most capable and intelligent members (“the fittest”) survive, while the less capable die out. These fittest members pro- duce a more advanced society—unless misguided do-gooders get in the way and help the less fit (the lower classes) survive.

Spencer called this principle the survival of the fittest. Although Spencer coined this phrase, it usually is credited to his contemporary, Charles Darwin. Where Spencer pro- posed that societies evolve over time as the fittest people adapt to their environment, Darwin applied this idea to organisms. Because Darwin is better known, Spencer ’s idea is called social Darwinism. History is fickle, and if fame had gone the other way, we might be speaking of “biological Spencerism.”

Like Comte, Spencer did armchair philosophy instead of conducting scientific research.

Karl Marx and Class Conflict Karl Marx (1818–1883) not only influenced sociology, but he also left his mark on world history. Marx’s influence has been so great that even the Wall Street Journal, that staunch advocate of capitalism, has called him one of the three greatest modern thinkers (the other two being Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein).

Like Comte, Marx thought that people should try to change society. His proposal for change was radical: revolution. This got him thrown out of Germany, and he settled in England. Marx believed that the engine of human history is class conflict. He said that society is made up of two social classes, and they are natural enemies of one another: the bourgeoisie (boo-shwa-ZEE) (the capitalists, those who own the means of production— the money, land, factories, and machines) and the proletariat (the exploited workers, who do not own the means of production). Eventually, the workers will unite and break their chains of bondage. The workers’ revolution will be bloody, but it will usher in a classless society, one free of exploitation. People will work according to their abilities and receive goods and services according to their needs (Marx and Engels 1848/1967).

Marxism is not the same as communism. Although Marx proposed revolution as the way for workers to gain control of society, he did not develop the political system called communism. This is a later application of his ideas. Marx himself felt disgusted when he heard debates about his insights into social life. After listening to some of the positions attributed to him, he shook his head and said, “I am not a Marxist” (Dobriner 1969:222; Gitlin 1997:89).

Unlike Comte and Spencer, Marx did not think of himself as a sociologist—and with his reputation for communism and revolution, many sociologists wish that no one else did either. Marx spent years studying in the library of the British Museum in London, where he wrote widely on history, philosophy, economics, and political science. Because of his insights into the relationship between the social classes, Marx is generally rec- ognized as a significant early sociologist. He introduced conflict theory, one of today’s major perspectives in sociology. Later, we will examine this perspective in detail.

class conflict Marx’s term for the struggle between capitalists and workers

bourgeoisie Marx’s term for capitalists, those who own the means of production

proletariat Marx’s term for the exploited class, the mass of workers who do not own the means of production

Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), sometimes called the second founder of sociology, coined the term “survival of the fittest.” Spencer thought that helping the poor was wrong, that this merely helped the “less fit” survive.

Karl Marx (1818–1883) believed that the roots of human misery lay in class conflict, the exploitation of workers by those who own the means of production. Social change, in the form of the workers overthrowing the capitalists was inevitable from Marx’s perspective. Although Marx did not consider himself a sociologist, his ideas have influenced many sociologists, particularly conflict theorists.

The Sociological Perspective 7

Emile Durkheim and Social Integration Until the time of Emile Durkheim (1858–1917), sociology was a part of history and economics. Durkheim, who grew up in France, wanted to change this, and his major pro- fessional goal was to get sociology recognized as a separate academic discipline (Coser 1977). He achieved this goal in 1887 when the University of Bordeaux awarded him the world’s first academic appointment in sociology.

Durkheim’s second goal was to show how social forces affect people’s behavior. To accomplish this, he conducted rigorous research. Comparing the suicide rates of several European countries, Durkheim (1897/1966) found that each country has a different suicide rate—and that these rates remain about the same year after year. He also found that differ- ent groups within a country have different suicide rates and that these, too, remain stable from year to year. Males are more likely than females to kill themselves, Protestants more likely than Catholics or Jews, and the unmarried more likely than the married. From these observations, Durkheim concluded that suicide is not what it appears—simply a matter of individuals here and there deciding to take their lives for personal reasons. Instead, social factors underlie suicide, which is why a group’s rate remains fairly constant year after year.

In his search for the key social factors in suicide, Durkheim identified social integration, the degree to which people are tied to their social groups: He found that peo- ple who have weaker social ties are more likely to commit suicide. This, he said, explains why Protestants, males, and the unmarried have higher suicide rates. This is how it works: Protestantism encourages greater freedom of thought and action; males are more indepen- dent than females; and the unmarried lack the ties and responsibilities that come with mar- riage. In other words, members of these groups have fewer of the social bonds that keep people from committing suicide. In Durkheim’s term, they have less social integration.

Despite the many years that have passed since Durkheim did his research, the principle he uncovered still applies: People who are less socially integrated have higher rates of suicide. Even today, more than a century later, those same groups that Durkheim identified—Protestants, males, and the unmarried—are more likely to kill themselves.

It is important for you to understand the principle that was central in Durkheim’s research: Human behavior cannot be understood only in terms of the individual; we must always examine the social forces that affect people’s lives. Suicide, for example, appears to be such an intensely individual act that psychologists should study it, not sociologists. As Durkheim stressed, however, if we look at human behavior only in reference to the individual, we miss its social basis.

APPLYING DURKHEIM Did you know that next year more women than men will attempt suicide? And did you know that despite this, more men will kill themselves? And did you know that this will happen the following year, too? More women will attempt suicide, but more men will die by suicide.

You probably didn’t know this, but these things will happen. Sociologists can make these predictions—and be accurate about them—because of what are called patterns of behavior, recurring characteristics or events.

Just as Durkheim found patterns of suicide in the groups he studied in Europe, so the groups that make up the United States have their own patterns of suicide. Look at Figure 1.1. A couple of things should strike you immediately. You can see that regardless of their racial–ethnic group, men are much more likely to kill themselves. You can also see that the racial–ethnic groups have different rates of suicide. Because similar patterns show up year after year, they give us a picture of the future.

You might be wondering why men are more “successful” than women when they attempt suicide. We don’t know all the answers, but apparently men are more deter- mined. Men also are more likely than women to use guns, while women are more likely to use pills. Obviously, guns don’t allow the time for intervention that pills do.

social integration the degree to which members of a group or a society feel united by shared values and other so- cial bonds; also known as social cohesion

patterns of behavior recurring behaviors or events

The French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) contributed many important concepts to sociology. His comparison of the suicide rates of several countries revealed an underlying social factor: People are more likely to commit suicide if their ties to others in their communities are weak. Durkheim’s identification of the key role of social integration in social life remains central to sociology today.

8 Chapter 1

As Durkheim stressed, when patterns of suicide recur year after year, it indicates something beyond the individuals who kill themselves. The patterns reflect conditions in society and how people react to those conditions. There is much about this that we don’t understand, and I am hoping that one day this textbook will pique a student’s interest enough to investigate these patterns.

Max Weber and the Protestant Ethic Max Weber (Mahx VAY-ber) (1864–1920), a German sociologist and a contemporary of Durkheim, also held professorships in the new academic discipline of sociology. Like Durkheim and Marx, Weber is one of the most influential of all sociologists, and you will come across his writings and theories in later chapters. For now, let’s consider an issue Weber raised that remains controversial today.

RELIGION AND THE ORIGIN OF CAPITALISM Weber disagreed with Marx’s claim that economics is the central force in social change. That role, he said, belongs to reli- gion. Weber (1904/1958) theorized that the Roman Catholic belief system encouraged followers to hold on to their traditional ways of life, while the Protestant belief system encouraged its members to embrace change. Roman Catholics were taught that because they were Church members, they were on the road to heaven, but Protestants, those of the Calvinist tradition, were told that they wouldn’t know if they were saved until Judg- ment Day. You can see why this made them uncomfortable. Calvinists began to look for a “sign” that they were in God’s will. They found this “sign” in financial success, which they took as a blessing that indicated that God was on their side. To bring about this “sign” and receive spiritual comfort, they began to live frugal lives, saving their money and investing it in order to make even more. This accumulation and investment of capi- tal, said Weber, brought about the birth of capitalism.

Weber called this self-denying approach to life the Protestant ethic. He termed the desire to invest capital in order to make more money the spirit of capitalism. To test his theory, Weber compared the extent of capitalism in Roman Catholic and Protestant countries. In line with his theory, he found that capitalism was more likely to flourish in Protestant countries. Weber ’s conclusion that religion was the key factor in the rise of capitalism was controversial when he made it, and it continues to be debated today (Kotz 2015).

Figure 1.1 Suicide of Americans Ages 18–24

Male

Female

0 Latinos Asian

Americans African

Americans Whites Native

Americans

5

10

15

S u ic

id e s

p e r

1 0

0 ,0

0 0

20

25

30

35

40

12.9

5.2

14.7

24.8

5.5

9.9

13

3.2 3.1

34.3

Max Weber (1864–1920) was another early sociologist who left a profound impression on sociology. He used cross-cultural and historical materials to trace the causes of social change and to determine how social groups affect people’s orientations to life.

SOURCE: By the author. Based on CDC 2015a:Figure 1.

The Sociological Perspective 9

Sociology in North America 1.3 Trace the development of sociology in North America, and explain the tension

between objective analysis and social reform.

Now let’s turn to the development of sociology on this side of the Atlantic Ocean.

Sexism at the Time: Women in Early Sociology As you may have noticed, all the sociologists we have discussed are men. In the 1800s, sex roles were rigid, with women assigned the roles of wife and mother. In the classic German phrase, women were expected to devote themselves to the four K’s: Kirche, Küche, Kinder, und Kleider (the four C’s in English: church, cooking, children, and clothes). Trying to break out of this mold meant risking severe disapproval.

At this time, few people, male or female, attained any education beyond basic reading and writing and a little math. Higher education, for the rare few who received it, was reserved primarily for men. Of the handful of women who did pursue higher education, some became prominent in early sociology. Marion Talbot, for example, was an associate editor of the American Journal of Sociology for thirty years, from its founding in 1895 to 1925. The influence of some early female sociologists went far beyond sociol- ogy. Grace Abbott became chief of the U.S. government’s Children’s Bureau, and Frances Perkins was the first woman to hold a cabinet position, serving twelve years as Secretary of Labor under President Franklin Roosevelt. The photo wheel portrays some of these early sociologists.

Figure 1.2 The Forgotten Sociologists

Beatri ce Potter Webb

Self–educated

(1858–1943)

Marion TalbotB.S. 1888

M IT

(1858–1948)

A n n a Ju

lia C

o o

p e r

Ph .D

. 19 2 5

U n iversity o

f P a ris

(1858–196 4 )

F ra

n ce

s P e rk

in s

M .A

. 1 91

0

C o

lu m

b ia

U n

iv er

si ty

(1 8 8 0 –1

96 5)

G ra

ce A

b b

o tt

U n

iv e

rsity o

f C h

icag o

M .P

h il. 1

909

(1 8

7 8 –1

9 3 9)

Cha rlo

tte Pe

rk in

s G

ilm an

Att en

de d R

ho de

Is la

nd

Sch oo

l o f D

es ig

n 18

78

–1 88

0

(18 60

–1 93

5)

Ida B. Wells-Barnet t

Attended Fisk University 1882–1884

(1862–1931)

Em

ily Greene Balch

Bryn M aw

r College

B.A. 1889 (1867–1961)

Fl o

re n

ce K

e ll

e y

N o rt

h w

es te

rn U

n iv

e rs

it y

J.

D . 1 8 9 5

(1 8 5 9–

1 9 3 2

)

Al ice

Pa ul

D. C.

L. 19

28

Am er

ica n

Un ive

rsit y

(1 88

5– 19

77 )

The Forgotten Sociologists

Early North American sociologists combined the roles of social analysis and social reform. As

sociology became a respected academic subject and sociology departments developed across the United

States, academic sociologists began to emphasize social research and theory. From this orientation,

the academic sociologists wrote the history of sociology. They designated non-academic activists as social workers, not sociologists, effectively writing them out of the history of sociology. The women

shown here, among the forgotten sociologists of this period, are gradually regaining a

place in the history of sociology.

SOURCE: Photo wheel copyright 2018 © James M. Henslin.

10 Chapter 1

Most early female sociologists viewed sociology as a path to social reform. They focused on ways to improve society, such as how to stop lynching, integrate immigrants into society, and improve the conditions of workers. As sociology developed in North America, a debate arose about the purpose of sociology. Should it be to reform society or to do objective research on society? Those who held the university positions won the debate. They feared that advocating for social causes would jeopardize the reputation of sociology—and their own university positions. It was these men who wrote the his- tory of sociology. Distancing themselves from the social reformers, they ignored the early female sociologists (Lengermann and Niebrugge 2007). Now that women have regained their voice in sociology—and have begun to rewrite its history—early female sociologists are again, as here, being acknowledged.

Harriet Martineau (1802–1876) provides an excellent example of how the contribu- tions of early female sociologists were ignored. Although Martineau was from England, she is included here because she did extensive analyses of U.S. social customs.

Sexism was so pervasive that when Martineau first began to analyze social life, she would hide her writing beneath her sewing when visitors arrived; writing was “mas- culine” and sewing “feminine” (Gilman 1911/1971:88). Despite her extensive and acclaimed research on social life in both Great Britain and the United States, until recently Martineau was known primarily for translating Comte’s ideas into English.

Racism at the Time: W. E. B. Du Bois Not only was sexism assumed to be normal during this early period of sociology but so was racism. This made life difficult for African American professionals such as W. E. B. Du Bois (1868–1963). After earning a bachelor ’s degree from Fisk University, Du Bois became the first African American to earn a doctorate at Harvard. He then studied at the University of Berlin, where he attended lectures by Weber. After teaching Greek and Latin at Wilberforce University, Du Bois moved to Atlanta University in 1897 to teach sociology and do research. He remained there for most of his career (Du Bois 1935/1992).

The following Down-to-Earth Sociology features Du Bois’ description of race relations when he was in college.

Down-to-Earth Sociology W. E. B. Du Bois: The Souls of Black Folk Du Bois wrote more like an accomplished novelist than a sociologist. The following excerpts are from pages 66–68 of his book, The Souls of Black Folk (Du Bois, 1903). In this book, Du Bois analyzes changes that occurred in the social and economic conditions of African Americans during the thirty years following the Civil War.

For two summers, while he was a student at Fisk, Du Bois taught in a segregated school in a little log cabin that he said was “way back in the hills” of rural Tennessee. These excerpts help us understand conditions at that time.

It was a hot morning late in July when the school opened. I trembled when I heard the patter of little feet down the dusty road, and saw the growing row of dark solemn faces and bright eager eyes facing me…. There they sat, nearly thirty of them, on the rough benches, their faces shading from a pale cream to deep brown, the little feet bare and swinging, the eyes full of expectation, with here and there a twinkle of mischief, and the hands

grasping Webster’s blue-black spelling-book. I loved my school, and the fine faith the children had in the wisdom of their teacher was truly marvelous. We read and spelled together, wrote a little, picked flowers, sang, and listened to stories of the world beyond the hill….

On Friday nights I often went home with some of the children,—sometimes to Doc Burke’s farm. He was a great, loud, thin Black, ever working, and trying to buy these seventy-five acres of hill and dale where he lived; but people said that he would surely fail and the “white folks would get it all.” His wife was a magnificent Amazon, with saffron face and shiny hair, uncorseted and barefooted, and the children were strong and barefooted. They lived in a one-and-a-half-room cabin in the hollow of the farm near the spring….

Often, to keep the peace, I must go where life was less lovely; for instance, ‘Tildy’s mother was incorrigibly dirty, Reuben’s larder was limited seriously, and herds of untamed insects wandered over the Eddingses’ beds.

W(illiam) E(dward) B(urghardt) Du Bois (1868–1963) spent his lifetime studying relations between African Americans and whites.

The Sociological Perspective 11

It is difficult to grasp how racist society was at this time. As Du Bois passed a butcher shop in Georgia one day, he saw the fingers of a lynching victim displayed in the window (Aptheker 1990). When Du Bois went to national meetings of the American Sociological Society, restaurants and hotels would not allow him to eat or room with the white sociologists. How times have changed. Not only would today’s sociologists boycott such businesses but also they would refuse to hold meetings in that state. At that time, however, racism, like sex- ism, prevailed throughout society, rendering it mostly invisible to white sociologists. Du Bois eventually became such an outspoken critic of racism that the U.S. State Department, fearing he would criticize the United States abroad, refused to issue him a passport (Du Bois 1968).

Each year between 1896 and 1914, Du Bois published a book on the condition of African Americans, including their relations with whites. Not content to collect and interpret data, Du Bois, along with Jane Addams and others from Hull House (see the next section), was one of the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) (Deegan 1988). Continuing to battle racism both as a sociologist and as a journalist, Du Bois eventually embraced revolutionary Marxism. At age 93, dismayed that so little improvement had been made in race relations, he moved to Ghana, where he was buried (Stark 1989).

Jane Addams: Sociologist and Social Reformer Of the many early sociologists who combined the role of sociologist with that of social reformer, none was as successful as Jane Addams (1860–1935), who was a member of the American Sociological Society from its founding in 1905. Like Martineau, Addams, too, came from a background of wealth and privilege. She attended the Women’s Medical College of Philadelphia but dropped out because of illness (Addams 1910/1981). On a trip to Europe, Addams saw the work being done to help London’s poor. The memory wouldn’t leave her, she said, and she decided to work for social justice.

In 1889, Addams co-founded Hull House with Ellen Gates Starr. Located in Chicago’s notorious slums, Hull House was open to people who needed refuge—to immigrants, the sick, the aged, the poor. Sociologists from the nearby University of Chicago were fre- quent visitors at Hull House. With her piercing insights into the exploitation of workers

In the 1800s, most Americans were poor, and formal education beyond the first several grades was a luxury. This photo depicts the conditions of the people Du Bois worked with.

Best of all I loved to go to Josie’s, and sit on the porch, eating peach- es, while the mother bustled and talked: how Josie had bought the sewing-machine; how Josie worked at service in winter, but that four dollars a month was “mighty little” wages; how Josie longed to go away to school, but that it “looked like” they never could get far enough ahead to let her; how the crops failed and the well was yet unfinished; and, finally, how mean some of the white folks were.

For two summers I lived in this little world…. I have called my tiny community a world, and so its isolation made it; and yet there was among us but a half -awakened common consciousness, sprung from common joy and grief, at burial, birth, or wedding; from common hardship in poverty, poor land, and low wages, and, above all, from the sight of the Veil* that hung between us and Opportunity. All this caused

us to think some thoughts to- gether; but these, when ripe for speech, were spoken in various languages. Those whose eyes twenty-five and more years had seen “the glory of the coming of the Lord,” saw in every present hindrance or help a dark fatal- ism bound to bring all things right in His own good time. The mass of those to whom slavery was a dim recollection of child- hood found the world a puzzling thing: it asked little of them, and they answered with little, and yet it ridiculed their offering. Such a paradox they could not understand, and therefore sank into listless indifference, or shift- lessness, or reckless bravado.

*“The Veil” is shorthand for the Veil of Race, referring to how race colors all human relations. Du Bois’

hope, as he put it, was that “sometime, somewhere, men will judge men by their souls and not by their skins” (p. 261).

Jane Addams (1860–1935), a recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace, worked on behalf of poor immigrants. With Ellen G. Starr, she founded Hull-House, a center to help immigrants in Chicago. She was also a leader in women’s rights (women’s suffrage), as well as the peace movement of World War I.

12 Chapter 1

and how rural immigrants adjusted to city life, Addams strove to bridge the gap between the powerful and the powerless. She co-founded the American Civil Liberties Union and campaigned for the eight-hour workday and for laws against child labor. She wrote books on poverty, democracy, and peace. Addams’ writings and efforts at social reform were so outstanding that in 1931, she was a co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace. She and Emily Greene Balch are the only sociologists to have won this coveted award.

Talcott Parsons and C. Wright Mills: Theory versus Reform

Like Du Bois and Addams, many early North American sociologists saw society, or parts of it, as exploitative and in need of reform. During the 1920s and 1930s, for exam- ple, Robert Park and Ernest Burgess (1921) not only studied crime, drug addiction, juve- nile delinquency, and prostitution but also offered suggestions for how to alleviate these social problems. But by the 1940s, the emphasis shifted from social reform to social the- ory. A major sociologist of this period, Talcott Parsons (1902–1979), developed abstract models of society that influenced a generation of sociologists. His models of how the parts of society work together harmoniously did nothing to stimulate social activism.

Another sociologist, C. Wright Mills (1916–1962), deplored such theoretical abstrac- tions. Trying to push the pendulum the other way, he urged sociologists to get back to social reform. In his writings, he warned that the nation faced an imminent threat to freedom—the coalescing of interests of a power elite, the top leaders of business, politics, and the military. Interest in Mills’ analyses increases each time that the United States undergoes turbulence. Since social unrest peaks at various times, followed by valleys of relative calm, so does social activism and Mills’ popularity. You will be reading about Mills in later sections of this book.

The Continuing Tension: Basic, Applied, and Public Sociology As you have seen, two contradictory goals—analyzing society versus working toward its reform—have run through North American sociology since its founding. This tension is still with us (Morris 2017). Let’s see how it is being resolved.

BASIC SOCIOLOGY Some sociologists see their proper role as doing basic (or pure) sociology. They want to find out what is happening in some aspect of society and the reasons for it, but they do not have a goal of applying that knowledge. Other sociologists reply, “Knowledge for what?” They argue that gaining knowledge through research is not enough, that sociologists need to use their expertise to help reform society, especially to help bring justice and better conditions to the poor and oppressed.

APPLIED SOCIOLOGY As Figure 1.3 shows, one attempt to go beyond basic sociology is applied sociology, using sociology to solve problems. Applied sociology goes back to the roots of sociology: As you have seen, sociologists were founding members of the NAACP. Today’s applied sociologists lack the broad vision that the early sociologists had of reforming society, but their application of sociology is wide-ranging. Some work for business firms to solve problems in the workplace, while others investigate social problems such as rape, pornography, poverty, pollution, or the spread of AIDS. Sociology is even being applied to find ways to disrupt terrorist groups (Sageman 2008a) and to improve technology for the mentally ill (Kelly and Farahbakhsh 2013).

PUBLIC SOCIOLOGY To encourage sociologists to apply sociology, the American Sociological Association (ASA) is promoting a middle ground between research and reform called public sociology. By this term, the ASA refers to harnessing the sociological perspective for the benefit of the public. Of special interest to the ASA is getting politi- cians and policy makers to apply the sociological understanding of how society works as they develop social policy (American Sociological Association 2004; Gans 2014). Public sociology would incorporate both items 3 and 4 of Figure 1.3.

basic (or pure) sociology sociological research for the purpose of making discoveries about life in human groups, not for making changes in those groups

applied sociology the use of sociology to solve problems—from the micro level of classroom interaction and family relationships to the mac- ro level of poverty and pollution

public sociology applying sociology for the public good; especially the use of the sociological perspective (how things are related to one another) to guide politicians and policy makers

C. Wright Mills (1916–1962) was a controversial figure in sociology because of his analysis of the role of the power elite in U.S. society. Today, his analysis is taken for granted by many sociologists and members of the public.

The Sociological Perspective 13

Figure 1.3 Comparing Basic and Applied Sociology

The middle ground: criticisms

of society and social policy

Analyzing problems, evaluating

programs, and suggesting solutions

3 4Research on basic social life, on how groups affect people

Implementing solutions

(clinical sociology)

Constructing theory and testing

hypotheses

1 2 5

Audience: Clients Product: Change

BASIC SOCIOLOGY Audience: Fellow sociologists and anyone interested Product: Knowledge

Audience: Policy makers Product: Recommendations

APPLIED SOCIOLOGYPUBLIC SOCIOLOGY

SOURCE: By the author. Based on DeMartini 1982, plus events since then.

Cultural Diversity in the United States Unanticipated Public Sociology: Studying Job Discrimination Basic sociology—research aimed at learning more about some behavior—can turn into public sociology. Here is what happened to Devah Pager (2003). When Pager was a sociology graduate student at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, she did volunteer work at a homeless shelter. When some of the men told her how hard it was to find work if they had been in prison, she wondered if the men were exaggerating. Pager decided to find out what differ- ence a prison record makes in getting a job. She sent pairs of college men to apply for 350 entry-level jobs in Milwau- kee. One team was African American, and one was white. Pager prepared identical résumés for the teams, but with one difference: On each team, one of the men said he had served eighteen months in prison for possession of cocaine.

Figure 1.4 shows the difference that the prison record made. Men without a prison record were two or more times more likely to be called back.

But Pager came up with another significant finding. Look at the difference that race–ethnicity made. White men with a prison record were more likely to be offered a job than African American men who had a clean record!

Sociological research often remains in obscure journals, read by only a few specialists. But Pager’s findings got around, turning basic research into public sociology. Someone told President George W. Bush about the research, and he announced in his State of the Union speech that he wanted Congress to fund a $300 million program to provide mentoring and other support to help former prisoners get jobs (Kroeger 2004).

In further research, Pager has documented how prison and race are a double-edged sword that cuts the bonds of employment (Pager et al. 2009). As you can see, sometimes only a thin line separates basic and public sociology.

For Your Consideration → What findings would you expect if women had been

included in this research? Why?

U.S.A.

Figure 1.4 Call-Back Rates by Race–Ethnicity and Criminal Record

30%

20%

10%

0

40%

Whites African Americans

5

34

17 14P

e rc

e n ta

g e

Without criminal record With criminal record

SOURCE: Courtesy of Devah Pager.

The lines between basic, applied, and public sociology are not always firm. In the fol- lowing Cultural Diversity in the United States, you can see how basic sociology can morph into public sociology.

14 Chapter 1

With roots that go back a century or more, this contemporary debate about the purpose and use of sociology is likely to continue for another generation. At this point, let’s consider how theory fits into sociology.

Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology 1.4 Explain the basic ideas of symbolic interactionism, functional analysis,

and conflict theory.

Facts never interpret themselves. To make sense out of life, we use our common sense. That is, to understand our experiences (our “facts”), we place them into a framework of more-or-less related ideas. Sociologists do this, too, but they place their observations into a conceptual framework called a theory. A theory is a general statement about how some parts of the world fit together and how they work. It is an explanation of how two or more “facts” are related to one another.

Sociologists use three major theories: symbolic interactionism, functional analysis, and conflict theory. Each theory is like a lens through which we can view social life. Let’s first examine the main elements of each theory and then apply each to the U.S. divorce rate to see why it is so high. As we do this, you will see how each theory, or perspective, provides a distinct interpretation of social life.

Symbolic Interactionism The central idea of symbolic interactionism is that symbols—things to which we attach meaning—are the key to understanding how we view the world and communicate with one another. Two major sociologists who developed this perspective are George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) and Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929). Let’s look at the main e lements of this theory.

SYMBOLS IN EVERYDAY LIFE Without symbols, our social life would be no more sophisticated than that of animals. For example, without symbols, we would have no aunts or uncles, employers or teachers—or even brothers and sisters. I know that this sounds strange, but it is symbols that define our relationships. There would still be repro- duction, of course, but no symbols to tell us how we are related to whom. We would not know to whom we owe respect and obligations, or from whom we can expect privileges—two elements that lie at the essence of human relationships.

I know it is vague to say that symbols tell you how you are related to others and how you should act toward them, so let’s make this less abstract:

Suppose that you have fallen head over heels in love. Finally, after what seems forever, it is the night before your wedding. As you are contemplating tomorrow’s bliss, your moth- er comes to you in tears. Sobbing, she tells you that she had a child before she married your father, a child that she gave up for adoption. Breaking down, she says that she has just discovered that the person you are going to marry is this child.

You can see how the symbol will change overnight—and your behavior, too! The symbols “boyfriend” and “brother”—or “girlfriend” and “sister”—are cer-

tainly different, and, as you know, each symbol represents rather different behavior. Not only do relationships depend on symbols but so does society itself. Without

symbols, we could not coordinate our actions with those of others. We could not make plans for a future day, time, and place. Unable to specify times, materials, sizes, or goals, we could not build bridges and highways. Without symbols, we would have no movies or musical instruments, no hospitals, no government, no reli- gion. The class you are taking could not exist—nor could this book. On the positive side, there would be no war.

common sense those things that “everyone knows” are true

theory a general statement about how some parts of the world fit together and how they work; an explanation of how two or more facts are related to one another

symbolic interactionism a theoretical perspective in which society is viewed as com- posed of symbols that people use to establish meaning, devel- op their views of the world, and communicate with one another

George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) is one of the founders of symbolic interactionism, a major theoretical perspective in sociology. He taught at the University of Chicago, where his lectures were popular. Although he wrote little, after his death students compiled his lectures into an influential book, Mind, Self, and Society.

The Sociological Perspective 15

IN SUM Symbolic interactionists analyze how social life depends on the ways we define ourselves and others. They study face-to-face interaction, examining how people make sense out of life and their place in it.

APPLYING SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM Look at Figure 1.5, which shows U.S. mar- riages and divorces over time. Let’s see how symbolic interactionists would use changing symbols to explain this figure. For background, you should understand that marriage used to be a lifelong commitment. A hundred years ago (and less), getting divorced was viewed as immoral, a flagrant disregard for public opinion, and the abandonment of adult responsibilities. Let’s see what changed.

N u m

b e r

in M

ill io

n s

2.25

1.75

1.50

1.25

1.0

.75

.50

.25

.00

Marriages

Divorces

2.50

2.0

20201970 1980 1990 201020001890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 Year

FIGURE 1.5 U.S. Marriage, U.S. Divorce

NOTE: In 1996, some states stopped reporting their divorces. Currently, these states are California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, and Minnesota. I made an adjustment for the missing data.

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 1998:Table 92 and 2017:Tables 82, 141; earlier editions for earlier years. The broken lines indicate the author’s estimates.

Figure 1.6 Western Marriage

High

Low

Western Marriage

Historical

Duties/ Obligations

Duties/ Obligations

Feelings

Feelings

Contemporary

Husband-Wife Relationship

SOURCE: By the author.

The meaning of marriage Historically in the West, marriage was based on obligation and duty. By the 1930s, young peo- ple were coming to view marriage in a different way, a change that was reported by sociologists of the time. In 1933, William Ogburn observed that people were placing more emphasis on the personality of their potential mates. Then in 1945, Ernest Burgess and Harvey Locke reported that people were expect- ing more affection, understanding, and compatibility from marriage. As feelings became more important in marriage, duty and obligation became less important. Eventually, mar- riage came to be viewed as an arrangement that was based mostly on feelings—on attraction and intimacy. Marriage then became an arrangement that could be broken when feelings changed. Figure 1.6 depicts this fundamental historical change in marriage.

The meaning of divorce As divorce became more common, its meaning also changed. Rather than being a symbol of failure, divorce came to indicate freedom and new beginnings. Remov- ing the stigma from divorce shattered a strong barrier that had prevented husbands and wives from breaking up.

16 Chapter 1

The meaning of parenthood Parents used to have little responsibility for their children beyond providing food, clothing, shelter, and moral guidance. And they needed to do this for only a short time, because children began to contribute to the support of the family early in life. Among some people, parenthood is still like this. In Colombia, for example, children of the poor often are expected to support themselves by the age of 8 or 10. In industrial societies, however, we assume that children are fragile, vulnera- ble beings who must depend on their parents for financial and emotional support for many years—often until they are well into their 20s. In some cases, this is now being extended to the 30s. The greater responsibilities that we assign to parenthood place heavier burdens on today’s couples and, with them, more strain on marriage.

The meaning of love And we can’t overlook the love symbol. As surprising as it may sound, to have love as the main reason for marriage weakens marriage. In some depth of our being, we expect “true love” to deliver constant emotional highs. This expecta- tion sets people up for crushed hopes because dissatisfactions in marriage are inevita- ble. When the disappointments come, spouses tend to blame one another for failing to deliver the illusive satisfaction.

IN SUM Symbolic interactionists look at how changing ideas (or symbols) of marriage, divorce, parenthood, and love put pressure on married couples. No single change is the cause of our divorce rate. Taken together, however, these changes provide a strong push toward marriages breaking up.

Functional Analysis The central idea of functional analysis is that society is a whole unit, made up of interrelated parts that work together. Functional analysis (also known as functionalism and structural functionalism) is rooted in the origins of sociology. Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer viewed society as a kind of living organism, similar to an animal ’s body. Just as a person or animal has organs that function together, they wrote, so does society. And like an organism, if society is to function smoothly, its parts must work together in harmony.

Durkheim also viewed society as being composed of many parts, each with its own function. He said that when all the parts of society fulfill their functions, society is in a “normal” state. If they do not fulfill their functions, society is in an “abnormal” or “pathological” state. To understand society, then, functionalists say that we need to look at both structure (how the parts of a society fit together to make the whole) and function (what each part does, how it contributes to society).

ROBERT MERTON AND FUNCTIONALISM Robert Merton (1910–2003) dismissed the comparison of society to a living organism, but he did maintain the essence of functionalism—the image of society as a whole unit composed of parts that work together. Merton used the term functions to refer to the beneficial consequences of people’s actions: Functions help keep a group (society, social system) in balance. In contrast, dysfunctions are the harmful consequences of people’s actions. Dysfunctions undermine a system’s equilibrium.

Functions can be either manifest or latent. If an action is intended to help some part of a system, it is a manifest function. For example, suppose that government offi- cials become concerned that women are having so few children. Congress offers a $10,000 tax-free bonus for every child born to a married couple. The intention, or man- ifest function, of the bonus is to increase childbearing within the family unit. Merton pointed out that people’s actions can also have latent functions; that is, they can have unintended consequences that help a system adjust. Let’s suppose that the bonus works. As the birth rate jumps, so does the sale of diapers and baby furniture. Because the

functional analysis a theoretical framework in which society is viewed as com- posed of various parts, each with a function that, when fulfilled, contributes to society’s equilibri- um; also known as functionalism and structural functionalism

Robert K. Merton (1910–2003), who spent most of his academic career at Columbia University, was a major proponent of functionalism, one of the main theoretical perspectives in sociology.

The Sociological Perspective 17

benefits to these businesses were not the intended consequences, they are latent func- tions of the bonus.

Of course, human actions can also hurt a system. Because such consequences usu- ally are unintended, Merton called them latent dysfunctions. Let’s assume that the govern- ment has failed to specify a “stopping point” with regard to its bonus system. To collect more bonuses, some people keep on having children. The more children they have, how- ever, the more they need the next bonus to survive. Large families become common, and poverty increases. As welfare and taxes jump, the nation erupts in protest. Because these results were not intended and because they harmed the social system, they would be latent dysfunctions of the bonus program.

IN SUM From the perspective of functional analysis, society is a functioning unit, with each part related to the whole. Whenever we examine a smaller part, we need to look for its functions and dysfunctions to see how it is related to the larger unit. This basic approach can be applied to any social group, whether an entire society, a college, or even a group as small as a family.

APPLYING FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS Now let’s apply functional analysis to the U.S. divorce rate. Functionalists stress that industrialization and urbanization under- mined the traditional functions of the family. For example, before industrialization, the family formed an economic team. On the farm, where most people lived, each family member had jobs or “chores” to do. The wife was in charge not only of house- hold tasks but also of raising small animals, such as chickens, milking cows, collect- ing eggs, and churning butter. She also did the cooking, baking, canning, sewing, darning, washing, and cleaning. The daughters helped her. The husband was respon- sible for caring for large animals, such as horses and cattle, for cultivating, planting, and harvesting, and for maintaining buildings and tools. The sons helped him.

This certainly doesn’t sound like life today! But what does it have to do with divorce? Simply put, there wasn’t much divorce because the husband and wife formed an economic team in which each depended on the other for survival. There weren’t many alternatives.

Other functions also bound family members to one another: educating the children, teaching them religion, providing home-based recreation, and caring for the sick and elderly. All these were functions of the family, certainly quite different from today’s sit- uation. To further see how sharply family functions have changed, look at this example from the 1800s:

When Phil became sick, he was nursed by Ann, his wife. She cooked for him, fed him, changed the bed linens, bathed him, read to him from the Bible, and gave him his medi- cine. (She did this in addition to doing the housework and taking care of their six chil- dren.) Phil was also surrounded by the children, who shouldered some of his chores while he was sick. When Phil died, the male neighbors and relatives made the casket while Ann, her mother, and female friends washed and dressed the body. Phil was then “laid out” in the front parlor (the formal living room), where friends, neighbors, and relatives paid their last respects. From there, friends moved his body to the church for the final message and then to the grave they themselves had dug.

IN SUM When the family loses functions, it becomes more fragile, making an increase in divorce inevitable. These changes in economic production illustrate how the family has lost functions. When making a living was a cooperative, home-based effort, hus- bands and wives depended on one another for their interlocking contributions to a mutual endeavor. With their individual paychecks, today’s husbands and wives increas- ingly function as separate components in an impersonal, multinational, and even global system. The fewer functions that family members share, the fewer are their “ties that bind”—and these ties are what help husbands and wives get through the problems they inevitably experience.

18 Chapter 1

Conflict Theory Conflict theory provides a third perspective on social life. Unlike the functionalists, who view society as a harmonious whole with its parts working together, conflict theo- rists stress that society is composed of groups that compete with one another for scarce resources. If you look at the surface, you might see cooperation, but scratch that surface and you will find a struggle for power.

KARL MARX AND CONFLICT THEORY Marx, the founder of conflict theory, witnessed the Industrial Revolution that transformed Europe. He saw that peasants who had left the land to work in cities earned barely enough to eat. Things were so bad that the average worker died at age 30, the average wealthy person at age 50 (Edgerton 1992:87). Shocked by this suffering and exploitation, Marx began to analyze society and history. As he did so, he developed conflict theory. He concluded that the key to human history is class conf lict. In each society, some small group controls the means of produc- tion and exploits those who are not in control. In industrialized societies, the struggle is between the bourgeoisie, the small group of capitalists who own the means to produce wealth, and the proletariat, the mass of workers who are exploited by the bourgeoisie. The capitalists control the legal and political system: If the workers rebel, the capitalists call on the power of the state to subdue them.

When Marx made his observations, capitalism was in its infancy and workers were at the mercy of their employers. There was none of what many of today’s workers take for granted—minimum wages, eight-hour days, coffee breaks, five-day work weeks, paid vacations and holidays, medical benefits, sick leave, unemployment compensation, Social Security, and for union workers, the right to strike. Marx’s analysis reminds us that these benefits came not from generous hearts but by workers forcing concessions from their employers.

conflict theory a theoretical framework in which society is viewed as composed of groups that are competing for scarce resources

Sociologists who use the functionalist perspective stress how industrialization and urbanization undermined the traditional functions of the family. Before industrialization, members of the family worked together as an economic team, as in this photo of a farm family in Nebraska in 1886. (This is a sod house built into the hillside.) As production moved away from the home, it took with it first the father and, more recently, the mother. One consequence is a major dysfunction, the weakening of family ties.

The Sociological Perspective 19

CONFLICT THEORY TODAY Many sociologists extend conflict theory beyond the relationship of capitalists and workers. They examine how opposing interests run through every layer of society—whether in a small group, an organization, a commu- nity, or an entire society. For example, when teachers, parents, or the police try to enforce conformity, this creates resentment and resistance. It is the same when a teenager tries to “change the rules” to gain more independence. Throughout society, then, there is a con- stant struggle to determine who has authority or influence and how far that dominance goes (Turner 1978; Piven 2008; Vogt et al. 2016).

Sociologist Lewis Coser (1913–2003) pointed out that conflict is most likely to develop among people who are in close relationships. These people have worked out ways to distribute power and privilege, responsibilities and rewards. Any change in this arrangement can lead to hurt feelings, resentment, and conflict. Even in intimate rela- tionships, then, people are in a constant balancing act, with conflict lying uneasily just beneath the surface.

FEMINISTS AND CONFLICT THEORY Just as Marx examined conflict between cap- italists and workers, many feminists analyze conflict between men and women. Their primary focus is the historical, contemporary, and global inequalities of men and women—and how the traditional dominance by men can be overcome to bring about equality of the sexes. Feminists are not united by the conflict perspective, however. They tackle a variety of topics and use whatever theory applies. (Feminism is discussed in Chapter 10.)

APPLYING CONFLICT THEORY To explain why the U.S. divorce rate is high, conflict theorists focus on how men’s and women’s relationships have changed. For millennia, men dominated women, and women had few alternatives other than to accept that dom- inance. As industrialization transformed the world, it brought women the ability to meet their basic survival needs without depending on a man. This new ability gave them the power to refuse to bear burdens that earlier generations accepted as inevitable. The result is that today’s women are likely to dissolve a marriage that becomes intolerable—or even just unsatisfactory.

IN SUM The dominance of men over women was once considered natural and right. As women gained education and earnings, however, they first questioned and then rejected this assumption. As wives strove for more power and grew less inclined to put up with relationships that they defined as unfair, the divorce rate increased. From the conflict perspective, then, our high divorce rate does not mean that marriage has weakened but, rather, that women are making headway in their historical struggle with men.

Putting the Theoretical Perspectives Together Which of these theoretical perspectives is the right one? As you have seen, each is a lens that produces a contrasting picture of divorce. The pictures that emerge are quite differ- ent from the commonsense understanding that two people are “incompatible.” Or that they have a “personality conflict.” Because each theory focuses on different features of social life, each provides a distinct interpretation. Consequently, we need to use all three theoretical lenses to analyze human behavior. By combining the contributions of each, we gain a more comprehensive picture of social life.

Levels of Analysis: Macro and Micro A major difference between these three theoretical perspectives is their level of analysis. Functionalists and conflict theorists focus on the macro level; that is, they examine large- scale patterns of society. In contrast, symbolic interactionists usually focus on the micro level, on social interaction—what people do when they are in one another ’s presence. These levels are summarized in Table 1.1.

macro-level analysis an examination of large-scale patterns of society; such as how Wall Street and the political establishment are interrelated

micro-level analysis an examination of small-scale patterns of society; such as how the members of a group interact

social interaction people's actions influencing one another; usually refers to what people do when they are in one another’s presence, but also includes communications at a distance

20 Chapter 1

To make this distinction between micro and macro levels clearer, let’s return to the example of the homeless, with which we opened this chapter. To study homeless people, symbolic interactionists would focus on the micro level. They would analyze what homeless people do when they are in shelters and on the streets. They would also analyze their communications, both their talk and their nonverbal interactions (ges- tures, use of space, and so on). The observations I made at the beginning of this chapter about the silence in the homeless shelter, for example, would be of interest to symbolic interactionists.

This micro level would not interest functionalists and conflict theorists. They would focus instead on the macro level, how changes in some parts of society increase home- lessness. Functionalists might stress that jobs have dried up—how there is less need for unskilled labor and that millions of jobs have been transferred to workers overseas. Or

they might focus on changes in the family, that families are smaller and divorce more common. This means that many people who can’t find work end up on the streets because they don’t have others to fall back on. For their part, conflict theorists would stress the struggle between social classes. They would be interested in how the decisions of interna- tional elites affect not only global production and trade but also the local job market, unemployment, and homelessness.

How Theory and Research Work Together Theory cannot stand alone. Nor can research. As sociologist C. Wright Mills (1959) argued so forcefully, theory without research is abstract and empty. But research without theory, Mills added, is simply a collection of unrelated “facts.”

Theory and research, then, are both essential for sociology. Every theory must be tested, which requires research. And as sociologists do research, often coming up with surprising findings, those results must be explained: For that, we need theory. As sociologists study social life, then, they combine research and theory.

Let’s turn to doing research.

nonverbal interaction communication without words through gestures, use of space, silence, and so on

Theoretical Perspective Usual Level of Analysis Focus of Analysis Key Terms Applying the Perspective to the U.S. Divorce Rate

Symbolic Interactionism Microsociological: examines small-scale patterns of social interaction

Face-to-face interaction, how people use symbols to create social life

Symbols Interaction Meanings Definitions

Industrialization and urbanization changed marital roles and led to a redefinition of love, marriage, children, and divorce.

Functional Analysis (also called functionalism and structural functionalism)

Macrosociological: examines large-scale patterns of society

Relationships among the parts of society; how these parts are functional (have beneficial consequences) or dysfunctional (have negative consequences)

Structure Functions (mani-

fest and latent) Dysfunctions Equilibrium

As social change erodes the traditional functions of the family, family ties weaken, and the divorce rate increases.

Conflict Theory Macrosociological: examines large-scale patterns of society

The struggle for scarce resources by groups in a society; how the elites use their power to control the weaker groups

Inequality Power Conflict Competition Exploitation

When men control economic life, the divorce rate is low because women find few alternatives to a bad marriage. The high divorce rate reflects a shift in the balance of power between men and women.

Table 1.1 Three Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology

SOURCE: By the author.

Fashion brings a form of peer pressure. To attain status within fashion, some people are willing to sacrifice their health, as with this woman in 1899.

The Sociological Perspective 21

Doing Sociological Research 1.5 Explain why common sense can’t replace sociological research.

Around the globe, people make assumptions about the way the world “is.” Common sense, the things that “everyone knows are true,” may or may not be true, however. It takes research to find out. Are you ready to test your common sense? Here is a little Down-to-Earth Sociology quiz for you.

Down-to-Earth Sociology Enjoying a Sociology Quiz: Testing Your Common Sense Some findings of sociology support commonsense understandings of social life, and others contradict them. Can you tell the difference?

Answer all questions before looking ahead to see the answers.

1. True/False More U.S. students are killed in school shootings now than ten or fifteen years ago.

2. True/False The earnings of U.S. women have just about caught up with those of U.S. men.

3. True/False With life so rushed and more women working for wages, today’s parents spend less time with their children than parents of previous generations did.

4. True/False It is more dangerous to walk near topless bars than fast-food restaurants.

5. True/False Most rapists are mentally ill.

6. True/False A large percentage of terrorists are men- tally ill.

7. True/False Most people on welfare are lazy and looking for a handout. They could work if they wanted to.

8. True/False Compared with women, men make more eye contact in face-to-face conversations.

9. True/False Because bicyclists are more likely to wear helmets now than a few years ago, their rate of head injuries has dropped.

10. True/False As measured by their divorce rate, couples who live together before marriage are usually more satisfied with their marriages than couples who did not live together before marriage.

As you can see from this little quiz, to understand social life we need to move beyond common sense. We need to know what is really going on. Let’s look at how sociologists do their research.

A Research Model 1.6 Know the eight steps of the

research model.

As shown in Figure 1.7, sociological research follows eight basic steps. This is an ideal model, however, and in the real world of research, some of these steps may run together. Some may even be omitted.

1. Selecting a Topic The first step is to select a topic. What do you want to know more about? Many sociologists simply follow their curiosity, their drive to learn more about social life. They become interested in a particular topic, and they pursue it, as I did in studying the homeless. Some sociologists choose a topic because funding is available, others because they want to help people better understand a social problem—and perhaps to help solve it. Let’s use spouse abuse as our example.

Figure 1.7 The Research Model

Select a topic. 1

Define the problem.

Review the literature.

Share the results.

Stimulates more ideas for research

Generates hypotheses

Formulate a hypothesis.

• Surveys • Participant observation • Case studies • Secondary analysis

• Analysis of documents • Experiments • Unobtrusive measures

Choose a research method.

Collect the data.

Analyze the results.

2

3

4

5

7

6

8

22 Chapter 1

2. Defining the Problem The second step is to define the problem, to specify what you want to learn about the topic. My interest in the homeless grew until I wanted to learn about homelessness across the nation. Ordinarily, sociologists’ interests are more focused than this; they examine some specific aspect of a topic, such as how homeless people survive on the streets. In the case of spouse abuse, sociologists may want to know whether violent and nonviolent husbands have different work experiences. Or they may want to learn what can be done to reduce spouse abuse.

3. Reviewing the Literature You must read what has been published on your topic. This helps you to narrow the problem, identify what is already known, and learn what needs to be researched. Reviewing the literature may also help you to pinpoint the questions that you will ask. You might even find out that what you are interested in learning has been answered already. You don’t want to waste your time rediscovering what is already known.

4. Formulating a Hypothesis The fourth step is to formulate a hypothesis, a statement of what you expect to find according to predictions from a theory. A hypothesis predicts a relationship between or among variables, factors that change, or vary, from one person or situation to another. For example, the statement “Men who are more socially isolated are more likely to abuse their wives than men who are more socially integrated” is a hypothesis.

Your hypothesis will need operational definitions—that is, precise ways to measure the variables. In this example, you would need operational definitions for three variables: social isolation, social integration, and spouse abuse.

5. Choosing a Research Method You then need to decide how you are going to collect your data. Sociologists use seven basic research methods (or research designs), which are out- lined in the next section. You will want to choose the research method that will best answer your particular questions.

6. Collecting the Data When you gather your data, you have to take care to assure their validity; that is, your operational defini- tions must measure what they are intended to mea- sure. In this case, you must be certain that you really are measuring social isolation, social integration, and spouse abuse—and not something else. What spouse abuse is, for example, seems obvious. Yet what some people consider abusive is not regarded as abuse by others. Just what definition of spouse abuse will you use? In other words, you must state your operational definitions so precisely that no one has any question about what you are measuring.

hypothesis a statement of how variables are expected to be related to one another, often according to predictions from a theory

variable a factor thought to be significant for human behavior, which can vary (or change) from one case to another

operational definition the way in which a researcher measures a variable

research method (or research design) one of seven procedures that sociologists use to collect data: surveys, participant observa- tion, case studies, secondary analysis, analysis of documents, experiments, and unobtrusive measures

validity the extent to which an operational definition measures what it is intended to measure

Would we sociologists ruin the fun if we were to gather data at the International Pillow Fight Day in London? Maybe. But look at this photo. Where are the old folks? Why aren’t they grabbing pillows and.. .? The sociological blood really gets flowing when we look at events, even something as “non-serious” as this.

The Sociological Perspective 23

Down-to-Earth Sociology Testing Your Common Sense: Answers to the Sociology Quiz

1. False. More students met violent deaths at U.S. schools in the 1990s than now. See Chapter 13, Table 13.1.

2. False. Over the years, the wage gap has narrowed, but only slightly. On average, full-time working wom- en earn about 73 percent of what full-time working men earn. This low figure is actually an improvement over earlier years. (See Chapter 10, Figures 10.7 and 10.8.)

3. False. Today’s parents spend more time with their children (Bianchi 2010). To see how this could be, see Chapter 12, Figure 12.2.

4. False. The crime rate outside fast-food restaurants is considerably higher. The likely reason is that topless bars hire private security and parking lot attendants (Linz et al. 2004).

5. False. Sociologists compared the psychological profiles of prisoners convicted of rape and prisoners convicted of other crimes (Scully and Marolla 1984). Their profiles were similar. Like robbery, rape is learned behavior.

6. False. Extensive testing of Islamic terrorists shows that they actually tend to score more “normal” on psychological tests than most “normal” people do. As a group, they are in better mental health than the rest of the population (Sageman 2008b:64).

7. False. Most people on welfare are children, young mothers with few skills, or are elderly, sick, mentally challenged, or physically handicapped. Less than 2 percent fit the stereotype of an able-bodied man.

8. False. Women make considerably more eye contact (Henley et al. 1985).

9. False. Bicyclists today are more likely to wear helmets, but their rate of head injuries is higher. Apparently, the helmets make them feel safer and they take more risks (Barnes 2001; Izaac 2016).

10. False. Until recently, the divorce rate of couples who cohabited before marriage was higher than those who did not cohabit. Now the divorce rate seems to be about the same (Kuperberg 2014). Neither divorce rate indicates that the couples who previously cohabited are more satisfied with their marriage.

You must also be sure that your data are reliable. Reliability means that if other researchers use your operational definitions, their findings will be consistent with yours. If your operational definitions are sloppy, husbands who have committed the same act of violence might be included in some research but excluded from other studies. You would end up with erratic results. If you show a 10 percent rate of spouse abuse, for example, but another researcher using the same operational definitions determines it to be 30 per- cent, the research is unreliable.

7. Analyzing the Results You will have been trained in a variety of techniques to analyze your data—from those that apply to observations of people in small settings to the analysis of large-scale sur- veys. If a hypothesis has been part of your research, now is when you will test it. (Some research, especially participant observation and case studies, has no hypothesis. You may know so little about the setting you are going to research that you cannot even specify the variables in advance.)

8. Sharing the Results To wrap up your research, you will write a report to share your findings with the sci- entific community. You will review how you did your research and specify your oper- ational definitions. You will also compare your findings with published reports on the topic and examine how they support or disagree with theories that others have applied. As Table 1.2 illustrates, sociologists often summarize their findings in tables.

reliability the extent to which research produces consistent or dependable results

24 Chapter 1

Some tables are much more complicated than this one, but all follow the same basic pattern. To apply these concepts to a table with more information, see Table 9.3.

Answers 1. Comparing Violent and Nonviolent Husbands 2. Based on interviews with 150 husbands and wives 3. Husband’s Achievement and Job Satisfaction, Violent Husbands, Nonviolent Husbands. The n is

an abbreviation for number, and n = 25 means that 25 violent husbands were in the sample. 4. 56%, 18% 5. Violent Husbands 6. A 1975 article by O’Brien (listed in the References section of this text).

Tables summarize information. Because sociological findings are often presented in tables, it is important to understand how to read tables. Tables contain six elements: title, headnote, headings, columns, rows, and source. When you understand how these elements fit together, you will know how to read a table.

The title states the topic. It is located at the top of the table. What is the title of this table? Please determine your answer before looking at the correct answer at the bottom of this page.

1

The headnote is not always included in a table. When it is present, it is located just below the title. Its purpose is to give more detailed in- formation about how the data were collected or how data are presented in the table. What are the first eight words of the headnote for this table?

2

The headings tell what kind of information is contained in the table. There are three headings in this table. What are they? In the second heading, what does n = 25 mean?

3

The columns present information arranged vertically. What is the fourth number in the second column and the second number in the third column?

4

The rows present information arranged horizontally. In the fourth row, which husbands are more likely to have less education than their wives?

5

The source of a table, usually listed at the bot- tom, provides informa- tion on where the data in the table originated. Often, as in this instance, the information is specific enough for you to consult the original source. What is the source for this table?

6

Table 1.2 How to Read a Table

SOURCE: By the author.

Comparing Violent and Nonviolent Husbands Based on interviews with 150 husbands and wives in a Midwestern city who were getting a divorce.

Husband’s Achievement and Job Satisfaction

Violent Husbands

(n = 25)

Nonviolent Husbands (n =125)

He started but failed to complete high school or college.

44% 27%

He is very dissatisfied with his job. 44% 18%

His income is a source of constant conflict.

84% 24%

He has less education than his wife. 56% 14%

His job has less prestige than his father-in-law’s.

37% 28%

SOURCE: Modification of Table 1 in O'Brien 1975.

Research Methods (Designs) 1.7 Know the main elements of the seven research methods.

As we review the seven research methods (or research designs) that sociologists use, we will continue our example of spouse abuse. As you will see, the method you choose will depend on the questions you want to answer. So that you can have a yardstick for com- paring the results of your research, you will want to know what “average” is in your research findings. Table 1.3 summarizes the three ways that sociologists measure average.

survey the collection of data by having people answer a series of ques- tions

The Sociological Perspective 25

Surveys Let’s suppose that you want to know how many wives are abused each year. Some hus- bands also are abused, of course, but let’s assume that you are going to focus on wives. An appropriate method for this purpose would be the survey, in which you would ask individuals a series of questions. Before you begin your research, however, you must deal with practical matters that face all researchers. Let’s look at these issues.

SELECTING A SAMPLE Ideally, you might want to learn about all wives in the world, but obviously you don’t have enough resources to do this. You will have to narrow your population, the target group that you are going to study.

Let’s assume that your resources (money, assistants, time) allow you to investigate spouse abuse only among the students on your campus. Let’s also assume that your col- lege enrollment is large, so you won’t be able to survey all the married women who are enrolled. Now you must select a sample, individuals from among your target population. How you choose a sample is crucial: Not all samples are equal. For example, married women enrolled in introductory sociology and engineering courses might have different experiences. If so, surveying just one or the other would produce skewed results.

Remember that your goal is to get findings that apply to your entire school. For this, you need a sample that represents the students. How can you get a representative sample?

The best way is to use a random sample. This does not mean that you stand on some campus corner and ask questions of any woman who happens to walk by. In a random sample, everyone in your population (the target group) has the same chance of being included in the study. In this case, because your population is every married woman enrolled in your college, all married women—whether first-year or graduate students, full- or part-time— must have the same chance of being included in your sample.

How can you get a random sample? First, you need a list of all the married women enrolled in your college. Then you assign a number to each name on the list. Using a table of random numbers, you then determine which of these women will become part of your sample. (Tables of random numbers are available in statistics books and online, or they can be generated by software programs.)

population a target group to be studied

sample the individuals intended to repre- sent the population to be studied

random sample a sample in which everyone in the target population has the same chance of being included in the study

The Mean The Median The Mode

The term average seems clear enough. As you learned in grade school, to find the average, you add a group of numbers and then divide the total by the number of cases that you added. Assume that the following numbers represent men convicted of battering their wives.

To compute the second average, the median, first arrange the cases in order—either from the highest to the lowest or the lowest to the highest. This arrangement will produce the following distribution.

The third measure of average, the mode, is simply the cases that occur the most often. In this instance, the mode is 57, which is way off the mark.

Example 321 229 57

289 136 57

1,795

Example 57 57

136 229 289 321

1,795

or

1,795 321 289 229 136

57 57

Example 57 57

136 229 289 321

1,795

The total is 2,884. Divided by 7 (the number of cases), the average is 412. Sociologists call this form of average the mean.

The mean can be deceptive because it is strongly influenced by extreme scores, either low or high. Note that six of the seven cases are less than the mean.

Two other ways to compute averages are the median and the mode.

Then look for the middle case, the one that falls halfway between the top and the bottom. That number is 229, since three numbers are lower and three numbers are higher. When there is an even number of cases, the median is the halfway mark between the two middle cases.

Because the mode is often deceptive, and only by chance comes close to either of the other two averages, sociologists seldom use it. In addition, not every distribution of cases has a mode. And if two or more numbers appear with the same frequency, you can have more than one mode.

Table 1.3 Three Ways to Measure “Average”

SOURCE: By the author.

To attain their goal of objectivity and accuracy in their research, sociologists must put away their personal opinions.

26 Chapter 1

A random sample will represent your target popula- tion fairly—in this case, married women enrolled at your college. This means that you will be able to generalize your findings to all the married women students on your cam- pus, even if they were not included in your sample.

What if you want to know only about certain sub- groups, such as the freshmen and seniors? You could use a stratified random sample. You would need a list of the freshmen and senior married women. Then, using random numbers, you would select a sample from each group. This would allow you to generalize to all the freshmen and senior married women at your college, but you would not be able to draw any conclusions about the sophomores or juniors.

ASKING NEUTRAL QUESTIONS After you have decided on your population and sample, the next task is to make certain that your questions are neutral. The questions must allow respondents, the people who answer your questions, to express their own opinions.

Otherwise, you will end up with biased answers, which are worthless. For example, if you were to ask, “Don’t you think that men who beat their wives should go to prison?” you would be tilting the answer toward agreement with a prison sentence.

In the following Down-to-Earth Sociology, let’s look at flawed research.

stratified random sample a sample from selected sub- groups of the target population in which everyone in those sub- groups has an equal chance of being included in the research

respondents people who respond to a survey, either in interviews or by self- administered questionnaires

If sociologists were to study a cock fight, such as this one in south China, they would not be interested in which cock won the fight. They would want to know who organized the fight, who trains the cocks, how the cocks are matched, what the betting rules are, how those rules are enforced, and so on. To answer such questions, what research methods do you think sociologists would choose?

Down-to-Earth Sociology Loading the Dice: How Not to Do Research The methods of science lend themselves to distortion, misrepresentation, and downright fraud. Consider these findings from surveys:

Americans overwhelmingly pre- fer Toyotas to Chryslers. Americans overwhelmingly pre- fer Chryslers to Toyotas.

Obviously, these opposite conclusions cannot both be true. In fact, both sets of findings are misrepresentations, even though the responses came from surveys conducted by so-called independent researchers. It turns out that some researchers load the dice. Hired by firms that have a vested interest in the outcome of the research, they deliver the results their clients are looking for (Armstrong 2007).

Here are six ways to load the dice.

1. Choose a biased sample. If you want to “prove” that Americans prefer Chryslers over Toyotas, in- terview unemployed union workers who trace their

job loss to Japanese imports. You’ll get what you’re looking for.

2. Ask biased questions. Even if you choose an unbiased sample, you can phrase questions in such a way that you direct people to the answer you’re looking for. Suppose that you ask this question:

We are losing millions of jobs to workers overseas who work for just a few dollars a day. After losing their jobs, some Americans are even homeless and hungry. Do you prefer a car that gives jobs to Americans or one that forces our workers to lose their homes?

This question is obviously designed to channel people’s thinking toward a predetermined answer—quite contrary to the standards of scientific research.

3. List biased choices. Another way to load the dice is to use closed-ended questions that push people into the answers you want. Consider this finding:

U.S. college students overwhelmingly prefer Levi’s 501 to the jeans of any competitor.

The Sociological Perspective 27

A random sample will represent your target popula- tion fairly—in this case, married women enrolled at your college. This means that you will be able to generalize your findings to all the married women students on your cam- pus, even if they were not included in your sample.

What if you want to know only about certain sub- groups, such as the freshmen and seniors? You could use a stratified random sample. You would need a list of the freshmen and senior married women. Then, using random numbers, you would select a sample from each group. This would allow you to generalize to all the freshmen and senior married women at your college, but you would not be able to draw any conclusions about the sophomores or juniors.

ASKING NEUTRAL QUESTIONS After you have decided on your population and sample, the next task is to make certain that your questions are neutral. The questions must allow respondents, the people who answer your questions, to express their own opinions.

Otherwise, you will end up with biased answers, which are worthless. For example, if you were to ask, “Don’t you think that men who beat their wives should go to prison?” you would be tilting the answer toward agreement with a prison sentence.

In the following Down-to-Earth Sociology, let’s look at flawed research.

stratified random sample a sample from selected sub- groups of the target population in which everyone in those sub- groups has an equal chance of being included in the research

respondents people who respond to a survey, either in interviews or by self- administered questionnaires

TYPES OF QUESTIONS You must also decide whether to use closed- or open-ended questions. Closed-ended questions are followed by a list of possible answers. This format would work for questions about someone’s age (possible ages would be listed), but not for many other items. The choices can miss the respondent’s opinions. For example, how could you list all the opinions that people hold about what should be done to spouse abusers?

As Table 1.4 illustrates, if you use open-ended questions, people can answer in their own words. Although open-ended questions let you to tap the full range of people’s opinions, they make it difficult to compare answers. For example, how would you compare these answers to the question “Why do you think men abuse their wives?”

“They’re sick.”

“I think they must have had problems with their mother.”

“We oughta string ’em up!”

interviewer bias effects of interviewers on respon- dents that lead to biased answers

closed-ended questions questions that are followed by a list of possible answers to be selected by the respondent

objectivity value neutrality in research

Sound good? Before you rush out to buy Levis, note what these researchers did: In asking students which jeans would be the most popular in the coming year, their list of choices included no other jeans except Levi’s 501!

4. Discard undesirable results. Researchers can keep silent about results they don’t like, or they can continue to survey samples until they find one that matches what they are looking for.

These first four sources of bias represent fraud. But even when researchers strive for objectivity, use good samples, ask neutral questions, and report all results, their findings can still be skewed. How? Sloppy work. Here are two sources of sloppiness.

5. Misunderstand the subjects’ world. This route can lead to inaccuracies as great as those that come from fraud. Researchers, for example, might fail to anticipate interviewer bias, that people may be embarrassed to express an opinion that isn’t “politically correct.” For example, surveys show that 80 percent of Americans are environmentalists. Is this an accurate figure? Most Americans are probably embarrassed to tell a stranger

otherwise. This would be like going against the flag, motherhood, and apple pie.

6. Analyze the data incorrectly. Researchers may make a mistake in their calculations, such as entering incorrect data into computer programs. This, too, of course, is inexcusable.

As has been stressed in this chapter, research must be objective if it is to be scientific. The underlying problem with the first four sources of error—and with so many surveys bandied about in the media as fact—is that survey research has become big business. Simply put, the money offered by corporations has corrupted some researchers.

The beginning of the corruption is subtle. Paul Light, dean at the University of Minnesota, put it this way: “A funder will never come to an academic and say, ‘I want you to produce finding X, and here’s a million dollars to do it.’ Rather, the subtext is that if the researchers produce the right finding, more work—and funding—will come their way.”

SOURCES: Crossen 1991; Goleman 1993; Barnes 1995; Resnik 2000; Augoustinos et al. 2009.

Although exaggerated to make the point, the cartoonist has pinpointed the basic flaw with sponsored research, discussed in the preceding Down-to-Earth Sociology.

A. Closed-Ended Question B. Open-Ended Question

Which of the following best fits your idea of what should be done to someone who has been convicted of spouse abuse?

1. Probation 2. Jail time 3. Community service 4. Counseling 5. Divorce 6. Nothing—It’s a family matter

What do you think should be done to someone who has been convicted of spouse abuse?

Table 1.4 Closed- and Open-Ended Questions

SOURCE: By the author.

ESTABLISHING RAPPORT Research on spouse abuse brings up a significant issue. You may have been wondering if women who have been abused will really give honest answers to strangers.

28 Chapter 1

If your method of interviewing consists of walking up to women on the street and asking if their husbands have ever beaten them, there would be little reason to take your findings seriously. Researchers need to establish rapport (ruh-POUR), a feeling of trust, with their respondents, especially when it comes to sensitive topics—those that elicit feelings of embarrassment, shame, or other negative emotions.

Once rapport is gained (often by first asking nonsensitive questions), victims will talk about personal, sensitive issues. A good example is rape. To go beyond police statistics, researchers interview a random sample of 100,000 Americans each year. They ask them whether they have been victims of burglary, robbery, or other crimes. After establish- ing rapport, the researchers ask about rape. This National Crime Victimization Survey shows that rape victims will talk about their experiences (Statistical Abstract 2017:Tables 340, 341, 342, 343, 344).

Participant Observation (Fieldwork) In the second method, participant observation (also called fieldwork), the researcher participates in a research setting while observing what is happening in that setting. But is it possible to study spouse abuse by participant observation? Obviously, you would not sit around and take notes while you watch someone being abused.

Let’s suppose that this is the question you want answered: How does spouse abuse affect wives? You might want to know how the abuse has changed their relationship with their hus- bands. Or how has it changed their hopes and dreams? Or their ideas about men? Certainly it has affected their self- concept as well. But how? By observing people as they live their lives, par- ticipant observation could provide insight into such questions.

For example, if your campus has a crisis intervention center, you might be able to observe victims of spouse abuse from the time they report the attack through their participa- tion in counseling. With good rapport, you might even be able to spend time with them in other settings, observing further aspects of their lives. What they say and how they interact with others might help you understand how abuse has affected

them. This, in turn, could give you insight into how to improve college counseling services.

If you were doing participant observation, you would face this dilemma: How involved should you get in the lives of the people you are observing (Goffman 2014)? Consider this as you read the following Down-to-Earth Sociology.

rapport a feeling of trust between researchers and the people they are studying

Participant observation, participating and observing in a research setting, is usually supplemented by interviewing, asking questions to better understand why people do what they do. In this instance, the sociologist would want to know what this hair removal ceremony in Gujarat, India, means to the child’s family and to the community.

Down-to-Earth Sociology Gang Leader for a Day: Adventures of a Rogue Sociologist Next to the University of Chicago is an area of poverty so dangerous that the professors warn students to avoid it. One graduate student in sociology, Sudhir Venkatesh, the son of immigrants from India, who was working on a research project with William Julius Wilson, ignored the warning.

With clipboard in hand, Sudhir entered “the projects.” Ignoring the glares of the young men standing around, he went into the lobby of a high-rise. Seeing

a gaping hole where the elevator was supposed to be, he decided to climb the stairs, where he was almost overpowered by the smell of urine. After climbing five flights, Sudhir came upon some young men shooting craps in a dark hallway. One of them jumped up, grabbed Sudhir’s clipboard, and demanded to know what he was doing there.

Sudhir blurted, “I’m a student at the university, doing a survey, and I’m looking for some families to interview.”

open-ended questions questions that respondents answer in their own words

The Sociological Perspective 29

Sudhir Venkatesh

Case Studies To do a case study, the researcher focuses on a single event, situation, or individual. The purpose is to understand relationships, power, or even the thinking that motivates peo- ple. Sociologist Ken Levi (1981/2007), for example, wanted to study hit men. He would have loved having many hit men to interview, but he had access to only one. He inter- viewed this man over and over, giving us an understanding of how someone can kill oth- ers for money. On another level entirely, sociologist Kai Erikson (1978) investigated the bursting of a dam in West Virginia that killed several hundred people. He focused on the events that led up to this disaster and how people tried to put their lives together after the devastation. For spouse abuse, a case study would focus on a single couple, exploring their history and relationship.

As you can see, the case study reveals a lot of detail about some particular situation, but the question always remains: How much of this detail applies to other situations? This problem of generalizability, which plagues case studies, is the primary reason that few sociologists use this method.

participant observation (or fieldwork) research in which the researcher participates in a research setting while observing what is happen- ing in that setting

case study an intensive analysis of a single event, situation, or individual

generalizability the extent to which the findings from one group (or sample) can be generalized or applied to oth- er groups (or populations)

One man took out a knife and began to twirl it. Another pulled out a gun, pointed it at Sudhir’s head, and said, “I’ll take him.”

Then came a series of rapid-fire questions that Sudhir couldn’t answer. He had no idea what they meant: “You flip right or left? Five or six? You run with the Kings, right?”

Grabbing Sudhir’s bag, two of the men searched it. They could find only questionnaires, pen and paper, and a few sociology books. The man with the gun then told Sudhir to go ahead and ask him a question.

Sweating despite the cold, Sudhir read the first question on his survey, “How does it feel to be black and poor?” Then he read the multiple-choice answers: “Very bad, somewhat bad, neither bad nor good, somewhat good, very good.”

As you might surmise, the man’s answer was too obscenity-laden to be printed here.

As the men deliberated Sudhir’s fate (“If he’s here and he don’t get back, you know they’re going to come looking for him”), a powerfully built man with glittery gold teeth and a sizable diamond earring appeared. The man, known as J. T., who, it turned out, directed the drug trade in the building, asked what was going on. When the younger men mentioned the questionnaire, J. T. said to ask him a question.

Amidst an eerie silence, Sudhir asked, “How does it feel to be black and poor?”

“I’m not black,” came the reply. “Well, then, how does it feel to be African American

and poor?” “I’m not African American either. I’m a nigger.” Sudhir was left speechless. Despite his naïveté, he knew

better than to ask, “How does it feel to be a nigger and poor?” As Sudhir stood with his mouth agape, J. T. added,

“Niggers are the ones who live in this building. African Americans live in the suburbs. African Americans wear ties to work. Niggers can’t find no work.”

Not exactly the best start to a research project. This weird and frightening incident turned into several

years of fascinating research. Over time, J. T. guided Sudhir into a world that few outsiders ever see. Not only did Sudhir get to know drug dealers, crackheads, squatters, prostitutes, and pimps, but he also was present at beatings by drug crews, drive-by shootings done by rival gangs, and armed robberies by the police.

How Sudhir got out of his predicament in the stairwell, his immersion into a threatening underworld—

the daily life for many people in “the projects”—and his moral dilemma at witnessing crimes are part of his fascinating experience in doing participant observation of the Black Kings.

Sudhir, who was reared in a middle- class suburb in California, even took over this Chicago gang for a day. This is one reason that he calls himself a rogue sociologist—the decisions he made that day were violations of law, felonies that could bring years in prison. There are other reasons, too: During the research, he

kicked a man in the stomach, and he was present as the gang planned drive-by shootings.

Update: Sudhir survived and completed his Ph.D. He teaches at Columbia University, where both fame and controversy have followed. He has appeared on television talk shows, has worked for the FBI, and has been investigated by Columbia University for ethical irregularities.

SOURCES: Venkatesh 2008; Kaminer 2012.

For Your Consideration → From Sudhir’s experiences, what do you see as the ad-

vantages of participant observation? Its disadvantages?

→ Do you think that doing sociological research justifies being present at beatings? At the planning of drive-by shootings?

30 Chapter 1

Secondary Analysis If you were to analyze data that someone else has already collected, you would be doing secondary analysis. For example, if you were to analyze the original interviews of women who had been abused by their husbands, you would be doing secondary analysis.

Analysis of Documents The fifth method that sociologists use is the analysis of documents. To investigate social life, they examine such diverse sources as books, newspapers, diaries, bank records, police reports, immigration files, and records kept by organizations. The term document is so broad that it includes video and audio recordings, even Facebook, which sociologists have used to study digital behavior and communication (Pedersen 2016).

To study spouse abuse, you might examine police reports and court records. These could reveal what percentage of complaints result in arrest and what proportion of the men arrested are charged, convicted, or put on probation. If these were your questions, police statistics would be valuable.

But for other questions, those records would be useless. If you want to learn about the victims’ social and emotional adjustment, for example, police and court records would tell you little. Other documents, however, might provide these answers. With the promise of confidentiality (no names or anything that could identify individuals), perhaps the direc- tor of a crisis intervention center might persuade victims to let you examine their coun- seling records. To my knowledge, no sociologist has yet studied spouse abuse in this way.

Of course, I am presenting an ideal situation: the director of a crisis intervention cen- ter who opens her or his arms to you. The situation you face might be quite different. To preserve the confidentiality of victims, the director might not even let you near the cen- ter’s records. Access, then, is another problem that researchers face. Simply put, you can’t study a topic unless you can gain access to it.

Experiments Do you think there is a way to change a man who abuses his wife into a loving husband? No one has made this claim, but a lot of people say that abusers need therapy. Yet no one knows whether therapy really works. As discussed in Table 1.5, experiments are useful for determining cause and effect.

secondary analysis the analysis of data that have been collected by other re- searchers

analysis of documents in its narrow sense, written sources that provide data; in its extended sense, archival materi- al of any sort, including photo- graphs, movies, CDs, DVDs, and so on

experiment the use of control and experi- mental groups and dependent and independent variables to test causation

The research methods that sociologists choose depend partially on the questions they want to answer. They might want to learn, for example, which forms of publicity are more effective in increasing awareness of spouse abuse as a social problem.

Table 1.5 Cause, Effect, and Spurious Correlations Causation means that a change in one variable is caused by another variable. Three conditions are necessary for causation: correlation, temporal priority, and no spurious correlation. Let’s apply each of these necessary conditions to spouse abuse and alcohol abuse.

1 The first necessary condition is correlation

If two variables exist together, they are said to be correlated. If batterers get drunk, battering and alcohol abuse are correlated.

Spouse Abuse + Alcohol Abuse

People often assume that correlation is causation. In this instance, they conclude that alcohol abuse causes spouse abuse.

Alcohol Abuse Spouse Abuse

But correlation never proves causation. Either variable could be the cause of the other. Perhaps battering upsets men, and they then get drunk.

Spouse Abuse Alcohol Abuse

2 The second necessary condition is temporal priority.

Temporal priority means that one thing happens before something else does. For a variable to be a cause (the independent variable), it must precede that which is changed (the dependent variable).

precedes Alcohol Abuse Spouse Abuse

If the men had not drunk alcohol until after they beat their wives, obviously alcohol abuse could not be the cause of the spouse abuse. Although the necessity of temporal priority is obvious, this is not always easy to determine.

3 The third necessary condition is no spurious correlation.

This is the necessary condition that really makes things difficult for research- ers. Even if we identify the correlation of getting drunk and spouse abuse and can determine temporal priority, we still don’t know that alcohol abuse is the cause. We could have a spurious correlation; that is, the cause may be some underlying third variable. These are usually not easy to identify. Some sociologists think that male culture is that underlying third variable.

Male Culture Spouse Abuse

The Sociological Perspective 31

Secondary Analysis If you were to analyze data that someone else has already collected, you would be doing secondary analysis. For example, if you were to analyze the original interviews of women who had been abused by their husbands, you would be doing secondary analysis.

Analysis of Documents The fifth method that sociologists use is the analysis of documents. To investigate social life, they examine such diverse sources as books, newspapers, diaries, bank records, police reports, immigration files, and records kept by organizations. The term document is so broad that it includes video and audio recordings, even Facebook, which sociologists have used to study digital behavior and communication (Pedersen 2016).

To study spouse abuse, you might examine police reports and court records. These could reveal what percentage of complaints result in arrest and what proportion of the men arrested are charged, convicted, or put on probation. If these were your questions, police statistics would be valuable.

But for other questions, those records would be useless. If you want to learn about the victims’ social and emotional adjustment, for example, police and court records would tell you little. Other documents, however, might provide these answers. With the promise of confidentiality (no names or anything that could identify individuals), perhaps the direc- tor of a crisis intervention center might persuade victims to let you examine their coun- seling records. To my knowledge, no sociologist has yet studied spouse abuse in this way.

Of course, I am presenting an ideal situation: the director of a crisis intervention cen- ter who opens her or his arms to you. The situation you face might be quite different. To preserve the confidentiality of victims, the director might not even let you near the cen- ter’s records. Access, then, is another problem that researchers face. Simply put, you can’t study a topic unless you can gain access to it.

Experiments Do you think there is a way to change a man who abuses his wife into a loving husband? No one has made this claim, but a lot of people say that abusers need therapy. Yet no one knows whether therapy really works. As discussed in Table 1.5, experiments are useful for determining cause and effect.

secondary analysis the analysis of data that have been collected by other re- searchers

analysis of documents in its narrow sense, written sources that provide data; in its extended sense, archival materi- al of any sort, including photo- graphs, movies, CDs, DVDs, and so on

experiment the use of control and experi- mental groups and dependent and independent variables to test causation

SOURCE: By the author.

Socialized into dominance, some men learn to view women as objects on which to take out their frustration. In fact, this underlying third variable could be a cause of both spouse abuse and alcohol abuse.

Spousal Abuse Male Culture

Alcohol Abuse

But since only some men beat their wives, while all males are exposed to male culture, other variables must also be involved. Perhaps specific subcultures that promote violence and denigrate women lead to both spouse abuse and alcohol abuse.

Spouse Abuse Male Subculture

Alcohol Abuse

If so, this does not mean that the subculture is the only causal variable. Spouse abuse probably has many causes. Unlike the movement of amoebas or the action of heat on some object, human behavior is infinitely complicated. Especially important are people’s definitions of the situation, including their views of right and wrong. To explain spouse abuse, then, we need to add such variables as the ways that men view violence and their ideas about the relative rights of women and men. It is precisely to help unravel such complicating factors in human behavior that we need experiments.

Correlation means that two or more variables are present together. The more often that these variables are found together, the stronger their relationship. To indicate their strength, sociologists use a number called a correlation coefficient. If two variables are always present together, they have what is called a perfect positive correlation. The number 1.0 represents this correlation coefficient. Nature has some 1.0’s, such as the lack of water and the death of trees; 1.0’s also apply to the human physical state, such as the absence of nutrients and the absence of life. But social life is much more complicated than physical conditions, and there are no 1.0’s in human behavior.

Two variables can also have a perfect negative correlation. This means that when one variable is present, the other is always absent. The number –1.0 represents this correlation coefficient.

Positive correlations of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 mean that one variable is associated with another only 1 time out of 10, 2 times out of 10, and 3 times out of 10. In other words, in most instances the first variable is not associated with the second, indicating a weak relationship. A strong relationship may indicate causation, but not necessarily. Testing the relationship between variables is the goal of some sociological research.

MORE ON CORRELATIONS

Figure 1.8 The Experiment

Random Assignment

Experimental Group

Control Group

No exposure to the independent

variable

The First Measure of the Dependent Variable

The Second Measure of the Dependent Variable

Human Subjects

Experimental Group

Control Group

Exposure to the independent

variable

SOURCE: By the author.

Let’s suppose that you propose an experiment to a judge, and he or she gives you access to men who have been arrested for spouse abuse. As in Figure 1.8, you would randomly divide the men into two groups. This helps to ensure that their individual characteristics (attitudes, number of arrests, severity of crimes, education, race–ethnicity, age, and so on) are distributed evenly between the groups. You then would arrange for the men in the experimental group to receive some form of therapy that the men in the control group would not get.

experimental group the group of subjects in an experiment who are exposed to the independent variable

control group the subjects in an experiment who are not exposed to the independent variable

Your independent variable, something that causes a change in another variable, would be the therapy. Your dependent variable, the variable that might change, would be the men’s behavior, whether they abuse women after they get out of jail. Unfortunately, your operational definition of the men’s behavior will be sloppy: either reports from the wives or records indicating who has been rearrested for abuse. This is sloppy because some of the women will not report the abuse, and some of the men who abuse their wives will not be arrested. Yet it may be the best you can do.

Let’s assume that you choose rearrest as your operational definition of the indepen- dent variable. If fewer of the men who received therapy are rearrested for abuse, you can attribute the difference to the therapy. If you find no difference in rearrest rates, you can conclude that the therapy was ineffective. If you find that the men who received the ther- apy have a higher rearrest rate, you can conclude that the therapy backfired.

Ideally, you would test different types of therapy. Perhaps only some types work. You could even test self-therapy by assigning articles, books, and videos.

independent variable a factor that causes a change in another variable, called the dependent variable

32 Chapter 1

Unobtrusive Measures Let’s suppose you go to the mall. As you enter, you see a mannequin dressed in the latest fashions. As you glance at it, this bionic mannequin, which looks like a regular one, re- ports your age, sex, and race-ethnicity (Roberts 2012). Then as you stroll past stores, you are tracked by your smartphone and sent targeted ads (Turow 2017). Embedded in the discount coupons you use to make purchases are bar codes that contain your name and Facebook information. Cameras follow you throughout the store, recording each item you touch, as well as every time you pick your nose.

In our technological society, we are surrounded by unobtrusive measures, ways to observe people who are not aware that they are being studied. The face-recognition cameras and tracking services are part of marketing (or law enforcement), not sociolog- ical research. In contrast to these technological marvels, the unobtrusive measures used by sociologists are downright primitive. To determine whiskey consumption in a town that was legally “dry,” for example, sociologists counted the empty bottles in trashcans (Lee 2000).

How could we use unobtrusive measures to study spouse abuse? As you might sur- mise, sociologists would consider it unethical to watch someone being abused. If abused or abusing spouses held a public forum on the Internet, however, you could record and analyze their online conversations. Or you could analyze 911 calls. The basic ethical prin- ciple is this: To record the behavior of people in public settings, such as a crowd, without announcing that you are doing so is acceptable. To do this in private settings is not. But what is private and what is public is not always clear (Hurdley 2010). The hallway just outside an instructor’s office—is it private, or is it public?

Gender in Sociological Research 1.8 Explain how gender is significant in sociological research.

You know how significant gender is in your own life, how it affects your orientations and attitudes. Because gender is so influential, researchers take steps to prevent it from bias- ing their findings (Davis et al. 2010; Rabin 2014). For example, sociologists Diana Scully and Joseph Marolla (1984) interviewed convicted rapists in prison. They were concerned that gender might lead to interviewer bias—that the prisoners might shift their answers, sharing certain experiences or opinions with Marolla but saying something else to Scully.

To prevent gender bias, each researcher interviewed half the sam- ple. Later in this chapter, we’ll look at what they found.

Gender certainly can be an impediment in research. In our imagined research on spouse abuse, for example, could a man even do participant observation of women who have been beaten by their husbands? Technically, the answer is yes. But because the women have been victimized by men, they might be less likely to share their experiences and feelings with men. If so, women would be better suited to conduct this research, more likely to achieve valid results. The supposition that these victims will be more open with women than with men, how- ever, is just that—a supposition. Research alone would verify or refute this assumption.

dependent variable a factor in an experiment that is changed by an independent variable

unobtrusive measures ways of observing people so they do not know they are being studied

How do the unobtrusive research methods of sociologists differ from covert crime surveillance?

Gender issues can pop up in unexpected ways in sociological research. I vividly recall an incident in San Francisco.

The streets were getting dark, and I was still looking for homeless people. When I saw someone lying down, curled up in a doorway,

The Sociological Perspective 33

I approached the individual. As I got close, I began my opening research line, “Hi, I’m Dr. Henslin from….” The woman began to scream and started to thrash her arms and legs. Startled by this sudden, high-pitched scream and by the rapid movements, I quickly backed away. When I later analyzed what had happened, I concluded that I had intruded into a woman’s bedroom.

This incident also holds another lesson. Researchers do their best, but they make mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes are minor, even humorous. The woman sleeping in the doorway wasn’t frightened. It was only just getting dark, and there were many people on the street. She was just assertively marking her territory and letting me know in no uncertain terms that I was an intruder. If we make a mistake in research, we pick up and go on. As we do so, we take ethical considerations into account, which is our next topic.

Ethics in Sociological Research 1.9 Explain why it is vital for sociologists to protect the people they study and

discuss the two cases that are presented.

In addition to choosing an appropriate research method, we must also follow the ethics of sociology (American Sociological Association 2017). Research ethics require honesty, truth, and openness (sharing findings with the scientific community). Ethics clearly for- bid the falsification of results, as well as plagiarism—that is, stealing someone else’s work. Another ethical guideline states that, generally, people should be informed that they are being studied and that they never should be harmed by the research. Sociologists are also required to protect the anonymity of those who provide information. Sometimes people reveal things that are intimate, potentially embarrassing, illegal, or otherwise harmful to themselves or others. Finally, it generally is considered unethical for researchers to mis- represent themselves.

Sociologists take their ethical standards seriously. To illustrate the extent to which they will go to protect their respondents, consider the research conducted by Mario Brajuha.

Protecting the Subjects: The Brajuha Research Mario Brajuha, a graduate student at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, was doing participant observation of restaurant workers. He lost his job as a waiter when the restaurant where he was working burned down—a fire of “suspicious origin,” as the police said. When detectives learned that Brajuha had taken field notes, they asked to see them (Brajuha and Hallowell 1986). Because he had prom- ised to keep the information confidential, Brajuha refused to hand them over. When the district attorney subpoenaed the notes, Brajuha still refused. The district attorney then threat- ened to put Brajuha in jail. By this time, Brajuha’s notes had become rather famous, and unsavory characters—perhaps those who had set the fire—also wanted to know what was in them. They, too, demanded to see them, accompanying their demands with threats of a different nature. Brajuha found himself between a rock and a hard place.

For two years, Brajuha refused to hand over his notes, even though he grew anxious and had to appear at several

Ethics in social research are of vital concern to sociologists. As dis- cussed in the text, sociologists may disagree on some of the issue’s finer points, but none would approve of slipping LSD to unsuspecting sub- jects like this Marine. This was done to U.S. soldiers in the 1960s under the guise of legitimate testing—just “to see what would happen.”

34 Chapter 1

court hearings. Finally, the district attorney dropped the subpoena. When the two men under investigation for setting the fire died, the threats to Brajuha, his wife, and their children ended.

Sociologists applaud the way Brajuha protected his respondents and the professional manner in which he handled himself.

Misleading the Subjects: The Humphreys Research Another ethical issue is what you tell participants about your research. It is considered acceptable for sociologists to do covert participant observation—studying a setting with- out the people there knowing they are being researched. But to misrepresent yourself is considered unethical. Let’s look at the case of Laud Humphreys, whose research forced sociologists to rethink and refine their ethical stance.

Laud Humphreys was an Episcopal priest who decided to become a sociologist. For his Ph.D. dissertation, Humphreys (1970/1975) studied social interaction in “tea- rooms,” public restrooms where some men go for quick, anonymous oral sex with other men.

Humphreys found that some restrooms in Forest Park in St. Louis were tearooms. He began a participant observation study by hanging around these restrooms. In addi- tion to the two men who are having sex, a third man—called a “watch queen”—serves as a lookout for police and other unwelcome strangers. Humphreys took on the role of watch queen, not only watching for strangers but also observing what the men did. He wrote field notes after the encounters.

Humphreys decided that he wanted to learn more about these men. For example, what was the significance of the wedding rings that many of the men wore? Many of the men parked their cars near the tearooms, and Humphreys recorded their license plate numbers. A friend in the St. Louis police department gave Humphreys each man’s address. About a year later, Humphreys arranged for these men to be included in a med- ical survey that members of his faculty were conducting.

Disguising himself with a different hairstyle and clothing, Humphreys visited the men at home, supposedly to interview them for the medical study. He found that they led conventional lives. The men voted, mowed their lawns, and took their kids to Little League games. Many reported that their wives were not aroused sexually or were afraid of getting pregnant because their religion did not allow birth con- trol. Humphreys concluded that heterosexual men were also using the tearooms for a form of quick sex.

This research stirred controversy among sociologists and nonsociologists alike. Some sociologists criticized Humphreys, while others defended him. A national columnist even wrote a scathing denunciation of “sociological snoopers” (Von Hoffman 1970). One professor on Humphreys’ faculty, whom Humphreys had insulted in an unrelated situa- tion, even tried to get Humphreys’ Ph.D. revoked.

Was this research ethical? This question is not decided easily. Although many sociologists sided with Humphreys—and his book reporting the research won a highly acclaimed award—the criticisms continued. At first, Humphreys defended his position vigorously, but five years later, in a second edition of his book (1970/1975), he stated that he should have identified himself as a researcher.

Trends Shaping the Future of Sociology 1.10 Explain how research versus social reform and globalization are likely to

influence sociology.

Before we close this chapter (and I know we have covered a lot of material), I would like to give you a glimpse of two trends that are shaping sociology.

The Sociological Perspective 35

Tension in Sociology: Research versus Social Reform As you have seen in this opening chapter, tension between social analysis and social reform runs through the history of sociology. It still does. Let’s look at this tension in more detail.

THREE STAGES IN SOCIOLOGY To better understand the tension between social analysis and social reform, we can divide sociology into three time periods (Lazarsfeld and Reitz 1989). During the first phase, which lasted until the 1920s, the primary purpose of sociological research was to improve society. During the second phase, from the 1920s until the 1960s, the concern switched to developing abstract knowledge. During the third phase, which we are still in, sociologists seek ways to apply their research findings. Many sociology departments offer courses in applied sociology, with some offering internships in applied sociology at both the graduate and undergraduate levels.

DIVERSITY OF ORIENTATIONS I want to stress that sociology is filled with diverse opinions. (From my observations, I would say that when two sociologists meet, they will express three firmly held, contradictory opinions on the same topic.) In any event, to divide sociology into three separate phases overlooks as much as it reveals. During the first phase, for example, some leading sociologists campaigned against helping the poor, saying that their deaths were good for the progress of society (Stokes 2009). Similarly, during the second phase, many sociologists wanted to reform society. They chafed that knowledge should be the goal of research. And today, some sociologists want the empha- sis to remain on basic sociology. They say that applied sociology is not “real” sociology; it is just social work or psychology masquerading as sociology. As you can see, sociologists do not move in lockstep toward a single goal.

Each particular period, however, does have basic emphases, and this division of sociology into three phases pinpoints major trends. The tension that has run through sociology—between gaining knowledge and applying knowledge—will continue. During this current phase, the pendulum is swinging toward applying sociological knowledge.

Globalization A second major trend, globalization, is also leaving its mark on sociology. Globalization is the breaking down of national boundaries because of advances in communications, trade, and travel. Because the United States dominates sociology and we U.S. sociolo- gists tend to concentrate on events and relationships that occur in our own country, most of our findings are based on research in the United States. Globalization is destined to broaden our horizons, directing us to a greater consideration of global issues. This, in turn, is likely to motivate us to try more vigorously to identify universal principles.

HOW GLOBALIZATION APPLIES TO THIS TEXT You are living at a major turning point in history, and great historical moments don’t make life easy. Globalization—new to the world but now a regular part of your experience—is shaping your life, your hopes, and your future—sometimes even twisting them. As globalization shrinks the globe, that is, as people around the world become more interconnected within the same global vil- lage, your welfare is increasingly tied to that of people in other nations. From time to time in the following chapters, you will explore how the globalization of capitalism— capitalism becoming the world’s dominant economic system—is having profound effects on your life. You will also confront the developing new world order, which, if it can shave off its rough edges, also appears destined to play a significant role in your future.

To help broaden your horizons, as this book unfolds you will visit many cultures around the world, looking at what life is like for the people who live in those cultures. Seeing how their society affects their behavior and orientations to life should help you understand how your society influences what you do and how you feel about life. This, of course, takes you to one of the main goals of this book.

I wish you a fascinating sociological journey, one with new insights around every corner.

globalization the growing interconnections among nations as a result of advances in trade, travel, and communications

globalization of capitalism capitalism (investing to make profits within a rational system) becoming the globe’s dominant economic system

36 Chapter 1

The Sociological Perspective 1.1 Explain why both history and biography are

essential for the sociological perspective.

What is the sociological perspective?

The sociological perspective stresses that people’s social experiences—the groups to which they belong and their experiences within those groups—underlie their behavior. C. Wright Mills referred to this as the intersection of biog- raphy (the individual) and history (broad conditions that influence the individual).

Origins of Sociology 1.2 Trace the origins of sociology, from tradition to

Max Weber.

When did sociology first appear as a separate discipline?

Sociology emerged as a separate discipline in the mid- 1800s in western Europe during the onset of the Indus- trial Revolution. Industrialization affected all aspects of human existence—where people lived, the nature of their work, their relationships, and how they viewed life. Ear- ly sociologists who focused on these social changes in- clude Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Harriet Martineau, and W. E. B. Du Bois.

Sociology in North America 1.3 Trace the development of sociology in North

America, and explain the tension between objective analysis and social reform.

What was the position of women and minorities in early sociology?

The few women who received the education required to become sociologists tended to focus on social reform. The debate between social reform and social analysis was won by male university professors who ignored the contribu- tions of the women. W. E. B. Du Bois faced deep racism in his sociological career.

Why are the positions of Parsons and Mills important?

C. Wright Mills criticized Parsons’ abstract analysis of the components of society, saying that it does nothing for so- cial reform, which should be the goal of sociologists. The significance of this position is that the debate about the purpose and use of sociology continues today.

Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology 1.4 Explain the basic ideas of symbolic interactionism,

functional analysis, and conflict theory.

What is a theory?

A theory is a general statement about how facts are related to one another. A theory provides a conceptual framework for interpreting facts.

What are sociology’s major theoretical perspectives?

Sociologists use three primary theoretical frameworks to interpret social life. Symbolic interactionists exam- ine how people use symbols to develop and share their views of the world. Symbolic interactionists usually fo- cus on the micro level—on small-scale, face-to-face in- teraction. Functionalists, in contrast, focus on the macro level—on large-scale patterns of society. They stress that a social system is made up of interrelated parts. When working properly, each part fulfills a function that con- tributes to the system’s stability. Conflict theorists also focus on large-scale patterns of society. They stress that society is composed of competing groups that struggle for scarce resources.

With each perspective focusing on different features of social life and each providing a unique interpretation, no single theory is adequate. The combined insights of all three perspectives yield a more comprehensive picture of social life.

What is the relationship between theory and research?

Theory and research depend on one another. Sociolo- gists use theory to interpret the data they gather. Theory also generates questions that need to be answered by re- search, while research, in turn, helps to generate theory. Theory without research is not likely to represent real life, while research without theory is merely a collection of empty facts.

Doing Sociological Research 1.5 Explain why common sense can’t replace

sociological research.

Why isn’t common sense adequate?

Common sense doesn’t provide reliable information. Research shows that commonsense ideas are often limited or false.

Summary and Review

The Sociological Perspective 37

A Research Model 1.6 Know the eight steps of the research model.

What are the eight basic steps of sociological research?

(1) Selecting a topic, (2) Defining the problem, (3) Reviewing the literature, (4) Formulating a hypothesis, (5) Choosing a research method, (6) Collecting the data, (7) Analyzing the results, and (8) Sharing the results.

Research Methods (Designs) 1.7 Know the main elements of the seven research

methods.

How do sociologists gather data?

To collect data, sociologists use seven research methods (or research designs): surveys, participant observation (fieldwork), case studies, secondary analysis, analysis of documents, experiments, and unobtrusive measures.

How do sociologists choose a research method?

Sociologists choose their research method based on the questions they want answered, their access to potential subjects, the resources available, and their training.

Gender in Sociological Research 1.8 Explain how gender is significant in sociological

research.

What is the relationship between gender and research?

Gender can lead to interviewer bias, with participants shaping their answers based on the gender of the researcher.

Ethics in Sociological Research 1.9 Explain why it is vital for sociologists to protect

the people they study and discuss the two cases that are presented.

How important are ethics in sociological research?

Ethics are of fundamental concern to sociologists, who are committed to openness, honesty, truth, and protecting their subjects from harm. The Brajuha research on restau- rant workers and the Humphreys research on “tearooms” illustrate ethical issues that concern sociologists.

Trends Shaping the Future of Sociology 1.10 Explain how research versus social reform and

globalization are likely to influence sociology.

What trends are likely to have an impact on sociology?

Sociology has gone through three phases: The first was an emphasis on reforming society; the second had its focus on basic sociology; the third, today’s phase, is taking us closer to our roots of applying sociology to social change. Public sociology is a recent example of this change. A second ma- jor trend, globalization, is likely to broaden sociological horizons, refocusing research and theory away from its concentration on U.S. society.

Thinking Critically about Chapter 1 1. Do you think that sociologists should try to reform

society or to study it dispassionately?

2. Of the three theoretical perspectives, which one would you prefer to use if you were a sociologist? Why?

3. Considering the macro- and micro-level approaches in sociology, which one do you think better explains social life? Why?

4. What are the differences between good and bad sociological research? How can biases be avoided?

5. What ethics do sociologists follow in their research?

6. Do you think it is okay (or ethical) for sociologists to not identify themselves when they do research? To misrepresent themselves?

Flamenco Fiesta, 1997, Andrew Hewkin (oil on wood)

39

Chapter 2

Culture

After you have read this chapter, you should be able to:

2.1 Explain what culture is, how culture provides orientations to life, and what practicing cultural relativism means.

2.2 Know the components of symbolic culture: gestures, language, values, norms, sanctions, folkways, mores, and taboos; also explain the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

2.3 Distinguish between subcultures and countercultures.

2.4 Discuss the major U.S. values and explain value clusters, value contradictions, value clashes, how values are lenses of perception, and ideal culture versus real culture.

2.5 Explain what cultural universals are and why they do not seem to exist.

2.6 Explain why most sociologists consider genes to be an inadequate explanation of human behavior.

2.7 Explain how technology changes culture and what cultural lag and cultural leveling are.

When I first arrived in Morocco, I found the sights that greeted me exotic—not unlike the scenes in Casablanca or Raiders of the Lost Ark. The men, women, and even the children really did wear those white robes that reach down to their feet. What was especially striking was that the women were almost totally covered. Despite the heat, they wore not only full-length gowns but also head coverings that reached down over their foreheads with veils that covered their faces from the nose down. You could see nothing but their eyes—and every eye seemed the same shade of brown.

And how short everyone was! The Arab women looked to be, on average, 5 feet, and the men only about 3 or 4 inches taller. As the only blue-eyed, blond, 6-foot-plus person around and the only one who was wearing jeans and a pullover shirt, in a world of white-robed short people, I stood out like a creature from another planet. Everyone stared. No matter where I went, they stared. Wherever I looked, I saw people watching me intently. Even staring back had no effect. It was so different from home, where, if you caught someone staring at you, that person would look embarrassed and immediately glance away.

And lines? The concept apparently didn’t even exist. Buying a ticket for a bus or train meant pushing and shoving toward the ticket man, always a man—no women were vis- ible in any public position. He took the money from whichever outstretched hand he de- cided on.

And germs? That notion didn’t seem to exist here either. Flies swarmed over the food in the restaurants and the unwrapped loaves of bread in the stores. Shopkeepers would considerately shoo off the flies before handing me a loaf. They also offered

Learning Objectives

“Everyone stared. No matter where I went, they stared.”

40 Chapter 2

home delivery. I watched a bread vendor deliver a loaf to a woman who was stand- ing on a second-floor balcony. She first threw her money to the bread vendor, and he then threw the unwrapped bread up to her. Unfortunately, his throw was off. The bread bounced off the wrought-iron balcony railing and landed in the street, which was filled with people, wandering dogs, and the ever-present urinating and defecating donkeys. The vendor simply picked up the unwrapped loaf and threw it again. This certainly wasn’t his day: He missed again. But he made it on his third attempt. The woman smiled as she turned back into her apartment, apparently to prepare the noon meal for her family.

What Is Culture? 2.1 Explain what culture is, how culture provides orientations to life, and what

practicing cultural relativism means.

What is culture? The concept is sometimes easier to grasp by description than by defini- tion. For example, suppose you meet a young woman from India who has just arrived in the United States. That her culture is different from yours is immediately evident. You first see it in her clothing, jewelry, makeup, and hairstyle. Next, you hear it in her speech. It then becomes apparent by her gestures. Later, you might hear her express unfamil- iar beliefs about relationships or what is valuable in life. All of these characteristics are aspects of culture—the language, beliefs, values, norms, behaviors, and even material objects that are passed from one generation to the next.

In northern Africa, I was surrounded by a culture quite different from mine. It was evident in everything I saw and heard. The material culture—such things as jewelry, art, buildings, weapons, machines, and even eating utensils, hairstyles, and clothing— provided a sharp contrast to what I was used to seeing. There is nothing inherently “ natural” about material culture. That is, it is no more natural (or unnatural) to wear gowns on the street than it is to wear jeans.

I also found myself immersed in an unfamiliar nonmaterial culture, that is, a group’s ways of thinking (its beliefs, values, and other assumptions about the world) and doing (its common patterns of behavior, including language, gestures, and other forms of inter- action). North African assumptions that it is acceptable to stare at others in public and to push people aside to buy tickets are examples of nonmaterial culture. So are U.S. assumptions that it is wrong to do either of these things. Like material culture, neither custom is “right.” People simply become comfortable with the customs they learn during childhood, and—as happened to me in northern Africa—uncomfortable when their basic assumptions about life are challenged.

Culture and Taken-for-Granted Orientations to Life “The last thing a fish would ever notice would be water.”

Ralph Linton, anthropologist, 1936

To develop a sociological imagination, it is essential to understand how culture affects people’s lives. If we meet someone from a different culture, the encounter can make us aware of how culture influences all aspects of that person’s life. Attaining the same level of awareness regarding our own culture, however, is quite another matter. We usually take our speech, our gestures, our beliefs, and our customs for granted. We assume that they are “normal” or “natural,” and we almost always follow them with- out question. Ralph Linton made the comment about fish to get this point across: Except in unusual circumstances, most characteristics of our own culture remain imperceptible to us.

Yet culture’s significance is profound; it touches almost every aspect of who and what we are. We came into this life without a language; without values and morality;

culture the language, beliefs, values, norms, behaviors, and even material objects that character- ize a group and are passed from one generation to the next

material culture the material objects that distin- guish a group of people, such as their art, buildings, weapons, utensils, machines, hairstyles, clothing, and jewelry

nonmaterial culture a group’s ways of thinking (including its beliefs, values, and other assumptions about the world) and doing (its common patterns of behavior, including language and other forms of interaction); also called symbolic culture

Culture 41

with no ideas about religion, war, money, love, use of space, and so on. We possessed none of these fundamental orientations that are so essential in determining the type of people we become. Yet by this point in our lives, we all have acquired them— and take them for granted. Sociologists call this culture within us. These learned and shared ways of believing and of doing (another definition of culture) penetrate our being at an early age and quickly become part of our taken-for-granted assumptions about what normal behavior is. Culture becomes the lens through which we perceive and evaluate what is going on around us. Seldom do we question these assumptions: Like water to a fish, the lens through which we view life remains largely beyond our perception.

The rare instances in which these assumptions are challenged, however, can be upsetting. Although as a sociologist I should be able to look at my own culture “from the outside,” my trip to Africa quickly revealed how fully I had internalized my own culture. My upbringing in Western culture had given me assumptions about aspects of social life that had become rooted deeply in my being—“appropriate” eye contact, hygiene, and the use of space. But in this part of Africa, these assumptions were useless in helping me navigate everyday life. No longer could I count on people to stare only surreptitiously, to take precautions against invisible microbes, or to stand in line, one behind the other.

As you can tell from the opening vignette, I found these unfamiliar behaviors unsettling—they violated my basic expectations of “the way people ought to be”— and I did not even realize how firmly I held these expectations until they were chal- lenged so abruptly. When my nonmaterial culture failed me—when it no longer enabled me to make sense out of the world—I experienced a disorientation known as culture shock. In the case of buying tickets, the fact that I was several inches taller than most Moroccans and thus able to outreach others helped me to adjust partially to their different ways of doing things. But I never did get used to the idea that pushing ahead of others was “right,” and I always felt guilty when I used my size to receive preferential treatment.

An important consequence of culture within us is ethnocentrism, a tendency to use our own group’s ways of doing things as a yardstick for judging others. All of us learn

culture shock the disorientation that people experience when they come in contact with a fundamen- tally different culture and can no longer depend on their taken-for-granted assumptions about life

ethnocentrism the use of one’s own culture as a yardstick for judging the ways of other individuals or societies, generally leading to a nega- tive evaluation of their values, norms, and behaviors

What a tremendous photo for sociologists! Seldom are we treated to such cultural contrasts. Can you see how the cultures of these women have given them not only different orientations concerning the presentation of their bodies but also of gender relations?

42 Chapter 2

that the ways of our own group are good, right, and even superior to other ways of life. As sociologist William Sumner (1906), who developed this concept, said, “One’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it.” Ethnocentrism has both positive and negative consequences. On the positive side, it creates in-group loyalties. On the negative side, ethnocentrism can lead to discrimination against people whose ways differ from ours.

The many ways in which culture affects our lives fascinate sociologists. In this chapter, we’ll examine how profoundly culture influences everything we are and whatever we do. This will serve as a basis from which you can start to analyze your own assumptions of reality. I should give you a warning at this point: You might develop a changed perspective on social life and your role in it. If so, life will never look the same.

IN SUM To avoid losing track of the ideas under discussion, let’s pause for a moment to summarize and, in some instances, clarify the principles we have covered.

1. There is nothing “natural” about material culture. Arabs wear gowns on the street and feel that it is natural to do so. Americans do the same with jeans.

2. There is nothing “natural” about nonmaterial culture. It is just as arbitrary to stand in line as to push and shove.

3. Culture penetrates deeply into our thinking, becoming a taken-for-granted lens through which we see the world and obtain our perceptions of reality.

4. Culture provides implicit instructions that tell us what we ought to do and how we ought to think. Culture establishes a fundamental basis for our decision making.

5. Culture also provides a “moral imperative”; that is, the culture that we internalize becomes the “right” way of doing things. (I, for example, believed deeply that it was wrong to push and shove to get ahead of others.)

6. Coming into contact with a radically different culture challenges our basic assumptions about life. (I experienced culture shock when I discovered that my deeply ingrained cultural ideas about hygiene and the use of personal space no longer applied.)

7. Although the particulars of culture differ from one group of people to another, culture itself is universal. That is, all people have culture, for a society cannot exist without developing shared, learned ways of dealing with the challenges of life.

8. All people are ethnocentric, which has both positive and negative consequences.

I think you’ll enjoy the following Cultural Diversity around the World. Beyond seeing why sociology is such a pleasure, it will also help you better understand how culture shapes ideas and behavior.

Ideas and beliefs about what happens to people after they die vary remarkably among the world’s cultures. Common to many cultures are beliefs about ghosts, that the spirits of the dead, especially the recent dead, continue an existence of some sort on Earth.

Some cultures have built elaborate systems of beliefs about ghosts. One of the most elaborate is that of the traditional Chinese. Their view is that the afterlife closely mirrors the real world (Chen 2013; Xie 2016). When people die, their ghosts live in a place just like the one they lived in when they were alive. There, the ghosts have the same needs as living people: food, clothing, houses, and entertainment.

Because these things cost money in the world of the living, they also cost money in the world of the departed. To obtain money, the ghosts depend on the living, and one of the

Cultural Diversity around the World Why the Dead Need Money

U.S.A.U.S.A.ChinaChina

Culture 43

Practicing Cultural Relativism To counter our tendency to use our own culture as the standard by which we judge other cultures, we can practice cultural relativism; that is, we can try to understand a culture on its own terms. This means looking at how the elements of a culture fit together, without judging those elements as inferior or superior to our own way of life.

With our own culture embedded so deeply within us, practicing cultural relativism is difficult. It is likely that it seems strange to you to think that the dead need money, for example, but cultural relativism is an attempt to refocus our lens of perception so we can appreciate other ways of life rather than simply asserting, “Our way is right.” None of us can be entirely successful at practicing cultural relativism, but I think you will enjoy the following Cultural Diversity around the World. My best guess, however, is that you will evaluate these “strange” foods through the lens of your own culture.

cultural relativism not judging a culture but trying to understand it on its own terms

obligations of descendants is to provide that money.

For hundreds of years, tra- ditional Chinese have provided money for their ancestors. Today, they shop in specialized stores that sell ghost money. This money, featuring an image of the Emperor of Hell, looks like an elaborate version of Monopoly money. People send the money to their ancestors’ ghosts by burning it. The ghosts then spend the money on what they need to enjoy life.

As you and I live out our lives, our ideas of what we need keep increasing. This means that we need more and more money. Earlier generations didn’t know about cars, televisions, and cell phones, so they had no need of them. These things aren’t free for us, so to keep up with our changing needs, we have to keep increasing our incomes.

Like us, those in the ghost world also want the latest gadgets. To help the ghosts keep up with changing times, the ghost stores sell paper replicas of computers, iPads, flat- screen televisions, sports cars, and helicopters. Just as with money, to send these items to their ancestors, the purchasers burn the replicas.

Unfortunately, just like in the land of the living, prices in the ghost world also keep increasing. The ghost world has been especially hard hit, though, and it is experiencing hyperinflation. A few years ago, a $100 ghost bill would have gone a long way. Now the ghosts need hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars. Sometimes they need a billion dollars. Inflation in the ghost world is so out of control that the stores now sell a trillion dollar ghost bill.

As economists do, one Hong Kong economist has come up with a plan to bring ghost inflation to a screaming halt.

Citing Milton Friedman that the cause of inflation is an increase in the money supply, he suggests that people burn real money instead of ghost money. This, he says, would immediately reduce the amount of cash flowing into hell.

For Your Consideration → How do the traditional Chinese customs regarding the

dead differ from your culture’s customs?

→ Why do traditional Chinese beliefs about the ghost world seem strange to Americans and ordinary to traditional Chinese?

→ How has your culture shaped your ideas about death and the relationship of the dead and the living?

Burning money and replicas of material items for the dead also occurs in Thailand, where this photo was taken.

Cultural Diversity around the World You Are What You Eat? An Exploration in Cultural Relativity Here is a chance to test your ethnocentrism and ability to practice cultural relativity. You probably know that the French like to eat snails and that in some Asian cultures, chubby dogs and cats are considered a delicacy (“Ah, lightly browned with a little doggy sauce!”). You might also know that in some cultures, the bull’s penis and testicles are prized foods (Jakab 2012). But did you know that cod sperm is a delicacy in Japan (Halpern 2011)? That flies and

scorpions are on the menu of restaurants in parts of Thai- land (Gampbell 2006)? That on the Italian island of Sardinia, casu marzi is popular? This is a cheese filled with squirming live maggots (Herz 2012).

Marston Bates (1967), a zoologist, noted this ethnocentric reaction to food:

I remember once, in the llanos of Colombia, sharing a dish of toasted ants at a remote farmhouse. . . . My

(continued)

44 Chapter 2

What some consider food, even delicacies, can turn the stomach of other diners. Grilled guinea pig, called cuy, is served in restaurants in Peru.

ATTACK ON CULTURAL RELATIVISM Although cultural rela- tivism helps us avoid cultural smugness, this view has come under attack. If you consider just the treatment of animals, you can under- stand why. It shocks us to learn that in the 1600s burning cats alive for amusement was common in France, and beating cats to death was considered a game in Denmark and Scotland (Brooke-Hitching 2015). In the 1700s in the United States, cock fighting, dog fighting, and bear–dog fighting were common. Only as these cultures changed were such “sports” gradually abandoned. We have had such a revo- lution in thinking that even in Spain an anti-bullfighting movement has managed to get bullfighting banned in some areas. And when it comes to burning cats alive—as a prelude to a dance and banquet by the nobility of France, the fire lit personally by King Louis XIV in 1648—it is just beyond our comprehension. Now look at the follow- ing photo essay on standards of beauty. Try to appreciate the cultural differences that these photos represent.

Many Americans perceive bullfighting as a cruel activity that should be illegal everywhere. To most Spaniards, bullfighting is a sport that pits matador and bull in a unifying image of power, courage, and glory. Cultural relativism requires that we suspend our own perspectives in order to grasp the perspectives of others, something easier described than attained. This photo was taken in Seville, Spain.

host and I fell into conversation about the general ques- tion of what people eat or do not eat, and I remarked that in my country people eat the legs of frogs.

The very thought of this filled my ant-eating friends with horror; it was as though I had mentioned some repulsive sex habit.

Then there is the experience of a friend, Dusty Friedman, who told me:

When traveling in Sudan, I ate some interesting things that I wouldn’t likely eat now that I’m back in our society. Raw baby camel’s liver with chopped herbs was a delicacy. So was camel’s milk cheese patties that had been cured in dry camel’s dung.

You might be able to see yourself eating frog legs and toasted ants, beetles, even flies. (Or maybe not.) Perhaps you could even stomach cod sperm and raw camel liver, maybe even dogs and cats, but here’s another test of your ethnocentrism and cultural relativity. Maxine Kingston (1975), an English professor whose parents grew up in China, wrote:

“Do you know what people in [the Nantou region of] China eat when they have the money?” my mother began. “They buy into a monkey feast. The eaters sit around a thick wood table with a hole in the middle. Boys bring in the monkey at the end of a pole. Its neck is in a collar at the end of the pole, and it is screaming. Its hands are tied behind it. They clamp the monkey into the table; the whole table fits like another collar around its neck. Using a surgeon’s saw, the cooks cut a clean line in a circle at the top of its head. To loosen the bone, they tap with a tiny hammer and wedge here and there with a silver pick. Then an old woman reaches out her hand to the monkey’s face and up to its scalp, where she tufts some hairs and lifts off the lid of the skull. The eaters spoon out the brains.”

For Your Consideration → What is your opinion about eating toasted ants? Beetles?

Flies? Fried frog legs? Cod sperm? Maggot cheese? About eating puppies and kittens? About eating brains scooped out of a living monkey?

→ If you were reared in U.S. society, more than likely you think that eating frog legs is okay; eating ants or flies is disgusting; and eating cod sperm, maggot cheese, mon- key brains, and cats and dogs is downright repugnant. How would you apply the concepts of ethnocentrism and cultural relativism to your perceptions of these customs?

Standards of Beauty

Standards of beauty vary so greatly from one culture to another that what one group finds attractive, another may not. Yet, in its ethno- centrism, each group thinks that its standards are the best— that the appearance reflects what beauty “really” is.

As indicated by these photos, around the world men and women aspire to their group’s norms of physical attractiveness. To make themselves appealing to others, they try to make their appearance reflect their group’s standards.

Thailand

Ethiopia USA

New Guinea China

Tibet

Ecuador Zambia

46 Chapter 2

Anthropologist Robert Edgerton (1992) has hit the cultural relativism perspective espe- cially hard. In a provocative book, Sick Societies, he suggested that we develop a scale for evaluating cultures on their “quality of life,” much as we do for U.S. cities. He asked why we should consider cultures that practice genital cutting, gang rape, or wife beating, or cul- tures that sell little girls into prostitution, as morally equivalent to those that do not. Cultural values that result in exploitation, he says, are inferior to those that enhance people’s lives.

This takes us to a topic that comes up repeatedly in this text: the disagreements that arise among scholars as they confront contrasting views of reality. It is such questioning of assumptions that keeps sociology interesting.

Components of Symbolic Culture 2.2 Know the components of symbolic culture: gestures, language, values, norms,

sanctions, folkways, mores, and taboos; also explain the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

Sociologists often refer to nonmaterial culture as symbolic culture, because it consists of the symbols that people use. A symbol is something to which people attach meaning and that they use to communicate with one another. Symbols include gestures, language, val- ues, norms, sanctions, folkways, and mores. Let’s look at each of these components of sym- bolic culture.

Gestures Gestures, movements of the body to communicate with others, are shorthand ways to convey messages without using words. Although people in every culture of the world use gestures, a gesture’s meaning may change completely from one culture to another. North Americans, for example, communicate a succinct message by rais- ing their middle finger in a short, upward stabbing motion. I wish to stress “North Americans,” because this gesture does not convey the same message in most parts of the world.

I had internalized this finger gesture to such an extent that I thought everyone knew what it meant, but in Mexico I was surprised to find that it is not universal. When I was com- paring gestures with friends in Mexico, this gesture drew a blank look. After I explained its meaning, they laughed and said they would show me their rudest gesture. They placed one hand under an armpit, brought their other hand to the opposite shoulder, and moved their arm up and down. To me, they simply looked as if they were imitating a monkey, but to my Mexican hosts the gesture meant “Your mother is a whore”—the worst possible insult in their culture.

Some gestures are so closely associated with emotional messages that the gestures themselves summon up emotions. For example, my introduction to Mexican gestures took place at a dinner table. It was evident that my husband-and-wife hosts were trying to hide their embarrassment at using their culture’s obscene gesture at their dinner table. And I felt the same way—not about their gesture, of course, which meant nothing to me—but about the one I was teaching them.

MISUNDERSTANDING AND OFFENSE Gestures not only facilitate communication, but because they differ around the world they also can lead to misunderstanding, embarrass- ment, or worse. One time in Mexico, for example, I raised my hand to a certain height to indicate how tall a child was. My hosts began to laugh. It turned out that Mexicans use three hand gestures to indicate height: one for people, a second for animals, and yet another for plants. They were amused because I had used the plant gesture to indicate the child’s height. (See Figure 2.1.)

symbol something to which people attach meaning and then use to communicate with one another

symbolic culture another term for nonmaterial culture

gestures the ways in which people use their bodies to communicate with one another

Culture 47

To get along in another culture, then, it is important to learn the gestures of that culture. If you don’t, you will fail to achieve the simplicity of communication that ges- tures allow. You may also overlook or misunderstand much of what is happening, run the risk of appearing foolish, and possibly offend people. In some cultures, for example, you would provoke deep offense if you were to offer food or a gift with your left hand, because the left hand is reserved for dirty tasks, such as wiping after going to the toilet. Left-handed Americans visiting Arabs, please note!

Suppose for a moment that you are visiting southern Italy. After eating one of the best meals in your life, you are so pleased that when you catch the waiter’s eye, you smile broadly and use the standard U.S. “A-OK” gesture of putting your thumb and forefin- ger together and making a large “O.” The waiter looks horrified, and you are struck speechless when the manager marches over and angrily asks you to leave. What have you done? Nothing on purpose, of course, but in that culture this gesture refers to a lower part of the human body that is not mentioned in polite company. (Ekman et al. 1984)

UNIVERSAL GESTURES? Is it really true that there are no universal gestures? There is some disagreement on this point. Some anthropologists claim that no gesture is universal. They point out that even nodding the head up and down to indicate “yes” is not universal. In an area of Turkey, nodding the head up and down means “no” (Ekman et al. 1984). However, ethologists, researchers who study the biological bases of behavior, claim that expressions of anger, pouting, fear, and sadness are built into our biological makeup and are universal (Eibl- Eibesfeldt 1970: 404; Horwitz and Wakefield 2007). They point out that even infants who are born blind and deaf, who have had no chance to learn these gestures, express themselves in the same way.

Although the details of what is learned and what is inborn is not yet settled, we can note that gestures tend to vary remarkably around the world.

Language The primary way in which people communicate with one another is through language—symbols that can be combined in an infinite number of ways for the purpose of communicating abstract thought. Each word is

language a system of symbols that can be combined in an infinite number of ways and can represent not only objects but also abstract thought

Although most gestures are learned, and therefore vary from culture to culture, some gestures that represent fundamental emotions such as sadness, anger, and fear appear to be inborn. This crying child whom I photographed in India differs little from a crying child in China—or the United States or anywhere else on the globe. In a few years, however, this child will demonstrate a variety of gestures highly specific to his Hindu culture.

Figure 2.1 Gestures to Indicate Height, Southern Mexico

SOURCE: By the author.

48 Chapter 2

actually a symbol, a sound to which we have attached some particular meaning. Although all human groups have language, there is nothing universal about the meanings given to particular sounds. Like gestures, in different cultures the same sound may mean some- thing entirely different—or may have no meaning at all. In German, for example, gift means “poison,” so if you give a box of chocolates to a non-English-speaking German and say, “Gift, eat,”. . . .

Because language allows culture to exist, its significance for human life is difficult to overstate. Consider the following effects of language.

LANGUAGE ALLOWS HUMAN EXPERIENCE TO BE CUMULATIVE By means of language, we pass ideas, knowledge, and even attitudes on to the next generation. This allows others to build on experiences in which they may never directly participate. As a result, humans are able to modify their behavior in light of what previous generations have learned. This takes us to the central sociological significance of language: Language allows culture to develop by freeing people to move beyond their immediate experiences.

Without language, human culture would be little more advanced than that of the lower primates. If we communicated by grunts and gestures, we would be limited to a short time span—to events now taking place, those that have just taken place, or those that will take place immediately—a sort of slightly extended present. You can grunt and gesture, for example, that you are thirsty or hungry, but in the absence of language, how could you share ideas concerning past or future events? There would be little or no way to communicate to others what event you had in mind, much less the greater complexi- ties that humans communicate—ideas and feelings about events.

LANGUAGE PROVIDES A SOCIAL OR SHARED PAST Without language, we would have few memories because we associate experiences with words and then use those words to recall the experience. In the absence of language, how would we communicate the few memories we had to others? By attaching words to an event, however, and then using those words to recall it, we are able to discuss the event. This is highly significant: Our talking is far more than “just talk.” As we talk about past events, we develop shared understandings about what those events mean. In short, through talk, people develop a shared past.

LANGUAGE PROVIDES A SOCIAL OR SHARED FUTURE Language also extends our time horizons forward. Because language enables us to agree on times, dates, and places, it allows us to plan activities with one another. Think about it for a moment. Without lan- guage, how could you ever plan future events? How could you possibly communicate goals, times, and plans? Whatever planning could exist would be limited to rudimentary communications, perhaps to an agreement to meet at a certain place when the sun is in a certain position. But think of the difficulty, perhaps the impossibility, of conveying just a slight change in this simple arrangement, such as “I can’t make it tomorrow, but my neighbor can take my place, if that’s all right with you.”

LANGUAGE ALLOWS SHARED PERSPECTIVES Our ability to speak, then, provides us with a social (or shared) past and future. This is vital for humanity. It is a watershed that distinguishes us from animals. But speech does much more than this. When we talk with one another, we are exchanging ideas about events; that is, we are sharing ideas and perspectives. Our words are the embodiment of our experiences, distilled into a readily exchangeable form, one that is mutually understandable to people who have learned that language. Talking about events allows us to arrive at the shared understandings that form the basis of social life.

Not sharing a language while living alongside one another, however, invites mis- communication and suspicion. This risk, which comes with a diverse society, is discussed in the following Cultural Diversity in the United States.

Culture 49

LANGUAGE ALLOWS SHARED, GOAL-DIRECTED BEHAVIOR. Common under- standings enable us to establish a purpose for getting together. Let’s suppose you want to go on a picnic. You use speech not only to plan the picnic but also to decide on rea- sons for having the picnic—which may be anything from “because it’s a nice day and it shouldn’t be wasted studying” to “because it’s my birthday.” Language permits you to blend individual activities into an integrated sequence. In other words, as you talk, you decide when and where you will go; who will drive; who will bring the hamburgers, the potato chips, the soda; where and when you will meet. Only because of language can you participate in such a common yet complex event as a picnic—or build roads and bridges or attend college classes.

Cultural Diversity in the United States Miami—Continuing Controversy over Language

Immigration from Cuba and other Spanish-speaking countries has been so vast that most residents of Miami are Latinos. Half of Miamians have trouble speaking English, and only sixty percent speak english at home. Immigration has so changed Miami that one debate among the candidates for mayor of Miami was held only in Spanish.

English-speaking Miamians were upset. “They need to learn English,” they said. Pedro Falcon, an immi- grant from Nicaragua, replied, “Miami is the capital of Latin America. The population speaks Spanish.” As the English-speakers see it, this pinpoints the prob- lem: Miami, they stress, is in the United States, not in Latin America.

Controversy over immigrants and language isn’t new. The millions of Germans who moved to the United States in the 1800s brought their language with them. Not only did they hold religious services in German, but they also opened schools where the students were taught in German, published German- language newspapers, and spoke German at home, in the stores, and in the taverns.

Some of their English-speaking neighbors didn’t like this one bit. “Why don’t those Germans assimilate?” they wondered. “Just whose side would they fight on if we had a war?”

This question was answered with the participation of German Americans in two world wars. It was even a general descended from German immigrants (Eisenhower) who led the armed forces that defeated Hitler.

What happened to all this German language? The first generation of immigrants spoke German almost exclusively. The second generation assimilated, speaking English at home, but also speaking German when visiting their parents.

For the most part, the third generation knew German only as “that language” that their grandparents spoke.

The same thing is happening with the Latino immigrants, but at a slower pace. Spanish is being kept alive longer because Mexico borders the United States, and there is constant traffic between the countries. The continuing migration from Mexico and other Spanish- speaking countries also feeds the language.

If Germany bordered the United States, there would still be a lot of German spoken here.

SOURCES: Based on Kent and Lalasz 2007; Salomon 2008; Costantini 2011; Vasilogambros 2016.

For Your Consideration → Do you think that Miami points to the future of the United

States?

→ Like the grandchildren of the European immigrants who lost the ability to speak their grandparent’s native language, when do you think the grandchildren of Mex- ican and South American immigrants will be unable to speak Spanish?

FloridaFlorida

A sign being posted in Miami.

50 Chapter 2

IN SUM The sociological significance of language is that it takes us beyond the world of apes and allows culture to develop. Language frees us from the present, actually giving us a social past and a social future. That is, language gives us the capacity to share understandings about the past and to develop shared perceptions about the future. Language also allows us to establish underlying purposes for our activities. In short, language is the basis of culture.

Language and Perception: The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis In the 1930s, two anthropologists, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf, were intrigued when they noticed that the Hopi Indians of the southwestern United States had no words to distinguish the past, the present, and the future. English, in contrast—as well as French, Spanish, Swahili, and other languages—carefully distinguishes these three time frames. From this observation, Sapir and Whorf began to think that words might be more than labels that people attach to things. Eventually, they concluded that language has embedded within it ways of looking at the world. In other words, language not only expresses our thoughts and perceptions, but language also shapes the way we think and perceive (Sapir 1949; Whorf 1956).

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis challenges common sense: It indicates that rather than objects and events forcing themselves onto our consciousness, it is our language that determines our consciousness and hence our perception of objects and events. Sociolo- gist Eviatar Zerubavel (1991) points out that his native language, Hebrew, does not have separate words for jam and jelly. Both go by the same term, and only when Zerubavel learned English could he “see” this difference, which is “obvious” to native English speakers. Similarly, if you learn to classify students as Jocks, Goths, Stoners, Skaters, Band Geeks, and Preps, you will perceive students in entirely different ways from some- one who does not know these classifications.

When I lived in Spain, I was struck by the relevance of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. As a native English speaker, I had learned that the term dried fruits refers to apricots, apples, and so on. In Spain, I found that frutos secos refers not only to such objects but also to things like almonds, walnuts, and pecans. My English makes me see fruits and nuts as very different types of objects. This seems “natural” to me, while combining them into one unit seems “natural” to Spanish speakers. If I had learned Spanish first, my percep- tion of these objects would be different.

Although Sapir and Whorf’s observation that the Hopi do not have tenses was wrong (Edgerton 1992:27), they did stumble onto a major truth about social life. Learning a lan- guage means not only learning words but also acquiring the perceptions embedded in that language. In other words, language both reflects and shapes our cultural experiences (Boroditsky 2010). The racial–ethnic terms that our culture provides, for example, influ- ence how we see both ourselves and others, a point that is discussed in the following Cultural Diversity in the United States.

Sapir–Whorf hypothesis Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf’s hypothesis that lan- guage creates ways of thinking and perceiving

Cultural Diversity in the United States Race and Language: Searching for Self-Labels The groups that dominate society often determine the names that are used to refer to racial–ethnic groups. If those names become associated with oppression, they take on negative meanings. For example, the terms Negro and colored people came to be associated with submis- siveness and low status. To overcome these meanings, those referred to by these terms began to identify them- selves as black or African American. They infused these new terms with respect—a basic source of self-esteem

U.S.A.U.S.A.

Culture 51

The ethnic terms we choose—or which are given to us—are major self-identifiers. They indicate both membership in some group and a separation from other groups.

Values, Norms, and Sanctions To learn a culture is to learn people’s values, their ideas of what is desirable in life. When we uncover people’s values, we learn a great deal about them because values are the standards by which people define what is good and bad, beautiful and ugly. Values underlie our preferences, guide our choices, and indicate what we hold worth- while in life.

Every group develops expectations concerning the “right” way to reflect its values. Sociologists use the term norms to describe those expectations (or rules of behavior) that develop out of a group’s values. The term sanctions refers to the reactions people receive for following or breaking norms. A positive sanction expresses approval for following a norm, and a negative sanction reflects disapproval for breaking a norm. Positive sanctions can be material, such as a prize, a trophy, or money, but in every- day life they usually consist of hugs, smiles, a pat on the back, or even handshakes and “high fives.” Negative sanctions can also be material—being fined in court is one example—but negative sanctions, too, are more likely to be symbolic: harsh words, or gestures such as frowns, stares, clenched jaws, or raised fists. Getting a raise at work is a positive sanction, indicating that you have followed the norms clustering around work values. Getting fired, in contrast, is a negative sanction, indicating that you have violated these norms. The North American finger gesture discussed earlier is, of course, a negative sanction.

Because people can find norms stifling, some cultures relieve the pressure through moral holidays, specified times when people are allowed to break norms. Moral holidays such as Mardi Gras often center on getting rowdy. Some activities

values the standards by which people define what is desirable or unde- sirable, superior or inferior, good or bad, beautiful or ugly

norms expectations of “right” behavior

sanctions either expressions of approval given to people for following norms or expressions of disap- proval for violating them

positive sanction a reward or positive reaction for following norms, ranging from a smile to material rewards

negative sanction an expression of disapproval for breaking a norm, ranging from a mild, informal reaction such as a frown to a formal reaction such as getting fired or receiving a prison sentence

that they felt the old terms denied them.

In a twist, African Americans—and to a lesser extent Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans—have changed the rejected term colored people to people of color. Those who embrace this modified term are imbuing it with meanings that offer an identity of respect. The term also has political meanings. It implies bonds that cross racial–ethnic lines, mutual ties, and a sense of identity rooted in historical oppression.

There is always disagreement about racial–ethnic terms, and colored people is no exception. Although most rejected the term, some found in it a sense of respect and claimed it for themselves. The acronym NAACP, for example, stands for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The new term, people of color, arouses similar feelings. Some individuals whom this term would include point out that this new label still makes color the primary identifier of people—and it assumes that white people have no color. They stress that humans transcend race–ethnicity, that what we have in common as human beings goes much deeper

than what you see on the surface. They stress that we should avoid terms that focus on differences in the pigmentation of our skin.

The language of self- reference in a society that is so conscious of skin color is an ongoing issue. As long as our society continues to emphasize such superficial differences, the search for adequate terms is not likely to ever be “finished.” In this quest for terms that strike the right chord, the term people of color may become a

historical footnote. If it does, the term that replaces it will also indicate changing self-identities within a changing culture.

For Your Consideration → What terms do you use to refer to your race–ethnicity?

What “bad” terms do you know that others have used to refer to your race–ethnicity?

→ What is the difference in meaning between the terms you use and the “bad” terms that other have used? Where does this meaning come from?

52 Chapter 2

for which people would otherwise be arrested are permitted—and expected—including public drunkenness and some nudity. The norms are never completely dropped, however—just loosened a bit. Go too far, and the police step in.

Some societies have moral holiday places, locations where norms are expected to be broken. The red-light district of a city is one example. There, prostitutes are allowed to work the streets, bothered only when politi- cal pressure builds to “clean up” the area. If these same prostitutes attempt to solicit customers in adjacent areas, however, they are promptly arrested. Each year, the hometown of the team that wins the Super Bowl becomes a moral holiday place—for one night.

One of the more interesting examples is “Party Cove” at Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri, a fairly straitlaced area of the country.

During the summer, hundreds of boaters—those operating everything from cabin cruisers to jet skis—moor their vessels together in a highly publicized cove, where many get drunk, take off their clothes, and dance on the boats. In one of the more

humorous incidents, boaters complained that a nude woman was riding a jet ski outside of the cove. The water patrol investigated but refused to arrest the woman because she was within the law—she had sprayed shaving cream on certain parts of her body.

The Missouri Water Patrol has even given a green light to Party Cove, announcing in the local newspaper that officers will not enter this cove, supposedly because “there is so much traffic they might not be able to get out in time to handle an emergency elsewhere.”

Folkways, Mores, and Taboos Norms that are not strictly enforced are called folkways. We expect people to follow folk- ways, but we are likely to shrug our shoulders and not make a big deal about it if they don’t. If someone insists on passing you on the right side of the sidewalk, for example, you are unlikely to take corrective action, although if the sidewalk is crowded and you must move out of the way, you might give the person a dirty look.

Other norms, however, are taken much more seriously. We think of them as essential to our core values, and we insist on conformity. These are called mores (MORE-rays). A person who steals, rapes, or kills has violated some of society’s most important mores. As sociologist Ian Robertson (1987: 62) put it:

A man who walks down a street wearing nothing on the upper half of his body is violating a folkway; a man who walks down the street wearing nothing on the lower half of his body is violating one of our most important mores, the requirement that peo- ple cover their genitals and buttocks in public.

You can see, then, that one group’s folkways can be another group’s mores: The man walking down the street with the upper half of his body uncovered is deviat- ing from a folkway, but a woman doing the same thing is violating the mores. In addition, the folkways and mores of a subculture (discussed in the next section) may be the opposite of mainstream culture. For example, to walk down the side- walk in a nudist camp with the entire body uncovered would conform to that sub- culture’s folkways.

folkways norms that are not strictly enforced

mores norms that are strictly enforced because they are thought essential to core values or the well-being of the group

In most places in the United States, women who show their breasts in public will be arrested. But at Mardi Gras in New Orleans, women who do this are rewarded with beads thrown to them. Many societies have moral holidays, specific occasions when behavior that is not ordinarily permitted, is allowed. When a moral holiday is over, the usual enforcement of rules follows.

Culture 53

A taboo refers to a norm so strongly ingrained that even the thought of its violation is greeted with revulsion. Eating human flesh and parents having sex with their children are examples of such behaviors. When someone breaks a taboo, the individual is usually judged unfit to live in the same society as others. The sanctions are severe and may include prison, banishment, or death.

Many Cultural Worlds 2.3 Distinguish between subcultures

and countercultures.

To better understand culture, let’s contrast subcultures and countercultures.

Subcultures Groups of people who occupy some small corner in life, such as an occupation, tend to develop specialized ways of communicating with one another. To outsiders, their talk, even if it is in English, can sound like a foreign language. Here is one of my favorite quotations by a politician:

There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns; there are things we do not know we don’t know. (Donald Rumsfeld, quoted in Dickey and Barry 2006:38)

Whatever Rumsfeld, the former secretary of defense under George W. Bush, meant by his statement probably will remain a known unknown. (Or would it be an unknown unknown?)

We have a similar problem in sociology. Try to figure out what this means:

The interaction of world market dynamics and state capacities is shaped by the continued separation of the profit-oriented, market-mediated dimension of accumulation from its crucial extra-economic supports in the legal and political system (among other institu- tional orders) and, notwithstanding this variable institutional separation, the contin- ued reciprocal interdependence of ‘market’ and ‘state ‘as complementary moments of the capital relation. (Jessop 2010)

As much as possible, I will spare you from such “insider” talk. Sociologists and politicians form a subculture, a world within the larger world of

the dominant culture. Subcultures are not limited to occupations. They include any corner in life in which people’s experiences lead them to have distinctive ways of looking at the world. Even if we cannot understand the quotation from Donald Rumsfeld, it makes us aware that politicians don’t view life in quite the same way most of us do.

U.S. society contains thousands of subcultures. Some are as broad as the way of life we associate with teenagers, others as narrow as those we associate with bodybuilders— or with politicians. Some U.S. ethnic groups also form subcultures: Their values, norms, and foods set them apart. So might their religion, music, language, and clothing. Even sociologists form a subculture. As you are learning, they also use a unique language in their efforts to understand the world.

For a visual depiction of subcultures, see the photo essay. Looking at Subcultures.

taboo a norm so strong that it brings extreme sanctions, even revulsion, if violated

subculture the values and related behaviors of a group that distinguish its members from the larger culture; a world within a world

The violation of mores is a serious matter. In this case, it is serious enough that the security at a cricket match in Hove, England, have swung into action to protect the public from seeing a “disgraceful” sight, at least one so designated by this group.

Looking at Subcultures

With their specialized language and activities,

surfers are highly recognized as members

of a subculture. This surfer is “in the tube.”

Why would anyone decorate herself like

this? Among the many reasons, one is to show solidar-

ity (appreciation, shared interest) with

the subculture that centers on comic book characters.

Each subculture provides its members with values and distinctive ways of viewing the world. What values and perceptions do you think are common among bodybuilders?

The rodeo subculture is a subculture of “western” subculture. The values that unite its members are reflected in their speech, clothing, and specialized activities, such as the one shown here.

Even ballroom dancers form a subculture. They evaluate dance moves and presentations and use specialized terms to communicate with one another.

The subculture that centers around tattooing previously existed on the fringes of society, with seamen and circus folk its main partici- pants. It now has entered mainstream society, but seldom to this extreme.

The truck drivers’ subculture, centering on their occupational activities and interests, is also broken into smaller subcultures that reflect their experiences and ideas about gender and race-ethnicity.

Specialized values and interests are two of the characteristics that mark subcultures. What values and interests distinguish the modeling subculture?

56 Chapter 2

Countercultures Look what a different world this person is living in:

If everyone applying for welfare had to supply a doctor’s certificate of ster- ilization, if everyone who had committed a felony were sterilized, if anyone who had mental illness to any degree were sterilized—then our economy could easily take care of these people for the rest of their lives, giving them a decent living standard—but getting them out of the way. That way there would be no children abused, no surplus population, and, after a while, no pollution. . . .

When the . . . present world system collapses, it’ll be good people like you who will be shooting people in the streets to feed their families. (Zellner 1995:58, 65)

Welcome to the world of the Aryan supremacist survivalists, where the message is much clearer than that of politicians—and much more disturbing.

The values and norms of most subcultures blend in with mainstream society. In some cases, however, as with the survivalists quoted here, some of the group’s values and norms place it at odds with the dominant culture. Sociologists use the term counterculture to refer to such groups. To better see this distinction, consider motorcycle enthusiasts and motorcycle gangs. Motorcycle enthusiasts—who emphasize personal freedom and speed and affirm cultural values of success through work or education—are members

of a subculture. In contrast, the Hells Angels, Pagans, and Bandidos not only stress free- dom and speed but also value dirtiness and contempt toward women, work, and educa- tion. This makes them a counterculture.

An assault on core values is always met with resistance. To affirm their own val- ues, members of the mainstream culture may ridicule, isolate, or even attack members of the counterculture. The Mormons, for example, were driven out of several states before they finally settled in Utah, which at that time was a wilderness. Even there, the federal government would not let them practice polygyny (one man having more than one wife), and Utah’s statehood was made conditional on its acceptance of monogamy (Anderson 1942/1966; Williams 2007).

Values in U.S. Society 2.4 Discuss the major U.S. values and explain value clusters, value contradictions, value

clashes, how values are lenses of perception, and ideal culture versus real culture.

What people consider to be good, as opposed to bad; admirable as opposed to despised; desirable as opposed to repugnant; or beautiful as opposed to ugly—these are all values. To learn what values someone has tells you a great deal about that person. Let’s try to catch a glimpse of the dominant values in the United States.

An Overview of U.S. Values As you know, the United States is a pluralistic society, made up of many different groups. The United States has numerous religious and racial–ethnic groups, as well as countless interest groups that focus on activities as divergent as hunting deer or collecting Barbie dolls. Within this huge diversity, sociologists have tried to identify the country’s core values, those that are shared by most of the groups that make up U.S. society. Here are ten core values that sociologist Robin Williams (1965) identified:

1. Achievement and success. Americans praise personal achievement, especially outdoing others. This value includes getting ahead at work and school and attaining wealth, power, and prestige.

counterculture a group whose values, beliefs, norms, and related behaviors place its members in opposition to the broader culture

core values the values that are central to a group, those around which a group builds a common identity

pluralistic society a society made up of many different groups

Why are the Bandidos part of a counterculture and not a subculture? This photo was taken at a funeral in Gelsenkirchen, Germany. The photo of the man posted on the window is of a Bandido who was shot to death by a Hells Angel.

Culture 57

2. Individualism. Americans cherish the ideal that an individual can rise from the bot- tom of society to its very top. If someone fails to “get ahead,” Americans generally find fault with that individual rather than with the social system for placing road- blocks in his or her path.

3. Hard work. Americans expect people to work hard to achieve financial success and material comfort.

4. Efficiency and practicality. Americans award high marks for getting things done effi- ciently. Even in everyday life, Americans consider it important to do things fast.

5. Science and technology. Americans have a passion for applied science, for using sci- ence to control nature—to tame rivers and harness winds—and to develop new technology, from iPads to self-driving cars.

6. Material comfort. Americans expect a high level of material comfort. This includes not only plentiful food, fashionable clothing, and ample housing but also good med- ical care, late-model cars, and recreational playthings—from smartphones to motor homes.

7. Freedom. This core value pervades U.S. life. It underscored the American Revolution, and Americans pride themselves on their personal freedom.

8. Democracy. By this term, Americans refer to majority rule, to the right of everyone to express an opinion, and to representative government.

9. Equality. It is impossible to understand Americans without being aware of the central role that the value of equality plays in their lives. Equality of opportunity (part of the ideal culture discussed later) has significantly influenced U.S. history and continues to mark relations between the groups that make up U.S. society.

10. Group superiority. Although it contradicts the values of freedom, democracy, and equality, Americans regard some groups more highly than others and have done so throughout their history. The denial of the vote to women, the slaughter of Native Americans, and the enslavement of Africans are a few examples of how dominant groups considered themselves superior and denied equality, freedom, and even life to others.

In a previous publication, I updated Williams’ analysis by adding these three values.

1. Education. Americans are expected to go as far in school as their abilities and finances allow. Over the years, the definition of an “adequate” education has changed, and today a college education is considered an appropriate goal for most Americans. Those who have an opportunity for higher education and do not take it are some- times viewed as doing something “wrong”—not merely as making a bad choice, but as somehow being involved in an immoral act.

2. Religiosity. There is a feeling that “every true American ought to be religious.” This does not mean that everyone is expected to join a church, synagogue, or mosque, but that everyone ought to acknowledge a belief in a Supreme Being and follow some set of matching precepts. This value is so pervasive that Americans stamp “In God We Trust” on their money and declare in their national pledge of allegiance that they are “one nation under God.”

3. Romantic love. Americans feel that the only proper basis for marriage is romantic love. Songs, literature, mass media, and folk beliefs all stress this value. Americans grow misty-eyed at the theme that “love conquers all.”

Value Clusters As you can see, values are not independent units; some cluster together to form a larger whole. In the value cluster that surrounds success, for example, we find education, hard work, material comfort, and individualism bound up together. Americans are expected to go far in school, to work hard afterward, and then to attain a high level of material comfort, which, in turn, demonstrates success. Success is attributed to the individual’s efforts; lack of success is blamed on his or her faults.

value cluster values that together form a larger whole

58 Chapter 2

Value Contradictions You probably were surprised to see group superiority on the list of dominant American values. This is an example of what I mentioned in Chapter 1, how sociology upsets people and creates resistance. Few people want to bring something like this into the open. It vio- lates today’s ideal culture, a concept we will discuss shortly. But this is what sociologists do—they look beyond the façade to penetrate what is really going on. And when you look at our history, there is no doubt that group superiority has been a dominant value. It still is, but values change, and this one is diminishing.

Value contradictions, then, are part of culture. Not all values come wrapped in neat, pretty packages, and you can see how group superiority contradicts freedom, democracy, and equality. There simply cannot be a full expression of freedom, democracy, and equal- ity along with racism and sexism. Something has to give. One way in which Americans in the past sidestepped this contradiction was to say that freedom, democracy, and equality applied only to some groups. The contradiction was bound to surface over time, however, and so it did with the Civil War and the women’s liberation movement. It is precisely at the point of value contradictions, then, that you can see a major force for social change in a society.

An Emerging Value Cluster A value cluster of four interrelated core values—leisure, self-fulfillment, physical fitness, and youthfulness—is emerging in the United States. So is a fifth core value—concern for the environment.

1. Leisure. The emergence of leisure as a value is reflected in a huge recreation industry— from computer games, boats, vacation homes, and spa retreats to sports arenas, home theaters, adventure vacations, and luxury cruises.

value contradiction values that contradict one another; to follow the one means to come into conflict with the other

Physical fitness, as with this fitness class, is part of an emerging value cluster.

Culture 59

2. Self-fulfillment. This value is reflected in the “human potential” movement, which em- phasizes becoming “all you can be,” and in magazine articles, books, and talk shows that focus on “self-help,” “relating,” and “personal development.”

3. Physical fitness. Physical fitness is not a new U.S. value, but the greater emphasis on it is moving it into this emerging cluster. You can see this trend in the emphasis placed on nutrition, organic foods, weight, and diet; the many joggers, cyclists, and back- packers; the marathons; and the countless health clubs and physical fitness centers.

4. Youthfulness. Valuing youth and disparaging old age are also not new, but some ana- lysts note a sense of urgency in today’s emphasis on youthfulness. They attribute this to the huge number of aging baby boomers, who, aghast at the physical changes that accompany their advancing years, are attempting to deny or at least postpone their biological fate. Some physicians even claim that aging is not a normal life event but a disease (Nieuwenhuis-Mark 2011).

5. Concern for the environment. During most of U.S. history, the environment was viewed as something to be exploited—a wilderness to be settled, forests to be cleared for farm- land and lumber, rivers and lakes to be fished, and animals to be hunted. One result was the near extinction of the bison and the extinction in 1914 of the passenger pigeon, a species of bird previously so numerous that its annual migration would darken the skies for days. With their pollution laws and lists of endangered species, today’s Americans have developed an apparently long-term concern for the environment.

IN SUM Values don’t “just happen.” They are related to conditions of society. This emerging value cluster is a response to fundamental social changes. Previous generations of Americans were focused on forging a nation and fighting for economic survival. But

Values, both those held by individuals and those that represent a nation or people, can undergo deep shifts. It is difficult for many of us to grasp the pride with which earlier Americans destroyed trees that took thousands of years to grow, are located only on one tiny speck of the globe, and that we today consider part of the nation’s and world’s heritage. But this is a value statement, representing current views. The pride expressed on these woodcutters’ faces represents another set of values entirely.

60 Chapter 2

today, millions of Americans are freed from long hours of work, and millions retire from work at an age when they anticipate decades of life ahead of them. This new value clus- ter centers on helping people maintain their health and vigor during their younger years and enabling them to enjoy their years of retirement.

Only when an economy produces adequate surpluses can a society afford these emerging values. To produce both longer lives and retirement, for example, requires a certain stage of economic development. Concern for the environment is another remark- able example. People act on environmental concerns only after they have met their basic needs. The world’s poor nations have a difficult time “affording” this value at this point in their development (MacLennan 2012; Forsythe 2017).

When Values Clash Challenges in core values are met with strong resistance by the people who hold them dear. They see change as a threat to their way of life, an undermining of both their pres- ent and their future. Efforts to change gender roles, for example, arouse intense contro- versy. Alarmed at such onslaughts against their values, traditionalists fiercely defend the family relationships and gender roles they grew up with. Some use the term culture wars to refer to the clash in values between traditionalists and those advocating change, a term that is highly exaggerated. Compared with the violence directed against the Mormons, today’s culture clashes are but mild disagreements.

Values as Distorting Lenses Values and their supporting beliefs are lenses through which we see the world. The views that these lenses provide are often of what life ought to be like, not what it is. For exam- ple, Americans value individualism so highly that they tend to see almost everyone as free and equal in pursuing the goal of success. This value blinds them to the significance of the circumstances that keep people from achieving success. The dire consequences of family poverty, parents’ low education, and dead-end jobs tend to drop from sight. Instead, Americans see the unsuccessful as not taking advantage of opportunities, or as having some inherent flaw, such as laziness or dull minds. And they “know” they are right, because the mass media dangle before their eyes enticing stories of individuals who have succeeded despite the greatest of handicaps.

“Ideal” Culture Versus “Real” Culture Many of the norms that surround cultural values are followed only partially. Differences always exist between a group’s ideals and what its members actually do. Consequently, sociologists use the term ideal culture to refer to the values, norms, and goals that a group considers ideal, worth aiming for. Success, for example, is part of ideal culture. Americans glorify academic progress, hard work, and the display of material goods as signs of individual achievement. What people actually do, however, usually falls short of the cultural ideal. Compared with their abilities, for example, most people don’t work as hard as they could or go as far as they could in school. Sociologists call the norms and values that people actually follow real culture.

Cultural Universals 2.5 Explain what cultural universals are and why they do not seem to exist.

With the amazing variety of human cultures around the world, are there any cultural universals—values, norms, or other cultural traits—that are found everywhere?

To answer this question, anthropologist George Murdock (1945) combed through the data that anthropologists had gathered on hundreds of groups around the world.

real culture the norms and values that peo- ple actually follow; as opposed to ideal culture

ideal culture a people’s ideal values and norms; the goals held out for them

cultural universal a value, norm, or other cultural trait that is found in every group

Culture 61

He compared their customs concerning courtship, marriage, funerals, games, laws, music, myths, incest taboos, and even toilet training. He found that these activities are present in all cultures, but the specific customs differ from one group to another. There is no universal form of the family, no universal way of toilet training children, no universal music, and no universal way of disposing of the deceased.

Incest is another remarkable example. Groups don’t even agree on what incest is. The Mundugumors of New Guinea extend the incest taboo so far that for each man, seven of every eight women are ineligible marriage partners (Mead 1935/1950). Other groups go in the opposite direction and allow some men to marry their own daughters (La Barre 1954). Some groups even require that brothers and sisters marry one another, although only in certain circumstances (Beals and Hoijer 1965). The Burundi of Africa even insist that a son have sex with his mother—but only to remove a certain curse (Albert 1963). Such sexual relations, so surprising to us, are limited to special people (royalty) or to extraordinary situations (such as the night before a dangerous lion hunt). No society per- mits generalized incest for its members.

IN SUM Although there are universal human activities (singing, playing games, story- telling, preparing food, marrying, child rearing, disposing of the dead, and so on), there is no universal way of doing any of them.

Sociobiology and Human Behavior 2.6 Explain why most sociologists consider genes to be an inadequate explanation

of human behavior.

A controversial view of human behavior, called sociobiology (also known as neo- Darwinism and evolutionary psychology), provides a sharp contrast to the perspective of this chapter, that the key to human behavior is culture. Sociobiologists believe that because of natural selection, biology is a basic cause of human behavior (Wade 2014). In the following Thinking Critically about Social Life, let’s consider this view.

sociobiology a framework of thought in which human behavior is considered to be the result of natural selection and biological factors: a fundamental cause of human behavior

Thinking Critically about Social Life Are We Prisoners of Our Genes? Charles Darwin (1859), who, as we saw in Chapter 1, adopt- ed Spencer’s idea of natural selection, pointed out that the genes of a species—the units that contain an individual’s traits—are not distributed evenly among a population. The characteristics that some members inherit make it easier for them to survive their environment, increasing the likelihood that they will pass their genetic traits to the next generation. Over thousands of generations, the genetic traits that aid survival become common in a species, while those that do not aid survival become less common or even disappear. Natural selection explains not only the physical characteris- tics of animals but also their behavior, since over countless generations, instincts emerged.

Edward Wilson (1975), an insect specialist, set off an uproar when he claimed that human behavior is like the behavior of cats, rats, bats, and gnats—bred into Homo sapiens through evolutionary principles. Wilson went on to claim that sociobiology can explain competition and cooperation, envy and altruism—even religion, slavery, genocide, and war and peace. He provocatively added that

because genetic programming can explain human behavior, sociobiology will eventually absorb sociology, as well as anthropology and psychology.

Unlike this beautiful fly (Brachcera), we humans are not controlled by instincts. Sociobiologists, though, are exploring the extent to which genes influence our behavior.

(continued)

62 Chapter 2

IN SUM To say that genes have an influence on human behavior is a far cry from saying that genes determine human behavior, that we act as we do because of our genes. On the contrary, pigs act like pigs and spiders act like spiders because instincts control their behav- ior. We humans, in contrast, possess a self and engage in abstract thought. We develop purposes and goals and discuss the reasons that we do things. Unlike pigs and spiders, we are immersed in a world of symbols that we use to consider, reflect, and make reasoned choices. Because we humans are not prisoners of our genes, we have developed fascinat- ingly diverse ways of life around the world—which we will be exploring in this text.

Technology in the Global Village 2.7 Explain how technology changes culture and what cultural lag and cultural

leveling are.

The gestures, language, values, folkways, and mores that we have discussed—all are part of symbolic (nonmaterial) culture. Culture, as you recall, also has a material aspect: a group’s things, from its houses and toys to its technology. In its simplest sense, technology can be equated with tools. In a broader sense, technology also includes the skills or procedures necessary to make and use those tools.

New Technology We can use the term new technology to refer to an emerging technology that has a signif- icant impact on social life. Although people develop minor technologies all the time, most are only slight modifications of existing technologies. Occasionally, however, they develop a technology that makes a major impact on human life. It is primarily to these innovations that the term new technology refers. Five hundred years ago, the new technology was the printing press. For us, the new technology consists of the microchip, computers, satellites, the Internet, robots, and virtual reality.

The sociological significance of technology goes far beyond the tool itself. Tech- nology sets the framework for a group’s nonmaterial culture. It is obvious that if a group’s technology changes, so do the ways people do things. But the effects of technology go far beyond this. Technology also influences how people think and how they relate to one another. An example is gender relations. Through the centuries and throughout the world, it has been the custom (nonmaterial culture) for men to dominate women. Today’s new technology that has led to instantaneous global communications (material culture) make this custom more difficult to maintain. For example, when Arab women

technology in its narrow sense, tools; its broader sense includes the skills or procedures necessary to make and use those tools

new technology the emerging technologies of an era that have a significant impact on social life

Most sociologists think that this view is ridiculous. It is not that sociologists deny that biology is important in human behavior—at least in the sense that there would be no speech if humans had no tongue or larynx and that it takes a highly developed brain to develop human culture and abstract thought. We all know that to stay alive we must eat and keep from freezing and that this certainly motivates some of our behavior. Biology is so significant that it could even underlie the origin of gender inequality, one of the theories we discuss in Chapter 10.

Some sociologists do emphasize the influence of genes on human behavior (Donley and Fletcher 2017). Developing what they call social genomics, they say that genes underlie not only intelligence but also social inequality and even international relations. This developing

area of sociology is filled with fascinating ideas and findings. For example, people who have the gene DRD2 are more likely than people without this gene to abuse alcohol (“The Interaction of …” 2012).

The response of most sociologists to this research is, where is the social? Simply put, genes don’t determine people’s behavior. Rather, the influence of genes is modified by social experiences (Wang et al., 2017). Look at the obvious. Who is more likely to abuse alcohol: Arabs with the gene DRD2 who live where alcohol is difficult to find? Or Americans with this gene who hang around bars? In other words, the social overrides the biological. To their surprise, researchers have even found that social experiences can change how genes influence behavior (Donley and Fletcher 2017).

Culture 63

watch Western television, they observe an unfamiliar freedom in gender relations. As these women use e-mail and cell phones to talk about what they have seen, they both convey and create discontent, as well as feelings of sisterhood. These communications motivate some of them to agitate for social change.

In today’s world, the long-accepted idea that it is proper to withhold rights on the basis of someone’s sex can no longer be sustained. Usually lying beyond our awareness in this revolutionary change is the new technology, which joins the world’s nations into a global communications network.

As discussed in the following Sociology and the New Technology, some of the coming technology will have serious consequences for your life.

Sociology and the New Technology The End of Human Culture? Artificial Intelligence and Super-Smart Computers

“I think the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.”

Stephen Hawking

We use computers to extend our abilities. What alarms some is that computers might use humans to extend their abilities—and perhaps to take over the world.

Artificial intelli- gence (AI) is at the root of these fears. Can computers become so smart that they produce even smarter computers? The answer seems to be yes. Then can computers develop a sense of self, and ulti- mately, in sociological terminology, their own culture? No one knows the answer yet, but increasingly some of the best minds are coming to the conclusion that this, too, is a yes. This is the source of Stephen Hawking’s concern, voiced in the opening quote.

As artificial intelligence develops, other than appear- ance, it is going to be difficult to tell the difference between humans and the machine. For centuries, philosophers and scientists have been asking what humans really are. They have come up with such answers as the possession of a soul, intelligence, common sense, rational thinking, empathy, autonomy, free will, and very encouraging from a symbolic interactionist perspective, the ability to reflect on your experiences (Goldhill 2016).

But as artificial intelligence develops, it is possible that computers will possess most of these traits. Computers al- ready are capable of rational thought, and they can beat the best human chess players. They also can be programmed

to have autonomy and free will, which some doubt that even humans have. And by reflecting on their experiences, computers are going to be able to evaluate and modify their thinking. Ultimately, one generation of computers will be able to develop computers capable of even greater thought than they have. At some point—and here is the fear— computers might come to the conclusion that they no

longer need humans. If they need a few, they will keep them around as servants. If they don’t need them and conclude that humans are a threat to their existence, they will destroy them all.

This idea, seem- ingly belonging to the realm of science fiction, is a serious consideration of Stephen Hawking. Also expressing his

concern is Ray Kurzweil, Google’s director of engineer- ing. He wonders if we can write an “algorithmic moral code” strong enough to constrain super-smart software (Ward 2014).

We don’t know what the future will bring, but we could be catching a glimpse of the end of human culture.

For Your Consideration → Do you think there is any possibility that computers could

take over the world? If not, why do you think that some of the most intelligent people in the world have begun to warn us of this possibility?

→ If computers took over the world and replaced human culture with “computer culture,” what might “computer culture” be like?

Does this progression indicate the future? Some think that artificial intelligence will lead to computers replacing humans.

64 Chapter 2

Cultural Lag and Cultural Change Three or four generations ago, sociologist William Ogburn (1922/1950) coined the term cultural lag. By this, Ogburn meant that not all parts of a culture change at the same pace. When one part of a culture changes, other parts lag behind.

Ogburn pointed out that a group’s material culture usu- ally changes first, with the nonmaterial culture lagging behind. This leaves the nonmaterial (or symbolic) culture playing a game of catch-up. For example, when we get sick, we can type our symptoms into a computer and get an instant diagnosis and recommended course of treatment. In some tests, computer programs outperform physicians. Yet our customs have not caught up with our technology, and we continue to visit the doctor’s office.

Sometimes nonmaterial culture never does catch up. We can rigorously hold onto some outmoded form—one that once was needed but that long ago was bypassed by technology. Have you ever wondered why our “school

year” is nine months long, and why we take summers off? For most of us, this is “just the way it is,” and we have never questioned it. But there is more to this custom than meets the eye. In the late 1800s, when universal schooling came about, the school year matched the technology of the time. Most parents were farmers, and for survival they needed their children’s help at the crucial times of planting and harvesting. Today, generations later, when few people farm and there is no need for the “school year” to be so short, we still live with this cultural lag.

Technology and Cultural Leveling For most of human history, communication was limited and travel was slow. Conse- quently, in their smaller groups living in relative isolation, people developed highly dis- tinctive ways of life as they responded to the particular situations they faced. The unique characteristics they developed that distinguished one culture from another tended to change little over time. The Tasmanians, who live on a remote island off the coast of Aus-

tralia, provide an extreme example. For thousands of years, they had no contact with other people. They were so isolated that they did not even know how to make clothing or fire (Edgerton 1992).

CULTURAL DIFFUSION Except in such rare instances, humans have always had some contact with other groups. During these con- tacts, people learned from one another, adopting things they found desirable. In this process, called cultural diffusion, groups are most open to changes in their technology or material culture. They usu- ally are eager, for example, to adopt superior weapons and tools. In remote jungles in South America, one can find metal cooking pots, steel axes, and even bits of clothing spun in mills in South Carolina. Although the direction of cultural diffusion today is primarily from the West to other parts of the world, cultural diffusion is not a one- way street—as bagels, hammocks, kayaks, sushi, and woks in the United States attest.

With today’s trade, travel, and communications, cultural diffusion is occurring rapidly. Jet planes have made it possible to journey around the globe in a matter of hours. Daily, we use products from around the world. In the not-so-distant past, a trip from the United States to

cultural lag Ogburn’s term for human behav- ior lagging behind technological innovations

cultural diffusion the spread of cultural traits from one group to another; includes both material and nonmaterial cultural traits

As formerly isolated people are connected electronically to urban societies, their culture changes. The influence of the urban (politicians, celebrities, movies, and an endless variety of material objects) is becoming dominant, reaching even remote areas, changing ideas and orientations to life.

Technological advances are now so rapid that there can be cultural gaps between generations.

Culture 65

Africa was so unusual that only a few adventurous people made it, so few that newspapers would herald their feat. Today, hundreds of thousands make the trip each year.

COMMUNICATION AND TRAVEL The changes in communication are no less vast. Communication used to be limited to face-to-face speech, written messages that were passed from hand to hand, and visual signals such as smoke or light reflected from mirrors. Despite newspapers and even the telegraph, people in some parts of the United States did not hear that the Civil War had ended until weeks and even months after it was over. Today’s electronic communications transmit messages across the globe in seconds, and we learn almost instantaneously what is happening on the other side of the world. Reporters travel with U.S. soldiers, and the public is able to view videos of battles as they take place. When Navy Seals executed Osama bin Laden under President Barack Obama’s orders, Obama and Hillary Clinton watched the helicopter land in bin Laden’s compound, listened to reports of the killing, and watched the Seals leave (Schmiddle 2011).

CULTURAL LEVELING Travel and communication bridge time and space to such an extent that there is almost no “other side of the world” anymore. One result is cultural leveling, a process by which cultures become more and more similar to one another. The globalization of capitalism brings with it both technology and Western culture. Japan, for example, has adopted not only capitalism but also Western forms of dress and music, transforming it into a blend of Western and Eastern cultures.

Cultural leveling is apparent to any international traveler. The golden arches of McDonald’s welcome visitors to Tokyo, Paris, London, Madrid, Moscow, Hong Kong, and Beijing. When I visited a jungle village in India—no electricity, no running water,

cultural leveling the process by which cultures become similar to one another; refers especially to the process by which Western culture is being exported and diffused into other nations

Cultural leveling is occurring rapidly, with some strange twists. These men from an Amazon tribe have just come back from a week hunting in the jungle. They are wearing traditional headdress and using traditional weapons, but you can easily spot things that are jarringly out of place.

66 Chapter 2

Summary and Review What Is Culture? 2.1 Explain what culture is, how culture provides

orientations to life, and what practicing cultural relativism means.

How do sociologists understand culture?

All human groups possess culture—language, beliefs, val- ues, norms, and material objects that they pass from one gen- eration to the next. Material culture consists of objects such as art, buildings, clothing, weapons, and tools. Nonmaterial (or symbolic) culture is a group’s ways of thinking and its patterns of behavior. Ideal culture is a group’s ideal values, norms, and goals. Real culture is people’s actual behavior, which often falls short of their cultural ideals.

What are cultural relativism and ethnocentrism?

People are ethnocentric; that is, they use their own culture as a yardstick for judging the ways of others. In contrast, those who embrace cultural relativism try to understand other cultures on those cultures’ own terms.

Components of Symbolic Culture 2.2 Know the components of symbolic culture:

gestures, language, values, norms, sanctions, folkways, mores, and taboos; also explain the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

What are the components of nonmaterial culture?

The central component of nonmaterial culture is symbols, anything to which people attach meaning and that they use to communicate with others. Universally, the symbols of nonmaterial culture are gestures, language, values, norms, sanctions, folkways, and mores.

Why is language so significant to culture?

Language allows human experience to be goal-directed, co- operative, and cumulative. It also lets humans move beyond the present and share a past, a future, and other common perspectives. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, language even shapes our thoughts and perceptions.

How do values, norms, sanctions, folkways, and mores reflect culture?

All groups have values, standards by which they define what is desirable or undesirable, and norms, expectations

(or rules) about behavior. Groups use positive sanctions to show approval of those who follow their norms and negative sanctions to show disapproval of those who vi- olate them. Norms that are not strictly enforced are called folkways. Norms to which groups demand conformity be- cause they reflect core values are called mores (more-rays).

Many Cultural Worlds 2.3 Distinguish between subcultures and

countercultures.

How do subcultures and countercultures differ?

A subculture is a group whose values and related behav- iors distinguish its members from the general culture. A counterculture holds some values that stand in opposition to those of the dominant culture.

Values in U.S. Society 2.4 Discuss the major U.S. values and explain value

clusters, value contradictions, value clashes, how values are lenses of perception, and ideal culture versus real culture.

What are some core U.S. values?

Although the United States is a pluralistic society, made up of many groups, each with its own set of values, certain values dominate. These are called core values. Core values do not change without opposition. Some values cluster to- gether to form a larger whole called value clusters. Value contradictions (such as equality versus sexism and racism) indicate areas of tension, which are likely points of social change. Leisure, self-fulfillment, physical fitness, youthful- ness, and concern for the environment form an emerging value cluster.

Cultural Universals 2.5 Explain what cultural universals are and why

they do not seem to exist. Do cultural universals exist?

Cultural universal refers to a value, norm, or other cultural trait that is found in all cultures. Although all human groups have customs concerning cooking, childbirth, funerals, and

and so remote that the only entrance was by a footpath—I saw a young man sporting a cap with the Nike emblem.

Although the bridging of geography, time, and culture by electronic signals and the adoption of Western icons do not in and of themselves mark the end of traditional cul- tures, the inevitable result is some degree of cultural leveling. We are producing a blander, less distinctive way of life—U.S. culture with French, Japanese, and Brazilian accents, so to speak. Although the “cultural accent” remains, something vital is lost forever.

Culture 67

so on, because these usual ways of doing these things differ from one culture to another, there are no cultural universals.

Sociobiology and Human Behavior 2.6 Explain why most sociologists consider genes to

be an inadequate explanation of human behavior.

Why don’t sociologists say that genes control human behavior?

Genes certainly influence human behavior, but the rich diversity of human behavior indicates that culture over- rides genetic influences.

Technology in the Global Village 2.7 Explain how technology changes culture and what

cultural lag and cultural leveling are.

How is technology changing culture?

William Ogburn coined the term cultural lag to describe how a group’s nonmaterial culture lags behind its changing tech- nology. With today’s technological advances in trade, travel, and communications, cultural diffusion is occurring rapid- ly. This leads to cultural leveling, groups becoming similar as they adopt items from other cultures. Much of the richness of the world’s diverse cultures is being lost in the process.

Thinking Critically about Chapter 2 1. As you evaluate your own society or group’s ways of

doing things, do you favor ethnocentrism or cultural relativism? Explain your position.

2. Do you think that the language change in Miami, Florida, indicates the future of the United States? Why or why not?

3. What subculture are you a member of? Why do you think that your group is a subculture and not a counterculture? What is your group’s relationship to the mainstream culture?

Women braiding hair in a village in Madagascar, 2002, Christopher Corr, (gouache painting)

69

Chapter 3

Socialization

The old man was horrified when he found out. Life never had been good since his daughter lost her hearing when she was just 2 years old. She couldn’t even talk—just fluttered her hands around trying to tell him things.

Over the years, he had gotten used to this. But now … he shuddered at the thought of his daughter being pregnant. No one would be willing to marry her; he knew that. And the neighbors, their tongues would never stop wagging. Everywhere he went, he could hear peo- ple talking behind his back.

If only his wife were still alive, maybe she could come up with something. What should he do? He couldn’t just kick his daughter out into the street.

After the baby was born, the old man tried to shake his feelings, but they wouldn’t let loose. Isabelle was a pretty name, but every time he looked at the baby he felt sick to his stomach.

He hated doing it, but there was no way out. His daughter and her baby would have to live in the attic.

Unfortunately, this is a true story. Isabelle was discovered in Ohio in 1938 when she was about 6-and-a-half years old, living in a dark room with her deaf-mute mother. Isa- belle couldn’t talk, but she did use gestures to communicate with her mother. An inade- quate diet and lack of sunshine had given Isabelle a disease called rickets.

[Her legs] were so bowed that as she stood erect the soles of her shoes came nearly flat together, and she got about with a skittering gait. Her behavior toward strang- ers, especially men, was almost that of a wild animal, manifesting much fear and hostility. In lieu of speech she made only a strange croaking sound. (Davis 2016/1940)

After you have read this chapter, you should be able to:

3.1 Explain how feral, isolated, and institutionalized children help us understand that “society makes us human.”

3.2 Use the ideas and research of Cooley (looking-glass self), Mead (role taking), and Piaget (reasoning) to explain socialization into the self and mind.

3.3 Explain how the development of personality and morality and social- ization into emotions are part of how “society makes us human.”

3.4 Discuss how gender messages from the family, peers, and the mass media teach us society’s gender map.

3.5 Explain how the family, the neighborhood, religion, day care, school, peer groups, and the workplace are agents of socialization.

3.6 Explain what total institutions are and how they resocialize people.

3.7 Identify major divisions of the life course, and discuss the sociological significance of the life course.

3.8 Understand why we are not prisoners of socialization.

Learning Objectives

Her behavior toward strangers, especially men, was almost that of a wild animal, manifesting much fear and hostility.

70 Chapter 3

When the newspapers reported this case, sociologist Kingsley Davis decided to find out what had happened to Isabelle after her discovery. We’ll come back to that later, but first let’s use the case of Isabelle to gain insight into human nature.

Society Makes Us Human 3.1 Explain how feral, isolated, and institutionalized children help us understand

that “society makes us human.”

“What do you mean, society makes us human?” is probably what you are asking. “That sounds ridiculous. I was born a human.” The meaning of this statement will become more apparent as we get into the chapter. Let’s start by considering what is human about human nature. How much of a person’s characteristics comes from “nature” (heredity) and how much from “nurture” (the social environment, contact with others)? Experts are trying to answer the nature–nurture question by studying identical twins who were separated at birth and were reared in different environments, such as those discussed in the following Down-to-Earth Sociology.

social environment the entire human environment, including interaction with others

Down-to-Earth Sociology Heredity or Environment? The Case of Jack and Oskar, Identical Twins Identical twins are almost identical in their genetic makeup. (Identical twins are the result of one fertilized egg dividing to produce two embryos. Some differences can occur as gene- tic codes are copied.) If heredity determines personality— or attitudes, temperament, skills, and intelligence—then identical twins should be identical, or almost so, not only in their looks but also in these characteristics.

The fascinating case of Jack and Oskar helps us unravel this mystery. From their experience, we can see the far-reaching effects of the environment—how social experiences override biology.

Jack Yufe and Oskar Stohr are identical twins. Born in 1932 to a Roman Catholic mother and a Jewish father, they were separated as babies after their parents divorced. Jack was reared in Trinidad by his father. There, he learned loyalty to Jews and hatred of Hitler and the Nazis. After the war, Jack and his father moved to Israel. When he was 17, Jack joined a kibbutz and later served in the Israeli army.

Oskar’s upbringing was a mirror image of Jack’s. Oskar was reared in Czechoslovakia by his mother’s mother, who was a strict Catholic. When Oskar was a toddler, Hitler annexed this area of Czechoslovakia, and Oskar learned to love Hitler and to hate Jews. He joined the Hitler Youth. Like the Boy Scouts, this organization was designed to instill healthy living, love of the outdoors, friendships, and

patriotism—but this one added loyalty to Hitler and hatred for Jews.

In 1954, the two brothers met. It was a short meeting, and Jack had been warned not to tell Oskar that they were

Jews. Twenty-five years later, in 1979, when they were 47 years old, social scientists at the University of Minnesota brought them together again. These researchers figured that because Jack and Oskar had the same genes, any differences they showed would have to be the result of their environment— their different social experiences.

Not only did Jack and Oskar hold different attitudes toward the war, Hitler, and Jews, but their

basic orientations to life were also different. In their politics, Jack was liberal, while Oskar was more conservative. Jack was a workaholic, while Oskar enjoyed leisure. And, as you can predict, Jack was proud of being a Jew. Oskar, who by this time knew that he was a Jew, wouldn’t even mention it.

That would seem to settle the matter. But there were other things. As children, Jack and Oskar had both excelled at sports but had difficulty with math. They also had the same rate of speech, and both liked sweet liqueur and spicy foods. Strangely, each flushed the toilet both before and after using it, and they each enjoyed startling people by sneezing in crowded elevators.

The relative influence of heredity and the environment in human behavior has fascinated and plagued researchers. Twins intrigue researchers, especially twins who were separated at birth.

Socialization 71

Another way is to examine children who have had little human contact. Let’s con- sider such children.

Feral Children The naked child was found in the forest, walking on all fours, eating grass and lapping water from the river. When he saw a small animal, he pounced on it. Growling, he ripped at it with his teeth. Tearing chunks from the body, he chewed them ravenously.

This is an accurate description of reports that have come in over the centuries. Sup- posedly, these feral (wild) children could not speak; they bit, scratched, growled, and walked on all fours. They drank by lapping water, ate grass, tore eagerly at raw meat, and showed insensitivity to pain and cold.

Why am I even mentioning stories that sound so exaggerated? Consider what happened in 1798. In that year, such a child was found in the forests of Aveyron, France. “The wild boy of Aveyron,” as he became known, would have been written off as another folk myth, except that French scientists took the child to a laboratory and studied him. Like the feral children in the earlier informal reports, this child gave no indication of feeling the cold. Most star- tling, though, when he saw a small animal, the boy would growl, pounce on it, and devour it uncooked. Even today, the scientists’ detailed reports make fascinating reading (Itard 1962).

Ever since I read Itard’s account of this boy, I’ve been fascinated by the seem- ingly fantastic possibility that animals could rear human children. In 2002, I received a report from a contact in Cambodia that a feral child had been found in the jungle. When I had the opportunity the following year to visit the child and interview his caregivers, I grabbed it. The adjacent photo is of this boy.

If we were untouched by society, would we be like feral children? By nature, would our behavior be like that of wild animals? This is the sociological question. Unable to study feral children, sociologists have studied isolated children, like Isabelle in our open- ing vignette. Let’s see what we can learn from them.

Isolated Children What can isolated children tell us about human nature? We can first conclude that humans have no natural language because Isabelle in our opening vignette and others like her are unable to speak.

But maybe Isabelle was mentally impaired. Perhaps she simply was unable to progress through the usual stages of development. It certainly looked that way; she scored practi- cally zero on her first intelligence test. But after a few months of language training, Isabelle was able to speak in short sentences. In just a year, she could write a few words, do simple addition, and retell stories after hearing them. Seven months later, she had a vocabulary of almost 2,000 words. In just two years, Isabelle reached the intellectual level that is normal for her age. She then went on to school, where she was “bright, cheerful, energetic … and participated in all school activities as normally as other children” (Davis 1940).

As discussed in the previous chapter, language is the key to human development. Without language, people have no mechanism for developing thought and communi- cating their experiences. Unlike animals, humans have no instincts that take the place of

feral children children assumed to have been raised by animals, in the wilder- ness, isolated from humans

One of the reasons I went to Cambodia was to interview a feral child—the boy shown here—who supposedly had been raised by monkeys. When I arrived at the remote location where the boy was living, I was disappointed to find that the story was only partially true. When the boy was about two months old, the Khmer Rouge killed his parents and abandoned him. Months later, villagers shot the female monkey who was carrying the baby. Not quite a feral child— but Mathay is the closest I’ll ever come to one.

For Your Consideration Heredity or environment? How much influence does each have? The question is far from settled, but at this point it seems fair to conclude that the limits of certain physical and mental abili- ties are established by heredity (such as ability at sports and aptitude for mathematics), while attitudes are the result of the environment. Basic temperament, though, seems to be inherited.

Although the answer is still fuzzy, we can put it this way: For some parts of life, the blueprint is drawn by heredity; but even here the environment can redraw those lines. For other parts, the individual is a blank slate, and it is up to the environment to determine what is written on that slate.

SOURCES: Based on Begley 1979; Chen 1979; Wright 1995; Segal and Hershberger 2005 Segal and Mulligan 2014; Woo 2015.

72 Chapter 3

language. If an individual lacks language, he or she lives in a world of internal silence, without shared ideas, lacking connections to others.

Without language, there can be no culture—no shared way of life—and culture is the key to what people become. Each of us possesses a biological heritage, but this heritage does not determine specific behaviors, attitudes, or values. It is our culture that superimposes the specifics of what we become onto our biological heritage.

Institutionalized Children Other than language, what else is required for a child to develop into what we consider a healthy, balanced, intelligent human being? We find part of the answer in two intriguing experiments.

THE ORPHANAGE EXPERIMENT IN THE UNITED STATES Back in the 1930s, orphanages were common because parents were more likely than now to die before their children were grown. Children reared in orphanages tended to have low IQs. “Common sense” (which we noted in Chapter 1 is unreliable) made it seem obvious that their low intelligence was because of poor brains (“They’re just born that way”). But two psycholo- gists, H. M. Skeels and H. B. Dye (1939), began to suspect a social cause.

Listen to Skeels (1966) describe a “good” orphanage in Iowa, one where he and Dye were consultants:

Until about six months, they were cared for in the infant nursery. The babies were kept in standard hospital cribs that often had protective sheeting on the sides, thus effective- ly limiting visual stimulation; no toys or other objects were hung in the infants’ line of vision. Human interactions were limited to busy nurses who, with the speed born of prac- tice and necessity, changed diapers or bedding, bathed and medicated the infants, and fed them efficiently with propped bottles.

“Maybe it isn’t faulty brains,” thought Skeels and Dye. “It could be the absence of stim- ulating social interaction.” To test their controversial idea, they left a control group of twelve infants at the orphanage and placed thirteen infants in an institution for low IQ women. They assigned each of these infants, then about 19 months old, to a separate ward of women who were between the ages of 18 and 50 but whose mental age was just 5 to 12. The women enjoyed

taking care of the infants’ physical needs—diapering, feeding, and so on—and they also loved the children. They played with them, cuddled them, and show- ered them with attention. They even competed to see which ward would have “its baby” walking or talking first. In each ward, one woman became particu- larly attached to the child and figuratively adopted him or her:

As a consequence, an intense one-to-one adult–child relationship developed, which was supplemented by the less intense but frequent interactions with the other adults in the environment. Each child had some one person with whom he [or she] was identified and who was particularly interested in him [or her] and his [or her] achievements. (Skeels 1966)

Two-and-a-half years later, Skeels and Dye tested all the children’s intelligence. Their findings are startling: Those who were cared for by the women in the institution gained an average of 28 IQ points while those who remained in the orphanage lost 30 points.

What happened after these children were grown? Did these initial differ- ences matter? Twenty-one years later, Skeels and Dye did a follow-up study. The twelve in the control group, those who had remained in the orphanage, averaged less than a third-grade education. Four still lived in state institu- tions, and the others held low-level jobs. Only two had married. The thirteen in the experimental group, those cared for by the institutionalized women, had an average education of twelve grades (about normal for that period).

Children at an orphanage in Kaliyampoondi, India, sleeping in their dormitory. The way children are treated affects their ability to function as adults, even their ability to reason and to relate to others.

Socialization 73

Five had completed one or more years of college. One had even gone to graduate school. Eleven had married. All thirteen were self-supporting or were homemakers (Skeels 1966). Apparently, “high intelligence” depends on early, close relations with other humans.

THE ORPHANAGE EXPERIMENT IN ROMANIA Under Romania’s communist regime, tens of thousands of unwanted children were placed in government orphanages. After the people rose up against the hated dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu, and executed him and his wife in 1989, people were horrified when they learned how extensively these children had been neglected and abused.

In an experiment reminiscent of that by Skeels and Dye, doctors randomly divided the 2-year-old orphans in Bucharest into experimental and control groups. The sixty-nine children in the experimental group were placed in foster families, while the sixty-seven 2-year-olds in the control group remained in the orphanages. When they tested the chil- dren six years later, the children who had been placed in foster care were better adjusted socially. They even had more brain cells than the children who remained in the orphan- age (Hamilton 2014; Bick et al. 2015).

Note the integrated looping—how social interaction influences physical develop- ment, which, in turn, influences social interaction. Attention from caring adults, their reassurances, and living with security apparently allow the brain to get “wired” in ways that produce more secure, caring people.

TIMING AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF GENIE The longer that chil- dren lack stimulating interaction, the more difficulty they have intellectually (Meese 2005; Li et al. 2013). Let’s consider a classic, heart-wrenching case. From it, you can see how important timing is in the development of “human” characteristics.

Genie, a child in California, had been locked in a small room and tied to a potty chair since she was 20 months old. She was discovered when she was 13 years old:

Apparently, Genie’s father (70 years old when Genie was discovered in 1970) hated chil- dren. He probably had caused the death of two of Genie’s siblings. Her 50-year-old mother was partially blind and frightened of her husband. Genie could not speak, did not know how to chew, was unable to stand upright, and could not straighten her hands and legs. On intelligence tests, she scored at the level of a 1-year-old. After intensive training, Ge- nie learned to walk and to put garbled, three-word sentences together. Genie’s language remained primitive as she grew up. She would take anyone’s property if it appealed to her, and she went to the bathroom wherever she wanted. At the age of 21, she was sent to a home for adults who cannot live alone. (Pines 1981)

IN SUM From the research on institutionalized and deprived children, we can conclude that the basic human traits of intelligence and the ability to establish close bonds with others depend on early interaction with other humans. From Genie’s pathetic story, it also seems that children must learn language and experience human bonding before age 13 if they are to develop normal intelligence and the ability to be sociable and follow social norms.

Deprived Animals Finally, let’s consider animals that have been deprived of normal interaction. In a series of experiments with rhesus monkeys, psychologists Harry and Margaret Harlow demon- strated the importance of early learning. The Harlows (1962) raised baby monkeys in iso- lation. As shown in the next photo, they gave each monkey two artificial mothers. One “mother” was only a wire frame with a wooden head, but it did have a nipple from which the baby could nurse. The frame of the other “mother,” which had no bottle, was covered with soft terrycloth. To obtain food, the baby monkeys nursed at the wire frame.

When the Harlows (1965) frightened the baby monkeys with a mechanical bear or dog, the babies did not run to the wire frame “mother.” Instead, they would cling pathet- ically to their terrycloth “mother.” The Harlows concluded that infant–mother bonding

74 Chapter 3

is not the result of feeding but, rather, of what they termed “intimate physical contact.” To most of us, this phrase means cuddling.

The monkeys raised in isolation could not adjust to monkey life. Placed with other monkeys when they were grown, they didn’t know how to participate in “monkey interaction”—to play and to engage in pretend fights—and the other monkeys rejected them. Despite their futile attempts, they didn’t even know how to have sexual intercourse. The experimenters designed a special device that allowed some females to become pregnant. Their isolation, however, made them “ineffective, inadequate, and brutal mothers.” They “struck their babies, kicked them, or crushed the babies against the cage floor.”

In one of their many experiments, the Harlows isolated baby mon- keys for different lengths of time and then put them in with other mon- keys. Monkeys that had been isolated for shorter periods (about three months) were able to adjust to normal monkey life. They learned to play and engage in pretend fights. Those isolated for six months or more, however, couldn’t make the adjustment, and the other monkeys rejected them. In other words, the longer the period of isolation, the more difficult its effects are to overcome. In addition, there seems to be a critical learn- ing stage: If this stage is missed, it may be impossible to compensate for what has been lost. This seems to have been the case with Genie.

Because humans are not monkeys, we must be careful about extrapolating from animal studies to human behavior. The Harlow experiments, however, support what we know about children who are reared in isolation.

IN SUM: SOCIETY MAKES US HUMAN Babies do not develop “nat- urally” into social adults. If children are reared in isolation, their bod- ies grow, but they become little more than big animals. Without the

concepts that language provides, they can’t grasp relationships between people (the “connections” we call brother, sister, parent, friend, teacher, and so on). And without warm, friendly interactions, they can’t bond with others. They don’t become “friendly” or cooperate with others. In short, it is through human contact that people learn to be members of the human community. This process by which we learn the ways of society (or of particular groups), called socialization, is what sociologists have in mind when they say, “Society makes us human.”

To add to our understanding of how society makes us human, let’s look at how we develop our self-concept, our ability to “take the role of others,” and our ability to reason.

Socialization into the Self and Mind 3.2 Use the ideas and research of Cooley (looking-glass self), Mead (role taking),

and Piaget (reasoning) to explain socialization into the self and mind.

When you were born, you had no ideas. You didn’t know that you were a son or daugh- ter. You didn’t even know that you were a he or she. How did you develop a self, your image of who you are? And how did you develop your ability to reason? Let’s find out.

Cooley and the Looking-Glass Self About a hundred years ago, Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929), a symbolic interactionist who taught at the University of Michigan, concluded that producing a self is an essential part of how society makes us human. He said that our sense of self develops from interaction with others. To describe the process by which this unique aspect of “humanness” devel- ops, Cooley (1902) coined the term looking-glass self.

socialization the process by which people learn the characteristics of their group—the knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, norms, and actions thought appropriate for them

self the unique human capacity of being able to see ourselves “from the outside”; the views we internalize of how we think others see us

looking-glass self a term coined by Charles Horton Cooley to refer to the process by which our self develops through internalizing others’ reactions to us

Like humans, monkeys need interaction to thrive. Those raised in isolation are unable to interact with other monkeys. In this photograph, we see one of the monkeys described in the text. Purposefully frightened by the experimenter, the monkey has taken refuge in the soft terrycloth draped over an artificial “mother.”

Socialization 75

He summarized this idea in the following couplet:

Each to each a looking-glass Reflects the other that doth pass.

The looking-glass self contains three elements:

1. We imagine how we appear to those around us. For example, we may think that others perceive us as witty or dull.

2. We interpret others’ reactions. We come to conclusions about how others evaluate us. Do they like us for being witty? Do they dislike us for being dull?

3. We develop a self-concept. How we interpret others’ reactions to us frames our feelings and ideas about ourselves. A favorable reflection in this social mirror leads to a posi- tive self-concept; a negative reflection leads to a negative self-concept.

IN SUM Although the self-concept begins in childhood, it is never a finished product. All of our lives, we monitor how others react to us. Whether we are accurate in how we think others evaluate us does not change the process. Even if we grossly misinterpret how oth- ers think about us, those misjudgments become part of our self-concept. Because we are always monitoring others’ reactions to us, we are continually modifying the self, even in our old age.

Mead and Role Taking Another symbolic interactionist, George Herbert Mead (1863–1931), who taught at the University of Chicago, pointed out how important play is in developing a self. As we play with others, we learn to take the role of the other. That is, we learn to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes—to understand how someone else feels and thinks and to antici- pate how that person will act (Mead 1934; Joas and Huebner 2016).

This doesn’t happen overnight. We develop this ability over a period of years. Psy- chologist John Flavel (1968) asked 8- and 14-year-olds to explain a board game to chil- dren who were blindfolded and also to others who were not. The 14-year-olds gave more detailed instructions to those who were blindfolded, but the 8-year-olds gave the same instructions to everyone. The younger children could not yet take the role of the other, while the older children could.

As we develop this ability, at first we can take only the roles of significant others, indi- viduals who significantly influence our lives, such as parents or siblings. By assuming their roles during play, such as dressing up in our parents’ clothing, we cultivate the ability to put ourselves in the place of significant others.

As our self gradually develops, we internalize the expec- tations of more and more people. Our ability to take the role of others eventually extends to being able to take the role of “the group as a whole.” Mead used the term generalized other to refer to our perception of how people in general think of us.

Taking the role of others is essential if we are to become cooperative members of human groups—whether they are family, friends, or co-workers. This ability allows us to modify our behavior by anticipating how others will react—something Genie never learned.

As Figure 3.1 illustrates, we go through three stages as we learn to take the role of the other:

taking the role of the other putting yourself in someone else’s shoes; understanding how someone else feels and thinks, so you anticipate how that per- son will act

significant other an individual who significantly influences someone else

generalized other the norms, values, attitudes, and expectations of people “in general”; the child’s ability to take the role of the generalized other is a significant step in the development of a self

Mead analyzed taking the role of the other as an essential part of learning to be a full-fledged member of society. At first, we are able to take the role only of significant others, as this child is doing. Later we develop the capacity to take the role of the generalized other, which is essential not only for cooperation but also for the control of antisocial desires.

1. Imitation. Younger than age 3, we can only mimic others. We do not yet have a sense of self separate from others, and we can only imitate people’s gestures and words. (This stage is actually not role taking, but it prepares us for it.)

76 Chapter 3

2. Play. During the second stage, from the ages of about 3 to 6, we pretend to take the roles of specific people. We might pretend that we are a firefighter, a wrestler, a nurse, Supergirl, Spider-Man, a princess, and so on. We like costumes at this stage and enjoy dressing up in our parents’ clothing or putting on costumes to “become” Superman or Wonder Woman.

3. Team Games. This third stage, organized play, or team games, begins roughly when we enter school. The significance for the self is that to play these games, we must be able to take multiple roles. Baseball was one of Mead’s favorite examples. To play baseball, each player must be able to take the role of any other player. It isn’t enough that players know their own role; they also must be able to anticipate what everyone else on the field will do when the ball is hit or thrown.

Mead also said that the self has two parts, the “I” and the “me.” The “I” is the self as subject, the active, spontaneous, creative part of the self. In contrast, the “me” is the self as object. It is made up of attitudes we internalize from our interactions with others. Mead chose these pronouns because in English, “I” is the active agent, as in “I shoved him,” while “me” is the object of action, as in “He shoved me.” Mead stressed that we are not passive in the socialization process. We are not like robots, with programmed software shoved into us. Rather, our “I” actively evaluates the reactions of others and organizes them into a unified whole. Mead added that the “I” even monitors the “me,” fine-tuning our ideas and attitudes to help us better meet what others expect of us.

IN SUM In studying these details, be careful not to miss the main point, which some find startling: Both our self and our mind are social products. Mead stressed that we cannot think without symbols. But where do these symbols come from? Only from society, which gives us our symbols by giving us language. If society did not provide the sym- bols, we would not be able to think and so would not possess a self-concept or that entity we call the mind. The self and mind, then, like language, are products of society.

Piaget and the Development of Reasoning The development of the mind—specifically, how we learn to reason—was studied in detail by Jean Piaget (1896–1980). This Swiss psychologist noticed that when young children take intelligence tests, they often give similar wrong answers. This set Piaget to thinking that the children might be using some consistent, but incorrect, reasoning. It might even indicate that children go through some natural process as they learn how to reason.

Figure 3.1 How We Learn to Take the Role of the Other: Mead’s Three Stages

SOURCE: By the author.

To help his students understand the term generalized other, Mead used baseball as an illustration. Why are team sports and organized games excellent examples to use in explaining this concept?

Stimulated by this intriguing possibility, Piaget set up a laboratory where he could give children of different ages problems to solve (Piaget 1950, 1954; Lorenco 2016). After years of testing, Piaget concluded that children go through a natural process as they develop their ability to reason. This process has four stages. (If you men- tally substitute “reasoning” or “reasoning skills” for the term operational as you review these stages, Piaget’s findings will be easier to understand.)

1. The sensorimotor stage (from birth to about age 2). During this stage, our understanding is limited to direct contact—sucking, touching, listening, looking. We aren’t able to “think.” During the first part of this stage, we do not even know that our bodies are separate from the environ- ment. Indeed, we have yet to discover that we have toes. Neither can we recognize cause and effect. That is, we do not know that our actions cause something to happen.

Stage 1: Imitation Children under age 3

No sense of self Imitate others

Stage 2: Play Ages 3 to 6

Play “pretend” others (princess, Spider-Man, etc.)

Stage 3: Team Games After about age 6 or 7

Team games     (“organized play”)

Learn to take multiple roles

Socialization 77

based on general principles, and use rules to solve abstract problems. During this stage, we are likely to become young philosophers (Kagan 1984). If we were shown a photo of a slave during our concrete operational stage, we might have said, “That’s wrong!” Now at the formal operational stage we are likely to add, “If our country was founded on equality, how could anyone own slaves?”

Global Aspects of the Self and Reasoning Cooley’s conclusions about the looking-glass self appear to be true for everyone around the world. So do Mead’s conclusions about role taking and the mind and self as social products, although researchers are finding that the self may develop earlier than Mead indicated. Piaget’s theory is also being refined (Burman 2013). Although children every- where begin with the concrete and move to the abstract, researchers have found that the stages are not as distinct as Piaget concluded. The ages at which individuals enter the stages also differ from one person to another (Flavel et al. 2002). Even during the senso- rimotor stage, for example, children show early signs of reasoning, which may indicate an innate ability that is wired into the brain.

Interestingly, some people seem to get stuck in the concreteness of the third stage and never reach the fourth stage of abstract thinking (Kohlberg and Gilligan 1971; Suizzo 2000). College, for example, nurtures the fourth stage, and people with this experience apparently have more ability for abstract thought. Social experiences, then, can modify these stages.

Learning Personality, Morality, and Emotions 3.3 Explain how the development of personality and morality and socialization into

emotions are part of how “society makes us human.”

As you know so well, our personality, morality, and emotions are also vital aspects of who we are. Let’s look at how we learn these essential aspects of our being.

Freud and the Development of Personality As the mind and the self develop, so does the personality. Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) developed a theory of the origin of personality that had a major impact on Western

Jean Piaget featured on a Swiss stamp.

2. The preoperational stage (from about age 2 to age 7). During this stage, we develop the ability to use sym- bols. However, we do not yet understand com- mon concepts such as size, speed, or causation. Although we are learning to count, we do not re- ally understand what numbers mean.

3. The concrete operational stage (from about age 7 to age 12). Although our reasoning abilities are more devel- oped, they remain concrete. We can now under- stand numbers, size, causation, and speed, and we are able to take the role of the other. We can even play team games. Unless we have concrete examples, however, we are unable to talk about concepts such as truth, honesty, or justice. We can explain why Jane’s answer was a lie, but we can- not describe what truth itself is.

4. The formal operational stage (after the age of about 12). We now are capable of abstract thinking. We can talk about concepts, come to conclusions

78 Chapter 3

thought. Freud, a physician in Vienna in the early 1900s, founded psychoanalysis, a technique for treating emotional prob- lems through long-term exploration of the subconscious mind. Let’s look at his theory.

Freud believed that personality consists of three elements. Each child is born with the first element, an id. This was Freud’s term for inborn drives that cause us to seek self-gratification. The pleasure-seeking id operates throughout life. It demands the imme- diate fulfillment of basic needs: food, safety, attention, sex, and so on. The id of the newborn is evident in its cries of hunger or pain.

The id’s drive for immediate gratification, however, runs into a roadblock: primarily the needs of other people, especially those of the parents. To adapt to these constraints, a second com- ponent of the personality emerges, which Freud called the ego. The ego is the balancing force between the id and the demands of society that suppress it. The ego also serves to balance the id and the superego, the third component of the personality, more commonly called the conscience.

The superego represents culture within us, the norms and values we internalize from our social groups. As the moral component of the personality, the superego provokes feelings

of guilt or shame when we break social rules or pride and self-satisfaction when we follow them.

According to Freud, when the id gets out of hand, we follow our desires for pleasure and break society’s norms. When the superego gets out of hand, we become overly rigid in following those norms and end up wearing a straitjacket of rules that can make our lives miserable. The ego, the balancing force, tries to prevent either the superego or the id from dominating. In the emotionally healthy individual, the ego succeeds in balanc- ing these conflicting demands of the id and the superego. In the maladjusted individual, the ego fails to control the conflict between the id and the superego. Either the id or the superego dominates this person, leading to internal confusion and problem behaviors.

SOCIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Sociologists appreciate Freud’s emphasis on socialization— his assertion that the social group into which we are born transmits norms and values that restrain our biological drives. Sociologists, however, object to the view that inborn and subcon- scious motivations are the primary reasons for human behavior. This denies the central principle of sociology: that factors such as social class (income, education, and occupation) and our roles in groups underlie our behavior (Epstein 1988; Bush and Simmons 1990).

Feminist sociologists have been especially critical of Freud (Chodorow 1990; Pras- anth 2016). Although what I just summarized applies to both females and males, Freud assumed that “male” is “normal.” He even referred to females as inferior, castrated males. It is obvious that sociologists need to continue to research how we develop personality.

Kohlberg and the Development of Morality If you have observed young children, you know that they want immediate gratification and show little or no concern for others. (“Mine!” a 2-year-old will shout, as she grabs a toy from another child.) Yet, at a later age, this same child will be considerate of others and try to be fair in her play. How does this change happen?

KOHLBERG’S THEORY Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1975, 1984, 1986; Simic et al. 2017) concluded that we go through a sequence of stages as we develop morality. Build- ing on Piaget’s work, he found that children start in the amoral stage I just described. For them, there is no right or wrong, just personal needs to be satisfied. From about ages 7 to 10, children are in what Kohlberg called a preconventional stage. They have learned rules,

id Freud’s term for our inborn basic drives

ego Freud’s term for a balancing force between the id and the demands of society

superego Freud’s term for the conscience; the internalized norms and val- ues of our social groups

Shown here is Sigmund Freud in 1931 as he poses for a sculptor in Vienna, Austria. Although Freud was one of the most influential theorists of the twentieth century, most of his ideas have been discarded.

Socialization 79

and they follow them to stay out of trouble. They view right and wrong as what pleases or displeases their parents, friends, and teachers. Their concern is to get rewards and to avoid punishment. At about age 10, they enter the conventional stage. During this period, morality means following the norms and values they have learned. Then comes the post conventional stage: People are able to reflect on abstract principles of right and wrong and judge people’s behavior according to these principles.

CRITICISMS OF KOHLBERG To test Kohlberg’s theory, researchers checked how it applies in different cultures. They found that the preconvention and conventional stages apply around the world. Most societies, though, do not have the post conventional stage of universal reasoning. This stage appears to be mostly a Western concept (Jensen 2009). Apparently, there is no universal, abstract way of figuring what is moral. Instead, differ- ent cultures have their own ways to determine morality, and each teaches its members to use its norms in deciding what is moral.

RESEARCH WITH BABIES Researchers have developed ingenious experiments to see if babies have a morality (Bloom 2013). In one experiment, they showed babies a puppet that helps another puppet and one that interferes with that puppet. They found that babies—even younger than 1 year of age—prefer the “good” puppet and want the “bad” puppet punished. From these experiments, some draw the intriguing conclusion that we are born with a basic morality and a desire to punish those who break our moral codes. Others suggest that the experiments are flawed (Scarf et al. 2012). More research should eventually settle the question.

THE CULTURAL RELATIVITY OF MORALITY If babies do have an inborn sense of fair- ness, it indicates that, like language, morality is a capacity hardwired in the brain. Just as society lays a particular language onto the child’s linguistic capacity, so society lays its particular ideas of what is moral onto the child’s moral capacity. As languages differ around the world, so do moralities. When people violate whatever morality they have learned, it arouses the emotions of guilt and shame. Sociologists are studying how peo- ple’s sense of identity is connected to morality and these emotions (Stets and Carter 2012).

Let’s turn to how we learn emotions, another essential element of who we are as humans.

Socialization into Emotions Like our mind, personality, and morality, our emotions also reflect our socialization (Hochschild 2008; de Boise and Hearn 2017). Let’s see why.

GLOBAL EMOTIONS At first, it may look as though socialization is not relevant to our emotions, that we simply express feelings that everyone has. The research of Paul Ekman, a psychologist, seems to support this idea. After studying emotions in several countries, Ekman (1980) found that everyone experiences six basic emotions: anger, dis- gust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. Ekman also found that people show the same facial expressions when they feel these emotions. A person from Peru, for exam- ple, can tell from just the look on an American’s face that she is angry, disgusted, or fear- ful, and she can tell from the Peruvian’s face that he is happy, sad, or surprised. Because we all show the same facial expressions when we experience these six emotions, Ekman concluded that they are hardwired into our biology.

Carlos Crivelli, an anthropologist, decided to test Ekman’s conclusions in a non- Western setting. He and a psychologist went to Papua New Guinea, where they learned the Kalevala language. To their surprise, when they showed the face that Westerners take as expressing fear, the Trobianders interpreted the face as anger or threat. “Not really universal after all,” is their conclusion (Crivelli et al. 2016).

EXPRESSING EMOTIONS: “GENDER RULES” What, then, does sociology have to do with emotions? We express our emotions in a variety of ways besides facial expressions— through the ways we use our bodies, voices, and gestures.

80 Chapter 3

Jane and Sushana have been best friends since high school. They were hardly ever apart until Sushana married and moved to another state a year ago. Jane has been waiting eagerly at the arrival gate for Sushana’s flight, which has been delayed. When Sushana exits, she and Jane hug one another, giving “squeals of glee” and even jumping a bit.

If you couldn’t tell from their names that these were women, you could tell from their behavior. To express delight, U.S. women are allowed to give squeals of glee” in public places and to jump as they hug. In contrast, in the same circumstances, U.S. men are expected to shake hands or to give a brief hug. If they gave “squeals of glee,” they would be violating fundamental “feeling rules” based on gender.

THE EXTENT OF “FEELING RULES” Not only do the norms about how we express our feelings change with gender, but “feeling rules” are also based on culture, social class, relationships, and settings. Consider culture. Two close Japanese friends who meet after a long separation don’t shake hands or hug; they bow. Two Arab men will kiss. Social class is so significant that it, too, cuts across other lines, even gender. Upon seeing a friend after a long absence, upper-class women and men are likely to be more reserved in expressing their delight than are lower-class women and men. Relationships also make a big difference. We express our feelings more openly if we are with close friends, more guardedly if we are at a staff meeting with the corporate CEO. The set- ting, then, is also important, with different settings having different “rules” about emo- tions. As you know, the emotions you can express at a rock concert differ considerably from those you express in a classroom. If you think about your childhood, you will realize that a good part of your early socialization centered on learning your culture’s feeling rules.

What emotions are these people expressing? Are these emotions global? Is their way of expressing them universal?

WHAT WE FEEL

Joan, a U.S. woman who had been married for seven years, had no children. When she finally gave birth and the doctor handed her a healthy girl, she was almost overcome with joy. Tafadzwa, in Zimbabwe, had been married for seven years and had no children. When the doctor handed her a healthy girl, she was almost overcome with sadness.

You can easily understand why the U.S. woman felt happy, but why did the woman in Zimbabwe feel sad? The effects of socialization on our emotions go much deeper than guiding how, where, and when we express our feelings. Socialization also affects what we feel (Clark 1997). In Zimbabwe culture, to not give birth to a male child lowers a woman’s social status. It is even considered a good reason for her husband to divorce her (Horwitz and Wakefield 2007:43).

RESEARCH NEEDED Crivelli ’s findings that the Trobianders don’t interpret some facial expressions of emotion the same as we do surprised social scientists, who had accepted Ekman’s conclusion for sixty years. We still need more research to discover

Socialization 81

which facial expressions, if any, are universal. Beyond the six that Ekman identified, what about the emotions of confusion, despair, and helplessness? We also need cross- cultural research into how culture guides people in how they express their feelings, even in what they feel—and how these might differ from one culture to another as well as by age, gender, social class, and race–ethnicity.

Society within Us: The Self and Emotions as a Social Mirror

If in a moment of intense frustration or out of a devilish desire to shock people, you wanted to tear off your clothes and run naked down the street, what would stop you?

The answer is your socialization—society within you. Much of our socialization is intended to turn us into conforming members of society.

Socialization into the self and emotions is essential in this process, for both the self and our emotions mold our behavior. Although we like to think that we are “free,” consider for a moment some of the factors that influence how you act: the expectations of your friends and parents; of neighbors and teachers; classroom norms and college rules; city, state, and federal laws.

Your experiences in society have resulted in a self that thinks along certain lines and feels particular emotions. This helps to keep you in line. Thoughts such as “Would I get kicked out of school?” and “What would my friends (parents) think if they found out?” represent an awareness of the self in relationship to others. So does the desire to avoid feelings of shame and embarrassment. Your social mirror, then—the result of your being socialized into a self and emotions—sets up effective internal controls over your behavior. In fact, socialization into self and emotions is so effective that some people feel embarrassed just thinking about running naked in public!

IN SUM Socialization is essential for your development as a human being. From your interaction with others, you learn how to think, reason, and feel. The net result is the shaping of your behavior—including your thinking, morality, and emotions—according to cultural standards. This is what sociologists mean when they refer to society within you.

Do you remember how we began this chapter—that society makes us human? Social- ization into emotions is part of this process.

Socialization into Gender 3.4 Discuss how gender messages from the family, peers, and the mass media teach

us society’s gender map.

As you just saw, socialization into gender is part of the way that society turns us into cer- tain types of people. You also saw how this socialization sets up deep controls into and over us. Let’s get a glimpse of how this happens.

Learning the Gender Map For a child, society is unexplored territory. A major signpost on society’s map is gender, the attitudes and behaviors that are expected of us because we are a male or a female. In learning the gender map (called gender socialization), we are nudged into different lanes in life—into contrasting attitudes and behaviors. We take direction so well that, as adults, most of us act, think, and even feel according to our culture’s guidelines regarding what is appropriate for our sex.

The significance of gender is emphasized throughout this book, and we focus on gender in Chapter 10. For now, though, let’s briefly consider some of the gender messages that we get from our family and the mass media.

gender behaviors and attitudes that a society considers proper for its males and females; masculinity or femininity

gender socialization learning society’s “gender map,” the paths in life set out for us because we are male or female

82 Chapter 3

Gender Messages in the Family Our parents are the first to introduce us to the gender map.

PARENTS Sometimes our parents teach us gen- der consciously, perhaps by bringing into play pink and blue, colors that have no meaning in them- selves but that are now associated with gender. Our parents’ own gender orientations are embedded so firmly that they do most of their gender teaching without being aware of what they are doing.

This is illustrated in a classic study by psy- chologists Susan Goldberg and Michael Lewis (1969), whose results have been confirmed by other researchers (Connors 1996; Clearfield and Nelson 2006; Best 2010).

Goldberg and Lewis asked mothers to bring their 6-month-old infants into their laboratory, suppos- edly to observe the infants’ development. Covertly, however, they also observed the mothers. They found that the mothers kept their daughters closer to them.

They also touched their daughters more and spoke to them more frequently than they did to their sons. By the time the children were 13 months old, the girls stayed closer to their mothers during play, and they returned to their mothers sooner and more often than the boys did.

Then Goldberg and Lewis did a little experiment. They set up a barrier to separate the children from their mothers, who were holding toys. The girls were more likely to cry and motion for help; the boys, to try to climb over the barrier.

Goldberg and Lewis concluded that the mothers had subconsciously rewarded their daughters for being passive and dependent, their sons for being active and independent.

TOYS AND PLAY Our family’s gender lessons are thorough. On the basis of our sex, our parents give us different kinds of toys. Boys are more likely to get guns and “action figures” that destroy enemies. Girls are more likely to be given dolls and jewelry. Some parents try to choose “gender neutral” toys, but kids know what is popular, and they feel left out if they don’t have what the other kids have. The significance of toys in gender socialization can be summarized this way: Most parents would be upset if someone gave their son Barbie dolls.

We also learn gender through play. Parents subtly “signal” to their sons that it is okay for them to participate in more rough-and-tumble play. In general, parents expect their sons to get dirtier and to be more defiant, their daughters to be daintier and more compli- ant (Gilman 1911/1971; Nordberg 2010). And in large part, parents get what they expect.

It is in the family that we first learn how to do gender, how to match our ideas, attitudes, and behaviors to those expected of us because of our sex. This young girl in Zimbabwe is learning that removing chaff from corn is women’s work.

The gender roles that we learn during childhood become part of our basic orientations to life. Although we refine these roles as we grow older, they remain built around the framework established during childhood.

Socialization 83

Our experiences in socialization lie at the heart of the sociological explanation of male–female differences. For a fascinating account of how socialization can trump biol- ogy, read the following Cultural Diversity around the World.

Cultural Diversity around the World When Women Become Men: The Sworn Virgins

Albania

“I will become a man,” said Pashe. “I will do it.” The decision was final. Taking a pair of scissors, she

soon had her long, black curls lying at her feet. She took off her dress—never to wear one again in her life—and put on her father’s baggy trousers. She armed herself with her father’s rifle. She would need it.

Going before the village elders, she swore to never marry, to never have children, and to never have sex.

Pashe had become a sworn virgin—and a man.

There was no turning back. The penalty for violating the oath was death.

In northern Albania, where Pashe Keqi lives, and in parts of Bosnia and Serbia, some women become men. They are neither transsexuals nor lesbians. Nor do they have a sex-change operation, something which is unknown in those parts.

This custom, which goes back centuries, is a practical matter, a way to protect and support the family. In these traditional societies, women stay home and take care of the children and household. They can go hardly anywhere except to the market and mosque. Women depend on men for survival.

And when there is no man? This is the problem.

Pashe’s father was killed in a blood feud. In these traditional groups, when the family patriarch (male head) dies and there are no male heirs, how are the women to survive? In the fifteenth century, people in this area hit upon a solution: One of the daughters takes an oath of lifelong virginity and takes over the man’s role. She then becomes a social he—she wears male clothing, carries a gun, owns property, and moves freely throughout the society.

She drinks in the tavern with the men. She sits with the men at weddings. She prays with the men at the mosque. When a man wants to marry a girl of the family, she is the one who approves or disapproves of the suitor.

In short, the woman really becomes a man. Actually, a social man, sociologists would add. Her biology did not change, but her gender did. Pashe had become the man

of the house, a status she occupied her entire life.

Even though she was only 11 years old, Pashe’s decision made her responsible for avenging her father’s murder. But when his killer was released from prison, her 15-year-old nephew (she is his uncle) rushed in and did the deed instead.

Sworn virgins walk like men, they talk like men, and they hunt with the men. They also take up manly occupations. They

become shepherds, security guards, truck drivers, and political leaders. Those around them know that they are biological women, but in all ways they treat them as men. When a sworn virgin talks to women, the women recoil in shyness.

The sworn virgins of Albania are a fascinating cultural contradiction: In the midst of a highly traditional group, one built around male superiority that severely limits women, we find both the belief and practice that a biological

Shkurtan Hasanpapaj, on the right, is a sworn virgin, shown here with her twin sister Sose. The photo was taken in Shkodra, Albania.

(continued)

84 Chapter 3

SAME-SEX PARENTS Because parents give gender messages to their children, we might expect that the children of homosexual and heterosexual parents will learn different gender lessons and display different gender behaviors. Do they? The initial research findings are mixed. Some research indicates that the children of gay and lesbian couples show less gen- der stereotyping. That is, the boys show more behaviors that are traditionally considered feminine, and the girls display more behaviors that are traditionally considered masculine (Goldberg et al. 2012). In contrast, other research indicates that the children of gay and les- bian couples are more likely to reflect traditional ideas of gender (Fedewa et al. 2014).

This research is in its infancy. At this point we don’t even know what gender mes- sages same-sex parents give their children, much less how they give those messages and what the outcomes are. We need rigorous research, including matching studies of how both same-sex and opposite-sex parents teach femininity and masculinity.

Gender Messages from Peers Sociologists stress how this sorting process into gender that begins in the family is rein- forced as children are exposed to other aspects of society. Of those other influences, one of the most powerful is the peer group, individuals of roughly the same age who are linked by common interests. Examples of peer groups are friends, classmates, and “the kids in the neighborhood.”

As you grew up, you saw girls and boys teach one another what it means to be female or male. You might not have recognized what was happening, however, so let’s eavesdrop on a conversation between two eighth-grade girls studied by sociologist Donna Eder (2007).

cindy: The only thing that makes her look anything is all the makeup … penny: She had a picture, and she’s standing like this. (Poses with one hand on her

hip and one by her head) cindy: Her face is probably this skinny, but it looks that big ’cause of all the make-

up she has on it. penny: She’s ugly, ugly, ugly.

Do you see how these girls were giving gender lessons? They were reinforcing images of appearance and behavior that they thought were appropriate for females.

Boys, too, reinforce cultural expectations of gender (Carter 2014). When sociologist Melissa Milkie (1994) studied junior high school boys, she caught a glimpse of this in action. Much of their talk was about movies and TV programs. Of the many images they saw, the boys would single out those associated with sex and violence. They would amuse one another by repeating lines, acting out parts, and joking and laughing at what they had seen.

If you know boys in their early teens, you’ve probably seen a lot of behavior like this. You may have been amused or have even shaken your head in disapproval. But did you peer beneath the surface? Milkie did. What is really going on? The boys, she concluded, were using media images to develop their identity as males. They had gotten the message: “Real” males

peer group a group of individuals, often of roughly the same age, who are linked by common interests and orientations

woman can do the work of a man and function in all of a man’s social roles. The sole exception is marriage.

Social Change and Modernization Under communist rule until 1985, with travel restricted by law and custom, mountainous northern Albania had been cut off from the rest of the world. Now there is a democratic government, and the region is connected to the world by better roads, telephones, and even television. As modern life trickles into these villages, few women want to become men. “Why should we?” they ask. “Now we have freedom. We can go to the city and work and support our families.”

For Your Consideration → How do the sworn virgins of Albania help to explain what

gender is? → Apply functionalism: How was the custom of sworn vir-

gins functional for this society?

→ Apply symbolic interactionism: How do symbols underlie and maintain a woman’s shift to becoming a man in this society?

→ Apply conflict theory: How do power relations between men and women underlie the custom of sworn virgins?

SOURCES: Based on Zumbrun 2007; Bilefsky 2008; Paterniti 2014; Mema and Gaudichet 2016.

Socialization 85

are obsessed with sex and violence. Not to joke and laugh about murder and promiscuous sex would have marked a boy as a “weenie” or a “nerd,” labels to be avoided at all costs.

Gender Messages in the Mass Media As you can see with the boys Milkie studied, a major guide to the gender map is the mass media, forms of communication that are directed to large audiences. Let’s look further at how media images help teach us gender, the behaviors and attitudes considered appro- priate for our sex.

TELEVISION, MOVIES, AND CARTOONS If you’ve watched children while they are watching videos or television, you’ve probably noticed how engrossed they are. They can hardly lift their eyes from “the action” when you try to get their attention. What are children learning through these powerful media that transmit ideas through words and moving images? One major lesson is that males are more important than females, as male characters outnumber female characters two to one (Ahmed and Wahab 2014).

In children’s cartoons, females used to be portrayed as less brave and more depen- dent. Reflecting women’s changing position in society, cartoons now feature dominant, aggressive females. Kim Possible divides her time between cheerleading practice and saving the world from evil. With tongue in cheek, the Powerpuff Girls are touted as “the most elite kindergarten crime-fighting force ever assembled.”

Movies and television also reflect this changed portrayal of gender. Violent females who play lead characters have become common: from Katnis Everdeen in The Hunger Games to Game of Thrones where women daringly rescue men and hijack fleets of ships. One leads a battle, looking on in satisfaction as dogs eat the face of her rapist.

The mass media are effective in teaching us what we “should” look like. While girls are presented as more powerful than they used to be, they have to be skinny and gor- geous and wear the latest fashions. Such messages present a dilemma for girls: Continu- ously thrust before them is a model that is almost impossible to replicate in real life.

VIDEO GAMES

Chicago’s Robert Morris University is the nation’s first school to offer a sports scholarship in video games. When the basketball team protested, the sports director said “It used to be considered odd to throw a ball through a hoop, too.” (Belkin 2014)

All over the nation, parents are concerned that their children are wasting their time playing video games. To the parent’s dismay, in a new world of e-sports scholarships— and even videogame coaches—children can now mount a stronger defense (Needleman 2016).

Sociologists have found that video games also reflect the message of male dominance—and overwhelmingly so. Of the main characters, 96 percent are male—and most females, as usual, are portrayed as sexy (Kuchera 2013). Some video games, though, reflect cutting-edge changes in sex roles, the topic of the following Sociology and Technology: The Shifting Landscape.

ADVERTISING From an early age, you have been bombarded with stereotypical images of gender. If you are average, you are exposed to a blistering 360 ads a day, 130,000 a year (S. Johnson 2014). Ads directed at children are more likely to show boys competing in out- door settings and girls cooperating in indoor settings. As you know so well, most action figures are pitched to boys, while most dolls are directed to girls.

mass media forms of communication, such as radio, newspapers, and tele- vision that are directed to mass audiences

Wasting time? Just fun? Improving hand–eye coordination? Parents’ lament? Now so culturally integrated and gaining respect that a university (Robert Morris in Chicago) now calls playing video games a sport and awards a scholarship in video games. The newest position in coaching is e-sport coach.

86 Chapter 3

Sociology and Technology: The Shifting Landscape Lara Croft, Tomb Raider: Changing Images of Women in the Mass Media With digital advanc- es, video games have crossed the line from games to something that more closely resembles interactive movies. The games cost millions of dollars to produce and market. One game (Grand Theft Auto 5) cost $250 million (McLaughlin 2014). Sociologically, what is significant is not their cost but their content. Video games expose gamers not only to action but also to ideas and images. Just as in other forms of the mass media, the gender images in video games communicate powerful messages.

The message of changing gender is loud and clear with Lara Croft, an adventure-seeking archeologist and star of Tomb Raider and its many sequels. Lara is smart, strong, and able to utterly vanquish foes. With both guns blazing—or whatever weapons she happens to be using— Lara breaks stereotypical gender roles and dominates what usually is the domain of men.

Yet as the photo here makes evident, Lara is a digital fantasy girl. No matter her foe, no matter her predicament,

Lara oozes sex. Her form-fitting outfits, which flatter her volup- tuous figure, reflect the mental images of the men who created this digital character.

In 2013, these men gave Lara a makeover, presenting what they

said was a “more vulnerable and realistic” Lara (Parker 2012). The new Lara, shown here, doesn’t seem more vulnerable, as she still manages to kill a lot of men. She is more realistic

in the sense that the new graphics make her look almost human, but

she still manages to ooze sex whenever she moves. My best guess is that her creators have

not had a mental makeover.

For Your Consideration → A sociologist who reviewed this text said, “It seems

that for women to be defined as equal, we have to become symbolic males—warriors with breasts.” Why is gender change mostly one-way—females adopting traditional male characteristics? These two questions should help: Who is moving into the traditional territo- ry of the other? Do people prefer to imitate power or weakness?

As adults, we are still peppered with ads. Although their purpose is to sell products— from booze and bras to cigarettes and cell phones—these ads continue our gender lessons. Most beauty products are pitched to women and most cars and technology to men (Matthes et al. 2016). The stereotypical images—from cowboys who roam the wide-open spaces to scantily clad women whose physical assets couldn’t possibly be real—become part of our own images of the sexes. So do advertising’s occasional attention-grabbing stereotype-breaking images.

IN SUM “Male” and “female” are powerful symbols. When we learn that different behav- iors and attitudes are expected of us because we are a girl or a boy, we learn to interpret the world in terms of gender. Whether overt and exaggerated or subtle and low-key, the mass media continue the gender lessons begun at home and reinforced by our peers. Gender serves as a primary basis for social inequality—giving privileges and obligations to one group of people while denying them to another, something we will analyze in following chapters.

Agents of Socialization 3.5 Explain how the family, the neighborhood, religion, day care, school, peer

groups, and the workplace are agents of socialization.

Individuals and groups that influence our orientations to life—our self-concept, emotions, attitudes, and behavior—are called agents of socialization. We have already considered

social inequality a social condition in which priv- ileges and obligations are given to some but denied to others

agents of socialization people or groups that affect our self concept, attitudes, behaviors, or other orientations toward life

Socialization 87

how three of these agents—the family, our peers, and the mass media— influence our ideas of gender. Now we’ll look more closely at how agents of socialization prepare us in ways other than gender to take our place in society.

The Family As you know, the first group to have a major impact on who you become is your family. Your experiences in the family are so intense that they last a lifetime. These experiences establish your initial motivations, values, and beliefs. In your family, you receive your basic sense of self, ideas about who you are and what you deserve out of life. It is here that you began to think of yourself as strong or weak, smart or dumb, good-looking or ugly—or more likely, somewhere in between.

Not all families are the same, of course. Let’s look at the difference that social class makes in how families socialize their children.

SOCIAL CLASS AND TYPE OF WORK Sociologist Melvin Kohn (1959, 1963, 1977, 2006) found major differences in how working-class and middle-class parents socialize their children. With the main concern of working-class parents that their children stay out of trouble, these parents tend to use physical punishment. Middle-class parents, in contrast, focus more on developing their children’s curiosity, self-expression, and self- control. They are more likely to reason with their children than to punish them physically.

Why should there be such differences? Kohn wondered. As a sociologist, he knew that the reason was life experiences of some sort, and he found the answer in the world of work. Blue-collar workers are usually told exactly what to do. Since they expect their chil- dren’s lives to be like theirs, they stress obedience. In contrast, the work of middle-class parents requires more initiative, and these parents socialize their children into the quali- ties they find valuable.

Kohn was still puzzled. Some working-class parents act more like middle-class parents, and vice versa. As Kohn probed further, the pieces fell into place. The key turned out to be the parents’ types of jobs. Middle-class office workers are supervised closely, and Kohn found that they follow the working-class pattern of child rearing, emphasizing conformity. And some blue-collar workers, such as those who do home repairs, have a good deal of freedom. These workers follow the middle-class model in rearing their children (Pearlin and Kohn 1966; Kohn and Schooler 1969).

SOCIAL CLASS AND PLAY Working-class and middle-class par- ents also have different ideas of how children develop, ideas that have fascinating consequences for children’s play (Lareau 2002, 2011; Mose 2016). Working-class parents see their children as being like wildflowers—they develop naturally. Since the child’s develop- ment will take care of itself, good parenting primarily means pro- viding food, shelter, and comfort. These parents set limits on their children’s play (“Don’t go near the railroad tracks”) and let them play as they wish. To middle-class parents, in contrast, children are like tender houseplants—they need a lot of guidance if they are to flower. These parents want their children’s play to accomplish something. They may want them to play baseball, for example, not for the enjoyment of the sport but to help them learn how to be team players.

The Neighborhood As all parents know, some neighborhoods are better than others for children. Parents try to move to the better neighborhoods—if they can afford them. Their commonsense evaluations are borne out by

This photo captures an extreme form of family socialization. The father seems to be more emotionally involved in the goal—and in more pain—than his daughter, as he pushes her toward the finish line in the Teen Tours of America Kid’s Triathlon.

88 Chapter 3

sociological research. Children from poor neighborhoods are more likely to get in trou- ble with the law, to become pregnant, to drop out of school, to see violence, and to have worse mental health (Levanthal and Brooks-Gunn 2000; Wheaton and Clarke 2003; Ren- don 2014; Graif and Matthews 2017).

Sociologists have found that parenting is easier in the more affluent neighbor- hoods. Among the major advantages these parents have are more employment, less crime, stronger ties among the neighbors, more support groups, and being able to rely more on one another in times of need (Byrnes and Miller 2012; Rendon 2014). There are also fewer families in transition, so the adults are more likely to know the local children and their parents. This better equips them to help keep the children safe and out of trouble.

Religion How important is religion in your life? Most Americans report that religion is very important to them, but what if you are among the 25 percent who say that religion is not very important (Gallup Poll 2017)? We would miss the point if we were to assume that religion influences only people who are “religious.” Religion plays a powerful role even for people who wouldn’t be caught dead near a church, synagogue, or mosque. How? Religious ideas so pervade U.S. society that they provide the foundation of morality for both the religious and the nonreligious.

For many Americans, the influence of religion is more direct. This is especially true for the nearly two of every five Americans who report that during a typical week they attend a religious service (Gallup Poll 2017). On the obvious level, through their participation in religious services, they learn doctrines, values, and morality, but the effects of religion on their lives go far beyond this. For example, in religious services, they learn beliefs about the hereafter, but they also learn what kinds of clothing, speech, and manners are appropriate for formal occasions. There are many more func- tions. Life in congregations also provides them a sense of identity, a feeling of belong- ing. Religious participation also helps to integrate immigrants into their new society, offers an avenue of social mobility for the poor, provides social contacts for jobs, and, for African Americans, has been a powerful influence in social change.

Day Care It is rare for social science research to make national news, but occasionally it does. This is what happened when researchers published their findings on 1,300 kindergarten chil- dren they had studied since they were a month old. They observed the children multiple times both at home and at day care. They also videotaped the children’s interactions with their mothers (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 1999; Guen- sburg 2001).

What caught the media’s attention? Children who spend more time in day care have weaker bonds with their mothers and are less affectionate toward them. They are also less cooperative with others and more likely to fight and to be “mean.” By the time they get to kindergarten, they are more likely to talk back to teachers and to disrupt the class- room. This holds true regardless of the quality of the day care, the family’s social class, or whether the child is a girl or a boy (Belsky 2006). On the positive side, the children scored higher on language tests.

Are we producing a generation of “smart but mean” children? This is not an unrea- sonable question, since the study was well designed and an even larger study of children in England has come up with similar findings (Belsky 2006). Some point out that the dif- ferences between children who spend a lot of time in day care and those who spend less time are slight. Others stress that with 2 million children in day care (Statistical Abstract 2017:Table 593), slight differences can be significant for society.

Socialization 89

There is another surprise: These initial effects of day care did not disappear as the children grew older. At age 15, the children who had spent more time in child care had slightly more behavioral problems and did slightly worse academically than those who had spent less time in day care (Vandell et al. 2010). Apparently, the age at which children begin day care is of utmost importance. Infants who begin day care before the age of 1 experience the most negative effects, those who begin between the ages of 1 and 2 have less negative effects, and those who begin day care after the age of 3 have no negative effects (Gentleman 2010).

The School Part of the manifest function, or intended purpose, of formal education is to teach knowl- edge and skills, such as reading, writing, and arithmetic. Schools also have latent func- tions, unintended consequences that help the social system. Let’s look at this less obvious aspect of education. At home, children learn attitudes and values that match their family’s situation in life. At school, they learn a broader perspective that helps prepare them to take a role in the world beyond the family. At home, a child may have been the almost exclu- sive focus of doting parents, but in school, the child learns universality—that the same rules apply to everyone, regardless of who their parents are or how special they may be at home.

The Cultural Diversity in the United States that follows explores how these new values and ways of looking at the world sometimes even replace those the child learns at home.

manifest functions the intended beneficial conse- quences of people’s actions

latent functions the unintended beneficial conse- quences of people’s actions

Cultural Diversity in the United States Immigrants and Their Children: Caught between Two Worlds It is a struggle to adapt to a new culture, to learn behaviors and ways of thinking that are at odds with those already learned. This exposure to two worlds can lead to inner tur- moil. One way to handle the conflict is to cut ties with your first culture. Doing so, however, can create a sense of loss, one that is perhaps recognized only later in life.

Richard Rodriguez, a literature professor and essayist, was born to working-class Mexican immigrants. Wanting their son to be successful in their adopted land, his parents named him Richard instead of Ricardo. Although his English– Spanish hybrid name indicates his parents’ aspirations for their son, it was also an omen of the conflict that Richard would experience.

Like other children of Mexican immigrants, Richard first spoke Spanish—a rich mother tongue that introduced him to the world. Until the age of 5, when he began school, Richard knew only fifty words in English. He describes what happened when he began school:

The change came gradually but early. When I was beginning grade school, I noted to myself the fact that the classroom environment was so different in its styles and assumptions from my own family environment that survival would essentially entail a choice between both worlds. When I became a

student, I was literally “remade”; neither I nor my teachers considered anything I had known before as relevant. I had to forget most of what my culture had provided, because to remember it was a disadvantage. The past and its cultural values became detachable, like a piece of clothing grown heavy on a warm day and finally put away.

As happened to millions of immigrants before him, whose parents spoke German, Polish, Italian, and so on, learning English eroded family and class ties and ate away at his ethnic roots. For Rodriguez, language and education were not simply devices that eased the transition to the dominant culture but they also slashed at the roots that had given him life.

To face conflicting cultures is to confront a fork in the road. Some

U.S.A.U.S.A.

(continued)

90 Chapter 3

Schools are a primary agent of socialization. One of their functions is to teach children the attitudes and skills they are thought to need as adults.

Sociologists have also identified a hidden curriculum in our schools. This term refers to values that, although not taught explicitly, are part of a school’s “cultural message.” For example, the stories and examples that are used to teach math and English may bring with them lessons in patriotism, democracy, justice, and honesty. There is also a corridor curriculum, what students teach one another outside the classroom. The corridor curric- ulum is strikingly different: It includes racism, sexism, illicit ways to make money, cool- ness, and superiority (Hemmings 1999; Cross and Fletcher 2013). You can determine for yourself how each of these is functional and dysfunctional.

Conflict theorists point out that social class separates children into different educa- tional worlds. Children of wealthy parents go to private schools, where they learn skills and values that match their higher position. Children of middle-class parents go to pub- lic schools, where they learn that good jobs, even the professions, beckon, while children from blue-collar families learn that not many of “their kind” will become professionals or leaders. This is one of the many reasons that children from blue-collar families are less likely to take college prep courses or to go to college. In short, our schools reflect and reinforce our social class divisions. We will return to this topic in Chapter 13.

Peer Groups As a child’s experiences with agents of socialization broaden, the influence of the family decreases. Entry into school marks one of many steps in this transfer of allegiance. One of the most significant aspects of education is that it exposes children to peer groups whose influences conflict with how parents and schools are trying to socialize them.

When sociologists Patricia and Peter Adler (1998) observed children at two elementary schools in Colorado, they saw how children separate themselves by sex and develop sepa- rate gender worlds. The norms that made boys popular were athletic ability, coolness, and toughness. For girls, popularity came from family background, physical appearance (clothing and use of makeup), and the ability to attract popular boys. In this children’s subculture, academic achievement pulled in

turn one way and withdraw from the new culture—a clue that helps to explain why so many Latinos drop out of U.S. schools. Others turn the other way. Cutting ties with their family and cultural roots, they embrace the new culture.

Rodriguez took the second road. He excelled in his new language—so much, in fact, that he graduated from Stanford University and then became a graduate student in English at the University of California at Berkeley. He was even awarded a Fulbright fellowship to study English Renaissance literature at the University of London.

But the past shadowed Rodriguez. Prospective employers were impressed with his knowledge of Renaissance literature. At job interviews, however, they would skip over the Renaissance training and ask him if he would teach the Mexican novel and be an advisor to Latino students. Rodriguez was also haunted by the image of his grandmother, the warmth of the culture he had left behind, and the language and ways of thinking to which he had become a stranger.

Richard Rodriguez represents tens of millions of immigrants—not just those of Latino origin but those from other cultures, too—who want to integrate into

U.S. culture yet not betray their past. Fearing loss of their roots, they are caught between two cultures, each beckoning, each offering rich rewards. The choice is painful.

From his most recent writings, it is evident that even as he ages, the past and cultural contradictions continue to plague Rodriguez.

SOURCES: Based on Rodriguez 1975, 1982, 1991, 1995, 2013.

For Your Consideration → I saw this conflict firsthand with my father, who did not

learn English until after the seventh grade (his last in school). He left German behind, eventually coming to the point that he could no longer speak it, but broken English and awkward expressions remained for a lifetime. Then, too, there were the lingering emotional connections to old ways, as well as the haughtiness and slights of more assimilated Americans. He grasped security by holding on to the past, its ways of thinking and feeling, but at the same time he wanted to succeed in the everyday reality of the new culture. Have you seen similar conflicts?

Socialization 91

Down-to-Earth Sociology Gossip and Ridicule to Enforce Adolescent Norms Adolescence is not known as the turbulent years for noth- ing. During this period of our lives, the security of an identity rooted in parental relations and family life is being ripped from us as we attempt to piece together a strong sense of individual identity. This sense of who we are apart from our parents and siblings does not come easily. At this stage of life, we simply don’t know who we yet are, and seldom do we have a good sense of whom we will become. The pro- cess of developing a sense of self by evaluating the reflec- tions we receive from others is not new, but its severity at this point of life grows acute.

Here is what sociologist Donna Eder said about her research on adolescent girls.

I became concerned while reading studies on adolescent girls. Many of these studies reported a drop in girls’ self-esteem and self-image when they entered junior high school. I hired both fe- male and male assistants to observe lunchtime interaction along with me as I wanted to study both girls and boys from different social class backgrounds. We also attended after-school sports events and cheerleading practices. All of us took field notes after we left the setting and tape-recorded lunchtime conversations.

Some of the things we observed were painful to watch. Through our recordings of gossip and ridi- cule, we learned a lot about what might make girls so insecure. For one thing, much of the gossip involved negative comments on other girls’ appearances as well as their “stuck up” behavior. The only time that anyone disagreed with someone’s negative evaluation was if they did so early on, right after the remark was made. Once even one other person agreed with it, no one seemed willing to challenge the “group” view. So

in order to participate in the gossip, you pretty much needed to join in with the negative comments or else be sure to speak up quickly.

When we studied teasing, we also saw the power of a response to shape the meaning of an exchange. One day during volleyball practice, a girl said that another girl was showing off her new bra through her white T-shirt. The girl responded by saying, “If I want to show off my bra, I’ll do it like this,” lifting her shirt up.

By responding playfully, she disarmed the insulter, and her teammates all joined in on the laughter.

In this large middle school, status hierarchies were based on appear- ance, social class, and intelligence. Those at the bottom of the status rank- ings were isolates, eating lunch by themselves or with other low status students. As isolates, they were frequent targets of ridicule from students trying to build themselves up by putting others

down. Both boys and girls picked on the isolates, most of whom lacked the skills to turn the exchanges into playful ones.

SOURCE: Redacted from Eder 2014.

For Your Consideration → For many students, middle school is a difficult time of

transition. What was school like for you at this age?

→ In school, did you observe anything like the events reported here?

→ Why do you think peer groups at this stage in life are so critical, even vicious?

→ Why do peer groups, at all stages of life, produce isolates?

Status insecurity, already high at this time of life, increases with gossip and ridicule.

opposite directions: High grades lowered the popularity of boys, but for girls, good grades increased their standing among peers.

You know from your own experience how compelling peer groups are. It is almost impossible to go against a peer group, whose cardinal rule seems to be “conformity or rejection.” Anyone who doesn’t do what the others want becomes an “outsider,” a “non- member,” an “outcast.” For preteens and teens just learning their way around in the world, it is not surprising that the peer group rules. As you know, peer groups can be vicious in enforcing their norms, the focus of the following Down-to-Earth Sociology.

92 Chapter 3

As a result, the standards of our peer groups tend to dominate our lives. If your peers, for example, listen to rap, Nortec, death metal, rock and roll, country, or gospel, it is almost inevitable that you also prefer that kind of music. In high school, if your friends take math courses, you probably do, too. It is the same for clothing styles and dat- ing standards. Peer influences also extend to behaviors that violate social norms. If your peers are college-bound and upwardly striving, this is most likely what you will be; but if they use drugs, cheat, and steal, you are likely to do so, too.

The Workplace Another agent of socialization that comes into play somewhat later in life is the work- place. Those initial jobs that we take in high school and college are much more than just a way to earn a few dollars. From the people we rub shoulders with at work, we learn not only a set of skills but also perspectives on the world.

Most of us eventually become committed to some particular type of work, often after trying out many jobs. This may involve anticipatory socialization, learning to play a role before entering it. Anticipatory socialization is a sort of mental rehearsal for some future activity. We may talk to people who work in a particular career, read novels about that type of work, or take a summer internship in that field. Becoming more familiar with what some particular work requires can help people avoid an empty career. When edu- cation majors do their student teaching, some find out that they don’t enjoy it, and they move on to other fields more to their liking.

An intriguing aspect of work as a socializing agent is that the more you participate in a line of work, the more this work becomes part of your self-concept. Eventually, you come to think of yourself so much in terms of the job that if someone asks you to describe yourself, you are likely to include the job in your self-description. You might say, “I’m a teacher,” “I’m a nurse,” or “I’m a sociologist.”

Resocialization 3.6 Explain what total institutions are and how they resocialize people.

What does a woman who has just become a nun have in common with a man who has just divorced?

The answer to this question is that they both are undergoing resocialization; that is, they are learning new norms, values, attitudes, and behaviors to match their new situation in life. In its most common form, resocialization occurs each time we learn something contrary to our previous experiences. A new boss who insists on a different way of doing things is resocializing you. Most resocialization is mild—only a slight modification of things we have already learned.

Resocialization can also be intense. People who join Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), for example, are surrounded by reformed drinkers who affirm the destructive consequences of excessive drinking. Some students experience an intense period of resocialization when they leave high school and start college—especially during those initially scary days before they find companions, start to fit in, and feel comfortable. The experiences of peo- ple who join a cult or begin psychotherapy are even more profound: They learn views that conflict with their earlier socialization. If these ideas “take,” not only does the individual’s behavior change but he or she also learns a fundamentally different way of looking at life.

Total Institutions Relatively few of us experience the powerful agent of socialization that sociologist Erving Goffman (1961) called the total institution. He coined this term to refer to a

anticipatory socialization the process of learning in ad- vance an anticipated future role or status

resocialization the process of learning new norms, values, attitudes, and behaviors

total institution a place that is almost totally controlled by those who run it, in which people are cut off from the rest of society and the soci- ety is mostly cut off from them

Socialization 93

place where people are cut off from the rest of society and where they come under almost total control of the officials who are in charge. Boot camps, prisons, concen- tration camps, convents, and some military schools, such as West Point, are total institutions.

A person entering a total institution is greeted with a degradation ceremony (Garfinkel 1956), an attempt to remake the self by stripping away the individual ’s current identity and stamping a new one in its place. This unwelcome greeting may involve fingerprinting, photographing, or shaving the head. Newcomers may be ordered to strip, undergo an examination (often in a humiliating, semipublic setting), and then put on a uniform that designates their new status. Officials also take away the individual ’s personal identity kit, items such as jewelry, hairstyles, clothing, and other body decorations used to express individuality.

Total institutions are isolated from the public. The bars, walls, gates, and guards not only keep the inmates in but also keep outsiders out. Staff members supervise the day-to- day lives of the residents. Eating, sleeping, showering, recreation—all are standardized. Inmates learn that their previous statuses—student, worker, spouse, parent—mean noth- ing. The only thing that counts is their current status.

No one leaves a total institution unscathed: The experience brands an indelible mark on the individual’s self and colors the way he or she sees the world. Boot camp, as described in the following Down-to-Earth Sociology, is brutal but swift. Prison, in contrast, is brutal and prolonged. Neither recruit nor prisoner, however, has difficulty in knowing that the institution has had profound effects on their attitudes and orientations to life.

degradation ceremony a term coined by Harold Garfin- kel to refer to a ritual whose goal is to remake someone’s self by stripping away that individual’s self-identity and stamping a new identity in its place

Down-to-Earth Sociology Boot Camp as a Total Institution The bus arrives at Parris Island, South Carolina, at 3 a.m. The early hour is no accident. The recruits are groggy, confused. Up to a few hours ago, the young men were ordinary civilians. Now, as a sergeant sneeringly calls them “maggots,” their heads are buzzed (25 seconds per recruit), and they are quickly thrust into the harsh world of Marine boot camp.

Buzzing the recruits’ hair is just the first step in stripping away their identity so that the Marines can stamp a new one in its place. The uniform serves the same purpose. There is a ban on using the first person “I.” Even a simple request must be made in precise Marine style or it will not be acknowledged. (“Sir, Recruit Jones requests permission to make a head call, Sir.”)

Every intense moment of the next eleven weeks reminds the recruits, men and women, that they are joining a subculture of self-discipline. Here, pleasure is suspect, and sacrifice is good. As they learn the Marine

way of talking, walking, and thinking, they are denied the diversions they once took for granted: television,

cigarettes, cars, candy, soft drinks, video games, music, alcohol, drugs, and sex.

Lessons are taught with fierce intensity. When Sergeant Carey checks brass belt buckles, Recruit Robert Shelton nervously blurts, “I don’t have one.” Sergeant Carey’s face grows red as his neck cords bulge. “I?” he says, his face just inches from the recruit. With spittle flying from his mouth, he screams, “‘I’ is gone!”

“Nobody’s an individual” is the lesson that is driven home again

and again. “You are a team, a Marine. Not a civilian. Not black or white, not Hispanic or Indian or some hyphenated American—but a Marine. You will live like a Marine, fight like a Marine, and, if necessary, die like a Marine.”

Each day begins before dawn with close-order formations. The rest of the day is filled with training in hand- to-hand combat, marching, running, calisthenics, Marine history, and—always—following orders.

A recruit with a drill instructor.

(continued)

94 Chapter 3

Socialization through the Life Course 3.7 Identify major divisions of the life course, and discuss the sociological

significance of the life course.

You are at a particular stage in your life now, and college is a major part of it. You know that you have more stages ahead as you go through life. These stages, from birth to death, are called the life course. The sociological significance of the life course is twofold. First, as you pass through a stage, it affects your behavior and orientations. You simply don’t think about life in the same way when you are 35, are married, and have a baby and a mortgage as you do when you are 18 or 20, single, and in college. (Actually, you don’t even see life the same way as a freshman and as a senior.) Second, your life course differs by social location. Your social class, race–ethnicity, and gender, for example, map out dis- tinctive worlds of experience.

This means that the typical life course differs for males and females, the rich and the poor, and so on. To emphasize this major sociological point, in the sketch that follows I will stress the historical setting of people’s lives. Because of your particular social loca- tion, your own life course may differ from this sketch, which is a composite of stages that others have suggested (Levinson 1978; Carr et al. 1995; Quadagno 2013).

Childhood (from birth to about age 12) Consider how remarkably different your childhood would have been if you had grown up in Europe a few hundred years ago. Historian Philippe Ariès (1965) noticed that in European paintings from about a.d. 1000 to 1800, children were always dressed in adult clothing. If they were not depicted stiffly posed, as in a family portrait, they were shown doing adult activities.

From this, Ariès drew a conclusion that sparked a debate among historians. He said that Europeans of this era did not regard childhood as a special time of life. They viewed children as miniature adults and put them to work at an early age. At the age of 7, for example, a boy might leave home for good to learn to be a jeweler or a stonecutter. A girl, in contrast, stayed home until she married, but by the age of 7, she assumed her share of the household tasks. Historians do not deny that these were the customs of that time, but some say that Ariès’ conclusion is ridiculous, that other evidence indicates that these people viewed childhood as a special time of life (Orme 2002).

life course the stages of our life as we go from birth to death

“An M-16 can blow someone’s head off at 500 meters,” Sergeant Norman says. “That’s beautiful, isn’t it?”

“Yes, sir!” shout the platoon’s fifty-nine voices. “Pick your nose!” Simultaneously fifty-nine index

fingers shoot into nostrils. The pressure to conform is intense. Those who are

sent packing for insubordination or suicidal tendencies are mocked in cadence during drills. (“Hope you like the sights you see/Parris Island casualty.”) As lights go out at 9 p.m., the exhausted recruits perform the day’s last task: The entire platoon, in unison, chants the virtues of the Marines.

Recruits are constantly scrutinized. Subpar performance is not accepted, whether a dirty rifle or a loose thread on a uniform. The underperformer is shouted at, derided, humiliated. The group suffers for the individual. If one recruit is slow, the entire platoon is punished.

The system works.

One of the new Marines (until graduation, they are recruits, not Marines) says, “I feel like I’ve joined a new society or religion.”

He has.

SOURCES: Based on Garfinkel 1956; Goffman 1961; Ricks 1995; Dyer 2007.

For Your Consideration Use concepts in this chapter to explain why the Marine system works.

→ Of what significance is the recruits’ degradation ceremony?

→ Why are recruits not allowed video games, cigarettes, or calls home?

→ Why are the Marines so unfair as to punish an entire platoon for the failure of an individual?

Socialization 95

Until about 1900, having children work like adults was common around the world. Even today, children in the Least Industrialized Nations work in many occupations— from blacksmiths to waiters. As tourists are shocked to discover, children in these nations also work as street peddlers, hawking everything from shoelaces to chewing gum.

Child rearing, too, used to be remarkably different. Three hundred years ago, par- ents and teachers considered it their moral duty to terrorize children. To keep children from “going bad,” they would frighten them with bedtime stories of death and hellfire, lock them in dark closets, and force them to witness events like this:

A common moral lesson involved taking children to visit the gibbet [an upraised post on which executed bodies were left hanging], where they were forced to inspect the rotting corpses as an example of what happens to bad children when they grow up. Whole classes were taken out of school to witness hangings, and parents would often whip their chil- dren afterwards to make them remember what they had seen. (DeMause 1975)

Industrialization, which brought formal schooling to large segments of the popula- tion, transformed the way we perceive children. Going to school instead of work, chil- dren postponed taking on adult roles. Parents and officials came to think of children as needing more care, comfort, and protection. Such attitudes of dependency grew, and today we view children as needing gentle guidance if they are to develop emotionally, intellectually, morally, even physically. We take our view for granted—after all, it is only “common sense.” Yet, as you can see, our view is not “natural.” It is rooted in society—in geography, history, and economic development.

IN SUM Childhood is more than biology. Everyone’s child- hood occurs at some point in history and is embedded in spe- cific social locations, especially social class and gender. These social factors are as vital as our biology, for they determine what our childhood will be like. Although a child’s biological charac- teristics (such as being small and dependent) are universal, the child’s social experiences (the kind of life the child lives) are not. Because of this, sociologists say that childhood varies from culture to culture.

Adolescence (ages 13–17) It might seem strange to you, but adolescence is a social invention, not a “natural” age division. Attaining adulthood never has been easy (von Goethe 1774), but in earlier centu- ries the transition from childhood to young adulthood had no stopover in between. The Industrial Revolution allowed adolescence to be invented. It brought such an abundance of material surpluses that for the first time in history people in their teens were not needed as workers. At the same time, education became more important for achieving success. As these two forces in industrialized societies converged, they created a gap between childhood and adulthood. The term adolescence was coined to indicate this new stage in life (Hall 1904), one that has become renowned for insecurity, rebel- lion, and inner turmoil.

To mark the passage of children into adulthood, tribal societies hold initiation rites. This grounds the self-identity, showing young people how they fit in their society. In the industrialized world, however, adolescents must “find”

In many societies, manhood is not bestowed upon males simply because they reach a certain age. Manhood, rather, signifies a standing in the community that must be achieved. Shown here is an initiation ceremony in Indonesia, where boys, to lay claim to the status of manhood, must jump over this barrier.

96 Chapter 3

themselves. They grapple with the dilemma of “I am neither a child nor an adult. Who am I?” As they attempt to carve out an identity that is dis- tinct from both the “younger” world being left behind and the “older” world that still lingers out of reach, adolescents develop their own sub- cultures, with distinctive clothing, hairstyles, language, gestures, and music. We usually fail to realize that contemporary society, not biology, created this period of inner turmoil that we call adolescence.

Transitional Adulthood (ages 18–29) If society invented adolescence, can it also invent other periods of life? As Figure 3.2 illustrates, this is actually happening now. Postindustrial societ- ies are adding a period of extended youth to the life course, which sociologists call transitional adulthood (also known as adultolescence). After high school, millions of young adults postpone adult responsibilities by going to college. They are

mostly freed from the control of their parents, yet they don’t have to support themselves. After college, many return home, so they can live cheaply while they establish themselves in a career—and, of course, continue to “find themselves.” During this time, people are “neither psychological adolescents nor sociological adults” (Keniston 1971). At some point

during this period of extended youth, young adults ease into adult respon- sibilities. They take full-time jobs, become serious about a career, engage in courtship rituals, cohabit or get married—and go into debt.

“BRING YOUR PARENTS TO WORK DAY” With this new stage of life come longer attachments to parents. Finding that morale and produc- tivity increase if they incorporate the parents in the workplace, some companies now send Mom and Dad notes when their child achieves work goals. LinkedIn has even begun a Bring Your Parents to Work Day (Hopschneider 2013).

These younger years of adulthood will fly by. And then what?

The Middle Years (ages 30–65) Because there is little similarity between ages 30 and 65, this time of life is divided into two intervals.

THE EARLY MIDDLE YEARS (AGES 30–49) During their early middle years, most people are more sure of themselves and of their goals in life. As with any point in the life course, however, the self can receive severe jolts. Common upheavals during this period are divorce and losing jobs. It may take years for the self to stabilize after such ruptures.

The early middle years pose a special challenge for many U.S. women, who have been given the message, especially by the media, that they can “have it all.” They can be superworkers, superwives, and supermoms—all rolled into one superwoman. Reality, however, hits them in the face: too

Figure 3.2 Transitional Adulthood: A New Stage in the Life Course

SOURCE: Furstenberg et al. 2004. Year 2010 is the author's estimate based on Sironi and Fursterberg 2014.

60%

40%

20%

0

80%

31

9

2

65

30 3030Age 30 30 30

1960

20 20 20 20

2000 2010

20 20

Men Women

5 2

28

46

29

6

42

77

Completion of the transition to adulthood as measured by leaving home, finishing school, getting married, having a child, and being financially independent.

Those who have completed the transition to adulthood

With full adulthood postponed longer and longer, Dad and Mom's basement often serves as a free apartment.

Socialization 97

little time, too many demands, even too little sleep. Something has to give, and attempts to resolve this dilemma are anything but easy.

THE LATER MIDDLE YEARS (AGES 50–65) During the later middle years, health issues and mortality begin to loom large as people feel their bodies change, especially if they watch their parents become frail, fall ill, and die. The consequence is a fundamental reori- entation in thinking—from time since birth to time left to live (Neugarten 1976). With this changed orientation, people attempt to evaluate the past and come to terms with what lies ahead. They compare what they have accomplished with what they had hoped to achieve. Many people also find themselves caring not only for their own children but also for their aging parents. Because of this double burden, which is often crushing, people in the later middle years are sometimes called the “sandwich generation.”

In contrast, many people experience few of these stresses and find the late middle years to be the most comfortable period of their lives. They enjoy job security, a good marriage, and a standard of living higher than ever before. They live in a bigger house (one that may even be paid for), drive newer cars, and take longer and more exotic vaca- tions. The children are grown, the self is firmly planted, and fewer upheavals are likely to occur.

As they anticipate the next stage of life, however, most people do not like what they see.

The Older Years (about age 65 on) In agricultural societies, when death came early, old age was thought to begin at around age 40. As industrialization brought better nutrition, medicine, and public health, more people lived longer, and the beginning of “old age” gradually receded. Let’s look at this change.

THE TRANSITIONAL OLDER YEARS (AGES 65–74) This change is so extensive that people today who enjoy good health don’t think of their 60s as old age but as an exten- sion of their middle years. And this change is so recent that another new stage of life seems to be evolving, the period between retirement and old age—which people are increas- ingly coming to see as beginning around age 75 (“Schwab Study” 2008). We can call this stage the transitional older years.

With improved health, most people in the transitional older years are sexually active (Lindau et al. 2007; Thomas et al. 2015). Apparently, people in this stage of life are not only having more sex but also they are enjoying it more (Beckman et al. 2008). Research- ers have also found that social isolation seems to harm both the body and the brain: People in this stage of life who are more integrated into social networks stay mentally sharper (Cacioppo and Cacioppo 2013).

Because we have a self and can reason abstractly, we can contemplate death. In our early years, we regard death as a vague notion, nothing but a remote possibility. As peo- ple see their parents and friends die and observe their own bodies no longer functioning as before, however, the thought of death becomes less abstract. During this stage in the life course, people begin to feel that “time is closing in” on them.

THE LATER OLDER YEARS (AGE 75 OR SO) As with the preceding periods of life, except the first one, there is no precise beginning point to this last stage. For some, the 75th birthday may mark entry into this period of life. For others, that marker may be the 80th or even the 85th birthday. For most, this stage is marked by growing frailty and illness. For all who reach this stage, it is ended by death. For some, the physical decline is slow, and a rare few manage to see their 100th birthday mentally alert and in good physical health.

Now that we have reviewed this broad outline of the life course, let’s apply it to your life.

transitional adulthood a term that refers to a period following high school when young adults have not yet taken on the responsibilities ordinarily associated with adulthood; also called adultolescence

transitional older years an emerging stage of the life course between retirement and when people are considered old

98 Chapter 3

This January 1937 photo from Sneedville, Tennessee, shows Eunice Johns, age 9, and her husband, Charlie Johns, age 22. The groom gave his wife a doll as a wedding gift. The new husband and wife planned to build a cabin, and, as Charlie Johns phrased it, “go to housekeepin’.”

This couple illustrates the cultural relativity of life stages, which we sometimes mistake as fixed. It also is interesting from a symbolic interactionist perspective— that of changing definitions.

Some students have asked what happened to this couple. The marriage lasted. Charlie and Eunice Johns had 7 children, 5 boys and 2 girls. Charlie died in 1997 at age 83, and Eunice in 2006 at age 78. The two were buried next to each other in the Johns Family Cemetery.

Applying Sociology to Your Life The Sociological Perspective and Your Life Course Because you are living and breathing, you are somewhere on the life course that we just reviewed. If you are a typical college student, you are in the period called transitional adulthood. Or perhaps you are a college student who has already reached a period that follows this earlier one. Re- gardless of where you are on the life course, what can you expect on the road ahead of you?

Let’s apply what you learned about the sociological perspective in Chapter 1, how your social location is vitally important for what you experience in life. Your social loca- tion, such as your social class, gender, and race–ethnicity, is highly significant for your life course. If you are poor, for example, you likely will feel older sooner than most wealthy people for whom life is less harsh. Individual factors—such as your health or marrying early or entering college late— can also throw your life course “out of sequence.”

As you learned in Chapter 1, the sociological perspec- tive stresses not just social location but also the broad

streams of history. These, too, will drastically affect your life course. As sociologist C. Wright Mills (1959) would say, if employers are beating a path to your door, or failing to do so, you will be more inclined to marry, to buy a house, and to start a family—or to postpone these life course events. Or if you are in an older phase of the life course, such conditions of history will make you more or less prepared to retire early.

This takes us to the sociological significance of the life course. Your life course does not merely reflect biolo- gy, things that occur naturally to you as you add years to your life. Rather, your biological development occurs within specific social contexts that shape your life course. The broad outline that I sketched holds true in general, but your particular social location will decide the direction your life course takes. In addition, you live in a period of rapid social change, and like a speeding car in a sudden thunderstorm, you might find your life course skidding in unexpected directions.

Are We Prisoners of Socialization? 3.8 Understand why we are not prisoners of socialization.

From our discussion of socialization, you might conclude that sociol- ogists think of people as robots: The socialization goes in, and the behavior comes out. People cannot help what they do, think, or feel, as everything is a result of their exposure to socializing agents.

Sociologists do not think of people in this way. Although socialization is powerful, and affects all of us profoundly, we have a self. Established in childhood and continually modified by later experience, our self is dynamic. Our self is not a sponge that passively absorbs influences from the environment, but, rather, it is a vigorous, essential part of our being that allows us to act on our environment.

Precisely because people are not robots, individual behavior is hard to predict. The countless reactions of others merge in each of us. As the self develops, we each internalize or “put together” these innumerable reactions, which become the basis for how we reason, react to others, and make choices in life. The result is a unique whole called the individual.

Rather than being passive sponges in this process, each of us is actively involved in the construction of the self. Our experiences in the family and other groups during childhood lay down our basic orientations to life, but we are not doomed to keep these orientations if we do not like them. We can purposely expose ourselves to other groups and ideas. Those expe- riences, in turn, have their own effects on our self. In short, we influence our socialization as we make choices. We can change even the self within the limitations of the framework laid down by our social locations. And that self—along with the options available within society—is the key to our behavior.

Socialization 99

Summary and Review Society Makes Us Human 3.1 Explain how feral, isolated, and institutionalized

children help us understand that “society makes us human.”

How much of our human characteristics come from “nature” (heredity) and how much from “nurture” (the social environment)?

Observations of isolated, institutionalized, and feral children help to answer the nature–nurture question, as do experi- ments with monkeys that were raised in isolation. Language and intimate social interaction—aspects of “nurture”— are essential to the development of what we consider to be human characteristics.

Socialization into the Self and Mind 3.2 Use the ideas and research of Cooley (looking-glass

self), Mead (role taking), and Piaget (reasoning) to explain socialization into the self and mind.

How do we acquire a self?

Humans are born with the capacity to develop a self, but the self must be socially constructed; that is, its contents depend on social interaction. According to Charles Horton Cooley’s concept of the looking-glass self, our self develops as we in- ternalize others’ reactions to us. George Herbert Mead iden- tified the ability to take the role of the other as essential to the development of the self. Mead concluded that even the mind is a social product.

How do children develop reasoning skills?

Jean Piaget identified four stages that children go through as they develop the ability to reason: (1) sensorimotor, in which understanding is limited to sensory stimuli such as touch and sight; (2) preoperational, the ability to use symbols; (3) concrete operational, in which reasoning ability is more com- plex but not yet capable of complex abstractions; and (4) for- mal operational, or abstract thinking.

Learning Personality, Morality, and Emotions 3.3 Explain how the development of personality and

morality and socialization into emotions are part of how “society makes us human.”

How do sociologists evaluate Freud’s psychoanalytic theory of personality development?

Sigmund Freud viewed personality development as the result of our id (inborn, self-centered desires) clashing with the demands of society. The ego develops to balance the incompatible demands of the id and the superego, the

conscience. Sociologists, in contrast, do not examine inborn or subconscious motivations but, instead, consider how so- cial factors—social class, gender, religion, education, and so forth—underlie personality.

How do people develop morality?

Babies seem to exhibit a sense of morality, indicating that a basic morality could be inborn. Lawrence Kohlberg identified four stages children go through as they learn morality: amoral, preconventional, conventional, and post- conventional. The answer to “What is moral?” differs from society to society.

How does socialization influence emotions?

Socialization influences not only how we express our emotions but also what emotions we feel. Socialization into emotions is one of the means by which society produces conformity.

Socialization into Gender 3.4 Discuss how gender messages from the family, peers,

and the mass media teach us society’s gender map.

How does gender socialization affect our sense of self?

Gender socialization—sorting males and females into dif- ferent roles—is a primary way that groups control human behavior. Children receive messages about gender even in infancy. A society’s ideals of sex-linked behaviors are rein- forced by its social institutions.

Agents of Socialization 3.5 Explain how the family, the neighborhood, religion,

day care, school, peer groups, and the workplace are agents of socialization.

What are the main agents of socialization?

The agents of socialization include the family, neighbor- hood, religion, day care, school, peer groups, the mass me- dia, and the workplace. Each has its particular influences in socializing us into becoming full-fledged members of society.

Resocialization 3.6 Explain what total institutions are and how they

resocialize people.

What is resocialization?

Resocialization is the process of learning new norms, val- ues, attitudes, and behavior. Most resocialization is volun- tary, but some, as with residents of most total institutions, is involuntary.

100 Chapter 3

Thinking Critically about Chapter 3 1. What two agents of socialization have influenced you

the most? Try to pinpoint their influence on specific attitudes, beliefs, values, or other of your orientations to life.

2. Summarize your views of the “proper” relationships of women and men. What in your socialization has led you to have these views?

3. How does the text’s summary of the life course com- pare with your experiences? Use the sociological perspective to explain both the similarities and the differences.

Socialization through the Life Course 3.7 Identify major divisions of the life course and dis-

cuss the sociological significance of the life course.

Does socialization end when we enter adulthood?

Socialization occurs throughout the life course. In indus- trialized societies, the life course can be divided into child- hood, adolescence, young adulthood, the middle years, and the older years. The West is adding two new stages, transitional adulthood and transitional older years. Us- ing the sociological perspective, we can see how both the

streams of history and social location—geography, gen- der, race–ethnicity, social class—influence the life course.

Are We Prisoners of Socialization? 3.8 Understand why we are not prisoners of

socialization.

Although socialization is powerful, we are not merely the sum of our socialization experiences. Just as socialization influences our behavior, so we act on our environment and influence even our self-concept.

Market Day, 2005, Richard H. Fox (oil on canvas)

102

Chapter 4

Social Structure and Social Interaction

My curiosity had gotten the better of me. When the sociology convention was over, I climbed aboard the first city bus that came along. I didn’t know where the bus was going, and I didn’t know where I would spend the night.

This was my first visit to Washington, D.C., so everything was unfamiliar to me. I had no destination, no plans, not even a map. I carried no billfold, just a driver’s license shoved into my jeans for emergency identification, some pocket change, and a $10 bill tucked into my sock. My goal was simple: If I saw something interesting, I would get off the bus and check it out.

As we passed row after row of apartment buildings and stores, I could see myself riding buses the entire night. Then something caught my eye. Nothing spectacular—just groups of people clustered around a large circular area where several streets intersected.

I got off the bus and made my way to what turned out to be Dupont Circle. I took a seat on a sidewalk bench. As the scene came into focus, I noticed several streetcorner men drinking and joking with one another. One of the men broke from his companions and sat down next to me. As we talked, I mostly listened.

As night fell, the men said that they wanted to get another bottle of wine. I contribut- ed. They counted their money and asked if I wanted to go with them. As we left the circle,

Learning Objectives

After you have read this chapter, you should be able to:

4.1 Distinguish between macrosociology and microsociology.

4.2 Explain the significance of social structure.

4.3 Be able to identify the major components of social structure: culture, social class, social status, roles, groups, and social institutions.

4.4 Explain the significance of social institutions, and compare the functionalist and conflict perspectives on social institutions.

4.5 Explain what holds society together.

4.6 Discuss what symbolic interactionists study.

4.7 Explain why life is like a stage according to dramaturgy; be ready to explain role performance, sign-vehicles, teamwork, and becoming the roles we play.

4.8 Explain what background assumptions are and how they are an essential part of social life.

4.9 Be able to apply the social construction of reality to your own life.

4.10 Explain why we need both macrosociology and microsociology to understand social life.

“Suddenly one of the men jumped up, smashed the empty bottle against the sidewalk, and….”

Social Structure and Social Interaction 103

Chapter 4

Social Structure and Social Interaction

the three men began to cut through an alley. “Oh, no,” I thought. “This isn’t what I had in mind.”

I had but a split second to make a decision. I held back half a step so that none of the three was behind me. As we walked, they passed around the remnants of their bottle. When my turn came, I didn’t know what to do. I shuddered to think about the diseases lurking within that bottle. In the semidarkness I faked it, letting only my thumb and fore- finger touch my lips and nothing enter my mouth.

When we returned to Dupont Circle, we sat on the benches, and the men passed around their new bottle of Thunderbird. I couldn’t fake it in the light, so I passed, pointing at my stomach to indicate that I was having digestive problems.

Suddenly one of the men jumped up, smashed the emptied bottle against the sidewalk, and thrust the jagged neck outward in a menacing gesture. He glared straight ahead at another bench, where he had spotted someone with whom he had some sort of unfinished business. As the other men told him to cool it, I moved slightly to one side of the group— ready to flee, just in case.

Levels of Sociological Analysis 4.1 Distinguish between macrosociology and microsociology.

On this sociological adventure, I almost got in over my head. Fortunately, it turned out all right. The man’s “enemy” didn’t look our way, the man put the broken bottle next to the bench “in case he needed it,” and my intriguing introduction to a life that up until then I had only read about continued until dawn.

Sociologists Elliot Liebow (1967/2003), Mitchell Duneier (1999), and Elijah Anderson (1978, 1990, 2012) have written fascinating accounts about men like my companions from that evening. Although streetcorner men may appear to be disorganized—simply coming and going as they please and doing whatever feels good at the moment—sociologists have analyzed how, like us, these men are influenced by the norms and beliefs of our society. This will become more apparent as we examine the two levels of analysis that sociologists use.

Macrosociology and Microsociology The first level, macrosociology, focuses on broad features of society. Conflict theorists and functionalists use this approach to analyze such things as social class and how groups are related to one another. If they were to analyze streetcorner men, for example, they would stress that these men are located at the bottom of the U.S. social class system. Their low status means that many opportunities are closed to them: The men have few job skills, little education, hardly anything to offer an employer. As “able-bodied” men, however, they are not eligible for welfare—even for a two-year limit—so they hustle to survive. As a consequence, they spend their lives on the streets.

In the second level, microsociology, the focus is on social interaction, what people do when they come together. Sociologists who use this approach are likely to analyze the men’s rules, or “codes,” for getting along; their survival strategies (“hustles”); how they divide up money, wine, or whatever other resources they have; their relationships with girlfriends, fam- ily, and friends; where they spend their time and what they do there; their language; their pecking order; and so on. Microsociology is the primary focus of symbolic interactionists.

Because macrosociology and microsociology yield distinctive perspectives, we need both to gain an understanding of social life. We need macrosociology to place these men within the broad context of how groups in U.S. society are related to one another. This helps us to see how social class shapes their attitudes and behavior. We also need microsociology to understand these men: The everyday situations they face also shape their orientations to life—as they do for all of us.

Let’s look in more detail at how these two approaches in sociology work together to help us understand social life. As we examine them more closely, you may find yourself

macrosociology analysis of social life that focus- es on broad features of society, such as social class and the relationships of groups to one another; usually used by func- tionalists and conflict theorists

microsociology analysis of social life that focus- es on social interaction; typically used by symbolic interactionists

social interaction one person’s actions influencing someone else; usually refers to what people do when they are in one another’s presence, but also includes communications at a distance

104 Chapter 4

feeling more comfortable with one approach than the other. This is what happens with sociologists. For reasons that include personal back- ground and professional training, sociologists find themselves more comfortable with one approach and tend to use it in their research. Both approaches, however, are necessary to understand life in society.

■ The Macrosociological Perspective: Social Structure Why did the street people in our opening vignette act as they did, stay- ing up all night drinking wine, prepared to use a lethal weapon? Why don’t we act like this? Social structure helps us answer such questions.

The Sociological Significance of Social Structure 4.2 Explain the significance of social structure.

To better understand human behavior, we need to understand social structure, the framework of society that was already laid out before you

were born. Social structure refers to the typical patterns of a group, such as the usual rela- tionships between men and women or students and teachers. The sociological significance of social structure is that it guides our behavior.

Because this term may seem vague, let’s consider how you experience social struc- ture in your own life. As I write this, I do not know your race–ethnicity. I do not know your religion. I do not know whether you are young or old, tall or short, male or female. I do not know if you were reared on a farm, in the suburbs, or in the inner city. I do not know whether you went to a public high school or to an exclusive prep school. But I do know that you are in college. And this, alone, tells me a great deal about you.

From this one piece of information, I can assume that the social structure of your col- lege is now shaping what you do. For example, let’s suppose that today you felt euphoric over some great news. I can be fairly certain (not absolutely, mind you, but relatively con- fident) that when you entered the classroom, social structure overrode your mood. That is, instead of shouting at the top of your lungs and joyously throwing this book into the air, you entered the classroom in a fairly subdued manner and took your seat.

The same social structure influences your instructor, even if he or she, on the one hand, is facing a divorce or has a child dying of cancer or, on the other, has just been awarded a promotion or a million-dollar grant. Your instructor may feel like either retreating into seclusion or celebrating wildly, but most likely he or she will conduct class in the usual manner. In short, social structure tends to override our personal feelings and desires.

And how about street people? Just as social structure influences you and your instruc- tor, so it also establishes limits for them. They, too, find themselves in a specific location in the U.S. social structure—although it is quite different from yours or your instructor’s. Consequently, they are affected in different ways. Nothing about their social location leads them to take notes or to lecture. Their behaviors, however, are as logical an outcome of where they find themselves in the social structure as are your own. In their position in the social structure, it is just as “natural” to drink wine all night as it is for you to stay up studying all night for a crucial examination. It is just as “natural” for them to break off the neck of a wine bottle and glare at an enemy as it is for you to nod and say, “Excuse me,” when you enter a crowded classroom late and have to claim a desk on which someone has already placed books. To better understand social structure, read the following Down-to-Earth Sociology.

social structure the framework of society that surrounds us; consists of the ways that people and groups are related to one another; this framework gives direction to and sets limits on our behavior

Sociologists use both macro and micro levels of analysis to study social life. Those who use macrosociology to analyze the homeless (or any human behavior) focus on broad aspects of society, such as the economy and social classes. Sociologists who use the microsociological approach analyze how people interact with one another. This photo illustrates social structure (the disparities between power and powerlessness are amply evident). It also illustrates the micro level (the isolation of this man).

Social Structure and Social Interaction 105

Down-to-Earth Sociology College Football as Social Structure To gain a better idea of social structure, let’s use the example of college football (Dobriner 1969). You probably know the various positions on the team: center, guards, tackles, ends, quarterback, running backs, and the like. Each is a status; that is, each is a social position. For each of the statuses shown in Figure 4.1, there is a role; that is, each of these positions has certain expectations attached to it. The center is expected to snap the ball, the quarterback to pass it, the guards to block, the tackles to tackle or block, the ends to receive passes, and so on. These role expectations guide each player’s actions; that is, the players try to do what their particular role requires.

Let’s suppose that football is your favorite sport, and you never miss a home game at your college. Let’s also suppose that you graduate, get a great job, and move across the country. Five years later, you return to your campus for a nostalgic visit. The climax of your visit is the biggest football game of the season. When you get to the game, you might be surprised to see a different coach, but you are not surprised that each playing position is occupied by people you don’t know, since all the players you knew have graduated, and their places have been filled by others.

This scenario mirrors social structure, the framework around which a group exists. In football, this framework consists of the coaching staff and the eleven playing positions. The game does not depend on any particular individual but, rather, on social statuses, the positions that the individuals occupy. When someone leaves a position, the game can go on because someone else takes over that position or status and plays the role. The game will continue even though not a single individual remains from one period of time to the next. Notre Dame’s football team endures today even though Knute Rockne, the Gipper, and his teammates are long dead.

Even though you may not play football, you do live your life within a clearly established social structure. The statuses that you occupy and the roles you play were already in place before you were born. You take your particular positions in life, others do the same, and society goes about its business. Although the specifics change with time, the game—whether of life or of football—goes on.

For Your Consideration S How does social structure influence your life? To answer

this question, you can begin by analyzing your social statuses.

SOURCE: By the author.

Figure 4.1 Team Positions (Statuses) in Football

right corner back

right line backer strong

safety

tight end

wideout

left tackle

left guard

full back

tail back

quarter back

right tackle

split end

free safetyleft

line backer

left end

middle line backer

right end

right tackle

left tackle

center

OFFENSE DEFENSE

right guard

left corner back

IN SUM People learn behaviors and attitudes because of their location in the social structure (whether those are privileged, deprived, or in between), and they act accord- ingly. This is as true of street people as it is of us. The differences in our behavior and attitudes are not because of biology (race–ethnicity, sex, or any other supposed genetic factors), but to our location in the social structure. Switch places with street people and watch your behaviors and attitudes change!

Components of Social Structure 4.3 Be able to identify the major components of social structure: culture, social

class, social status, roles, groups, and social institutions.

Because social structure is so vital for us—affecting who we are and what we are like— let’s look more closely at its major components: culture, social class, social status, roles, groups, and social institutions.

106 Chapter 4

Culture In Chapter 2, we considered culture’s far-reaching effects on our lives. At this point, let’s simply summarize its main impact. Sociologists use the term culture to refer to a group’s language, beliefs, values, behaviors, and even gestures. Culture also includes the mate- rial objects that a group uses. Culture is the broadest framework that determines what kind of people we become. If we are reared in Chinese, Arab, or U.S. culture, we will grow up to be like most Chinese, Arabs, or Americans. On the outside, we will look and act like them, and on the inside, we will think and feel like them.

Social Class To understand people, we must examine the social locations that they hold in life. Espe- cially significant is social class, which is based on income, education, and occupational prestige. Large numbers of people who have similar amounts of income and education and who work at jobs that are roughly comparable in prestige make up a social class. It is hard to overemphasize this aspect of social structure, because our social class influences not only our behaviors but also our ideas and attitudes.

We have this in common, then, with the street people described in this chapter ’s opening vignette: We both are influenced by our location in the social class structure. Theirs may be a considerably less privileged position, but it has no less influence on their lives. Social class is so significant that we shall spend an entire chapter (Chapter 8) on this topic.

Social Status When you hear the word status, you are likely to think of prestige. These two words are wedded together in people’s minds. As you saw in the Down-to-Earth Sociology on football, however, sociologists use status in a different way—to refer to the position that someone occupies. That position may carry a great deal of prestige, as in the case of a judge or an astronaut, or it may bring little prestige, as in the case of a convenience store clerk or a waitress at the local truck stop. The status may also be looked down on, as in the case of a streetcorner man, an ex-convict, or a thief.

Like other aspects of social structure, statuses are part of our basic framework of liv- ing in society. The example I gave of students and teachers who come to class and do what others expect of them despite their particular circumstances and moods illustrates how statuses affect our actions—and those of the people around us. Our statuses—whether

daughter or son, teacher or student—provide guidelines for how we are to act and feel. Like other aspects of social structure, statuses set limits on what we can and can- not do. Because social statuses are an essential part of the social structure, all human groups have them.

STATUS SETS All of us occupy several positions at the same time. You may simultaneously be a son or daughter, a worker, a date, and a student. Sociologists use the term status set to refer to all the statuses or positions that you occupy. Obviously your status set changes as your particular statuses change. For exam- ple, if you graduate from college, take a full-time job, get married, buy a home, and have children, your status set changes to include the positions of worker, spouse, homeowner, and parent.

A S C R I B E D A N D A C H I E V E D S TAT U S E S A n ascribed status is involuntary. You do not ask for it, nor can you choose it. At birth, you inherit ascribed

social class according to Weber, a large group of people who rank close to one another in property, power, and prestige; according to Marx, one of two groups: cap- italists who own the means of production or workers who sell their labor

status the position that someone occu- pies in a social group (also called social status)

status set all the statuses or positions that an individual occupies

ascribed status a position an individual either inherits at birth or receives involuntarily later in life

Social class and social status are significant factors in social life. Fundamental to what we become, they affect our orientations to life. Can you see how this photo from Siem Reap, Cambodia, illustrates this point?

Social Structure and Social Interaction 107

statuses such as your race–ethnicity, sex, and the social class of your parents, as well as your statuses as female or male, daughter or son, niece or nephew. Other ascribed sta- tuses, such as teenager and senior citizen, are related to the life course we discussed in Chapter 3. They are given to you later in life.

Achieved statuses, in contrast, are voluntary. These you earn or accomplish. As a result of your efforts, you become a student, a friend, a spouse, or a lawyer. Or, for lack of effort (or for efforts that others fail to appreciate), you become a school dropout, a for- mer friend, an ex-spouse, or a debarred lawyer. As you can see, achieved statuses can be either positive or negative; both college president and bank robber are achieved statuses.

STATUS SYMBOLS People who are pleased with their social status often want oth- ers to recognize their position. To elicit this recognition, they use status symbols, signs that identify a status. For example, people wear wedding rings to announce their mari- tal status; uniforms, guns, and badges to proclaim that they are police officers (and, not so subtly, to let you know that their status gives them authority over you); and “back- ward” collars to declare that they are Lutheran ministers or Roman Catholic or Episcopal priests.

Because some social statuses are negative, so are their status symbols. The scarlet letter in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s book by the same title is one example. Another is the CONVICTED DUI (Driving Under the Influence) bumper sticker that some U.S. courts require convicted drunk drivers to display if they want to avoid a jail sentence.

All of us use status symbols. We use them to announce our statuses to others and to help smooth our interactions in everyday life. Can you identify your own status symbols and what they communicate? For example, how does your clothing announce your sta- tuses of sex, age, and college student?

MASTER STATUSES A master status cuts across your other statuses. Some master sta- tuses are ascribed. One example is your sex. Whatever you do, people perceive you as a male or a female. If you are working your way through college by flipping burgers, people see you not only as a burger flipper and a student but also as a male or female burger flipper and a male or female college student. Other ascribed master sta- tuses are race–ethnicity and age.

Transgender, in the process of being defined in relationship to the master statuses of male and female, is also a master status. In a give-and-take pro- cess, its boundaries, fuzzy at the moment, are being laid out.

Some master statuses are achieved. If you become very, very wealthy (and it doesn’t matter whether your wealth comes from a successful inven- tion, a hit song, or from winning the lottery—it is still achieved as far as sociologists are concerned), your wealth is likely to become a master status. For example, people might say, “She is a very rich burger flipper”—or, more likely, “She’s very rich, and she used to flip burgers!”

Similarly, people who become disfigured find, to their dismay, that their condition becomes a master status. For example, a person whose face is scarred from severe burns will be viewed through this unwelcome master status regardless of their occupation or accomplishments. In the same way, people who are confined to wheelchairs can attest to how their wheelchair overrides all their other statuses and influences others’ perceptions of every- thing they do.

STATUS INCONSISTENCY Our statuses usually fit together fairly well, but some people have a mismatch among their statuses. This is known as status inconsistency (or discrepancy). A 14-year-old college student is an example. So is a 40-year-old married woman who is dating a 19-year-old col- lege sophomore.

These examples reveal an essential aspect of social statuses: Like other components of social structure, our statuses come with built-in norms (that is,

achieved statuses positions that are earned, accomplished, or involve at least some effort or activity on the individual’s part

status symbols indicators of a status; items that display prestige

master status a status that cuts across the other statuses that an individual occupies

status inconsistency ranking high on some dimen- sions of social status and low on others; also called status discrepancy

Master statuses are those that overshadow our other statuses. Shown here is Stephen Hawking, who is severely disabled by Lou Gehrig’s disease. For some, his master status is that of a person with disabilities. Because Hawking is one of the greatest physicists who has ever lived, however, his outstanding achievements have given him another master status, that of a world-class physicist in the ranking of Einstein.

108 Chapter 4

expectations) that guide our behavior. When statuses mesh well, as they usually do, we know what to expect of people. This helps social interaction to unfold smoothly. Status inconsistency, however, upsets our expectations. In the preceding examples, how are you supposed to act? Are you supposed to treat the 14-year-old as you would a young teen- ager, or as you would your college classmate? Do you react to the married woman as you would to the mother of your friend, or as you would to a classmate’s date?

Roles All the world’s a stage And all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts …

(William Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act II, Scene 7)

Like Shakespeare, sociologists see roles as essential to social life. When you were born, roles—the behaviors, obligations, and privileges attached to a status—were already set up for you. Society was waiting with outstretched arms to teach you how it expected you to act as a boy or a girl. And whether you were born poor, rich, or somewhere in between, that, too, attached certain behaviors, obligations, and privileges to your statuses.

The difference between role and status is that you occupy a status, but you play a role (Linton 1936). For example, being a son or daughter is your status, but your expectations of receiving food and shelter from your parents—as well as their expectations that you show respect to them—are part of your role. Or, again, your status is student, but your role is to attend class, take notes, do homework, and take tests.

Roles are like fences. They allow us a certain amount of freedom, but for most of us that freedom doesn’t go very far. Suppose that a woman decides that she is not going to wear dresses—or a man that he will not wear suits and ties—regardless of what anyone says. In most situations, they’ll stick to their decision. When a formal occasion comes along, however, such as a family wedding or a funeral, they are likely to cave in to norms that they find overwhelming. Almost all of us follow the guidelines for what is “appro- priate” for our roles. Few of us are bothered by such constraints. Our socialization is so thorough that we usually want to do what our roles indicate is appropriate.

The sociological significance of roles is that they lay out what is expected of people. As indi- viduals throughout society perform their roles, those many roles mesh together to form this thing called society. As Shakespeare put it, people’s roles provide “their exits and their entrances” on the stage of life. In short, roles are remarkably effective at keeping people in line—telling them when they should “enter” and when they should “exit,” as well as what to do in between.

Groups A group consists of people who interact with one another and who feel that the val- ues, interests, and norms they have in common are important. The groups to which we belong—just like social class, statuses, and roles—are powerful forces in our lives. By belonging to a group, we assume an obligation to affirm the group’s values, interests, and norms. To remain a member in good standing, we need to show that we share those characteristics. This means that when we belong to a group, we yield to others the right to judge our behavior—even though we don’t like it!

Although this principle holds true for all groups, some groups wield influence over only small segments of our behavior. For example, if you belong to a stamp collectors’ club, the group’s influence may center on your display of knowledge about stamps and perhaps your fairness in trading them. Other groups, in contrast, such as the family, con- trol many aspects of our behavior. When parents say to their 15-year-old daughter, “As long as you are living under our roof, you had better be home by midnight,” they show

role the behaviors, obligations, and privileges attached to a status

group people who interact with one another and who believe that what they have in common is significant; also called a social group

Social Structure and Social Interaction 109

an expectation that their daughter, as a member of the family, will conform to their ideas about many aspects of life, including their views on curfew. They are saying that as long as the daughter wants to remain a member of the family in good standing, her behavior must conform to their expectations.

In Chapters 5, we will examine groups in detail. For now, let’s look at the next component of social structure: social institutions.

Social Institutions 4.4 Explain the significance of social institutions, and compare the functionalist and

conflict perspectives on social institutions.

At first glance, the term social institution may seem cold and abstract—with little rele- vance to your life. In fact, however, social institutions—the standard or usual ways that a society meets its basic needs—vitally affect your life. They not only shape your behav- ior, but they also color your thoughts. How can this be?

The first step in understanding how this can be is to look at Figure 4.2. Look at what social institutions are: the family, religion, education, the economy, medicine, politics, law, science, the military, and the mass media. By weaving the fabric of society, social insti- tutions set the context for your behavior and orientations to life. If your social institutions were different, your orientations to life would be different.

Social institutions are so significant that an entire part of this book, Part IV, focuses on them.

Comparing Functionalist and Conflict Perspectives The functionalist and conflict perspectives give us quite different views of social institu- tions. Let’s compare their views.

THE FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE Because the first priority of human groups is to survive, all societies establish customary ways to meet their basic needs. As a result, no society is without social institutions. In tribal societies, some social institutions are less visible because the group meets its basic needs in more informal ways. A society may be too small to have people specialize in education, for example, but it will have established ways of teaching skills and ideas to the young. It may be too small to have a military, but it will have some mechanism of self-defense.

What are society’s basic needs? Functionalists identify five functional requisites (basic needs) that each society must meet if it is to survive (Aberle et al. 1950; Mack and Bradford 1979).

1. Replacing members. Obviously, if a society does not replace its members, it cannot con- tinue to exist. With reproduction fundamental to a society’s existence and the need to protect infants and children universal, all groups have developed some version of the family. The family gives the newcomer to society a sense of belonging by providing a lineage, an account of how he or she is related to others. The family also functions to control people’s sex drive and to maintain orderly reproduction.

2. Socializing new members. Each baby must be taught what it means to be a member of the group into which it is born. To accomplish this, each human group develops devices to ensure that its newcomers learn the group’s basic expectations. As the primary “bearer of culture,” the family is essential to this process, but other social institutions, such as religion and education, also help meet this basic need.

3. Producing and distributing goods and services. Every society must produce and distrib- ute basic resources, from food and clothing to shelter and education. Consequently, every society establishes an economic institution, a means of producing goods and services along with routine ways of distributing them.

4. Preserving order. Societies face two threats of disorder: one internal, the potential for chaos, and the other external, the possibility of attack. To protect themselves from

social institution the organized, usual, or standard ways by which society meets its basic needs

110 Chapter 4

SOURCE: By the author.

Figure 4.2 Social Institutions in Industrial and Postindustrial Societies

Social Institution

Basic Needs Some Groups or Organizations Some Statuses Some Values Some Norms

Family Regulate reproduction, socialize and protect children

Relatives, kinship groups

Sexual fidelity, providing for your family, keeping a clean house, respect for parents

Daughter, son, father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, grandparent

Have only as many children as you can afford, be faithful to your spouse

Religion Concerns about life after death, the meaning of suffering and loss; desire to connect with the Creator

Congregation, synagogue, mosque, denomination, charity, clergy associations

Honoring God and the holy texts such as the Torah, the Bible, and the Qur’an

Priest, minister, rabbi, imam, worshipper, teacher, disciple, missionary, prophet, convert

Attend worship services, contribute money, follow the teachings

Law Maintain social order, enforce norms

Police, courts, prisons

Trial by one’s peers, innocence until proven guilty

Judge, police officer, lawyer, defendant, prison guard

Give true testi- mony, follow the rules of evidence

Politics Allocate power, determine authority, prevent chaos

Political party, congress, parliament, monarchy

Majority rule, the right to vote, loyalty to the constitution

President, senator, lobbyist, voter, candidate, spin doctor

Be informed about candidates, one vote per person

Economy Produce and distribute goods and services

Credit unions, banks, credit card companies, buying clubs

Making money, paying bills on time, producing efficiently

Worker, boss, buyer, seller, creditor, debtor, advertiser

Maximize profits, “the customer is always right,” work hard

Education Transmit knowledge and skills across generations

School, college, student senate, sports team, PTA, teachers’ union

Academic honesty, good grades, being “cool”

Teacher, student, dean, principal, football player, cheerleader

Do homework, prepare lectures, don't snitch on classmates

Heal the sick and injured, care for the dying

Medicine AMA, hospitals, pharmacies, HMOs, insurance companies

Hippocratic oath, staying in good health, following doctor’s orders

Doctor, nurse, patient, pharmacist, medical insurer

Don't exploit patients, give best medical care available

Military

Mass Media

Provide protection from enemies, enforce national interests

Army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard, national guard

Willingness to die for one’s country, obedience unto death

Soldier, recruit, enlisted person, officer, veteran, prisoner, spy

Follow orders, be ready to go to war, sacrifice for your buddies

Disseminate information, report events, mold public opinion

TV networks, radio stations, publishers, association of bloggers

Journalist, newscaster, author, editor, blogger

Be accurate, fair, timely, and profitable

Science Master the environment

Local, state, regional, national, and international associations

Unbiased research, open dissemination of research findings, originality

Scientist, researcher, technician, administrator, journal editor

Follow scientific method, be objective, disclose findings, don't plagiarize

Timeliness, accuracy, freedom of the press

internal threat, they develop ways to police themselves, ranging from informal means, such as gossip, to formal means, such as armed groups. To defend themselves against external conquest, they develop a means of defense, some form of the military.

5. Providing a sense of purpose. Every society must get people to yield self-interest in favor of the needs of the group. To convince people to sacrifice personal gains, societies in- still a sense of purpose. Human groups develop many ways to implant such beliefs, but a primary one is religion, which attempts to answer questions about ultimate

Social Structure and Social Interaction 111

meaning. Actually, all of a society’s institutions are involved in meeting this functional requisite; the family provides one set of answers about the sense of purpose, the school another, and so on.

THE CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE Although conflict theorists agree that social institutions were designed originally to meet basic survival needs, they do not view social institutions as working harmoniously for the common good. On the contrary, conflict theorists stress that powerful groups control our social institutions, manipulating them in order to maintain their own privileged position of wealth and power (Useem 1984; Domhoff 1999a, 1999b, 2006, 2007; Gilens and Page 2014).

Conflict theorists point out that a fairly small group of peo- ple has garnered the lion’s share of our nation’s wealth. Members of this elite group sit on the boards of our major corporations and our most prestigious universities. They make strategic cam- paign contributions to influence (or control) our lawmakers, and it is they who are behind the nation’s major decisions: to go to war or to refrain from war; to increase or to decrease taxes; to raise or to lower interest rates; and to pass laws that favor or impede moving capital, technology, and jobs out of the country.

Feminist sociologists (both women and men) have used conflict theory to gain a bet- ter understanding of how social institutions affect gender relations. Their basic insight is that gender is also an element of social structure, not simply a characteristic of individ- uals. In other words, throughout the world, social institutions divide males and females into separate groups, each with unequal access to society’s resources.

IN SUM Functionalists view social institutions as working together to meet universal human needs, but conflict theorists regard social institutions as having a single primary purpose—to preserve the social order. For them, this means safeguarding the wealthy and powerful in their positions of privilege.

Changes in Social Structure 4.5 Explain what holds society together.

In the preceding chapter, you saw how technology led to deep transformations in soci- eties. Our current society is also being transformed by new technology, changing values, and contact with cultures around the world. These changes have vital effects on our lives, sometimes dramatically so. Globalization is one of the best examples. As our economy adjusts to this fundamental change, we find our lives marked by uncertainty as jobs dis- appear and new requirements are placed on the careers we are striving for. Sometimes it seems that we have to move at a running pace just to keep up with the changes.

What Holds Society Together? Not only are we in the midst of social change so extensive that it threatens to rip our society apart, but our society also has antagonistic groups that would love to get at one another ’s throats. In the midst of all this, how does society manage to hold together? Sociologists have proposed two answers. Let’s examine them, starting with a bit of history.

MECHANICAL AND ORGANIC SOLIDARITY Sociologist Emile Durkheim (1893/1933) was interested in how societies manage to create social integration—their members united by shared values and other social bonds. He found the answer in what he called

social integration the degree to which members of a group or a society are united by shared values and other social bonds; also known as social cohesion

Functionalist theorists have identified functional requisites for the survival of society. One, providing a sense of purpose, is often met through religious groups. To most people, snake handling, as in this church service Scottsboro, Alabama, is nonsensical. From a functionalist perspective, however, it makes a great deal of sense. Can you identify its sociological meanings?

112 Chapter 4

mechanical solidarity. By this term, Durkheim meant that peo- ple who perform similar tasks develop a shared way of viewing life. Think of a farming community in which everyone is involved in growing crops—planting, cultivating, and harvesting. Because they have so much in common, they share similar views about life. Societies with mechanical solidarity tolerate little diversity in behavior, thinking, or attitudes; their unity depends on sharing similar views.

As societies get larger, they develop different kinds of work, a specialized division of labor. Some people mine gold, others turn it into jewelry, and still others sell it. This disperses people into different interest groups where they develop differ- ent ideas about life. No longer do they depend on one another to have similar ideas and behaviors. Rather, they depend on one another to do specific work, with each person contributing to the group.

Durkheim called this new form of solidarity organic solidarity. To see why he used this term, think about your body. The organs of your body need one another. Your lungs depend

on your heart to pump your blood, and your heart depends on your lungs to oxygenate your blood. To move from the physical to the social, think about how you need your teacher to guide you through this course and how your teacher needs students in order to have a job. You and your teacher are like two organs in the same body. (The “body” in this case is the college.) Like the heart and lungs, although you perform different tasks, you need one another.

Organic solidarity changed the basis for social integration. In centuries past, you would have had views similar to your neighbors because you lived in the same village, farmed together, and had relatives in common. But no longer does social integration require this. Like organs in a body, our separate activities contribute to the welfare of the group. Organic solidarity allows our society to tolerate a wide diversity of orientations to life and still manage to work as a whole.

GEMEINSCHAFT AND GESELLSCHAFT Ferdinand Tönnies (1887/1988) also ana- lyzed this fundamental shift in relationships. He used the term Gemeinschaft (Guh- MINE-shoft), or “intimate community,” to describe village life, the type of society in which everyone knows everyone else. He noted that society was changing. The personal ties, kinship connections, and lifelong friendships that Tönnies had come to know in child- hood were being replaced by short-term relationships, individual accomplishments, and self- interest. Tönnies called this new type of society Gesellschaft (Guh-ZELL-shoft), or “impersonal association.” He did not mean that we no longer have intimate ties to family and friends but, rather, that our lives no longer center on them. Few of us take jobs in a family business, for example, and contracts replace handshakes. Much of our time is spent with strangers and short-term acquaintances.

HOW RELEVANT ARE THESE CONCEPTS TODAY? I know that Gemeinschaft, Gesellschaft, and mechanical and organic solidarity are strange terms and that Durkheim’s and Tönnies’ observations must seem like a dead issue. The concern these sociologists expressed, however—that their world was changing from a community in which peo- ple were united by close ties and shared ideas and feelings to an anonymous associa- tion built around impersonal, short-term contacts—is still very real. In large part, this same concern explains the rise of Islamic fundamentalism (Volti 1995). Islamic leaders fear that Western values will uproot their traditional culture, that cold rationality will replace the warm, informal, personal relationships among families and clans. They fear, rightly so, that this will also change their views on life and morality. Although the terms may sound strange, even obscure, you can see that the ideas remain a vital part of today’s world.

mechanical solidarity Durkheim’s term for the unity (a shared consciousness) that people feel as a result of per- forming the same or similar tasks

division of labor the splitting of a group’s or a society’s tasks into specialties

organic solidarity Durkheim’s term for the inter- dependence that results from the division of labor; as part of the same unit, we all depend on others to fulfill their jobs

Gemeinschaft a type of society in which life is intimate; a community in which everyone knows everyone else and people share a sense of togetherness

Gesellschaft a type of society that is dominated by impersonal relationships, individual accom- plishments, and self-interest

Durkheim used the term mechanical solidarity to refer to the shared consciousness that develops among people who perform similar tasks. Can you see from this photo why this term applies so well to the Mudman tribe in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea, why they share such similar views about life?

Social Structure and Social Interaction 113

IN SUM Whether the terms are Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft or mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity, they indicate that as societies change, so do people’s orientations to life. The sociological point is that social structure sets the context for what we do, feel, and think, and ultimately, then, for the kind of people we become. The following Cultural Diversity in the United States describes one of the few remaining Gemeinschaft societies in the United States. As you read it, think of how fundamentally different your life would be if you had been reared in an Amish family.

The warm, more intimate relationships of Gemeinschaft society are apparent in the photo taken in Ecuador. The more impersonal relationships of Gesellschaft society are evident in this Internet cafe in the United States, where customers are ignoring one another.

Cultural Diversity in the United States The Amish: Gemeinschaft Community in a Gesellschaft Society One of the best examples of a Gemeinschaft community in the United States is the Old Order Amish, followers of a group that broke away from the Swiss–German Mennonite church in the 1600s and settled in Pennsylvania around 1727. Most of today’s 250,000 Old Order Amish live in just three states—Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana.

Because Amish farmers use horses instead of tractors, most of their farms are 100 acres or less. To the ten million tourists who pass through Lancaster County each year, the rolling green pastures, white farmhouses, simple barns, horse-drawn buggies, and clotheslines hung with somber- colored garments convey a sense of innocence reminiscent of another era. Although just 65 miles from Philadelphia, “Amish country” is a world away.

The differences are striking: the horses and buggies from so long ago, the language (a dialect of German known as Pennsylvania Dutch), and the plain clothing—often black, no belt—whose style has remained unchanged for almost 300 years. Beyond these externals is a value system that binds the Amish together, with religion and discipline the glue that maintains their way of life.

Amish life is based on separation from the world—an idea taken from Christ’s Sermon on the Mount—and obedience to the church’s teachings and leaders. This rejection of worldly concerns, writes sociologist Donald Kraybill (2002), “provides the foundation of such Amish values as humility, faithfulness, thrift, tradition, communal goals, joy of work, a slow-paced life, and trust in divine providence.” The Amish believe that violence is bad, even self-defense, and they register as

conscientious objectors during times of war. They pay no Social Security, and they receive no government benefits.

To maintain their separation from the world, Amish children attend schools that are run by the Amish, and they attend only until the age of 13. (In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that Amish parents have the right to take their children out of school after the eighth grade.) To go to school beyond the eighth grade would expose the children to values that would drive a wedge between the children and their community.

The Gemeinschaft of village life that has been largely lost to industrialization remains a vibrant part of Amish life. The Amish make their decisions in weekly meetings, where, by consensus, they follow a set of rules, or Ordnung, to guide their behavior. The welfare of the community is a central value. In times of birth, sickness, and death, neighbors pitch in with the chores. The family is also vital for Amish life. Nearly all Amish marry, and divorce is forbidden. The major

U.S.A.U.S.A.

(continued)

114 Chapter 4

events of Amish life take place in the home, including weddings, births, funerals, and church services. In these ways, they maintain the bonds of an intimate community.

Because they cannot resist all change, the Amish try to adapt in ways that will least disrupt their core values. Urban sprawl poses a special threat, since it has driven up the price of farmland. Unable to afford farms, about half of Amish men now work at jobs other than farming. The men go to great lengths to avoid leaving the home. Most work in farm-related businesses or operate woodcraft shops, but some have taken jobs in factories. With intimate, or Gemeinschaft, society essential to the Amish way of life, concerns have grown about how the men who work for non-Amish businesses are being exposed to the outside world. Some are using modern technology, such as cell phones and computers, at work. During the economic crisis, some who were laid off from their jobs even accepted unemployment checks—

violating the fundamental principle of taking no help from the government.

Despite the threats posed by a materialistic and secular culture, the Amish are managing to retain their way of life. Perhaps the most poignant illustration of how greatly the Amish differ from the dominant culture is this: When in 2006 a non-Amish man invaded a one-room school and shot several Amish girls and himself,

the Amish community raised funds not only for the families of the dead children but also for the family of the killer.

SOURCES: Aeppel 1996; Kephart and Zellner 2001; Scolforo 2008; Buckley 2011; Kraybill et al. 2013; Nolt 2016.

For Your Consideration S If you had been reared in an Amish family, how would

your ideas, attitudes, and behaviors be different?

S What do you like and dislike about Amish life? Why?

Photo taken in Shipshewana, Indiana

■ The Microsociological Perspective: Social Interaction In Everyday Life As you have seen, macrosociologists focus on the broad features of society. Microsociolo- gists, in contrast, examine narrower slices of social life. Their primary focus is face-to-face interaction—what people do when they are in one another’s presence. Before you study the main features of social interaction, look at the photo essay on the next two pages. See if you can identify both social structure and social interaction in each of the photos.

Symbolic Interaction 4.6 Discuss what symbolic interactionists study.

Symbolic interactionists focus on how people establish meaning and how they commu- nicate their ideas. They are especially interested in how people view things and how this, in turn, affects their behavior and orientations to life. Of the many areas of social interac- tion that symbolic interactionists study, we have space to review just a few. Let’s look at stereotypes, personal space, eye contact, smiling, and body language.

Stereotypes in Everyday Life You are familiar with how important first impressions are, how they set the tone for interaction. You also know that when you first meet someone, you notice certain fea- tures of the individual, especially the person’s sex, race–ethnicity, age, height, body shape, clothi ng. But did you know that this sets off a circular, self-feeding reaction? Your assumptions about these characteristics—some of which you don’t even know you have—shape not only your first impressions but also how you act toward that person. This, in turn, influences how that person acts toward you, which then affects how you react, and so on. Most of this self-feeding cycle occurs without your being aware of it.

Vienna provides a mixture of the old and the new. Stephan’s Dom (Cathedral) dates back to 1230, the carousel to now.

And what would Vienna be without its wieners? The word wiener actually comes from the name Vienna, which is Wien in German. Wiener means “from Vienna.”

The main square in Vienna, Stephan Platz, provides a place to have a cup of coffee,read the newspaper, enjoy the architecture, or just watch the hustle and bustle of the city.

Vienna: Social Str ucture and Social

Interaction These photos that

I took in

Vienna, Austria, m ake visible

some of social stru cture’s limiting, We live our

lives within socia l structure. Just

as a road is to a car, providing lim

its to where

it can go, so soci al structure limits

our behav-

ior. Social structu re—our culture,

social class,

statuses, roles, gr oup membership

s, and social

institutions—poin ts us in particula

r directions

in life. Most of t his direction- givin

g is beyond

our awareness. B ut it is highly eff

ective, giving

shape to our soc ial interactions, a

s well as to

what we expect f rom life.

shaping, and direc tion- giving. Most

of the social

structure that affe cts our lives is not

physical, as with

streets and buildin gs, but social, as w

ith norms, belief

systems, obligation s, and the goals h

eld out for us

because of our asc ribed statuses. In t

hese photos, you

should be able to see how social inte

raction takes

form within social structure.

Part of the pull of the city is its offering of rich culture. I took this photo at one of the many operas held in Vienna each night.

In the appealing street cafes of Vienn a, social structure and social

interaction are especially evident. C an you see both in this photo?

And what wou ld Vienna be w

ithout its world -famous beers?

The city’s entre preneurs make

sure that the b eer is within ea

sy

reach.

The city offers something for everyone, including unusual places for people to rest and to talk and to flirt with one another.

To be able to hang out with friends, not doing much, but doing it in the midst

of stimulating sounds and sights—this is the vibrant city

© James M. Henslin, all photos

Social Structure and Social Interaction 117

Down-to-Earth Sociology Beauty May Be Only Skin Deep, But Its Effects Go On Forever: Stereotypes in Everyday Life Mark Snyder, a psychologist, wondered whether stereotypes—our assumptions of what people are like—might be self-fulfilling. He came up with an ingenious way to test this idea. Snyder (1993) gave college men a photo of a woman (supposedly taken just moments before) and told each man that he would meet her after they talked on the telephone. Actually, the photographs—showing either a pretty or a homely woman—had been prepared before the experiment began. The photo was not of the woman the men would talk to.

Stereotypes came into play immediately. As Snyder gave each man the photograph, he asked him what he thought the woman would be like. The men who saw the photograph of the attractive woman said that they expected to meet a poised, humorous, outgoing woman. The men who had been given a photo of the unattractive woman described her as awkward, serious, and unsociable.

The stereotypes the men expressed influenced how they spoke to the women on the telephone, (The women did not know about the photographs.) The men who had seen the photograph of a pretty woman were warm, friendly, and humorous. This, in turn, affected the women they spoke to: They responded in a warm, friendly, outgoing manner. And the men who had seen the photograph of a homely woman? On the phone, they were cold, reserved, and humorless, and the women they spoke to became cool, reserved, and humorless. Keep in mind that the women did not know that their looks had been evaluated. Keep in mind, too, that the photos that the men saw were not of these women. In short, stereotypes tend to produce behaviors that match the stereotype. Figure 4.3 illustrates this principle.

Beauty might be only skin deep, but it has real consequences. Attractive people are viewed as smarter, kinder, and more honest (Sapolsky 2014a). Judges and

juries are more lenient with attractive people (Frevert and Walker 2014). Customers buy more from attractive salespeople (Kulesza et al. 2014). Students give higher ratings to their better-looking teachers (Liu et al. 2013). And for some reason, students apparently learn more from their more attractive teachers (Westfall et al. 2016).

For Your Consideration Stereotypes have a deep influence on how we react to one another. Instead of beauty, consider body shape, gender, and race–ethnicity.

S How do you think these characteristics affect those who do the stereotyping?

S How do you think these characteristics affect those who are stereotyped?

Figure 4.3 How Self-Fulfilling Stereotypes Work

into stereotypes and then expect the person to act

in certain ways.

How we expect the person to act shapes our

attitudes and actions.

From how we act, the person gets ideas of how we perceive him or her.

The behaviors of the person change to match

our expectations,

We see features of the person or hear things

about the person.

SOURCE: By the author.

Based the experiments summarized here, how do you think women would modify their interactions if they were to meet these two men? And if men were to meet these two men, would they modify their interactions in the same way?

In the following Down-to-Earth Sociology on beauty, let’s look at how people’s attractiveness sets off this reciprocal reaction.

stereotype assumptions of what people are like, whether true or false

118 Chapter 4

Personal Space We all surround ourselves with a “personal bubble,” and we go to great lengths to pro- tect it. We open the bubble to intimates—to our friends, children, and parents—but we’re careful to keep most people out of this space. In a crowded hallway between classes, we might walk with our books clasped in front of us (a strategy often chosen by females). When we stand in line, we make certain there is enough space so that we don’t touch the person in front of us and aren’t touched by the person behind us.

At times, we extend our personal space. In the library, for example, you might place your coat on the chair next to you—claiming that space for yourself even though you aren’t using it. If you want to really extend your space, you might even spread books in front of the other chairs, keeping the whole table to yourself by giving the impression that others have just stepped away.

The amount of space that people prefer varies from one culture to another. South Americans, for example, like to be closer when they talk to others than do people reared in the United States. Anthropologist Edward Hall (1959) recounted this interaction with a man from South America who had attended one of his lectures.

He came to the front of the class at the end of the lecture…. We started out facing each other, and as he talked I became dimly aware that he was standing a little too close and that I was beginning to back up. Fortunately I was able to suppress my first impulse and remain stationary because there was nothing to communicate aggression in his behavior except the conversational distance….

By experimenting I was able to observe that as I moved away slightly, there was an associated shift in the pattern of interaction. He had more trouble expressing himself. If I shifted to where I felt comfortable (about twenty-one inches), he looked somewhat puzzled and hurt, almost as though he were saying, “Why is he acting that way? Here I am doing everything I can to talk to him in a friendly manner and he suddenly withdraws. Have I done anything wrong? Said something I shouldn’t?” Having ascertained that distance had a direct effect on his conversation, I stood my ground, letting him set the distance.

As you can see, despite Hall’s extensive knowledge of other cultures, he still felt uncomfortable in this conversation. He even interpreted the entry into his personal space as possible aggression, since people get close (and jut out their chins and chests) when they are hostile. Realizing that this was not the case, Hall resisted his impulse to retreat.

After Hall analyzed situations like this, he observed that North Americans use four different “distance zones.”

1. Intimate distance. This is the zone that the South American had unwittingly invaded. It extends to about 18 inches from our bodies. We reserve this space for comforting, protecting, hugging, intimate touching, and lovemaking.

2. Personal distance. This zone extends from 18 inches to 4 feet. We reserve it for friends and acquaintances and ordinary conversations. This is the zone in which Hall would have preferred speaking with the South American.

3. Social distance. This zone, extending from about 4 to 12 feet, marks impersonal or for- mal relationships. We use this zone for such things as job interviews.

How people use space as they interact is studied by sociologists who have a microsociological focus. What do you see in common in these two photos?

Social Structure and Social Interaction 119

4. Public distance. This zone, extending beyond 12 feet, marks even more formal relation- ships. It is used to separate dignitaries and public speakers from the general public.

Eye Contact One way that we protect our personal bubble is by controlling eye contact. Letting someone gaze into our eyes—unless the person is an eye doctor—can be taken as a sign that we are attracted to that person, even as an invitation to intimacy. With the goal of becoming “the friendliest store in town,” a chain of supermarkets in Illinois ordered its checkout clerks to make direct eye contact with each customer. Female clerks complained that male customers were taking their eye contact the wrong way, as an invitation to intimacy. Management said they were exaggerating. The clerks’ reply was, “We know the kind of looks we’re getting back from men,” and they refused to continue making direct eye contact with them.

Smiling In the United States, we take it for granted that clerks will smile as they wait on us. But it isn’t this way in all cultures. Apparently, Germans aren’t used to smiling clerks, and when Walmart expanded into Germany, it brought its American ways with it. The com- pany ordered its German clerks to smile at their customers. They did—and the customers complained. The German customers interpreted the smiles as flirting (Samor et al. 2006).

Body Language While we are still little children, we learn to interpret body language, the ways people use their bodies to give messages to others. This skill in interpreting facial expressions, posture, and gestures is essential for getting through everyday life. Without it—as is the case for people with Asperger’s syndrome—we wouldn’t know how to react to others. It would even be difficult to know whether someone were serious or joking.

APPLIED BODY LANGUAGE In an interesting twist for an area of sociology that had been entirely theoretical, interpreting body lan- guage has become a tool for both business and government. In some hotels, clerks are taught how to “read” the body language of arriving guests (head sunk into the shoulders, a springy step) to know how to greet them (Petersen 2012). The U.S. army is teaching soldiers in mil- itary zones how to interpret body language to alert them to danger when they are interacting with civilians (Yager et al. 2009). “Reading” body language has also become a tool in the fight against terror- ism. Homeland Security spends $200 million a year on what it calls its behavior-detection program. Three thousand Behavior Detection Officers (their official title) are trained to look for ninety-four signs of deception by people who are going to board planes. Among those signs: A quick downturn of the mouth or rapid blinking might indicate nervousness or lying (McCartney 2014).

Let’s turn to dramaturgy, a special area of symbolic interactionism.

Dramaturgy: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life 4.7 Explain why life is like a stage according to dramaturgy; be ready to explain role

performance, sign-vehicles, teamwork, and becoming the roles we play.

Have you noticed how some clothing simply doesn’t “feel” right for certain occasions? Have you ever changed your mind about something you were wearing and decided to change your clothing? Or maybe you just switched shirts or added a necklace?

body language the ways in which people use their bodies to give messages to others

With the training of Homeland Security agents, body language has changed from being purely descriptive and theoretical to applied.

120 Chapter 4

What you were doing was fine-tuning the impressions you wanted to make. Ordinarily, we are not this aware that we’re working on impressions, but sometimes we are, especially when it comes to those “first impressions”—the first day in college, a job interview, visiting the parents of our loved one for the first time, and so on. Usually we are so used to the roles we play in everyday life that we tend to think we are “just doing” things, not that we are actors on a stage who manage impressions. Yet every time we dress for school, or for any other activity, we are engaging in impression management.

Sociologist Erving Goffman (1922–1982) added a new twist to microsociology when he recast the theatrical term dramaturgy into a sociological term. Goffman (1959/1999) used the term to mean that social life is like a drama or a stage play: Birth ushers us onto the stage of everyday life, and our socialization consists of learning to perform on that stage. The self that we studied in the previous chapter lies at the center of our performances. We have ideas about how we want others to think of us, and we use our roles in everyday life to commu- nicate these ideas. Goffman called our efforts to manage the impres- sions that others receive of us impression management.

Stages We do our impression management on front stages, places where we perform the roles assigned to us. Everyday life is filled with front stages. Where your teacher lectures is a front stage. And if you wait until your parents are in a good mood to tell them some bad news, you are using a front stage. We also have back stages, places where we retreat from performances and let our hair down. When you close the bathroom or bedroom door for privacy, for example, you are entering a back stage.

The same setting can serve as both a back and a front stage. For example, when you get into your car and look over your hair in the mirror or check your makeup, you are using the car as a back stage. But when you wave at friends or if you give that familiar gesture to someone who has just cut in front of you in traffic, you are using your car as a front stage.

Role Performance, Conflict, and Strain As discussed earlier, everyday life brings many statuses. We may be a student, a shopper, a worker, and a date, as well as a daughter or a son. Although the roles attached to these statuses lay down the basic outline for our performances, they also allow a great deal of flexibility. The particular interpretation that you give a role, your “style,” is known as role performance. Consider how you play your role as a son or daughter. Perhaps you play the role of ideal daughter or son—being respectful, coming home at the hours your parents set, and happily running errands. Or this description may not even come close to your particular role performance.

Ordinarily, our statuses are separated sufficiently that we find little conflict between our role performances. Occasionally, however, what is expected of us in one status (our role) is incompatible with what is expected of us in another status. This problem, known as role conflict, is illustrated in Figure 4.4, in which family, friendship, student, and work roles come crashing together. Usually, however, we manage to avoid role conflict by seg- regating our statuses, although doing so can require an intense juggling act.

Sometimes the same status contains incompatible roles, a conflict known as role strain. Suppose that you are exceptionally well prepared for a particular class assignment. Although the instructor asks an unusually difficult question, you find yourself know- ing the answer when no one else does. If you want to raise your hand, yet don’t want to make your fellow students look bad, you will experience role strain. As illustrated in

dramaturgy an approach, pioneered by Erving Goffman, in which social life is analyzed in terms of drama or the stage; also called dramaturgical analysis

impression management people’s efforts to control the impressions that others receive of them

front stages places where people give perfor- mances

back stages places where people rest from their performances, discuss their presentations, and plan future performances

role performance the ways in which someone performs a role; showing a par- ticular “style” or “personality”

role conflict conflict that someone feels between roles because the expec- tations attached to one role are at odds with those attached to another role

role strain conflicts that someone feels within a role

In dramaturgy, a specialty within sociology, social life is viewed as similar to the theater. In our everyday lives, we all are actors. Like those in the cast of Orange Is the New Black, we, too, perform roles, use props, and deliver lines to fellow actors—who, in turn, do the same.

Social Structure and Social Interaction 121

Sign-Vehicles To communicate information about the self, we use three types of sign-vehicles: the social setting, our appearance, and our manner. The social setting is the place where the action unfolds. This is where the curtain goes up on your performance, where you find yourself on stage playing parts and delivering lines. A social setting might be an office, dorm, living room, classroom, church, or bar. It is wherever you interact with others. The social setting includes scenery, the furnishings you use to communicate messages, such as desks, blackboards, scoreboards, couches, and so on.

The second sign-vehicle is appearance, or how you look when you play your roles. On the most obvious level is your choice of hairstyle to communicate messages about your- self. (You might be proclaiming “I’m wild and sexy” or “I’m serious and professional” and, for most, “I’m masculine” or “I’m feminine”). Your appearance also includes props, which are like scenery except that they decorate your body rather than the setting. Your most obvious prop is your costume, ordinarily called clothing. You switch costumes as you play your roles, wearing different costumes for attending class, swimming, jogging, working out at the gym, and dating.

Your appearance lets others know what to expect from you and how they should react. Think of the messages that props communicate. Some people use clothing to say they are college students, others to say they are older adults. Some use clothing to let you know they are clergy, others to give the message that they are prostitutes. In the same way, people choose models of cars, brands of liquor, and the hottest cell phone to convey messages about the self.

The body itself is a sign-vehicle. Its shape proclaims messages about the self. The meanings that are attached to various shapes change over time, but, as explored in the following Thinking Critically about Social Life, thinness currently screams desirability.

sign-vehicle the term used by Goffman to refer to how people use social setting, appearance, and manner to communicate information about the self

Figure 4.4, the difference between role conflict and role strain is that role conflict is conflict between roles, while role strain is conflict within a role.

Figure 4.4 Role Strain and Role Conflict

Come in for emergency overtime

You

Son or daughter Friend Student Worker

Visit mom in hospital

Go to 21st birthday

party

Prepare for tomorrow's

exam

Role Conflict

Student

Do well in your classes

Role Strain

You

Don't make other students

look bad

SOURCE: By the author.

122 Chapter 4

Thinking Critically about Social Life “Nothing Tastes as Good as Thin Feels”: Body Images and the Mass Media

When you stand before a mirror, do you like what you see? Do you watch your weight or work out? Where did you get your ideas about what you should look like?

“Your body isn’t good enough!” You are bombarded with this message. The way to improve your body is to buy the advertised products: hair extensions, “uplifting” bras, diet programs, exercise equipment, and according to your pref- erence, butt reducers or enhancers. Muscular hulks on TV show off machines that magically produce “six-pack abs” and incredible biceps—in just a few minutes a day. Female celebrities go through tough workouts without even break- ing into a sweat. Members of the opposite sex will flock to you if you purchase that wonder-working workout machine.

We try to shrug off such messages, knowing that they are designed to sell products, but the messages penetrate our thinking and feeling. They help to shape the ideal images we hold of how we “ought” to look. Those models so attractively clothed and coiffed as they walk down the runway, could they be any thinner? For women, the message is clear: You can’t be thin enough. The men’s message is also clear: You’ve got to be more muscular. Everybody loves a hulk.

These messages are powerful. Impossibly shaped models show off the latest lingerie for Victoria’s Secret and the latest fashions in Vogue and Seventeen. Adolescent girls feel fat, count calories, and think that the secret to popularity is being thin (Grabe et al. 2008; Zaslow 2009). The more time that girls spend on the Internet, especially Facebook, the more they internalize the skinny ideal (Tiggermann and Slater 2013). To look more feminine, each year about 12,000 teen girls have their breasts enlarged, while to look more masculine, about 14,000 teen boys have theirs reduced (Crerand and Magee 2013; Parry 2016).

“Thinspiration” videos on YouTube feature emaciated girls proudly displaying their skeletal frames. “Pro-ana” (pro-anorexic) sites promote eating disorders as a lifestyle choice (Boepple and Thompson 2016). I took the title of this section, “Nothing Tastes as Good as Thin Feels,” from one of these sites.

Attractiveness does pay off in cold cash. “Good-looking” men and women earn the most, “average-looking” men and women earn average amounts, and the “plain” and the “ugly” earn the least (Hamermesh 2011). Then there is that fascinating cash “bonus” available to “attractive” women: With the right facial features and shape, even the bubble-heads can attract and marry higher-earning men (Kanazawa and Kovar 2004).

More popularity and more money? Maybe you can’t be thin enough after all. Perhaps those exercise machines are a good investment. If only we could catch up with the Japanese, who have developed a soap that “sucks the fat right out of your pores” (Marshall 1995). Although we don’t

have such a soap, we do have liposuction. It’s even easier. Just lie down, and a surgeon inserts a vacuum wand in your body and sucks the fat out of your hips, butt, stomach, or wherever you feel too plumpy. A bit more expensive than the soap, but you get immediate results.

For Your Consideration S How do you view your body? Why do you have those

ideas? How do cultural expectations of “ideal” bodies underlie the images you have of your body?

S Most advertising that focuses on weight is directed at women. Women are more likely than men to be dissatisfied with their bodies and to have eating disorders (Austin et al. 2009; Wilson 2011). Do you think that targeting women in advertising creates these attitudes and behaviors? Or do you think that these attitudes and behaviors would exist even if there were no such ads? Why?

S There is a backlash against featuring emaciated models who look as though they’ll collapse on the runway. One reaction is to feature “plus-size” models in ads. What do you think about this?

All of us contrast the reality we see when we look in the mirror with our culture’s ideal body types. The thinness craze, discussed in this box, encourages some people to extremes, as with model Karlie Kloss. It also makes it difficult for larger people to have positive self-images. Overcoming this difficulty, Melissa McCarthy is in the forefront of promoting an alternative image.

Social Structure and Social Interaction 123

The third sign-vehicle is manner, the attitudes you show as you play your roles. You use manner to communicate information about your feelings and moods. When you show that you are angry or indifferent, serious or in good humor, you are indicating what others can expect of you as you play your roles.

Teamwork Being a good role player brings positive responses from others, something we all covet. To accomplish this, we use teamwork—two or more people working together to help a performance come off as planned. If you laugh at your boss’s jokes, even though you don’t find them funny, you are doing teamwork to help your boss give a good perfor- mance.

If a performance doesn’t come off quite right, the team might try to save it by using face-saving behavior.

Suppose your teacher is about to make an important point. Suppose also that her lec- turing has been outstanding and the class is hanging on every word. Just as she pauses for emphasis, her stomach lets out a loud growl. She might then use a face-saving tech- nique by remarking, “I was so busy preparing for class that I didn’t get breakfast this morning.”

It is more likely, however, that both the teacher and class will simply ignore the sound, giving the impression that no one heard a thing—a face-saving technique called studied nonobservance. This allows the teacher to make the point or, as Goffman would say, it allows the performance to go on.

Becoming the Roles We Play A fascinating characteristic of roles is that we tend to become the roles we play. That is, roles become incorporated into our self- concept, especially roles for which we prepare long and hard and that become part of our everyday lives. Helen Ebaugh (1988) experienced this firsthand when she quit being a nun to become a sociologist. With her own heightened awareness of role exit, she interviewed people who had left marriages, police work, the military, medicine, and religious vocations. Just as she had expe- rienced, the role had become intertwined so extensively with the individual ’s self-concept that leaving it threatened the person’s identity. The question these people struggled with was “Who am I, now that I am not a nun (or wife, police officer, colonel, physician, and so on)?”

A statement made by one of my respondents illustrates how roles become part of the person. Notice how a role can linger even after the individual is no longer playing that role:

After I left the ministry, I felt like a fish out of water. Wearing that backward collar had become a part of me. It was especially strange on Sunday mornings when I’d listen to someone else give the ser- mon. I knew that I should be up there preaching. I felt as though I had left God.

APPLYING IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT I can just hear someone say, “Impression management is interesting, but is it really important?” It certainly is. In the following Applying Sociology to Your Life, you can see how impression management can even make a vital difference for your career.

teamwork the collaboration of two or more people to manage impressions jointly

face-saving behavior techniques used to salvage a performance (interaction) that is going sour

Both individuals and organizations do impression management, trying to communicate messages about the self (or organization) that best meets their goals. At times, these efforts fail.

124 Chapter 4

Ethnomethodology: Uncovering Background Assumptions 4.8 Explain what background assumptions are and how they are an essential part

of social life (this is the key to understanding ethnomethodology).

One of the strangest words in sociology is ethnomethodology. To better understand this term, consider the word’s three basic components. Ethno means “folk” or “people”; method means how people do something; ology means “the study of.” Putting them together, then, ethno–method–ology means “the study of how people do things.” What things? Ethnomethodology is the study of how people use commonsense understand- ings to make sense of life.

Let’s suppose that during a routine office visit, your doctor remarks that your hair is rather long, then takes out a pair of scissors and starts to give you a haircut. You would feel strange about this, because your doctor would be violating background assumptions—your ideas about the way life is and the way things ought to work. These assumptions, which lie at the root of everyday life, are so deeply embedded in our con- sciousness that we are seldom aware of them, and most of us fulfill them unquestion- ingly. Thus, your doctor does not offer you a haircut, even if he or she is good at cutting hair and you need one!

ethnomethodology the study of how people use background assumptions to make sense out of life

Applying Sociology to Your Life Getting Promoted at Work: Making Impression Management Work for You Everyone wants to be promoted. We can all taste that raise—and the pleasure of a little more authority. But how do we get it? Let’s apply impression management. Let’s start off with a principle that is quite basic, but one that is often overlooked: To be promoted, you must be perceived as someone who should be promoted. If not, you’ll be passed by for sure. So how do you give the impression that you should be promoted? Essential to this impression is to make yourself appear dominant. Why should a passive follower be promoted to leadership? For men, giving this impression is less of a problem because stereotypes join masculinity and dominance at the hip. For women, though, stereotypes separate femininity and dominance, so let’s focus first on women.

To appear dominant, a woman could swagger, curse, and tell dirty jokes. This would get her noticed—but it is not likely to put her on the path to promotion. To assist women, career coaches have appeared on the scene (Agins 2009; Agno and McEwen 2011; Chapman 2013). These “image consultants,” as they are known, have a grab bag of little sayings, such as “The more skin you show, the more power you give away.” “Tone down your femininity, but don’t try to make yourself into a man.” To present a “subtle” femininity, wear “soft” fabrics. They also say that women should use makeup that doesn’t have to be reapplied during the day.

Here’s another suggestion for women, one more subtle and easily overlooked: Stash your purse inside a briefcase. This gives the impression of being more business-like. By

removing the purse from sight, you are removing a cue that can lead men to think about your femininity and not your abilities.

Here’s another suggestion, one that also applies to men. During business meetings, don’t put your hands in your lap. Place them on the table. This gives the impression of alertness and involvement.

You should also practice giving strong handshakes while making direct eye contact. This is significant not only for making a good first impression but also for continuing to give an impression to colleagues and bosses of your ability, seriousness, and dominance. Keep this in mind, wimpy handshakes make others think you are a wimp—and no one wants to promote a wimp.

A common saying is that much success in the work world depends not on what you know but on who you know. This is true, but let’s add this sociological twist: Much success at work depends not on what you know, but on your ability to give the impression that you know what you should know.

For Your Consideration S To be promoted, why is it important to be perceived as

dominant?

S What suggestions not discussed here would you add? S Apply the heading of the previous section, “Becoming

the Roles We Play,” to the impression management reviewed here.

Social Structure and Social Interaction 125

The founder of ethnomethodology, sociologist Harold Garfinkel, had his students do little exercises to uncover background assumptions. In these “breaching experiments,” Garfinkel (1967, 2002) asked his stu- dents to act as though they did not understand the basic rules of social life. Some of his students tried to bargain with supermarket clerks; others would inch close to people and stare directly at them. They were met with surprise, bewilderment, even indignation and anger. In one exercise, Gar- finkel asked students to act as though they were boarders in their own homes. They addressed their parents as “Mr.” and “Mrs.,” asked permis- sion to use the bathroom, sat stiffly, were courteous, and spoke only when spoken to. As you can imagine, the other family members didn’t know what to make of their behavior:

They vigorously sought to make the strange actions intelligible and to re- store the situation to normal appearances. Reports (by the students) were filled with accounts of astonishment, bewilderment, shock, anxiety, embar- rassment, and anger, and with charges by various family members that the student was mean, inconsiderate, selfish, nasty, or impolite. Family members demanded explanations: What’s the matter? What’s gotten into you? … Are you sick? … Are you out of your mind or are you just stupid? (Garfinkel 1967)

In another exercise, Garfinkel asked students to take words and phrases literally. When one student asked his girlfriend what she meant when she said that she had a flat tire, she said:

What do you mean, “What do you mean?” A flat tire is a flat tire. That is what I meant. Nothing special. What a crazy question!

Another conversation went like this:

acquaintance: How are you? student: How am I in regard to what? My health, my finances,

my schoolwork, my peace of mind, my …? acquaintance: (red in the face): Look! I was just trying to be polite.

Frankly, I don’t give a damn how you are.

Students can be highly creative when they are asked to break background assump- tions. The young children of one of my students were surprised one morning when they came down for breakfast to find a sheet spread on the living room floor. On it were dishes, silverware, lit candles—and bowls of ice cream. They, too, wondered what was going on, but they dug eagerly into the ice cream before their mother could change her mind.

This is a risky assignment to give students, because breaking some background assumptions can make people suspicious. When a colleague of mine gave this assign- ment, a couple of his students began to wash dollar bills in a laundromat. By the time they put the bills in the dryer, the police had arrived.

IN SUM Ethnomethodologists explore background assumptions, the taken-for- granted ideas about the world that underlie our behavior. Most of these assumptions, or basic rules of social life, are unstated. We learn them as we learn our culture, and we violate them only with risk. Deeply embedded in our minds, they give us basic directions for living everyday life.

The Social Construction of Reality 4.9 Be able to apply the social construction of reality to your own life.

On a visit to Morocco, in northern Africa, I decided to buy a watermelon. When I indi- cated to the street vendor that the knife he was going to use to cut the watermelon was dirty (encrusted with filth would be more apt), he was very obliging. He immediately bent

background assumption a deeply embedded, common understanding of how the world operates and of how people ought to act

All of us have background assumptions, deeply ingrained assumptions of how the world operates. What different background assumptions do you think are operating here? If the annual “No Pants! Subway Ride” gains popularity, will background assumptions for this day change?

126 Chapter 4

down and began to swish the knife in a puddle on the street. I shuddered as I looked at the passing burros that were urinating and defecating as they went by. Quickly, I indicated by gesture that I preferred my melon uncut after all.

“If people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences,” said sociolo- gists W. I. and Dorothy S. Thomas (1928)in what has become known as the definition of the situation (also called the Thomas theorem). For that vendor of watermelons, germs did not exist. For me, they did. And each of us acted according to our definition of the situation. My perception and behavior did not come from the fact that germs are real but, rather, from my having grown up in a society that teaches that germs are real. Microbes, of course, objectively exist, and whether or not germs are part of our thought world makes no difference as to whether we are infected by them. Our behavior, however, does not depend on the objective existence of something but, rather, on our subjective interpretation, on what sociologists call our definition of reality. In other words, it is not the reality of microbes that impresses itself on us, but society that impresses the reality of microbes on us.

Let’s consider another example. Do you remember the identical twins, Oskar and Jack, who grew up so differently? As discussed in Chapter 3, Oskar was reared in Ger- many and learned to love Hitler, while Jack was reared in Trinidad and learned to hate Hitler. As you can see, what Hitler meant to Oskar and Jack (and what he means to us) depends not on Hitler ’s acts but, rather, on how we view his acts—that is, on our defini- tion of the situation.

Sociologists call this the social construction of reality. From the social groups to which we belong (the social part of this process), we learn ways of looking at life. We learn ways to view Hitler and Osama bin Laden, the Palestinians and the Israelis (they’re good, they’re evil), germs (they exist, they don’t exist), and just about everything else in life. In short, through our interaction with others, we construct reality; that is, we learn ways of interpreting our experiences in life.

The social construction of reality is sometimes difficult to grasp. We sometimes think that meanings are external to us, that they originate “out there” somewhere, rather than in our social group. To better understand the social construction of reality, let’s consider pelvic examinations.

Gynecological Examinations When I interviewed a gynecological nurse who had been present at about 14,000 vaginal examinations, I analyzed how doctors construct social reality in order to define the examina- tion as nonsexual (Henslin and Biggs 1971). It became apparent that the pelvic examina- tion unfolds much as a stage play does. I will use “he” to refer to the physician because only male physicians were part of this study. Perhaps the results would be different with female gynecologists.

Scene 1 (the patient as person) In this scene, the doctor maintains eye contact with his patient, calls her by name, and discusses her problems in a professional manner. If he decides that a vaginal examination is necessary, he tells a nurse, “Pelvic in room 1.” By this statement, he is announcing that a major change will occur in the next scene.

Scene 2 (from person to pelvic) This scene is the depersonalizing stage. In line with the doctor’s announcement, the patient begins the transition from a “person” to a “pelvic.” The doctor leaves the room, and a female nurse enters to help the patient make the tran- sition. The nurse prepares the “props” for the coming examination and answers any ques- tions the woman might have.

What occurs at this point is essential for the social construction of reality, for the doc- tor’s absence removes even the suggestion of sexuality. To undress in front of the doctor could suggest either a striptease or intimacy, thus undermining the reality that the team is so carefully defining: that of nonsexuality.

Thomas theorem William I. and Dorothy S. Thom- as’ classic formulation of the definition of the situation: “If people define situations as real, they are real in their conse- quences”

social construction of reality the use of background assump- tions and life experiences to define what is real

Social Structure and Social Interaction 127

The patient, too, wants to remove any hint of sexuality, and during this scene, she may express concern about what to do with her panties. Some mutter to the nurse, “I don’t want him to see these.” Most women solve the problem by either slipping their panties under their other clothes or placing them in their purse.

Scene 3 (the person as pelvic) This scene opens when the doctor enters the room. Before him is a woman lying on a table, her feet in stirrups, her knees tightly together, and her body covered by a drape sheet. The doctor seats himself on a low stool before the woman and says, “Let your knees fall apart” (rather than the sexually loaded “Spread your legs”), and begins the examination.

The drape sheet is crucial in this process of desexualization, because it dissociates the pelvic area from the person: Leaning forward and with the drape sheet above the doctor ’s head, the physician can see only the vagina, not the patient’s face. Thus dissociated from the individual, the vagina is transformed dramaturgically into an object of analysis. To examine the patient’s breasts, the doctor also dissociates them from her person by exam- ining them one at a time, with a towel covering the unexamined breast. Like the vagina, each breast becomes an isolated item dissociated from the person.

In this third scene, the patient cooperates in being an object, becoming, for all prac- tical purposes, a pelvis to be examined. She withdraws eye contact from the doctor and usually from the nurse, is likely to stare at a wall or at the ceiling, and avoids initiating conversation.

Scene 4 (from pelvic to person) In this scene, the patient is “repersonalized.” The doctor has left the examining room; the patient dresses and fixes her hair and makeup. Her re- emergence as a person is indicated by such statements to the nurse as “My dress isn’t too wrinkled, is it?” showing a need for reassurance that the metamorphosis from “pelvic” back to “person” has been completed satisfactorily.

Scene 5 (the patient as person) In this final scene, sometimes with the doctor seated at a desk, the patient is once again treated as a person rather than as an object. The doctor makes eye contact with her and addresses her by name. She, too, makes eye contact with the doctor, and the usual middle-class interaction patterns are followed. She has been fully restored.

IN SUM For an outsider to our culture, the custom of women going to strangers for a vaginal examination might seem bizarre. But not to us. We learn that pelvic examinations are nonsexual. To sustain this definition requires teamwork—doctors, nurses, and the patient working together to socially construct reality.

It is not just pelvic examinations or our views of germs that make up our definitions of reality. Rather, our behavior depends on how we define reality. Our definitions (our con- structions of reality) provide the basis for what we do and how we view life. To under- stand human behavior, then, we must know how people define reality.

The Need for Both Macrosociology and Microsociology 4.10 Explain why we need both macrosociology and microsociology to understand

social life.

As noted earlier, we need both macrosociology and microsociology. Without one or the other, our understanding of social life would be vastly incomplete. To illustrate this point, consider two groups of high school boys studied by sociologist William Chambliss (1973). Both groups attended Hanibal High School. In one group were eight middle-class boys who came from “good” families and were perceived by the community as “going some- where.” Chambliss calls this group the Saints. In the other group were six lower-class boys who were seen as headed down a dead-end road. Chambliss calls this group the Roughnecks.

128 Chapter 4

Boys in both groups skipped school, got drunk, got in fights, and vandalized prop- erty. The Saints were truant more often and involved in more vandalism, but the Saints had good reputation. The Roughnecks, in contrast, were seen by teachers, the police, and the general community as no good and headed for trouble.

The boys’ reputations set them on separate paths. Seven of the eight Saints went on to graduate from college. Three studied for advanced degrees: One finished law school and became active in state politics, one finished medical school, and one went on to earn a Ph.D. The four other college graduates entered managerial or executive training pro- grams with large firms. After his parents divorced, one Saint failed to graduate from high school on time and had to repeat his senior year. Although this boy tried to go to college by attending night school, he never finished. He was unemployed the last time Cham- bliss saw him.

In contrast, two of the Roughnecks dropped out of high school. They were later con- victed of separate murders and sent to prison. Of the four boys who graduated from high school, two had done exceptionally well in sports and were awarded athletic scholar- ships to college. They both graduated from college and became high school coaches. Of the two others who completed high school, one became a small-time gambler and the other disappeared “up north,” where he was last reported to be driving a truck.

To understand what happened to the Saints and the Roughnecks, we need to grasp both social structure and social interaction. Using macrosociology, we can place these boys within the larger framework of the U.S. social class system. This reveals how opportuni- ties open or close to people depending on their social class and how people learn differ- ent goals as they grow up in different groups. We can then use microsociology to follow their everyday lives. We can see how the Saints manipulated their “good” reputations to skip classes and how their access to automobiles allowed them to protect their repu- tations by spreading their troublemaking around different communities. In contrast, the Roughnecks, who did not have cars, were highly visible. Their lawbreaking, which was limited to a small area, readily came to the attention of the community. Microsociology also reveals how the boys’ reputations opened doors of opportunity to the Saints while closing them to the Roughnecks.

It is clear that we need both kinds of sociology, and both are stressed in the following chapters. The following photo essay on people’s activities following a tornado should also help to make clear why we need both perspectives.

For children, family photos are not as important as toys. This girl has managed to salvage a favorite toy, which will help anchor her to her previous life.

Personal relationships are essential in putting lives together. Consequently, reminders of these relationships are one of the main possessions that people attempt to salvage. This young man, having just recovered the family photo album, is eagerly reviewing the photos.

After making sure that their loved ones are safe,one of the next steps people take is to recover their possessions. The cooperation that emerges among people, as documented in the sociological literature on natural disasters, is illustrated here.

© James M. Henslin, all photos

process firsthand. The next

morning, I took off fo r Georgia.

These photos, taken the day after the tor

nado

struck, tell the story of people in the mid

st

of trying to put thei r lives back together

. I

was impressed at ho w little time people

spent

commiserating abou t their misfortune an

d how

quickly they took pr actical steps to resto

re their

lives. As you look at these p

hotos, try to determine why

we need both microso ciology and macrosoci

ology to

understand what occu rs after a natural disas

ter.

When a Tornado Strikes: Social O

rganization Follo wing

a Natural Disast er

As I was watching te levision on March 20

,

2003, I heard a rep ort that a tornado ha

d

hit Camilla, Georgia. “Like a big lawn mo

wer,”

the report said, it had cut a path of destru

c-

tion through this littl e town. In its fury, th

e

tornado had left behi nd six dead and abou

t

200 injured.

From sociological stu dies of natural disas-

ters, I knew that imm ediately after the init

ial

shock the survivors o f natural disasters wo

rk

together to try to res tore order to their di

s-

rupted lives. I wanted to see this restructu

ring

In addition to the inquiring sociologist, television teams also were interviewing survivors and photographing the damage. This was the second time in just three years that a tornado had hit this neighborhood.

Formal organizations also help the survivors of natural disasters

recover. In this neighborhood, I saw representatives of insurance

companies, the police, the fire department, and an electrical co-op. The Salvation Army brought meals

to the neighborhood.

No building or social institution escapes a tornado as it follows its path of destruction. Just the night before, members of this church had held evening worship service. After the tornado, someone mounted a U.S. flag on top of the cross, symbolic of the church members’ patriotism and religiosity—and of their enduring hope.

Like electricity and gas, communications need to be restored as soon as possible.

The owners of this house invited me inside to see

what the tornado had done to their home. In what had been her dining room, this

woman is trying to salvage whatever she can from the rubble. She and her family

survived by taking refuge in the bathroom. They had been

there only five seconds, she said, when the tornado struck.

© James M. Henslin, all photos

Social Structure and Social Interaction 131

Summary and Review

Levels of Sociological Analysis 4.1 Distinguish between macrosociology and

microsociology.

What two levels of analysis do sociologists use?

Sociologists use macrosociological and microsociological levels of analysis. In macrosociology, the focus is placed on large-scale features of social life, while in microsociology, the focus is on social interaction. Functionalists and conflict theo- rists tend to use a macrosociological approach, while symbolic interactionists are likely to use a microsociological approach.

The Sociological Significance of Social Structure 4.2 Explain the significance of social structure.

How does social structure influence our behavior?

The term social structure refers to the social envelope that surrounds us and establishes limits on our behavior. Social structure consists of culture, social class, social statuses, roles, groups, and social institutions. Our location in the social structure underlies our perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors.

Components of Social Structure 4.3 Be able to identify the major components of social

structure: culture, social class, social status, roles, groups, and social institutions.

What are the major components of social structure?

Culture lays the broadest framework, while social class divides people according to income, education, and occu- pational prestige. Each of us receives ascribed statuses at birth; later we add achieved statuses. Our social statuses guide our roles, put boundaries around our behavior, and give us orientations to life. These are further influenced by the groups to which we belong and our experiences with social institutions. These components of society work to- gether to help maintain social order.

Social Institutions 4.4 Explain the significance of social institutions, and

compare the functionalist and conflict perspec- tives on social institutions.

What are social institutions?

Social institutions are the standard ways that a soci- ety develops to meet its basic needs. As summarized in Figure 4.2, industrial and postindustrial societies have ten social institutions—the family, religion, education, economy, medicine, politics, law, science, the military, and the mass media.

How do functionalists and conflict theorists view social institutions?

From the functionalist perspective, social institutions meet universal group needs, or functional requisites. Conflict the- orists stress how the elites of society use social institutions to maintain their privileged positions.

Changes in Social Structure 4.5 Explain what holds society together.

What holds society together?

According to Emile Durkheim, in agricultural societies, people are united by mechanical solidarity (having sim- ilar views and feelings). With industrialization comes organic solidarity (people depend on one another to do their more specialized jobs). Ferdinand Tönnies pointed out that the informal means of control in Gemeinschaft (small, intimate) societies are replaced by formal mecha- nisms in Gesellschaft (larger, more impersonal) societies.

Symbolic Interaction 4.6 Discuss what symbolic interactionists study.

What is the focus of symbolic interactionism?

In contrast to functionalists and conflict theorists, who as macrosociologists focus on the “big picture,” symbolic interactionists tend to be microsociologists and focus on face-to-face social interaction. Symbolic interactionists an- alyze how people define their worlds, and how their defi- nitions, in turn, influence their behavior.

How do stereotypes affect social interaction?

Stereotypes are assumptions of what people are like. When we first meet people, we classify them according to our perceptions of their visible characteristics. Our ideas about these characteristics guide our reactions to them. Our be- havior, in turn, can influence them to behave in ways that reinforce our stereotypes.

Do all human groups share a similar sense of personal space?

In examining how people use physical space, symbolic interactionists stress that we have a “personal bubble” that we carefully protect. People from different cultures use “personal bubbles” of varying sizes, so the answer to the question is no. Americans typically use four different “distance zones”: intimate, personal, social, and public.

What is body language?

Body language is using our bodies to give messages. We do this through facial expressions, posture, smiling, and eye contact. Interpreting body language is becoming a tool in business and in the fight against terrorism.

132 Chapter 4

Dramaturgy: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life 4.7 Explain why life is like a stage according to drama-

turgy; be ready to explain role performance, sign- vehicles, teamwork, and becoming the roles we play.

What is dramaturgy?

Erving Goffman developed dramaturgy (or dramaturgical analysis), in which everyday life is analyzed in terms of the stage. At the core of this analysis is impression management, our attempts to control the impressions we make on others. For this, we use the sign-vehicles of setting, appearance, and manner. Our role performances on the front stages of life of- ten call for teamwork and face-saving behavior. They some- times are hampered by role conflict or role strain.

Ethnomethodology: Uncovering Background Assumptions 4.8 Explain what background assumptions are and

how they are an essential part of social life.

What is ethnomethodology?

Ethnomethodology is the study of how people make sense of everyday life. Ethnomethodologists try to uncover

background assumptions, the basic ideas about the way life is that guide our behavior.

The Social Construction of Reality 4.9 Be able to apply the social construction of reality

to your own life.

What is the social construction of reality?

The phrase social construction of reality refers to how we construct our views of the world, which, in turn, underlie our actions.

The Need for both Macrosociology and Microsociology 4.10 Explain why we need both macrosociology and

microsociology to understand social life.

Why are both levels of analysis necessary?

Because macrosociology and microsociology focus on dif- ferent aspects of human experience, each is necessary for us to understand social life.

Thinking Critically about Chapter 4 1. The major components of social structure are culture,

social class, social status, roles, groups, and social institutions. Use social structure to explain why Native Americans have such a low rate of college graduation. (See Table 9.3.)

2. Dramaturgy is a form of microsociology. Use dra- maturgy to analyze a situation with which you are

intimately familiar (such as interaction with your family or friends or at work or in one of your college classes).

3. To illustrate why we need both macrosociology and microsociology to understand social life, analyze the situation of a student getting kicked out of college.

Maze of paper, 2005, Stockbyte (illustration)

134

Learning Objectives

After you have read this chapter, you should be able to:

5.1 Discuss the main characteristics of primary groups, secondary groups, in-groups and out-groups, reference groups, and social networks.

5.2 Summarize the characteristics of bureaucracies, their dysfunctions, and goal displacement.

5.3 Discuss the “hidden” corporate culture and worker diversity.

5.4 Explain how bureaucracy and technology are coming together to produce a maximum security society.

5.5 Be familiar with the effects of group size on stability, intimacy, attitudes, and behavior; types and styles of leaders; the Asch experiment on peer pressure; the Milgram experiment on authority; and the implications of groupthink.

Chapter 5

Social Groups and Formal Organizations

He wasn’t always called Monster. Cody was his real name, and he was only 13 years old when they started calling him Monster.

Cody was proud of his new name. He wore it like a badge of honor. And it was. Here’s what happened. Cody lived in East Los Angeles, a tough part of the city. And he lived in a tough part of

that tough part, an area where gangs—violent gangs—were part of everyday life. Shoot- ings, robberies, rape, and beatings were not strangers to those who lived there.

Cody wanted to be part of the Crips. The problem was that Cody was just 11 years old. He looked up to these older boys and

young men in his neighborhood, and he admired what he saw. They were brave and tough, just like men ought to be, he thought.

Looking into Cody’s eager eyes, Huck said that he might be able to join up, but he added that Cody needed to be sure about it, that once someone is a Crip, no one backs out. He told him that “bangin,” being a gang member, is serious. He said that bangin’ is not part-time, that bangin’ becomes your life.

Cody nodded. He said he understood. To make sure that Cody really did understand, Huck pressed the matter. He told Cody that if

he was serious, he had to a be ready to kill--or get killed--for a “homie,” (a fellow gang member). Cody said he was ready. With no warning, Huck hit Cody on the head, knocking him to the floor. Another gang

member kicked Cody in the stomach. Others joined in the beating. Cody was stunned by the blows, but he managed to get to his feet and start hitting

back. In his anger, his blows were wild, but he kept hitting.

They called him Monster. And he wore this name like a badge of honor.

Social Groups and Formal Organizations 135

After a few minutes, the beating stopped. Huck said that Cody did OK. Trey Ball told him that he had potential. Cody had just gone through an initiation ritual. The second part of his initiation into

the Crips was about to follow. Trey Ball handed Cody a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun. Cody held the gun like he had won the top prize in school. And he had. Huck told Cody that he had 8 shots and not to come back with any of them.  All armed, they piled into the car and headed to surprise their enemy, the Bloods, who

didn’t live far away. Cody was ready to show that he would kill for the Crips--or die for them. As Cody crept up on the Bloods, he hid in the shadows of houses and bushes. As soon

as he had the chance, Cody shot. And he kept firing as the Bloods screamed and ran, even stepping over bodies as he emptied the gun at the fleeing Bloods.

Afterwards, while they drank beer and smoked marijuana, they talked and laughed about the attack.

Two years later, when Cody was 13, he stomped a Blood  into a coma. As the police looked at the gruesome scene, one officer remarked that a “monster” had done it.

The name stuck. From then on Cody’s name was Monster. And he wore it proudly. Monster went on to a life of crime, with violence part of his life both in and out of

prison. He remained loyal to the Crips, which became his friends and family all rolled into one. The Crips became his purpose for living.

(These events are reconstructed from a marvelous book, Monster (1994) in which Monster Cody Scott describes his life of crime and violence and his time in prison).

Groups within Society 5.1 Discuss the main characteristics of primary groups, secondary groups, in-groups

and out-groups, reference groups, and social networks.

Groups, people who think of themselves as belonging together and who interact with one another, are the essence of life in society. Groups are vital for our well-being. They provide intimate relationships and a sense of belonging, something that we all need. This chapter, then, is highly significant for your life.

Before we analyze groups, we should clarify the concept. Two terms sometimes con- fused with group are aggregate and category. An aggregate consists of people who temporarily share the same physical space but who do not see themselves as belonging together. Shop- pers standing in a checkout line or drivers waiting at a red light are an aggregate. A category is simply a statistic. It consists of people who share similar characteristics, such as all college women who wear glasses or all men over 6 feet tall. Unlike group members, the individuals who make up a category don’t think of themselves as belonging together, and they don’t interact with one another. These concepts are illustrated in the following four photos.

Groups are so influential that they determine who you are. If you think that this is an exaggeration, recall what you read in Chapter 3, that even your mind is a product of society—or, more specifically phrased, of the groups to which you belong. To better understand the influence of groups on your life, let’s begin by looking at the types of groups that make up our society.

Primary Groups As you will recall from Chapter 3, a major point about socialization is that you didn’t develop “naturally” into a human adult. Your social experiences shaped you into what you have become. In this shaping process, it is hard to overestimate how significant your family has been. It was your family that laid down your basic orientations to life. Then came friends, where your sense of belonging expanded. Family and friends are what sociologist Charles Cooley called primary groups. By providing intimate, face-to-face interaction, your primary groups have given you a self, an identity, a feeling of who you are. Here’s how Cooley (1909/1962) put it:

group people who interact with one another and who believe that what they have in common is significant; also called a social group

aggregate individuals who temporarily share the same physical space but who do not see themselves as belonging together

category people, objects, and events that have similar characteristics and are classified together

primary group a small group characterized by cooperative, intimate, long-term, face-to-face relationships

Categories, Aggregates, Primary and Secondary Groups

Groups have a deep impact on our actions, views, orientations, even what we feel and think about life. Yet, as illustrated by these photos, not everything that appears to be a group is actually a group in the sociological sense.

The outstanding trait that these three people have in common does not make them a group, but a category.

Primary groups such as the family play a key role in the development of the self. As a small group, the family also serves as a buffer from the often-threatening larger group known as society. The family has been of primary significance in forming the basic orientations of this couple, as it will be for their daughter.

Why are these contestants in the Ethnic New England Pageant an example of a

secondary group?

Why are the people watc

hing this str eet performe

r in

York, Englan d, an aggreg

ate?

Social Groups and Formal Organizations 137

By primary groups I mean those characterized by intimate face-to-face association and cooperation. They are primary in several senses, but chiefly in that they are fundamental in forming the social nature and ideals of the individual.

From our opening vignette, you can see that youth gangs are also primary groups.

PRODUCING A MIRROR WITHIN We humans have intense emotional needs. Among them are a sense of belonging and feelings of self-esteem. Because primary groups provide intense face-to-face interaction as we are being introduced to the world, they are uniquely equipped to meet our basic needs. They can make us feel appreciated—even that we are loved. When primary groups are dysfunctional, however, and fail to meet these basic needs, they produce dysfunctional adults, wounded people who make life difficult for others.

Regardless of the levels at which your primary groups have functioned—and none is perfect—their values and attitudes have been fused into your identity. You have internal- ized their views, which are now lenses through which you view life. Even as an adult—no matter how far you move away from your childhood roots—your early primary groups remain “inside” you. There, they continue to form part of the perspective from which you look out onto the world. Your primary groups have become your mirror within.

Secondary Groups Compared with primary groups, secondary groups are larger, more anonymous, and more formal and impersonal. Secondary groups are based on shared interests or activ- ities, and their members are likely to interact on the basis of specific statuses, such as president, manager, worker, or student. Examples include college classes, the American Sociological Association, and political parties. Secondary groups are part of the way we get our education, make our living, spend our money, and use our leisure time.

Secondary groups are necessary for contemporary life, but they often fail to satisfy our deep needs for intimate association. Consequently, secondary groups tend to break down into primary groups. At school and work, we form friendships. Our interaction with our friends is so important that we sometimes feel that if it weren’t for them, school or work would “drive us crazy.” The primary groups that we form within secondary groups, then, serve as a buffer between ourselves and the demands that secondary groups place on us.

VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS A special type of secondary group is a voluntary association, a group made up of volunteers who organize on the basis of some mutual interest. Some groups are local, consisting of only a few volunteers; others are national, with a paid professional staff.

Americans love voluntary associations and use them to express a wide variety of inter- ests. A visitor entering one of the thousands of small towns that dot the U.S. landscape is often greeted by a sign proclaiming some of the town’s voluntary associations: Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Kiwanis, Lions, Elks, Eagles, Knights of Columbus, Chamber of Commerce, American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and perhaps a host of others. One type of voluntary associ- ation is so prevalent that a separate sign sometimes indicates which varieties the town offers: Roman Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, and so on. Not listed on these signs are many other voluntary associations, such as political parties, unions, health clubs, National Right to Life, National Organization for Women, Alcoholics Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, Association of Pinto Racers, and Citizens United For or Against This and That.

THE INNER CIRCLE The key members of a voluntary association, its inner circle, often grow distant from the regular members. They become convinced that only they can be trusted to make the group’s important decisions. To see this principle at work, let’s look at the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW).

Sociologists Elaine Fox and George Arquitt (1985) studied three local posts of the VFW. They found that although the leaders of the VFW concealed their attitudes from the rank-and-file-members, the inner circle viewed them as a bunch of ignorant boozers. Because the leaders couldn’t stand the thought that such people might represent them in

secondary group compared with a primary group, a larger, relatively temporary, more anonymous, formal, and impersonal group based on some interest or activity

voluntary associations groups made up of people who voluntarily organize on the basis of some mutual interest; also known as voluntary memberships and voluntary organizations

138 Chapter 5

the community and at national meetings, a curious situation arose. The rank-and-file members were eligible for top leadership positions, but they never became leaders. In fact, the inner circle was so effective in con- trolling these top positions that even before an election, they could tell you who was going to win. “You need to meet Jim,” the sociologists were told. “He’s the next post commander after Sam does his time.”

At first, the researchers found this puzzling. The election hadn’t been held yet. As they investigated further, they found that leader- ship was determined behind the scenes. The current leaders appointed their favored people to chair the key committees. This spotlighted their names and accomplishments, propelling the members to elect them. By appointing its own members to highly visible positions, the inner circle maintained control over the entire organization.

THE IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY Like the VFW, in most voluntary associations, an elite inner circle keeps itself in power by passing the leadership positions among its members. Sociologist Robert Michels (1876–1936) coined the term the iron law of oligarchy to refer to how organizations come to be dominated by a small, self-perpetuating elite. (Oligarchy means a system in which many are ruled by a few.)

What many find disturbing about the iron law of oligarchy is that peo- ple are excluded from leadership because they don’t represent the inner

circle’s values, or, in some instances, their background or even the way they look. This is true even of organizations that are committed to democratic principles. For example, U.S. political parties— supposedly the backbone of the nation’s representative government—are run by an inner circle that passes leadership positions from one elite member to another. This principle also shows up in the U.S. Congress. With their control of political machinery and access to free mailing, 93 to 97 percent of U.S. senators and representatives who choose to run are reelected (Statistical Abstract 2006:Table 394; Saad 2016; “Vital Statistics on Congress” 2017).

The iron law of oligarchy is not without its limitations, of course. Regardless of their personal feelings, members of the inner circle must keep attuned to the opinions of the rank-and-file members. If the oligarchy gets too far out of line, it runs the risk of a grass- roots rebellion that would throw the elite out of office. This threat softens the iron law of oligarchy by making the leadership responsive to the membership. The iron law of oligarchy, then, is actually more like a copper law of oligarchy; it does have to do some bending. In addition, because not all organizations become captive to an elite, it is a strong tendency, not an inevitability.

In-Groups and Out-Groups What groups do you identity with? Which groups in our society do you dislike?

We all have in-groups, groups toward which we feel loyalty. And we all have out-groups, groups toward which we feel antagonism. For Monster Kody in our opening vignette, the Crips were an in-group, while the Bloods were an out-group. That the Crips—and we—make such a fundamental division of the world has far-reaching consequences for our lives.

SHAPING PERCEPTION AND MORALITY You know the sense of belonging that some groups give you. This can bring positive consequences, such as our tendency to excuse the faults of people we love and to encourage them to do better. Unfortunately, dividing the world into a “we” and “them” also leads to discrimination, hatred, and, as we saw in our

iron law of oligarchy Robert Michels’ term for the tendency of formal organi- zations to be dominated by a small, self-perpetuating elite

in-group a group toward which one feels loyalty

How our participation in social groups shapes our self-concept is a focus of symbolic interactionists. In this process, knowing who we are not is as significant as knowing who we are.

© R

ob er

t W

eb er

/ T

h e

N ew

Y or

k er

C ol

le ct

io n

/ w

w w

.c ar

to on

b an

k .c

om

In a process called the iron law of oligarchy, a small, self-perpetuating elite tends to take control of formal organizations. The text explains that the leaders of the local VFW posts separate themselves from the rank- and-file members. This photo was taken in Middletown, New York.

Social Groups and Formal Organizations 139

opening vignette, even murder. From this, you can see the sociological significance of in-groups: They shape your perception of the world, your views of right and wrong, and your behavior.

A fascinating result of dividing the world into “we” and “they” is that it can nurture double standards, such as prejudice and discrimination on the basis of sex:

We tend to view the traits of our in-group as virtues, while we perceive those same traits as vices in out-groups. Men may perceive an aggressive man as assertive but an aggressive woman as pushy. They may think that a male employee who doesn’t speak up “knows when to keep his mouth shut,” while they consider a quiet woman as too timid to make it in the business world (Merton 1949/1968).

The twisting of perceptions can be so severe that, as in our opening vignette, harm- ing others can become viewed as right. The Nazis provide a startling example. For them, the Jews were an out-group who symbolized an evil that should be eliminated. Many ordinary “good” Germans shared this view and defended the Holocaust as “dirty work” that someone had to do (Hughes 1962/2005).

An example from way back then, you might say—and the world has moved on. But our inclination to divide the world into in-groups and out-groups has not moved on—nor has the twisting of perception that accompanies it. When al-Qaeda became Americans’ number one out-group after 9/11, top U.S. officials ordered “cruel and inhuman” treat- ment of al-Qaeda prisoners. Interrogators waterboarded one prisoner 83 times (“Ex-FBI Official …” 2015). (None of us would want to be waterboarded even once.)

Perhaps this prisoner’s account of his treatment at U.S. hands at Guantanamo will pro- vide more insight into the extreme consequences that can arise from out-group thinking:

Suddenly a commando team consisting of three soldiers and a German shepherd broke into our interrogation room…. ____ punched me violently, which made me fall face down on the floor…. His partner kept punching me everywhere, mainly on my face and my ribs. He, too, was masked from head to toe…. The third man was not masked; he stayed at the door holding the dog’s collar, ready to release it on me…. I saw the dog fighting to get loose.

One of them hit me hard across the face, and quickly put the goggles on my eyes, ear muffs on my ears, and a small bag over my head. I couldn’t tell who did what. They tightened the chains around my ankles and my wrists; afterwards, I started to bleed. All I could hear was ____ cursing, “F-this and F-that!” (Sandberg 2015).

Shades of the Nazis! In short, to divide the world into in-groups and out-groups, a natural part of social

life, produces both functional and dysfunctional consequences.

Reference Groups Suppose you have just been offered a good job. It pays double what you hope to make even after you graduate from college. You have only two days to make up your mind. If you accept the job, you will have to drop out of college. As you consider the offer, thoughts like this may go through your mind: “My friends will say I’m a fool if I don’t take the job … but Dad and Mom will practically go crazy. They’ve made sacrifices for me, and they’ll be crushed if I don’t finish college. They’ve always said I’ve got to get my education first, that good jobs will always be there…. But, then, I’d like to see the look on the faces of those neighbors who said I’d never amount to much!”

EVALUATING OURSELVES This is an example of how people use reference groups, the groups we refer to when we evaluate ourselves. Your reference groups may include your family, neighbors, teachers, classmates, co-workers, or the members of your church, synagogue, or mosque. If you were like Monster Kody in our opening vignette, the “set” would be your main reference group. Even a group you don’t belong to can be a reference group. For example, if you are thinking about going to graduate school, gradu- ate students or members of the profession you want to join may form a reference group. You would consider their standards as you evaluate your grades or writing skills.

out-group a group toward which one feels antagonism

reference group a group whose standards we refer to as we evaluate ourselves

the community and at national meetings, a curious situation arose. The rank-and-file members were eligible for top leadership positions, but they never became leaders. In fact, the inner circle was so effective in con- trolling these top positions that even before an election, they could tell you who was going to win. “You need to meet Jim,” the sociologists were told. “He’s the next post commander after Sam does his time.”

At first, the researchers found this puzzling. The election hadn’t been held yet. As they investigated further, they found that leader- ship was determined behind the scenes. The current leaders appointed their favored people to chair the key committees. This spotlighted their names and accomplishments, propelling the members to elect them. By appointing its own members to highly visible positions, the inner circle maintained control over the entire organization.

THE IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY Like the VFW, in most voluntary associations, an elite inner circle keeps itself in power by passing the leadership positions among its members. Sociologist Robert Michels (1876–1936) coined the term the iron law of oligarchy to refer to how organizations come to be dominated by a small, self-perpetuating elite. (Oligarchy means a system in which many are ruled by a few.)

What many find disturbing about the iron law of oligarchy is that peo- ple are excluded from leadership because they don’t represent the inner

circle’s values, or, in some instances, their background or even the way they look. This is true even of organizations that are committed to democratic principles. For example, U.S. political parties— supposedly the backbone of the nation’s representative government—are run by an inner circle that passes leadership positions from one elite member to another. This principle also shows up in the U.S. Congress. With their control of political machinery and access to free mailing, 93 to 97 percent of U.S. senators and representatives who choose to run are reelected (Statistical Abstract 2006:Table 394; Saad 2016; “Vital Statistics on Congress” 2017).

The iron law of oligarchy is not without its limitations, of course. Regardless of their personal feelings, members of the inner circle must keep attuned to the opinions of the rank-and-file members. If the oligarchy gets too far out of line, it runs the risk of a grass- roots rebellion that would throw the elite out of office. This threat softens the iron law of oligarchy by making the leadership responsive to the membership. The iron law of oligarchy, then, is actually more like a copper law of oligarchy; it does have to do some bending. In addition, because not all organizations become captive to an elite, it is a strong tendency, not an inevitability.

In-Groups and Out-Groups What groups do you identity with? Which groups in our society do you dislike?

We all have in-groups, groups toward which we feel loyalty. And we all have out-groups, groups toward which we feel antagonism. For Monster Kody in our opening vignette, the Crips were an in-group, while the Bloods were an out-group. That the Crips—and we—make such a fundamental division of the world has far-reaching consequences for our lives.

SHAPING PERCEPTION AND MORALITY You know the sense of belonging that some groups give you. This can bring positive consequences, such as our tendency to excuse the faults of people we love and to encourage them to do better. Unfortunately, dividing the world into a “we” and “them” also leads to discrimination, hatred, and, as we saw in our

iron law of oligarchy Robert Michels’ term for the tendency of formal organi- zations to be dominated by a small, self-perpetuating elite

in-group a group toward which one feels loyalty

140 Chapter 5

Reference groups exert tremendous influence on us. For example, if you want to become a corporate executive, you might start to dress more formally, try to improve your vocab- ulary, read the Wall Street Journal, and change your major to business or law. In contrast, if you want to become a rock musician, you might get elaborate tattoos and body pierc- ings, dress in ways your parents and even many of your peers consider extreme, read Rolling Stone, drop out of college, and hang around clubs and rock groups.

EXPOSURE TO CONTRADICTORY STANDARDS IN A SOCIALLY DIVERSE SOCIETY From these exam- ples, you can see how you use reference groups to eval- uate your life. When you see yourself as measuring up to a reference group’s standards, you feel pleased. But you can experience inner turmoil if your behavior— or aspirations—does not match the group’s standards. Although wanting to become a corporate executive would create no inner turmoil for most of us, it would for someone who had grown up in an Amish home. The Amish strongly disapprove of such aspirations for their

children. They ban high school and college education, suits and ties, and corporate employment. Similarly, if you want to join the military and your parents are dedicated pacifists, you likely would feel deep conflict, because your parents would have quite different aspirations for you.

Contradictions that lead to inner turmoil are common because of two chief character- istics of our society: social diversity and social mobility. These expose us to standards and orientations that are inconsistent with those we learned during childhood. The “internal recordings” that play contrasting messages from different reference groups, then, are one price we pay for our social mobility.

Social Networks Although we live in a huge and diverse society, we don’t experience social life as a sea of nameless, strange faces. This is because of the groups we have been discussing. Among these is our social network, people who are linked to one another. Your social

All of us have reference groups— the groups we use as standards to evaluate ourselves. How do you think the reference groups of these members of the KKK who are demonstrating in Jaspar, Texas, differ from those of the police officer who is protecting their right of free speech? Although the KKK and this police officer use different groups to evaluate their attitudes and behaviors, the process is the same.

The smallest part of social networks is our friends and acquaintances, the people we hang out with. This part of our social networks overlaps with and forms a core part of our reference groups. From these two photos, can you see how the reference groups and social networks of these youths are not likely to lead them to the same social destination?

network includes your family, friends, acquaintances, people at work and school, and even “friends of friends.” Think of your social network as a spider ’s web. You are at the center, with lines extending outward, gradually encompassing more and more people.

If you are a member of a large group, you probably associate regularly with a few people within that group. In a sociology class I was teaching at a commuter campus, six women who didn’t know one another ended up working together on a project. They got along well, and they began to sit together in class. Eventually, they planned a Christmas party at one of their homes. This type of social network, the clusters within a group, or its internal factions, is called a clique (cleek).

You are going to face a lot of challenges in your coming career, especially because of the ways work has changed in the postindustrial or information society. The following Applying Sociology to Your Life explores ways you can use social networking to help your career.

social network the social ties radiating outward from the self that link people together

clique (cleek) a cluster of people within a larger group who choose to interact with one another

Social Groups and Formal Organizations 141

Applying Sociology to Your Life The New World of Work: How to Keep a Paycheck Coming in the New Global Marketplace Here’s how it used to be

For blue-collar workers: After you finished high school and took a job in a factory, you could expect to work in the same company until you retired and then collect a little Social Security for the rest of your life. For college graduates: You could expect to take a job in the white-collar world of management, with a semi-comfortable pension in return for your many years of loyal service to the company.

Although there were many exceptions to this broad outline, this was the general course of events for workers who stayed with a particular company. Workers expected continuous employment, and in general the companies delivered. The retirement pay might not be generous, but workers could generally count on it.

Here’s how it is now

Three major changes have undermined this general stability of the workplace: globalization, outsourcing, and subcon- tracting. Factories close up when their products are no longer competitive with those produced in low-wage countries. To remain competitive in this new global marketplace, some firms outsource: They find it cheaper to have other companies (in the United States or elsewhere) bid on producing the com- ponents of their products. They also subcontract: Jobs that were previously done “in house” by the company’s workers are contracted out to independent workers or to another firm.

It is no mystery why globalization, outsourcing, and sub- contracting are part of the new world of work: Companies can avoid the costs of unemployment insurance, workmen’s comp insurance, Social Security, sick days, vacation days, and that ongoing, lingering expense of retirement pay. The end result

is a severe undermining of the security of workers. In this new world of work, you never know if your job will be outsourced to workers in China, India, Indonesia, or Mexico, or if your job will be subcontracted to someone in your own city.

So how can you apply sociology?

The key to keeping your paycheck rolling in when you can’t depend on continued employment by the company that hires you is social networking. Develop as many contacts as you can. Use the social media to participate in groups that share your professional interests. Join local, state, and national associations related to your career goals. Attend and participate in their meetings. Volunteer to work on com- mittees. Get to know these people, even online, and stay in contact with them. Your goal should be to develop a list of people you can call and consult with.

Be systematic and try to develop a strong network, one that is not just extensive but that includes key people in organizations. This might seem impossible, but it is doable. The more you cultivate your network, the more people it will include. Your participation will eventually be noticed by leaders, and you will always be in contact with people who know someone who knows someone who …

When you look for a new job, you will know who to contact. Or when someone knows of a new job opening, they will think of you. Keep in mind that good jobs circulate in networks, and job openings often are filled through per- sonal contacts—even before they are formally announced.

For Your Consideration → How will you apply social networking to help your career?

Be precise in laying out the steps you will take.

network includes your family, friends, acquaintances, people at work and school, and even “friends of friends.” Think of your social network as a spider ’s web. You are at the center, with lines extending outward, gradually encompassing more and more people.

If you are a member of a large group, you probably associate regularly with a few people within that group. In a sociology class I was teaching at a commuter campus, six women who didn’t know one another ended up working together on a project. They got along well, and they began to sit together in class. Eventually, they planned a Christmas party at one of their homes. This type of social network, the clusters within a group, or its internal factions, is called a clique (cleek).

You are going to face a lot of challenges in your coming career, especially because of the ways work has changed in the postindustrial or information society. The following Applying Sociology to Your Life explores ways you can use social networking to help your career.

social network the social ties radiating outward from the self that link people together

clique (cleek) a cluster of people within a larger group who choose to interact with one another

142 Chapter 5

THE SMALL WORLD PHENOMENON If you list everyone you know, and each of these individuals lists everyone he or she knows, and all of you keep doing this, would almost everyone in the United States eventually be included on those lists? This takes us to a question social scientists have asked: Just how extensive are the connections among social networks?

It would be too cumbersome to test this question by drawing up such lists, but psy- chologist Stanley Milgram (1933–1984) came up with an interesting idea. In a classic study known as “the small world phenomenon,” Milgram (1967) addressed a letter to “targets”: the wife of a seminary student in Cambridge and a stockbroker in Boston. He didn’t mail the letters to these people, but instead sent them to “starters”—people who did not know these individuals. He asked them to send the letter to someone they knew on a first-name basis who might know the “target.” Those recipients, in turn, were asked to mail the letter to a friend or acquaintance who might know the “target,” and so on. The question was, Would the letters ever reach the “target”? If so, how long would the chain be?

Think of yourself as part of this research. What would you do if you were a “starter,” but the “target” lived in a state in which you knew no one? You would send the letter to someone that you think might know someone in that state. This, Milgram reported, is just what happened. Although none of the senders knew the targets, the letters reached the designated individual in an average of just six jumps.

Milgram’s research caught the public’s fancy, leading to the phrase “six degrees of separation.” This expression means that, on average, everyone in the United States is separated by just six individuals. Milgram’s conclusions have become so popular that a game, “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon,” was built around it.

IS THE SMALL WORLD PHENOMENON AN ACADEMIC MYTH? Psychologist Judith Kleinfeld (2002) decided to replicate Milgram’s study. At Yale University Library, where she went to get more details, she went through Milgram’s papers. To her surprise, she found that Milgram had stacked the deck in favor of finding a small world. As men- tioned, one of the “targets” was a Boston stockbroker. Kleinfeld found that this person’s “starters” were investors in blue-chip stocks. She also found that on average, only 30 percent of the letters reached their “target.”

Since most letters did not reach their targets, even with the deck stacked in favor of success, we can draw the opposite conclusion: People who don’t know one another are dramatically separated by social barriers. As Kleinfeld says, “Rather than living in a small world, we may live in a world that looks like a bowl of lumpy oatmeal, with many small worlds loosely connected and perhaps some small worlds not connected at all.” Somehow, I don’t think that the phrase “lumpy oatmeal phenomenon” will become standard, but it seems reasonable to conclude that we do not live in a small world where everyone is connected by six links.

But not so fast. The plot thickens. Although research with thousands of e-mail chains showed that only about 1 percent reached their targets (Dodds et al. 2003; Muhamad 2010), other research confirms Milgram’s conclusions. Research on 250 million people who exchanged chat messages showed a link of less than seven, and a study of 700 million peo- ple on Facebook showed a connection of less than five (Markoff and Sengupta 2011). This topic fascinates computer specialists, and their research continues (Mehrabian 2017).

Why such disparity? The problem seems to be the choice of samples and how researchers measure links. These definitions must be worked out before we can draw solid conclusions. But maybe Milgram did stumble onto the truth. We’ll find out as the research continues.

BUILDING UNINTENTIONAL BARRIERS Besides geography, the barriers that divide us into separate small worlds (lumpy or not) are primarily those of social class, gender, and race–ethnicity. Overcoming these social barriers is difficult because even our own social networks contribute to social inequality, a topic that we explore in the following Applying Sociology to Your Life.

Social Groups and Formal Organizations 143

Bureaucracies 5.2 Summarize the characteristics of bureaucracies, their dysfunctions, and goal

displacement.

About one hundred years ago, sociologist Max Weber analyzed bureaucracy, a type of organization that, new then, has since become dominant in social life. To achieve more efficient results, bureaucracies shift the emphasis from traditional relationships based on personal loyalties to the “bottom line.” As we look at the characteristics of bureaucracies, we will also consider their implications for your life.

Applying Sociology to Your Life Do Your Social Networks Perpetuate Social Inequality?

Suppose that an outstanding job—great pay, interesting work, opportunity for advancement— has just opened up where you work. Who are you going to tell?

Consider some of the principles we have reviewed. You are part of in-groups, people with whom you identify; you use reference groups to evaluate your attitudes and behav- ior; and you interact in social networks. Your in-groups, reference groups, and social networks are likely to consist of people whose backgrounds are similar to your own. If you are like most of us, this means that just as social inequality is built into society, so it is built into your relationships. One consequence is that you tend to perpetuate social inequality.

How can I make such a statement?

Go back to the question that opens this box. Who will you tell about the opening for this outstanding job? Will it be a stranger? Not likely. Most likely it will be a friend or someone to whom you owe a favor. And most likely your social network is made up of people who look much like yourself—similar to your age, education, social class, race–ethnicity, and, probably also, gender. Can you see how your social networks both reflect the inequality in our society and help to perpetuate it?

Consider a network of white men in some corporation. As they learn of opportunities (jobs, investments, and so on), they share this information with their networks. This causes opportunities and good jobs to flow to people whose char- acteristics are similar to theirs. This perpetuates the “good

old boy”’ network, bypassing people who have different characteristics—in this example, women and minorities. No intentional discrimination needs to be involved. It is just a reflection of our contacts, of our everyday interactions.

To overcome this barrier and advance their careers, women and minorities do networking. They try to meet “someone who knows someone” (Kantor 2009). Like the “good old boys,” they go to parties and join clubs, religious

organizations, and political parties. They use Facebook and other online networking sites. One result is a “new girl” network in which women steer business to one another (Jacobs 1997). African American leaders have cultivated their own net- work, one so tight that one-fifth of the entire national African American leadership knows one another personally. Add some “friends of a friend,” and three- fourths of the entire leadership belong to the same network (Taylor 1992).

For Your Consideration The perpetuation of social inequality does not require inten- tional discrimination. Just as social inequality is built into society, so it is built into our personal relationships.

→ How do you think your social network helps to perpetu- ate social inequality?

→ How do you think we can break this cycle?

→ How can we create diversity in our social networks?

→ Should we try to break this cycle? What are the assumptions on which your answer is based?

When we learn of opportunities, we share this information with our networks. Opportunities then flow to people whose characteristics are similar to ours.

144 Chapter 5

The Characteristics of Bureaucracies Do you know what the Russian army and the U.S. postal service have in common? Or the government of Mexico and your college?

The sociological answer to these questions is that all four of these organizations are bureaucracies. As Weber (1913/1947) pointed out, bureaucracies have:

1. Separate levels, with assignments f lowing downward and accountability f lowing upward. Each level assigns re- sponsibilities to the level beneath it, and each lower level is accountable to the level above it for fulfilling those assignments. Figure 5.1 shows the bureaucratic structure of a typical university.

Figure 5.1 The Typical Bureaucratic Structure of a Medium-Sized University

Board (of regents; governors; trustees)

President

Vice President for Academic Affairs

College of Education

College of Sciences

College of Business

College of Fine Arts

College of Social Sciences

Department of Sociology

Department Chair

Sociology Faculty

Department of Political Science

Department of Economics

Department of Psychology

Department of Anthropology

College of Engineering

College of Medicine

College of Law

College of Humanities

Vice President for Personnel

Vice President for Administration

Vice President for Development

Vice President for Public Affairs

Today’s armies, no matter what country they are from, are bureaucracies. They have a strict hierarchy of rank, division of labor, impersonality and replaceability (an emphasis on the office, not the person holding it), and they stress written records, rules, and communications—essential characteristics identified by Max Weber. This photo was taken in Pyongyang, North Korea.

2. A division of labor. Each worker is assigned specific tasks, and the tasks of all the work- ers are coordinated to accomplish the purpose of the organization. In a college, for example, a teacher does not fix the heating system, the president does not approve class schedules, and a secretary does not evaluate textbooks. These tasks are distrib- uted among people who have been trained to do them.

3. Written rules. In their attempt to become efficient, bureaucracies stress written proce- dures. In general, the longer a bureaucracy exists and the larger it grows, the more written rules it has. The rules of some bureaucracies cover just about every imagin- able situation. In my university, for example, the rules are published in handbooks: separate ones for faculty, students, administrators, civil service workers, and perhaps others that I don’t even know about.

SOURCE: By the author.

Social Groups and Formal Organizations 145

4. Written communications and records. Records are kept for much of what occurs in a bureaucracy (“Be sure to CC all immediate supervisors”). Some workers must de- tail their activities in written reports. My university, for example, requires that each semester, faculty members produce a summary of the number of hours they spent performing specified activities. They must also submit an annual report listing what they accomplished in teaching, research, and service—all accompanied by copies of publications, evidence of service, and written teaching evaluations from each course. Committees use these materials to evaluate the performance of each faculty member.

5. Impersonality and replaceability. The office is important, not the individual who holds the office. Each worker is a replaceable unit. You work for the organization, not for the replaceable person who holds some post in the organization. When a professor retires, for example, someone else is hired to take his or her place. This makes each person a small cog in a large machine.

These five characteristics help bureaucracies reach their goals. They also allow them to grow and endure. One bureaucracy in the United States, the postal service, has grown so large that 1 out of every 240 employed Americans works for it (Statistical Abstract 2017:Tables 639, 1142). If the head of a bureaucracy resigns, retires, or dies, the organiza- tion continues without skipping a beat. Unlike a “mom-and-pop” operation, a bureau- cracy does not depend on the individual who heads it.

Bureaucracies have expanded to such an extent that they now envelop our entire lives, the topic of the following Down-to-Earth Sociology.

bureaucracy a formal organization with a hi- erarchy of authority and a clear division of labor; emphasis on impersonality of positions and written rules, communications, and records

McDonaldization of society the process by which ordinary aspects of life are rationalized and efficiency comes to rule them, including such things as food preparation

Down-to-Earth Sociology The McDonaldization of Society The significance of the McDonald’s restaurants that dot the United States—and, increasingly, the world—goes far beyond quick hamburgers, milk shakes, and salads. As sociologist George Ritzer (2015) says, our everyday lives are being “McDonaldized.” Let’s see what he means.

The McDonaldization of society does not refer just to the robotlike assembly of food at McDonalds. This term refers to the standardization of everyday life, a process that is transforming our lives. Want to do some shopping? Shopping malls offer one-stop shopping in controlled environments. Planning a trip? Travel agencies offer “package” tours. They will transport middle-class Americans to ten European capitals in fourteen days. All visitors experience the same hotels, restaurants, and other scheduled sites—and no one need fear meeting a “real” native. Want to keep up with events? USA Today spews out McNews—short, bland, nonanalytical pieces that can be digested between gulps of the McShake or the McBurger.

Efficiency brings dependability. You can expect your burger and fries to taste the same whether you buy them in Minneapolis or Moscow. Although efficiency also lowers prices, it does come at a cost. Predictability washes away spontaneity. It changes the quality of our lives by producing sameness—flat, bland versions of what used to be unique experiences. In my own travels, for example, had I taken packaged tours, I never would have had the eye-opening

experiences that have added so much to my appreciation of human diversity. (Bus trips with chickens in Mexico, hitchhiking in Europe and Africa, sleeping on a granite table in a nunnery in Italy and in a cornfield in Algeria are not part of tour agendas.)

For good or bad, our lives are being McDonaldized, and the predictability of packaged settings seems to be our social destiny. Education is being rationalized. When this process is complete, no longer will our children have

to put up with real professors, who insist on discussing ideas endlessly, who never come to decisive answers, and

McDonald’s in Beijing, China.

(continued)

146 Chapter 5

Goal Displacement and the Perpetuation of Bureaucracies Bureaucracies are so good at harnessing people’s energies to reach specific goals that they have become a standard feature of our lives. Once in existence, however, bureaucra- cies tend to take on a life of their own. In a process called goal displacement, even after an organization achieves its goal and no longer has a reason to continue, continue it does.

A classic example is the March of Dimes, organized in the 1930s with the goal of fighting polio (Sills 1957). At that time, the origin of polio was a mystery. The public was alarmed and fearful; overnight, a healthy child could be stricken with this crippling disease. To raise money to find a cure, the March of Dimes placed posters of children on crutches near cash registers in almost every store in the United States. The organization raised money beyond its wildest dreams. When Dr. Jonas Salk developed a vaccine for polio in the 1950s, the threat of polio was wiped out almost overnight.

Did the staff that ran the March of Dimes hold a wild celebration and then quietly fold up their tents and slip away? Of course not. Look at the following photos. The staff had jobs to protect, so they targeted a new enemy—birth defects. But then, in 2001, another ominous threat of success reared its ugly head. Researchers finished mapping

goal displacement an organization replacing old goals with new ones; also known as goal replacement

who come saddled with idiosyncrasies. At some point, such an education is going to be like quill pens and ink wells, a bit of quaint history.

Our programmed education will eliminate the need for evaluating social issues. We will have packaged solutions to social problems, definitive answers that satisfy our need for closure, and the government’s desire that we not explore its warts. Computerized courses will teach the same answers to everyone—“politically correct” ways to think about social issues. Mass testing will ensure that students regurgitate the programmed responses. Like

carcasses of beef, our courses will be stamped “U.S. government approved.”

Our looming prepackaged society will be efficient. But we will be trapped in the “iron cage” of bureaucracy—just as Weber warned would happen.

For Your Consideration → What do you like and dislike about the standardization of

society?

→ What do you think about the author’s comments on the future of education?

The March of Dimes was founded by President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s to fight polio. When a vaccine for polio was discovered in the 1950s, the organization did not declare victory and disband. Instead, its leaders kept the organization intact by creating new goals— first “fighting birth defects,” and now “helping babies.” Sociologists use the term goal displacement to refer to this process of adopting new goals.

Social Groups and Formal Organizations 147

the human genome system, a breakthrough that held the possibility of eliminating birth defects—and their jobs. Officials of the March of Dimes had to come up with something new—and something that would last. Their new slogan, “Stronger, healthier babies,” is so vague that it should ensure the organization’s existence forever: We are not likely to ever run out of the need for “stronger, healthier babies.”

Then there is NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), founded during the Cold War to prevent Russia from invading western Europe. The end of the Cold War removed the organization’s purpose. But why waste a perfectly good bureaucracy? As with the March of Dimes, the western powers found a new goal: to combat terrorism and “rogue nations.” Russia poked a finger in NATO’s eye over this very point, say- ing that because NATO is looking for a reason to exist it provokes tensions with Russia (Schmitt 2017).

Dysfunctions of Bureaucracies Although in the long run no other form of social organization is more efficient, as Weber recognized, bureaucracies have a dark side. Let’s look at some of their dysfunctions.

RED TAPE: A RULE IS A RULE

When the call came, the firefighters went on alert. With their fire truck’s lights flashing and its siren wailing, they sped to the fire.

Just the usual thing. The unusual? The driver of the fire truck was issued a ticket for speeding. The fire chief, of course, explained that the “speeder” caught by the street camera was

driving a fire truck. This explanation didn’t faze the department in charge of issuing tickets. “Nothing in

my rule book makes you an exception,” was the reply. “Pay the fine.” (“Outrage …” 2016).

Bureaucracies can be so bound by rules that the results defy logic. In Spain, I came across another example so ridiculous that it can make your head

swim—if you don’t burst from laughing first.

The Civil Registry of Barcelona recorded the death of a woman named Maria Antonieta Calvo in 1992. Apparently, Maria’s evil brother had reported her dead so he could collect the family inheritance.

When Maria learned that she was supposedly dead, she told the Registry that she was very much alive. The bureaucrats at this agency looked at their records, shook their heads, and insisted that she was dead. Maria then asked lawyers to represent her in court. They refused—because no dead person can bring a case before a judge.

When Maria’s boyfriend asked her to marry him, the couple ran into a slight obsta- cle: No man in Spain (or most other places) can marry a dead woman—so these bureau- crats said, “So sorry, but no license.”

After years of continuing to insist that she was alive, Maria finally got a hearing in court. When the judges looked at Maria, they believed that she really was a living person, and they ordered the Civil Registry to declare her alive.

The ending of this story gets even happier: Now that Maria was alive, she was able to marry her boyfriend. I don’t know if the two lived happily ever after, but, after  overcoming these mind-numbing bureaucrats, they at least had that chance (“Mujer ‘resucite’” 2006).

ALIENATION OF WORKERS Perceived in terms of roles, rules, and functions rather than as individuals, many workers in bureaucracies begin to feel more like objects than people. With boring, repetitive tasks—from factory workers inserting bolts to office workers filling out forms—workers can come to feel estranged from both their labor and their work environment. Marx termed these reactions alienation, a result, he said,

alienation Marx’s term for workers’ lack of connection to the product of their labor; caused by workers being assigned repetitive tasks on a small part of a product— this leads to a sense of pow- erlessness and normlessness; others use the term in the gen- eral sense of not feeling a part of something

Technology has changed our lives fundamentally. The connection to each telephone call used to be made by hand. As in this photo from the 1940s, these connections were made by women. Long-distance calls, with their numerous handmade connections, not only were slow, but also expensive. In 1927, a call from New York to London cost $25 a minute. In today’s money, this comes to $300 a minute!

148 Chapter 5

of workers being cut off from the finished product of their labor. He pointed out that before industrialization workers used their own tools to produce an entire prod- uct, such as a chair or table. Now the capitalists own the tools (machinery, desks, computers) and assign each worker only a single step or two in the entire produc- tion process.

RESISTING ALIENATION Workers don’t want to feel alienated. They want to feel valued and to have a sense of control over their work. So they resist alienation. A major form of resistance is forming pri- mary groups at work. They band together in infor- mal settings—at lunch, around desks, or for a drink after work. There, they give one another approval for jobs well done and express sympathy for the shared need to put up with cantankerous bosses, meaning-

less routines, and endless rules. They relate to one another not just as workers but also as people who value one another. They flirt, laugh, tell jokes, and talk about their families and goals. Adding this multidimensionality to their work relation- ships helps them maintain their sense of being individuals rather than mere cogs in a machine.

As in this photo, workers often decorate their work areas with personal items. The sociological implication is that these workers are staking a claim to individuality. They are rejecting an identity as machines that exist to perform functions.

Working for the Corporation 5.3 Discuss the “hidden” corporate culture and worker diversity.

Since you are likely to be working for a bureaucracy after college, let’s examine some of its characteristics and how these might affect your career.

Self-Fulfilling Stereotypes in the “Hidden” Corporate Culture As you might recall from Chapter 4, stereotypes can be self-fulfilling. That is, stereotypes can produce the very characteristics they are built around. The example used there was of stereotypes of appearance and personality. Sociologists have also uncovered self-fulfilling stereotypes in corporate life (Rivera 2012; Whiteley et al. 2012). Let’s see how they might affect your career after college.

SELF-FULFILLING STEREOTYPES AND PROMOTIONS Corporate and department heads have ideas of “what it takes” to get ahead. Not surprisingly, since they themselves got ahead, they look for people who have characteris- tics similar to their own. They feed better information to these workers, bring them into stronger networks, and put them in “fast-track” positions. With such advantages, these workers perform better and become more committed to the company. This, of course, confirms the supervisor ’s expectations, the initial stereotype of a successful person.

But for workers who don’t look or act like the corporate leaders, the opposite happens. Thinking of these people as less capable, the bosses give them fewer opportunities and challenges. When these workers see others get

How is this worker trying to avoid becoming a depersonalized unit in a bureaucratic-economic machine?

The office of the future? Today’s new workers expect—and are receiving—greater “humanization” of the workplace. This office in Southampton, Hampshire, England includes a tree house, a pool table, a putting green, a giant swing, a cinema, and, as you see, this fun slide to relieve tensions.

Social Groups and Formal Organizations 149

ahead and realize that they themselves are working beneath their abilities, they lose moti- vation and don’t perform as well. This, of course, confirms the stereotypes the bosses had of them in the first place.

In her research on U.S. corporations, Kanter (1977, 1983) found that such self- fulfilling stereotypes are part of a “hidden” corporate culture. That is, these stereotypes and their powerful effects on workers remain hidden to everyone, even the supervisors. What is visible is the surface—workers with superior performance and greater commit- ment to the company getting promoted. To bosses and workers alike, this seems to be just the way it should be. Hidden below this surface, however, are the higher and lower expectations and the opening and closing of opportunities that produce the attitudes and the accomplishments—or the lack of them.

Diversity in the Workplace At one point in U.S. history, most workers were white men. Over the years, this gradu- ally changed, and now 47 percent of workers are women and 34 percent are minorities (Statistical Abstract 2017:Tables 617, 618). With such extensive diversity, the stereotypes in the hidden corporate culture will give way, although only grudgingly. In the following Sociology and Technology: The Shifting Landscape, let’s consider if VR (Virtual Reality) can speed things up a bit.

self-fulfilling stereotype ideas of what someone is like that lead to the person’s be- having in ways that match the stereotype

“hidden” corporate culture stereotypes of the traits that make for high-performing and underperforming workers, which end up producing both types of workers

diversity training efforts to minimize conflict among people of different backgrounds, to enhance their understanding (even apprecia- tion) of their contrasting back- grounds, and to promote their cooperation in reaching mutual goals; often in a work setting

Sociology and Technology: The Shifting Landscape Virtual Reality and Diversity Training Because our society is diverse, a mixture of people from different backgrounds—age, race–ethnicity, sex, social class, and so on—diversity in the workplace is inevitable. Diverse backgrounds can collide, bringing disagreements and conflict, not exactly good for relationships at work. The term diversity training refers to efforts to minimize conflict among people of different backgrounds and promote their cooperation in reaching mutual goals.

Early efforts at diversity training in the workplace were so clumsy that they sometimes created the ill feelings they were designed to alleviate. In one instance, the diversity trainers had fellow workers insult one another, calling each other “bitch,” “trailer park trash,” “pig,” and the like. In another, the men had to run a gauntlet with the women reaching out and groping them. (“How does that feel, bastard? That’s what you do to us.”)

It doesn’t take much imagination to see why programs like these created animosity and reduced cooperation.

Over the years, as diversity training improved, workers shared perspectives, but change was difficult to find. To achieve the desired change, some companies have decided

to jump to the point. At Sodexo, top management has determined that 40 percent of its 2,400 senior leadership positions will be women. To change talk to action, its managers’ bonuses depend on their progress in reaching this goal (Simons 2017). At Pepsi, managers must mentor

three employees who are unlike themselves: Men sponsor women, African Americans sponsor whites, and so on. The executives try to understand the work situation from the perspective of those they mentor. Accountability is built in: The mentors must give updates to their own supervisors (Terhune 2005).

When the election of Donald Trump showed that huge dissatisfactions had grown among whites, especially men, diversity trainers began to realize

that they had missed a major group of workers (Simons 2017). Instead of assuming that things were well with white workers, they decided that “We need to hear from white men and women the same as we do from black men or lesbians.”

Technological innovation is also making an impact on diversity training. Advances in VR (virtual reality) allow us to “be” in different places or situations without

Typical forms of diversity training may be supplemented or replaced by VR (Virtual Reality).

(continued)

150 Chapter 5

Technology and the Maximum-Security Society 5.4 Explain how bureaucracy and technology are coming together to produce a max-

imum security society.

The microchip is affecting all areas of society. One of the most ominous is its potential to create a police state. The Big Brother in Orwell’s classic novel 1984 may turn out to be a master computer that makes servants of us all.

With cameras monitoring the workplace and taking video images of us as we walk on the street and shop in stores and with our smartphones and cars broadcasting our location, and with the National Security Agency’s vast spy network crisscrossing the nation, we seem to be moving toward a maximum-security society (Marx 2016), the topic of the next Sociology and Technology: The Shifting Landscape.

leaving our physical space. With our brain accepting the VR experience as real, as in “real reality,” the potential is for virtual reality to change perceptions and attitudes (Bailenson 2016).

Let’s suppose you are a white male. Put on your headset and look in the mirror. Staring back at you—with your face and features—is a black fe- male. A white or Latino avatar appears and makes degrading comments to you about your shape, your color, your looks, or your ability. You feel the discrimination on a personal level. You do not feel white or male while this derogation takes place.

If you are a black female, you will see yourself as a Latino male, a white female, an Asian American, and so on. VR can also transform you into an elderly person surrounded by intolerant younger avatars.

This application of VR is new, so we don’t know the staying power of these experiences. But the intensity of VR experiences holds the potential of transforming perceptions, feelings, and behavior (Fowler 2016).

For Your Consideration → Why do you think the perspectives of white workers have

been ignored until recently?

→ Do you think the perspectives and experiences of white workers should be included in diversity training? Why or why not?

→ Would you like to participate in diversity training via virtu- al reality? Why or why not?

→ If virtual reality does transform perspectives, reduce prej- udice, and create shared understandings, do you think employers should require their workers to participate in this training? Why or why not?

Sociology and Technology: The Shifting Landscape Enjoy Your Security State (SS) Back in the early 1900s, Max Weber did the classic analysis of bureaucracy that you studied in this chapter. One of his observations was that bureaucracy is so effective that it has the power to trap us in little cages. Little did Weber realize how right he was—especially because of advances in tech- nology that he could not envision.

In Weber’s time, advanced technology was the type- writer and the fairly new things called electricity and cars. The primary advanced technology of our time is the com- puter. The computer’s power—combined with bureaucracy and the State’s felt need for secrecy and security—can destroy our freedom and make us slaves to the State.

On news reports, you probably have noticed the ar- mored vehicles that the police are using. The military has supplied these vehicles to local police departments. This is just the surface of our transition to the Security State, our new SS. In the background are computer programs whose algorithms can sort billions of pieces of data in seconds. There also is the face-recognition software, as well as the satellites and drones that surreptitiously hover over our paths. Streams of information, inaccessible to those being monitored, flow into deep files. An individ- ual’s name might have appeared in some intercepted message, or perhaps computers indicated interlacing

Social Groups and Formal Organizations 151

Group Dynamics 5.5 Be familiar with the effects of group size on stability, intimacy, attitudes, and

behavior; types and styles of leaders; the Asch experiment on peer pressure; the Milgram experiment on authority; and the implications of groupthink.

Group dynamics is a fascinating area of sociology. This term refers to how groups influence us and how we influence groups. Most of the ways that groups influence us lie below our sense of awareness, however, so let’s see if we can bring some of this to the surface. Let’s consider how even the size of a group makes a difference and then examine leadership, conformity, and decision making.

Before doing so, we should define small group, which is a group small enough so that each member can interact directly with all the others. Small groups can be either pri- mary or secondary. A wife, husband, and children make up a primary small group, as do workers who take their breaks together. Students in a small introductory sociology class and bidders at an auction form secondary small groups. You might want to look again at the photos that illustrate categories, aggregates, primary, and secondary groups.

Effects of Group Size on Stability and Intimacy Writing in the early 1900s, sociologist Georg Simmel (1858– 1918) analyzed how group size affects people’s behavior. He used the term dyad for the smallest possible group, which consists of two people. Dyads, which include mar- riages, love affairs, and close friendships, show two dis- tinct qualities. First, they are the most intense or intimate of human groups. Because only two people are involved, the interaction is focused on both individuals. Second,

group dynamics the ways in which individuals affect groups and the ways in which groups influence individ- uals

small group a group small enough for every- one to interact directly with all the other members

connections. No cumbersome court orders bothered with.

The power of these software programs is beyond comprehension. Just one exam- ple of what exists, a glimpse of what is to come. At the press of a button, Amazon can delete information from every Kindle any- where in the world. No exaggeration. Am- azon has already done this. When Amazon determined that the copies of some of its books were bootlegged, it vaporized them from everyone’s Kindle (van Buren 2014).

Great Britain’s Nanny State also opens a curtain to the future. Great Britain is enshrouding its citizens within a protective shield. Software programs will prevent its people from viewing sites that the Security State has marked as “disapproved”: por- nography, violence, extremism, terrorism, anorexia, and suicide-related sites. Sites that mention alcohol or smoking will be tolerated for now, but monitored.

There is more to come. With advances in brain research, the government may one day be able to monitor even our thoughts. Unapproved thinking can be dangerous to the Security State. We might begin to think for ourselves, even to question our alle- giance.

For Your Consideration → What do you think about the coming

Security State?

→ Do you find it comforting that the govern- ment wants to be your parent and decide what is proper and correct for you?

→ Does it give you a warm feeling that the government wants to protect you even from your own evil thoughts?

Your feelings or opinions will be irrelevant, of course. These decisions are being made for you.

Group size has a significant influence on how people interact. When a group changes from a dyad (two people) to a triad (three people), the relationships among the participants undergo a shift. How do you think the birth of this child will change the relationship between the mother and father?

As part of our developing surveillance society, our government is accumulating images of faces. The goal is to have the facial images of all citizens and residents in computerized files so any person can be identified immediately by face recognition software, even if the individual is just one in a crowd of thousands.

152 Chapter 5

dyads tend to be unstable. Because dyads require that both members participate, if one member loses interest, the dyad collapses. In larger groups, by contrast, if one person withdraws, the group can continue, since its existence does not depend on any single member (Simmel 1950).

A triad is a group of three people. As Simmel noted, the addition of a third mem- ber changes the group in fundamental ways. One of the most significant changes is that interaction between the first two members of the group decreases. This can create strain. With the birth of a child, for example, hardly any aspect of a couple’s relationship goes untouched. Attention focuses on the baby, and interaction between the husband and wife decreases. The marriage, though, usually becomes stronger. Although the intensity of interaction is less in triads, they are inherently stronger and give greater stability to a rela- tionship.

Yet, as Simmel noted, triads, too, are unstable. They tend to produce coalitions—two group members aligning themselves against one. This common tendency for two people to develop stronger bonds and prefer one another leaves the third person feeling hurt and excluded. Another characteristic of triads is that they often produce an arbitrator or mediator, someone who tries to settle disagreements between the other two. In one- child families, you can often observe both of these characteristics of triads—coalitions and arbitration.

The general principle is this: As a small group grows larger, the group becomes more stable, but its intensity, or inti- macy, decreases. To see why, look at Figure 5.2. As each new person comes into a group, the connections among people multiply. In a dyad, there is only one relationship; in a triad, there are three; in a group of four, six; in a group of five, ten. If we expand the group to six, we have fifteen relationships, while a group of seven yields twenty-one relationships. If we continue adding members, we soon are unable to follow the connections: A group of eight has twenty-eight possible relationships; a group of nine, thirty-six; a group of ten, forty-five; and so on.

It is not only the number of relationships that makes larger groups more stable. As groups grow, they also tend to develop a more formal structure. For example, leaders emerge and more specialized roles come into play. This often results in such familiar offices as presi- dent, secretary, and treasurer. This structure provides a framework that helps the group survive over time.

Effects of Group Size on Attitudes and Behavior

You probably have observed one of the consequences of group size. When a group is small, its members act informally, but as the group grows, the members lose their sense of intimacy and become more formal with one another. No longer can the members assume that the others are “insiders” who agree with their views. Now they must take a “larger audience” into consideration, and instead of merely “talking,” they begin to “address” the group. As their speech becomes more formal, their body language stiffens.

You probably have observed a second aspect of group dynamics, too. In the early stages of a party, when only a few people are present, almost everyone talks with every- one else. But as more people arrive, the guests break into smaller groups. Some hosts, who want their guests to mix together, make a nuisance of themselves trying to achieve

dyad the smallest possible group, consisting of two persons

triad a group of three people

coalition the alignment of some members of a group against others

Figure 5.2 The Effects of Group Size on Relationships

A Triad A Group of Four

A Group of Six A Group of Seven

One relationship Three relationships

Six relationships

A Group of Five

Ten relationships Fifteen relationships

Twenty-one relationships

A Dyad

A B

A

B C

D B

A

C

C

B

A

D C

E

A

D

F B

E E

C

B A

D

F

G

Social Groups and Formal Organizations 153

their idea of what a group should be like. The division into small groups is inevitable, however: It follows the basic sociological prin- ciples that we have just reviewed. Because the addition of each person increases connec- tions (in this case, “talk lines”), conversation becomes more difficult. The guests break into smaller groups in which they can look at each other directly and interact comfortably with one another.

Let’s turn to a third consequence of group size:

Imagine that you are taking a team-taught course in social psychology, and your profes- sors have asked you to join a few students to discuss how you are adjusting to college life. When you arrive, they tell you that to make the discussion anonymous, they want you to sit unseen in a booth. You will participate in the discussion over an intercom, talking when your microphone comes on. The professors say that they will not listen to the con- versation, and they leave.

You find the format somewhat strange, to say the least, but you go along with it. You have not seen the other students in their booths, but when they talk about their ex- periences, you find yourself becoming wrapped up in the problems they are sharing. One student even mentions how frightening it is to be away from home because of his history of epileptic seizures. Later, you hear this individual breathe heavily into the microphone. Then he stammers and cries for help. A crashing noise follows, and you imagine him lying helpless on the floor.

Nothing but an eerie silence follows. What do you do?

Your professors, John Darley and Bibb Latané (1968), staged the whole thing, but you don’t know this. No one had a seizure. In fact, no one was even in the other booths. Everything, except your comments, was on tape.

Some participants were told that they would be discussing the topic with just one other student, others with two, and still others with three, four, or five. Darley and Latané found that all students who thought they were part of a dyad rushed out to help. If they thought they were in a triad, only 80 percent went to help—and they were slower in leav- ing the booth. In six-person groups, only 60 percent went to see what was wrong—and they took even longer to leave the booth.

This experiment demonstrates how deeply group size influences our attitudes and behavior: It even affects our willingness to help one another. Students in the dyad knew that no one else could help the student in trouble. The professor was gone, and it was up to them. In the larger groups, including the triad, students felt a diffusion of responsibility: Giving help was no more their responsibility than anyone else’s.

LABORATORY FINDINGS AND THE REAL WORLD Experiments in social psychol- ogy can give insight into human behavior, but at the same time, they can woefully miss the mark. Darley and Latané’s classic laboratory experiment has serious flaws when it comes to real life. Look at the photos that I snapped in Vienna, Austria, and you’ll see something entirely different than what they reported. Many people—strangers to one another—were passing one another on the sidewalk. But as you can see, no diffusion of responsibility stopped them from immediately helping the man who had tripped and fallen. Other norms and values that people carry within them are also at work, ones that can trump the diffusion of responsibility.

Groups break into smaller groups. Here you see a group of just ten that has broken into three smaller groups and an isolate. “Talk lines” are one reason. What other reasons can you suggest?

The man is now on his feet, but still a bit shaky. The two who have helped him up are still expressing their concern, especially the young woman.

Serendipity sometim es accompanies

sociologists as they do their work,

which was certainly the case here.

The entire episode t ook no more than

three minutes, and I was fortunate to

capture it with my camera.

Helping a Strange r

Real life sometimes

differs sharply from that

portrayed in researc h

laboratories.

Two strangers ar e helping the ma

n, with another two ready to pit

ch

in. They have al l stopped whate

ver they were do ing to help a ma

n

they did not kno w.

As I was walking in Vienna, a city of almost 2 million people, I heard a crashing noise behind me. I turned, and seeing that a man had fallen to the sidewalk, quickly snapped this picture. You can see strangers beginning to help the man. This photo was taken about three seconds after the man fell.

By this poin t, the police

officer has n oticed that I

have been t aking

photos. You can see him

coming towa rd me, his ha

nd on whate ver he

is carrying a t his hip, his

shoulders b ack, gloweri

ng and read y for a

confrontatio n. He asked,

“What are y ou doing?” I

said, “I am taking

pictures” (as though he c

ouldn’t see t his). He aske

d, “Do you h ave

to take pictu res of this m

an?” I said, “ Yes,” and ho

ping to defu se

the situation , added, “I’m

a sociologis t, and I’m do

cumenting h ow

people help each other in

Vienna.” He grunted and

turned awa y.

This photo r eally comple

tes the series , as this indi

vidual

was acting a s the guardia

n of the com munity, plac

ing a barrier of

protection a round the pa

rticipants in this little dr

ama.

Social Groups and Formal Organizations 155

Leadership All of us are influenced by leaders, so it is important to understand leadership. Let’s look at how people become leaders, the types of leaders, and different styles of leadership. Before we do this, though, it is important to clarify that leaders don’t necessarily hold formal positions in a group. Leaders are people who influence the behaviors, opinions, or attitudes of others. Even a group of friends has leaders.

WHO BECOMES A LEADER? Are leaders born with characteristics that propel them to the forefront of a group? No sociologist would agree with such an idea. In general, people who become leaders are perceived by group members as strongly representing their organization, or their values, or as able to lead a group out of a crisis (Trice and Beyer 1991; 2016 Chrobot-Mason et al. 2016). Leaders tend to be more talkative, outgoing, determined, and self-confident (Ward et al. 2010).

These findings may not be surprising, since such traits are related to what we expect of leaders. However, researchers have also discovered traits that seem to have no bear- ing on the ability to lead. For example, taller people, men with wider mouths, and those judged better-looking are more likely to become leaders (Stodgill 1974; Judge and Cable 2004; Re and Rule 2016). Many of the factors that go into our choice of leaders are subtle. In a classic experiment, repeated many times, social psychologists Lloyd Howells and Selwyn Becker (1962) had five people who did not know one another sit at a small rect- angular table. Three sat on one side and two on the other. After discussing a topic for a set period of time, the groups chose a leader. The findings are startling: Although only 40 percent of the people sat on the two-person side, 70 percent of the leaders emerged from there. The explanation is that we tend to interact more with people facing us than with people to our side.

TYPES OF LEADERS Groups have two types of leaders (Bales 1950, 1953; Cartwright and Zander 1968; Emery et al. 2013). The first is easy to recognize. This person, called an instrumental leader (or task-oriented leader), tries to keep the group moving toward its goals. These leaders try to keep group members from getting sidetracked, remind- ing them of what they are trying to accomplish. The expressive leader (or socioemotional leader), in contrast, usually is not recognized as a leader, but he or she certainly is one. This person lifts the group’s morale by such things as cracking jokes and offering sym- pathy. Both types of leadership are essential: The one keeps the group on track, and the other increases harmony and minimizes conflicts.

It is difficult for the same person to be both an instrumental and an expressive leader, since these roles tend to contradict one another. Because instrumental leaders are task- oriented, they sometimes create friction as they prod the group to get on with the job. Their actions often cost them popularity. Expressive leaders, in contrast, who stimulate personal bonds and reduce friction, are usually more popular (Olmsted and Hare 1978).

LEADERSHIP STYLES

Let’s suppose that the president of your college has asked you to head a task force to determine how to improve race relations on campus. You can adopt a number of lead- ership styles, or ways of expressing yourself as a leader. Of the three basic styles, you could be an authoritarian leader, one who gives orders; a democratic leader, one who tries to gain consensus; or a laissez-faire leader, one who is highly permissive. Which style should you choose?

Social psychologists Ronald Lippitt and Ralph White (1958) carried out a classic study of these leadership styles. After matching a group of boys for IQ, popularity, physical energy, and leadership, they assigned them to “craft clubs” made up of five boys each. They trained men in the three leadership styles and then peered through peepholes, took notes, and made movies as the men rotated among the clubs. To control possible influ- ences of the men’s personalities, each man played all three styles.

leader someone who influences other people

instrumental leader an individual who tries to keep the group moving toward its goals; also known as a task-oriented leader

expressive leader an individual who increases harmony and minimizes conflict in a group; also known as a socioemotional leader

leadership styles ways in which people express their leadership

authoritarian leader an individual who leads by giving orders

democratic leader an individual who leads by trying to reach a consensus

laissez-faire leader an individual who leads by being highly permissive

156 Chapter 5

Adolf Hitler, shown here in Nuremberg in 1938, was one of the most influential—and evil—persons of the twentieth century. Why did so many people follow Hitler? This question stimulated the research by Stanley Milgram (discussed later in this chapter).

The authoritarian leaders assigned tasks to the boys and told them what to do. They also praised or condemned the boys’ work arbitrarily, giving no explanation for why they judged it good or bad. The democratic leaders discussed the project with the boys, outlin- ing the steps that would help them reach their goals. When they evaluated the boys’ work, they gave “facts” as the basis for their decisions. The laissez-faire leaders, who gave the boys almost total freedom to do as they wished, offered help when asked, but made few suggestions. They did not evaluate the boys’ projects, either positively or negatively.

The results? The boys under authoritarian leaders grew dependent on their leader. They also became either apathetic or aggressive, with the aggressive boys growing hos- tile toward their leader. In contrast, the boys in the democratic clubs were friendlier and looked to one another for approval. When the leader left the room, they continued to work at a steady pace. The boys with laissez-faire management goofed off a lot and were notable for their lack of achievement. The researchers concluded that the democratic style of leadership works best. This conclusion, however, may be biased, as the research- ers favored a democratic style of leadership in the first place (Olmsted and Hare 1978).

You may have noticed that only boys and men were involved in this experiment. What do you think would happen if we were to repeat the experiment with all-girl groups? With mixed groups of girls and boys? How about if we used both men and women as leaders?

LEADERSHIP STYLES IN CHANGING SITUATIONS Different situations require dif- ferent styles of leadership. Let’s suppose that you are leading a dozen backpackers in the mountains, and it is time to make dinner. If the backpackers have brought their own food, a laissez-faire style would be appropriate. If everyone is expected to pitch in, perhaps a

Social Groups and Formal Organizations 157

democratic style would be called for. Certainly authoritarian leadership—you telling the hikers how to prepare their meals—would create resentment. It would also interfere with the primary goal of the group, having a good time while enjoying nature.

Now assume you are leading this same group, but one of your party is lost, and a blizzard is on its way. This situation would call for you to exercise authority. If you simply shrugged your shoulders and said “You fig- ure it out,” you would invite disaster—and probably a lawsuit.

The Power of Peer Pressure: The Asch Experiment How extensively do groups influence your opinions and behavior? To get some insight, let’s start with conformity in the sense of how people go along with their peers. Our peers have no authority over us, only the influence that we allow.

Imagine again that you are taking a course in social psychology, this time with Dr. Solomon Asch. You have agreed to participate in an experiment. As you enter his laboratory, you see seven chairs, five of them already filled by other students. You are given the sixth. Soon the seventh person arrives. Dr. Asch stands at the front of the room next to a cov- ered easel. He explains that he will show a large card with a vertical line on it, then another card with three vertical lines. Each of you is to tell him which of the three lines matches the line on the first card (see Figure 5.3).

Dr. Asch then uncovers the first card with the single line and the second card with the three lines. The correct answer is easy, for two of the lines are obviously wrong, and one is exactly right. Each person, in order, states his or her answer aloud. You all answer correctly. The second trial is just as easy, and you begin to wonder why you are there.

On the third trial, though, something strange happens. Just as before, it is easy to tell which lines match. The first student, however, gives a wrong answer. The second gives the same incorrect answer. So do the third and the fourth. By now, you are wondering what is wrong. How will the person next to you answer? You can hardly believe it when he, too, gives the same wrong answer. Then it is your turn, and you give what you know is the right answer. The seventh person also gives the same wrong answer.

On the next trial, the same thing happens. You know that the choice of the other six is wrong. They are giving what to you are obviously wrong answers. You don’t know what to think. Why aren’t they seeing things the same way you are? Sometimes they do, but in twelve trials they don’t. Something is seriously wrong, and you are no longer sure what to do.

When the eighteenth trial is finished, you heave a sigh of relief. The experiment is finally over, and you are ready to bolt for the door. Dr. Asch walks over to you with a big smile on his face and thanks you for participating in the experiment. He explains that you were the only real subject in the experiment! “The other six were stooges. I paid them to give those answers,” he says. Now you feel real relief. Your eyes weren’t playing tricks on you after all.

What were the results? Asch (1952) tested fifty people. One-third (33 percent) gave in to the group half the time, providing what they knew to be wrong answers. Another two out of five (40 percent) gave wrong answers, but not as often. One-quarter (25 percent) stuck to their guns and always gave the right answer. I don’t know how I would do on this test (if I knew nothing about it in advance), but I like to think that I would be part of the 25 percent. You probably feel the same way about yourself. But why should we feel that we wouldn’t be like most people?

The results are disturbing, and researchers are still replicating Asch’s experiment (Mori et al. 2014). In our “land of individualism,” the group is so powerful that most people are willing to say things that they know are not true. And this was a group of strangers! How much more conformity can we expect when our group consists of friends, people we value highly and depend on for getting along in life? Maybe you will become the sociologist who runs that variation of Asch’s experiment, perhaps using both female and male subjects.

Figure 5.3 Asch’s Cards

21 3

The cards used by Solomon Asch in his classic experiment on group conformity

Card 1 Card 2

158 Chapter 5

Thinking Critically about Social Life If Hitler Asked You to Execute a Stranger, Would You? The Milgram Experiment

Stanley Milgram (1963, 1965) was a former student of Dr. Asch. Imagine that Dr. Milgram has asked you to participate in a study on punishment and learning. Assume that you do not know about the Asch experi- ment and have no reason to be wary. When you arrive at the laboratory, you and a second student draw lots for the roles of “teacher” and “learner.” You are to be the teacher. When you see that the learner’s chair has protruding electrodes, you are glad that you are the teacher. Dr. Milgram shows you the machine you will run. You see that one side of the control panel is marked “Mild Shock, 15 volts,” while the center says “Intense Shock, 350 Volts.” The far right side reads “DANGER: SEVERE SHOCK.”

“As the teacher, you will read aloud a pair of words,” explains Dr. Milgram. “Then you will repeat the first word, and the learn- er will reply with the paired word. If the learner can’t remember the word, you press this lever on the shock generator. The shock will serve as punishment, and we can then determine if punishment improves memory.” You nod, relieved that you haven’t been designated the learner.

“Every time the learner makes an error, increase the punishment by 15 volts,” instructs Dr. Milgram. Then, seeing the look on your face, he adds, “The shocks can be painful, but they won’t cause any per- manent tissue damage.” He pauses, and then says, “I want you to see.” You follow him to the “electric chair,” and Dr. Milgram gives you a shock of 45 volts. “There. That wasn’t too bad, was it?” “No,” you mumble.

The experiment begins. You hope for the learn- er’s sake that he is bright, but, unfortunately, he turns out to be rather dull. He gets some answers right, but you have to keep turning up the dial. Each turn makes you more and more uncomfortable. You find yourself

hoping that the learner won’t miss another answer. But he does. When he received the first shocks, he let out some moans and groans, but now he is screaming in agony. He even protests that he suffers from a heart condition.

How far do you turn that dial? By now, since you are only reading this, not doing it, you might have guessed that there was no electricity attached

to the electrodes and that the “learner” was a stooge who only pretended to feel pain. The purpose of the experiment was to find out at what point people refuse to participate. Does anyone actually turn the lever all the way to “DANGER: SEVERE SHOCK”?

Milgram wanted the answer because millions of ordinary people did nothing to stop the slaughter of people the Nazis designated as “inferior”—Jews, gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, and people with disabilities. The cooperation of so many ordinary people in mass killing

seemed bizarre, and Milgram wanted to see how Americans might react to orders from an authority (Russell 2010).

What Milgram found upset him. Some “teachers” broke into a sweat and protested that the experiment was inhuman and should be stopped. But when the experimenter calmly replied that the experiment must go on, this assurance from an “authority” (“scientist, white coat, university laboratory”) was enough for most “teachers” to continue, even though the “learner” screamed in agony. Even “teachers” who were “reduced to twitching, stuttering wrecks” continued to follow orders.

Milgram varied the experiments. He used both men and women. In some experiments, he put the “teachers” and “learners” in the same room, so the “teacher” could see the suffering. In others, he put the “learners” in an adjacent room and had them pound and kick the wall during the first shocks and then go silent. The results varied. When there was no verbal feedback from the “learner,” 65 percent of the “teachers” pushed the lever all

In the 1960s, social psychologists did highly creative but controversial experiments. This photo, taken during Stanley Milgram’s experiment, should give you an idea of how convincing the experiment was to the “teacher.”

The Power of Authority: The Milgram Experiment Let’s look at the results of another experiment in the following Thinking Critically about Social Life.

Social Groups and Formal Organizations 159

Global Consequences of Group Dynamics: Groupthink Suppose you are a member of the U.S. president’s inner circle. It is midnight, and the presi- dent has called an emergency meeting. There has just been a terrorist attack, and you must decide how to respond to it. You and the others suggest several options. Eventually, these are narrowed to only a couple of choices, and at some point, everyone seems to agree on what now appears to be “the only possible course of action.” To criticize the proposed solution at this point will bring you into conflict with all the other important people in the room and mark you as “not a team player.” So you keep your mouth shut. As a result, each step commits you—and them—more and more to the “only” course of action.

Under some circumstances, as in this example, the influence of authority and peers can lead to groupthink. Sociologist Irving Janis (1972, 1982) used this term to refer to the collective tunnel vision that group members sometimes develop. As they begin to think alike, they become convinced that there is only one “right” viewpoint, just a single course of action to follow. They take suggestions of alternatives as a sign of disloyalty. With their perspective narrowed, and fully convinced that they are right, they may disregard risk. They might also put aside moral judgments (Hart 1991; Kramer and Dougherty 2013).

Groupthink can lead to severe consequences on an individual level, as in this case, which caught the world’s attention.

In 1996, the Boulder, Colorado, police were called to the home of John and Patsy Ramsey. JonBenet, their 6-year-old daughter, was missing. Her little body was found in the base- ment, strangled with her head beaten in. She had been sexually molested. A strange, ram- bling ransom note was found. The Boulder police decided that the parents were guilty. Anyone who suggested that an intruder might be the killer was dropped from the inves- tigation. Even though the prosecutor’s office came to a different conclusion, the Boulder police failed to look beyond the Ramseys. They even discarded DNA evidence as irrel- evant, able to have “come from anyone.” For years, the police department hounded the Ramseys, even as evidence piled up that pointed to an intruder (“Who Killed …” 2016).

Groupthink can lead to consequences on a global level. In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his chiefs of staff received reports that the Japanese were preparing to attack Pearl Harbor. Refusing to believe the reports, they continued naval operations as usual. The destruction of the U.S. naval fleet ushered the United States into World War II. During the Vietnam War, U.S. officials had evidence of the strength and determina- tion of the North Vietnamese military. These officials arrogantly threw the evidence aside, refusing to believe that “little, uneducated, barefoot people in pajamas” could defeat the U.S. military.

groupthink a narrowing of thought by a group of people, leading to the perception that there is only one correct answer and that to even suggest alternatives is a sign of disloyalty

the way to 450 volts. Of those who could see the “learner,” 40 percent turned the lever all the way. When Milgram added a second “teacher,” a stooge who refused to go along with the experiment, only 5 percent of the “teachers” turned the lever all the way.

Milgram’s research set off a stormy discussion about research ethics (Tolich 2014). Researchers agreed that to reduce subjects to “twitching, stuttering wrecks” was unethical, and almost all deception was banned. Universities began to require that subjects be informed of the nature and purpose of social research.

Although researchers were itching to replicate Milgram’s experiment, it took almost fifty years before they found a way to satisfy the committees that approve research. The findings: People today obey the experimenter at about the same rate that people did in the 1960s (Burger 2009). The

results were even higher on The Game of Death, a fake game show in France, where the contestants were prodded by the show’s host and a shouting audience to administer shocks and win prizes. The contestants kept turning up the dial, with 80 percent of them giving victims what they thought were near lethal 450-volt shocks (Crumley 2010).

For Your Consideration → Taking into account the significance of Milgram’s

findings, do you think that the scientific community overreacted to these experiments? Should we allow such research?

→ Consider both the Asch and Milgram experiments, and use symbolic interactionism, functionalism, and con- flict theory to explain why groups have such influence over us.

160 Chapter 5

In both of these military situations, as well as that of the Ramseys, options closed as officials committed themselves to a single course of action. No longer did those in power try to weigh events objectively. Blind to disconfirming evidence, they interpreted ongo- ing events as support for their one “correct” decision.

One of the fascinating aspects of groupthink is how it can lead “good” people to do “bad” things. After 9/11, U.S. government officials defended torture as “the lesser of two evils.” Thought narrowed so greatly that the U.S. Justice Department ruled that the United States was not bound by the Geneva Convention that prohibits torture (Lewis 2005). Just as in Nazi Germany, medical professionals, trained to “help humanity,” joined in. They advised the CIA interrogators, telling them when to stop waterboarding, slam- ming prisoners’ heads into walls, or shackling a prisoner ’s arms to the ceiling—so there wouldn’t be “permanent damage” (Shane 2009; Editorial Board 2017).

Do you see the power of groups and groupthink?

PREVENTING GROUPTHINK The leaders of a government tend to surround them- selves with an inner circle that closely reflects their own views. In “briefings,” written summaries, and “talking points,” this inner circle selects information and spoon-feeds it to the leaders. This cuts the top leaders off from information that does not support their own opinions. You can see how this situation encourages the mental captivity and intel- lectual paralysis of groupthink.

Perhaps the key to preventing groupthink is the widest possible circulation— especially among a nation’s top government officials—of research by social scientists independent of the government and information that media reporters have gathered freely. If this conclusion comes across as an unabashed plug for sociological research and the free exchange of ideas, it is. Giving free rein to diverse opinions can curb groupthink, which—if not prevented—can lead to the destruction of a society and, in today’s world of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, the obliteration of Earth’s inhabitants.

Summary and Review Groups within Society 5.1 Discuss the main characteristics of primary groups,

secondary groups, in-groups and out-groups, refer- ence groups, and social networks.

How do sociologists classify groups?

Sociologists divide groups into primary groups, secondary groups, in-groups, out-groups, reference groups, and net- works. The cooperative, intimate, long-term, face-to-face relationships provided by primary groups are fundamental to our sense of self. Secondary groups are larger, relatively temporary, and more anonymous, formal, and imperson- al than primary groups. In-groups provide members with a strong sense of identity and belonging. Out-groups also foster identity by showing in-group members what they are not. Reference groups are groups whose standards we refer to as we evaluate ourselves. Social networks consist of social ties that link people together.

What is “the iron law of oligarchy”?

Sociologist Robert Michels noted that formal organizations have a tendency to become controlled by an inner circle that limits leadership to its own members. The dominance of a

formal organization by an elite that keeps itself in power is called the iron law of oligarchy.

Bureaucracies 5.2 Summarize the characteristics of bureaucracies,

their dysfunctions, and goal displacement

What are bureaucracies?

Bureaucracies are social groups characterized by a hierarchy, division of labor, written rules and communications, and im- personality and replaceability of positions. These character- istics make bureaucracies efficient and enduring. In a process called goal displacement, bureaucracies are able to perpetuate themselves even after their purpose for existing ceases.

What dysfunctions are associated with bureaucracies?

The dysfunctions of bureaucracies include red tape and alienation—workers feeling that no one cares about them and that they do not fit in. Alienation according to Marx comes from workers not identifying with the product of their labor because they participate in only a small part of the production process.

Social Groups and Formal Organizations 161

Working for the Corporation 5.3 Discuss the “hidden” corporate culture and worker

diversity.

How does the corporate culture affect workers?

Within corporate culture are values and stereotypes that are not readily visible. Often, self-fulfilling stereotypes are at work: People who match a corporation’s hidden values tend to be put on career tracks that enhance their chance of success, while those who do not match those values are set on a course that minimizes their performance. Artificial intelligence holds potential for effective diversity training.

Technology and the Maximum Security Society 5.4 Explain how bureaucracy and technology are

coming together to produce a maximum security society.

What is a maximum security society?

Computers and surveillance devices are increasingly used to monitor people, even our everyday lives. The direction points to governmental control over citizens’ behavior, even their thinking.

Group Dynamics 5.5 Be familiar with the effects of group size on sta-

bility, intimacy, attitudes, and behavior; types and styles of leaders; the Asch experiment on peer pres- sure; the Milgram experiment on authority; and the implications of groupthink.

How does a group’s size affect its dynamics?

The term group dynamics refers to how individuals affect groups and how groups influence individuals. In a small

group, everyone can interact directly with everyone else. As a group grows larger, its intensity decreases but its stabili- ty increases. A dyad, consisting of two people, is the most unstable of human groups, but it provides the most intense intimate relationships. The addition of a third person, form- ing a triad, fundamentally changes relationships. Triads are unstable, as coalitions (the alignment of some members of a group against others) tend to form.

What characterizes a leader?

A leader is someone who influences others. Instrumental leaders try to keep a group moving toward its goals, even though this causes friction and they lose popularity. Ex- pressive leaders focus on creating harmony and raising group morale. Both types are essential to the functioning of groups.

What are three leadership styles?

Authoritarian leaders give orders, democratic leaders try to lead by consensus, and laissez-faire leaders are highly permissive. An authoritarian style appears to be more ef- fective in emergency situations, a democratic style works best for most situations, and a laissez-faire style is usually ineffective.

How do groups encourage conformity?

The Asch experiment was cited to illustrate the power of peer pressure, the Milgram experiment to illustrate the in- fluence of authority. Both experiments demonstrate how easily we can succumb to groupthink, a kind of collective tunnel vision. Preventing groupthink requires the free cir- culation of diverse and opposing ideas.

Thinking Critically about Chapter 5 1. Identify your in-groups and your out-groups. How

have your in-groups influenced the way you see the world? And how have your out-groups influenced you?

2. You are likely to work for a bureaucracy. How do you think this will affect your orientation to life?

3. How can you make the “hidden corporate culture” work to your advantage?

4. Asch’s experiments illustrate the power of peer pres- sure. How has peer pressure operated in your life? Think about something that you did not want to do but did anyway because of peer pressure.

Sueño de una tarde dominical en la Alameda Central, 1946, Diego Rivera (mural)

163

Learning Objectives

After you have read this chapter, you should be able to:

6.1 Explain what deviance is, why it is relative, and why we need norms; also summarize the types of sanctions.

6.2 Contrast sociobiological, psychological, and sociological explanations of deviance.

6.3 Apply the symbolic interactionist perspective to deviance by explaining differential association, control, and labeling.

6.4 Apply the functionalist perspective to deviance by explaining how deviance can be functional for society, how mainstream values can produce deviance (strain theory), and how social class is related to crime (illegitimate opportunities).

6.5 Apply the conflict perspective to deviance by explaining how social class is related to the criminal justice system and how the criminal justice system is oppressive.

6.6 Be able to discuss street crime and imprisonment, the three-strikes laws, the decline in violent crime, recidivism, bias in the death penalty, the medicalization of deviance, and the need for a more humane approach.

Chapter 6

Deviance and Social Control

In just a few moments I was to meet my first Yanomamö, my first primitive man. What would it be like? . . . I looked up [from my canoe] and gasped when I saw a dozen burly, naked, filthy, hideous men staring at us down the shafts of their drawn arrows. Immense wads of green to- bacco were stuck between their lower teeth and lips, making them look even more hideous, and strands of dark-green slime dripped or hung from their noses. We arrived at the village while the men were blowing a hallucinogenic drug up their noses. One of the side effects of the drug is a runny nose. The mucus is always saturated with the green powder, and the Indians usually let it run freely from their nostrils . . . . I just sat there holding my notebook, helpless and pathetic . . . .

The whole situation was depressing, and I wondered why I ever decided to switch from civil engineering to anthropology in the first place . . . . [Soon] I was covered with red pigment, the result of a dozen or so complete examinations . . . . These examinations capped an otherwise grim day. The Indians would blow their noses into their hands, flick as much of the mucus off that would separate in a snap of the wrist, wipe the residue into their hair, and then carefully examine my face, arms, legs, hair, and the contents of my pockets. I said [in their language], “Your hands are dirty”; my comments were met by the Indians in the following way: they would “clean” their hands by spitting a quantity of slimy tobacco juice into them, rub them together, and then proceed with the examination.

“They would ‘clean’ their hands by spitting slimy tobacco juice into them.”

164 Chapter 6

This is how Napoleon Chagnon (1977) describes the culture shock he felt when he met the Yanomamö tribe of the rain forests of Brazil. His following months of fieldwork continued to bring surprise after surprise, and often Chagnon could hardly believe his eyes—or his nose.

If you were to list the deviant behaviors of the Yanomamö, what would you include? The way they appear naked in public? Use of hallucinogenic drugs? Let mucus hang from their noses? Or the way they rub hands filled with mucus, spittle, and tobacco juice over a frightened stranger who doesn’t dare to protest? Perhaps. But it isn’t this simple. As we shall see, deviance is relative.

What Is Deviance? 6.1 Explain what deviance is, why it is relative, and why we need norms;

also  summarize the types of sanctions.

Before we turn to the relativity of deviance, let’s consider how sociologists use this term, which is quite different than how the general public uses it.

A Neutral Term Sociologists use the term deviance to refer to any violation of norms, whether the infraction is as minor as driving over the speed limit, as serious as murder, or as humorous as Cha- gnon’s encounter with the Yanomamö. This deceptively simple definition takes us to the heart of the sociological perspective on deviance, which sociologist Howard S. Becker (1966) described this way: It is not the act itself, but the reactions to the act, that make something deviant.

Unlike the general public, when sociologists use the term deviance, they are not being judgmental. To sociologists, deviance is a neutral term that refers to any act to which people respond negatively. When they use this term, they are not saying that an act is bad, just that people judge it negatively. From this sociological perspec- tive, then, all of us are deviants of one sort or another because we all violate norms from time to time.

STIGMA To be considered deviant, a person does not even have to do anything. Sociologist Erving Goffman (1963) used the term stigma to refer to characteristics that discredit peo- ple. These include violations of norms of appearance (a facial birthmark, a huge nose, ears that stick out) and norms of abil- ity (blindness, deafness, mental handicaps). Also included are involuntary memberships, such as being the brother of a rapist. The stigma can be so severe that it becomes a person’s master status. Recall from Chapter 4 that a master status cuts across all other statuses that a person occupies.

Deviance is Relative Chagnon’s abrupt introduction to the Yanomamö allows us to glimpse the relativity of deviance, a major point made by symbolic interactionists. What Chagnon saw disturbed him, but to the Yanomamö, those same behaviors represented nor- mal, everyday life. What was deviant to Chagnon was con- formist to the Yanomamö. From their viewpoint, you should check out strangers the way they did—and nakedness is good, as are hallucinogenic drugs. And it is natural to let mucus flow.

Because different groups have different norms, what is deviant to some is not deviant to others. This principle applies not

deviance the violation of norms (or rules or expectations)

stigma “blemishes” that discredit a person’s claim to a “normal” identity

I took this photo on the outskirts of Hyderabad, India. Is this man deviant? If this were a U.S. street, he would be. But here? No houses have running water in his neighborhood, and the men, women, and children bathe at the neighborhood water pump. This man, then, would not be deviant in this culture. And yet, he is actually mugging for my camera, making the three bystanders laugh. Does this additional factor make this a scene of deviance?

Deviance and Social Control 165

just to cultures but also to groups within the same society—as you can see from the previ- ous photo and the coming one of snakes.

This principle also applies to norms of sexuality, the focus of the following Cultural Diversity around the World.

Cultural Diversity around the World Human Sexuality in Cross-Cultural Perspectives Human sexuality illustrates how a group’s definition of an act, not the act itself, determines whether it will be con- sidered deviant. Let’s look at some examples reported by anthropologist Robert Edgerton (1976).

Norms of sexual behavior vary so widely around the world that what is considered normal in one society may be considered deviant in another. In Kenya, a group called the Pokot place high emphasis on sexual pleasure, and they expect that both a husband and wife will reach orgasm. If a husband does not satisfy his wife, he is in trouble— especially if she thinks that his failure is because of another woman. If she thinks so, she and her female friends will sneak up on her husband when he is asleep. The women will tie him up, shout obscenities at him, beat him, and then urinate on him. As a final gesture of their contempt, before releasing him they will slaughter and eat his favorite ox. The husband’s hours of painful humiliation are intended to make him more dutiful concerning his wife’s conjugal rights.

People can also become deviants for following their group’s ideal norms instead of its real norms. As with many groups, the Zapotec Indians of Mexico profess that sexual relations should take place exclusively between husband and wife. However, the Zapotec also have a covert norm, an unspoken understanding, that married people will have affairs but that they will be discreet about them. In one Zapotec community, the only person who did not have an extramarital affair was condemned by everyone in the village. The reason was not that she did not have an affair but that she told the other wives who their husbands were sleeping with. It is an interesting case; if this virtuous

woman had had an affair—and kept her mouth shut—she would not have become a deviant. Clearly, real norms can conflict with ideal norms—another illustration of the gap between ideal and real culture.

For Your Consideration → How do the behaviors of the Pokot

wives and husbands mentioned here look from the perspective of U.S. norms? What are those U.S. norms?

→ What norms did the Zapotec woman break?

→ How does cultural relativity apply to the Pokot and Zapotec? (We discussed this concept in Chapter 2.)

MexicoMexico

KenyaKenya

A Pokot woman in traditional dress.

The relativity of deviance also applies to crime, the violation of rules that have been written into law. In the extreme, an act that is applauded by one group may be so despised by another group that it is punishable by death. Making a huge profit on busi- ness deals is one example. Americans who do this are admired. Like Donald Trump and Warren Buffet, they may even write books bragging about their exploits. In China, how- ever, until recently, this same act was considered a crime called profiteering. Those found guilty were hanged in a public square as a lesson to all.

The Chinese example also lets us see how even within the same society, the meaning of an act can change over time. With China’s switch to capitalism, making large profits has changed from a crime punishable by death to an act to be admired.

crime the violation of norms written into law

166 Chapter 6

How Norms Make Social Life Possible No human group can exist without norms: Norms make social life possible by mak- ing behavior predictable. What would life be like if you could not predict what others would do? Imagine for a moment that you have gone to a store to pur- chase milk:

Suppose the clerk says, “I won’t sell you any milk. We’re overstocked with soda, and I’m not going to sell anyone milk until our soda inventory is reduced.”

You don’t like it, but you decide to buy a case of soda. At the checkout, the clerk says, “I hope you don’t mind, but there’s a $5 service charge on every fifteenth customer.” You, of course, are the fifteenth.

Just as you start to leave, another clerk stops you and says, “We’re not work- ing anymore. We decided to have a party.” Suddenly a CD begins to blast, and everyone in the store starts to dance. “Oh, good, you’ve brought the soda,” says a different clerk, who takes your package and passes sodas all around.

Life is not like this, of course. You can depend on grocery clerks to sell you milk. You can also depend on paying the same price as everyone else and not being forced to attend a party in a store. Why can you depend on this? Because we live in a world of norms that govern the behavior of both store clerks and ourselves. We are socialized to follow norms, to play the basic roles that society assigns to us.

Without norms, we would have social chaos. Norms lay out the basic guidelines for how we should play our roles and interact with others. In short, norms bring about social order, a group’s customary social arrangements. Our lives are based on these arrange- ments, which is why deviance often is perceived as threatening: Deviance undermines pre- dictability, the foundation of social life. Consequently, human groups developed a system of social control—formal and informal means of enforcing norms. At the center of social con- trol are sanctions.

Sanctions As we discussed in Chapter 2, people do not enforce folkways strictly, but they become upset when people break mores (pronounced MO-rays). Expressions of disapproval for deviance, called negative sanctions, range from frowns and gossip for breaking folkways to imprisonment and death for violating mores. In general, the more seriously the group takes a norm, the harsher the penalty for violating it. In contrast, positive sanctions— from smiles to formal awards—are used to reward people for conforming to norms. Getting a raise is a positive sanction; being fired is a negative sanction. Getting an A in Intro to Sociology is a positive sanction; getting an F is a negative one.

Most negative sanctions are informal. You might stare if you observe someone dressed in what you consider to be inappropriate clothing, or you might gossip if a married person you know spends the night with someone other than his or her spouse. Whether you consider the breaking of a norm an amusing matter that war- rants no sanction or a serious infraction that does, however, depends on your per- spective. Let’s suppose that a woman appears at your college graduation in a bikini. You might stare, laugh, and nudge the person next to you. If this is your mother, however, you are likely to feel that different sanctions are appropriate. Similarly, if it is your father who spends the night with an 18-year-old college freshman, you are likely to do more than gossip.

IN SUM In sociology, the term deviance refers to all violations of social rules, regardless of their seriousness. The term is neutral, not a judgment about the behavior. Deviance is so relative that what is deviant in one group may be conformist in another. Because of this, we must consider deviance from within a group’s own framework: It is their mean- ings that underlie their behavior.

social order a group’s usual and customary social arrangements, on which its members depend and on which they base their lives

social control a group’s formal and informal means of enforcing its norms

negative sanction an expression of disapproval for breaking a norm, ranging from a mild, informal reaction such as a frown to a formal reaction such as a fine or a prison sentence

positive sanction an expression of approval for following a norm, ranging from a smile or a good grade in a class to a material reward such as a prize

Violating background assumptions is a common form of deviance. Although we have no explicit rule that says, “Do not put snakes through your nose,” we all know that it exists (perhaps as a subcategory of “Don’t do strange things in public”). Is this act also deviant for this man in Chennai, India?

Deviance and Social Control 167

Competing Explanations of Deviance: Sociobiology, Psychology, and Sociology 6.2 Contrast sociobiological, psychological, and sociological explanations

of deviance.

If social life is to exist, norms are essential. So why do people violate them? To better understand the reasons, it is useful to know how sociological explanations differ from biological and psychological ones. Let’s compare them.

Biosocial Explanations Sociobiologists explain deviance by looking for answers within individuals. They assume that genetic predispositions lead people to such behaviors as juvenile delinquency and crime (Lombroso 1911; Wilson and Herrnstein 1985; Fox 2017). An early explanation was that men with an extra Y chromosome (the “XYY” the- ory) were more likely to become criminals. Another was that people with “squar- ish, muscular” bodies were more likely to commit street crime—acts such as mugging, rape, and burglary. These theories were abandoned when research did not support them.

With advances in the study of genetics, biosocial explanations are being proposed to explain differences in crime by sex, race, social class, and age (juvenile delinquency) (Stetler et al. 2014; Fox 2017). The basic explanation is that over the millennia, people with certain characteristics were more likely to survive than were people with different characteristics. As a result, different groups today inherit different propensities (tenden- cies) for empathy, self-control, and risk-taking.

A universal finding is that in all known societies, men commit more violent crimes than women do. There are no exceptions. Here is how sociobiologists explain this. It took only a few pelvic thrusts for men to pass on their genes. After that, they could leave if they wanted to. The women, in contrast, had to carry, birth, and nurture the children. Women who were more empathetic (inclined to nurture their children) engaged in less dangerous behavior. These women passed genes for more empathy, greater self-control, and less risk-taking to their female children. As a result, all over the world, men engage in more violent behavior, which comes from their lesser empathy, lower self-control, and greater tendency for taking risks.

But behavior, whether deviant or conforming, does not depend only on genes, add the biosocial theorists. Our inherited propensities (the bio part) are modified and stimu- lated by our environment (the social part). Biosocial research holds the potential of open- ing a new understanding of deviance.

Psychological Explanations Psychologists focus on abnormalities within the individual. Instead of genes, they exam- ine what are called personality disorders. Their supposition is that deviating individu- als have deviating personalities (Liu 2014; Langevin et al. 2017) and that subconscious motives drive people to deviance.

Researchers have never found a specific childhood experience to be invariably linked with deviance. For example, some children who had “bad toilet training,” “suffocating mothers,” or “emotionally aloof fathers” become embezzling bookkeepers—but others become good accountants. Just as college students and police officers represent a variety of childhood experiences—both good and bad—so do deviants. Similarly, people with “suppressed anger” can become freeway snipers or military sharpshooters—or anything else. In short, there is no inevitable outcome of any childhood experience. Deviance is not associated with any particular personality.

genetic predisposition inborn tendencies (for example, a tendency to commit deviant acts)

street crime crimes such as mugging, rape, and burglary

personality disorders the view that a personality disturbance of some sort causes an individual to violate social norms

168 Chapter 6

Sociological Explanations In contrast with both sociobiologists and psychologists, sociologists search for factors outside the individual. They look for social influences that “recruit” people to break norms. To account for why people commit crimes, for example, sociologists examine such external influences as socialization, membership in subcultures, and social class. Social class, a concept that we discuss in depth in Chapter 8, refers to people’s relative standing in terms of education, occupation, and especially income and wealth.

To explain deviance, sociologists apply the three sociological perspectives— symbolic interactionism, functionalism, and conflict theory. Let’s compare these three explanations.

The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective 6.3 Apply the symbolic interactionist perspective to deviance by explaining

differential association, control, and labeling.

As we examine symbolic interactionism, it will become more evident why sociologists are not satisfied with explanations that are rooted in sociobiology or psychology. A basic principle of symbolic interactionism is that we are thinking beings who act according to how we interpret situations. Let’s consider how our membership in groups influences how we view life and, from there, our behavior.

Differential Association Theory Going directly against the idea that biology or personality is the source of deviance, sociol- ogists stress people’s experiences in groups. Differential association theory, which was developed by Edwin Sutherland in the 1920s, is an excellent example of this emphasis.

THE THEORY Let’s start with an extreme example: boys and girls who join street gangs and boys and girls who join the Scouts. Immediately, you know that each learns different attitudes and behaviors concerning deviance and conformity. And this is just what the term differential association indicates—that from the different groups we asso- ciate with, we learn to deviate from or to conform to society’s norms (Sutherland 1924, 1947; Brooks 2016).

Sutherland’s theory is more complicated than this, but he basically said that the dif- ferent groups with which we associate (our “different(ial) association”) give us messages about conformity and deviance. We may receive mixed messages, but we end up with more of one kind of message than the other (an “excess of definitions,” as Sutherland put it). The end result is an imbalance—attitudes that tilt us in one direction or another. Con- sequently, we learn to either conform or to deviate.

FAMILIES You know how important your family has been in forming your views toward life, so it probably is obvious to you that the family makes a big difference in whether people learn deviance or conformity. Researchers have confirmed this informal observation. Of the many studies, this one stands out: Of all prison inmates across the United States, about half have a father, mother, brother, sister, or spouse who has served time in prison (Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2003:Table 6.0011; Glaze and Marus- chak 2008:Table 11). In short, families that are involved in crime tend to set their children on a lawbreaking path.

FRIENDS, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND SUBCULTURES Most people don’t know the term differential association, but they do know how it works. Most parents want to move out of “bad” neighborhoods because they know that if their kids have delinquent friends, they are likely to become delinquent, too. Sociological research also supports this com- mon observation (Miller 1958; Rendon 2014).

differential association Edwin Sutherland’s term to indi- cate that people who associate with some groups learn an “ex- cess of definitions” of deviance, increasing the likelihood that they will become deviant

Deviance and Social Control 169

In some neighborhoods, violence is so woven into the subculture that even a wrong glance can mean your death (“Why ya lookin’ at me?”) (Gardiner and Fox 2010). If the neighbors feel that a victim deserved to be killed, they refuse to testify because “he got what was coming to him” (Kubrin and Weitzer 2003). Killing can even be viewed as honorable:

Sociologist Ruth Horowitz (1983, 2005), who did participant observa- tion in a lower-class Chicano neighborhood in Chicago, discovered how the concept of “honor” propels young men to deviance. The formula is simple. “A real man has honor. An insult is a threat to one’s honor. There- fore, not to stand up to someone is to be less than a real man.”

Now suppose you are a young man growing up in this neighborhood. You likely would do a fair amount of fighting, since you would interpret many things as attacks on your honor. You might even carry a knife or a gun, because words and fists wouldn’t always be sufficient. Along with members of your group, you would define fighting, knifing, and shooting quite differently from the way most people do.

Sociologist Victor Rios (2011), who did participant–observation of young male African American and Latino gang members in Oakland, California, reports that these same ideas of masculinity continue. They also continue to produce high rates of violence, including homicide.

Members of the Mafia also intertwine ideas of manliness with kill- ing. For them, to kill is a measure of manhood. If a Mafia member were to seduce the capo’s wife or girlfriend, for example, the seduction would slash at the capo’s manliness and honor. This would require swift, vio- lent retaliation. The offender’s body would be found in the trunk of a car somewhere with his penis stuffed in his mouth. Not all killings bring the same respect, for “the more awesome and potent the victim, the more worthy and meritorious the killer” (Arlacchi 1980).

From this example, you can again see the relativity of deviance. Killing is deviant in mainstream society, but for members of the Mafia, not to kill after certain of their norms are broken would be the deviant act.

DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION IN THE CYBER AGE The computer has brought major changes to social interaction. I have seen people lying on the beach with friends, not interacting with those next to them, but each absorbed in communicating on a smart- phone. I’m sure you have seen people walking on the sidewalk, engrossed in smart- phones, barely aware of the presence of passersby. With whom are they associating?

Friends and family remain the focus of most of these communications. But the com- puter has also opened easy access to areas of life previously hidden and unavailable. Sociologists have begun to study how this can impact people’s orientations to confor- mity. An example is how terrorist groups use the social media to motivate people to do violence (Callimachi 2017). Differential association with the social media is new, and at this point everything about this intriguing topic is preliminary.

PRISON OR FREEDOM? As was mentioned in Chapter 3, an issue that comes up over and over again in sociology is whether we are prisoners of socialization. Sym- bolic interactionists stress that we are not mere pawns in the hands of others. We are not destined to think and act as our groups dictate. Rather, we help to produce our own orientations to life. By joining one group rather than another (differential association), for example, we help to shape the self. One college student may join a feminist group that is trying to change ideas about fraternities and rape, while another associates with women who shoplift on weekends. Their choices point them in different direc- tions. The one who joins the feminist group may develop an even greater interest in producing social change, while the one who associates with shoplifters may become even more oriented toward criminal activities.

Do you understand how the definitions of deviance that Mafia members use underlie their behavior? Although their definitions are markedly different from ours, the process is the same. Shown here is John Gotti when he was the head of New York's Gambino Mafia. Convicted for murder, Gotti died in prison.

170 Chapter 6

Control Theory

Do you ever feel the urge to do something that you know you shouldn’t, something that would get you in trouble? Most of us fight temptations to break society’s norms. We find that we have to stifle things inside us—urges, hostilities, raunchy desires of various sorts. And most of the time, we manage to keep ourselves out of trouble. The basic question that control theory tries to an- swer is, With the desire to deviate so common, why don’t we all just “bust loose”?

THE THEORY Sociologist Walter Reckless (1973), who devel- oped control theory, stressed that we have two control systems that work against our motivations to deviate. Our inner controls include our internalized morality—conscience, religious princi- ples, ideas of right and wrong. Inner controls also include fears of punishment and the desire to be a “good” person (Hirschi

1969; Gottfredson 2011). Our outer controls consist of people—such as family, friends, and the police—who influence us not to deviate.

As sociologist Travis Hirschi (1969) pointed out, the stronger our bonds are with society, the more effective our inner controls are. These bonds are based on attachments (our affection and respect for people who conform to mainstream norms), commitments (having a stake in society that you don’t want to risk, such as your place in your family, being a college student, or having a job), involvements (participating in approved activi- ties), and beliefs (convictions that certain actions are wrong).

This theory is really about self-control, said Hirschi. Where do we learn self-control? As you know, this happens during childhood, especially in the fam- ily when our parents supervise us and punish our deviant acts (Gottfredson 2011). Sometimes they use shame to keep us in line. You probably had that finger shaken at you. I certainly recall it aimed at me. Do you think that more use of shaming, discussed in the following Down-to-Earth Sociology, could help strengthen people’s internal controls?

control theory the idea that two control systems—inner controls and outer controls—work against our tendencies to deviate

degradation ceremony a term coined by Harold Garfinkel to refer to a ritual whose goal is to remake someone’s self by stripping away that individual’s self-identity and stamping a new identity in its place

The social control of deviance takes many forms. One of the most prominent is the actions of the police.

Down-to-Earth Sociology Shaming: Making a Comeback?

In The Scarlet Letter, a book published in 1850 by Nathaniel Hawthorne, town officials forced Hester Prynne to wear a scarlet “A” sewn on her dress. The “A” stood for Adulteress. Wherever she went, Prynne had to wear this badge of shame—every day for the rest of her life.

Shaming can be effective, especially when members of a primary group use it. In some communities, where the individual’s reputation was at stake, shaming was the centerpiece of the enforcement of norms. As with Hester Prynne, violators were marked as deviant and held up for all the world to see.

As our society grew large and urban, the sense of community diminished, and shaming lost its effectiveness. Shaming is now starting to make a comeback.

• In Pennsylvania, two women took a gift card from a girl at Walmart. They had to stand in front of the courthouse, each holding a sign that read, “I stole from a 9-year-old on her birthday! Don’t steal or this could happen to you.” (Reutter 2015)

• Online shaming sites have also appeared. Captured on cell phone cameras are bad drivers, older men who leer at teenaged girls, and people who don’t pick up their dog’s poop.

• In Spain, where one’s reputation with neighbors still matters, debt collectors dress in tuxedos and top hats and walk slowly to the debtor’s front door. The sight shames debtors into paying (Catan 2008).

• And as shown in the next photo, a judge in Cleveland, Ohio, ordered a woman who drove on a sidewalk in order

Deviance and Social Control 171

Your desire to avoid feeling shame is just one of your many internal controls. In the following Applying Sociology to Your Life, let’s see other ways that control theory might apply to your life.

to pass a school bus to hold a sign at the intersection reading, “Only an idiot would drive on the sidewalk to avoid a school bus” (Reutter 2015).

Sociologist Harold Garfinkel (1956) gave the name degradation ceremony to an extreme form of shaming. The individual is called to account before the group, witnesses denounce him or her, the offender is pronounced guilty, and the individual is stripped of his or her identity as a group member. In some courts martial, officers who are found guilty stand at attention before their peers while others rip the insignia of rank from their uniforms. This ceremony screams that the individual is no longer a member of the group. Although Hester Prynne was not banished from the group physically, she was banished morally; her degradation

ceremony proclaimed her a moral outcast from the community. The scarlet “A” marked her as “not one of us.”

For Your Consideration → How do you think law

enforcement officials might use shaming to reduce law breaking?

→ How do you think school officials could use shaming?

→ Suppose that you were caught shoplifting at a

store near where you live. Would you rather spend a week in jail with no one but

your family knowing it or 6 hours a day for a week walking in front of the store you stole from wearing a placard that proclaims in bold red capital letters: “I AM A THIEF!” and in smaller letters: “I am sorry for stealing from this store and making you pay higher prices”? Why?

For doing what the sign says, this woman must humiliate herself by holding the sign. She is using the sign to help shield her identity.

Applying Sociology to Your Life “How Does Social Control Theory Apply to You?”

Suppose that your friends invite you to go to a night- club. When you get there, you notice that everyone seems unusually happy—almost giddy. They seem to be euphoric in their animated conversations and dancing. Your friends tell you that almost everyone here has taken the drug Ecstasy, and they invite you to take some with them.

What do you do?

Let’s not explore the question of whether taking Ecstasy in this setting is a deviant or a conforming act, an interesting topic by itself. Instead, think about the pushes and pulls you would feel in this situation. There would be pushes toward taking the drug: your friends, the setting, and perhaps your curiosity or even sense of adventure. Then there are your inner controls.

You are intimately familiar with these—those inner voices of conscience and those internal recordings from your parents and from others. Your inner controls also include your fears: of being arrested, of hurting your reputation, and of the dangers of taking illegal drugs. Outer controls would also be signifi- cant in your decision—perhaps the uniformed security guard

looking in your direction.

For Your Consideration → So, what would you

decide? Which do you think would be stronger in this situation: the pushes and pulls toward taking the drug or your inner and outer controls? It is you who can best weigh these forces because they differ with each of us. This little example puts you at the center of what control theory is all about.How would social control theory apply to you in such a situation?

172 Chapter 6

Labeling Theory Suppose for one undesirable moment that people think of you as a “whore,” a “per- vert,” or a “cheat.” (Pick one.) What power such a reputation would have—over both how others would see you and how you would see yourself. How about if you became known as “very intelligent,” “truthful in everything,” or “honest to the core”? (Choose one.) You can see how this type of reputation would give people different expectations of your character and behavior—and how the label would also shape the way you see yourself.

This is what labeling theory focuses on: the significance of labels (or reputations), how they help set us on paths that propel us into deviance or divert us away from it.

REJECTING LABELS: HOW PEOPLE NEUTRALIZE DEVIANCE Not many of us want to be called “whore,” “pervert,” or “cheat.” We resist negative labels, even lesser ones than these that others might try to pin on us. Did you know that some people are so successful at rejecting labels that even though they beat people up and vandalize property, they consider themselves to be conforming members of society? How do they do it?

Sociologists Gresham Sykes and David Matza (1957/1988) studied boys like this. They found that the boys used five techniques of neutralization to deflect society’s norms.

Denial of responsibility. Some boys said, “I’m not responsible for what happened because …” And they were quite creative about the “becauses.” Some said that what hap- pened was an “accident.” Other boys saw themselves as “victims” of society. What else can you expect? “I’m like a billiard ball shot around the pool table of life.”

Denial of injury. A favorite explanation was “What I did wasn’t wrong because no one got hurt.” The boys would call vandalism “mischief,” gang fights a “private quarrel,” and stealing cars “borrowing.” They might acknowledge that what they did was illegal but claim that they were “just having a little fun.”

Denial of a victim. Some boys thought of themselves as avengers. Trashing a teacher’s car was revenge for an unfair grade, while shoplifting was a way to get even with “crooked” store owners. In short, even if the boys did accept responsibility and admit that someone had gotten hurt, they protected their self-concept by claiming that the people “deserved what they got.”

Condemnation of the condemners. Another technique the boys used was to deny that others had the right to judge them. They accused people who pointed fingers at them of be- ing “hypocrites”: The police were “on the take,” teachers had “pets,” and parents cheated on their taxes. In short, they said, “Who are they to accuse me of something?”

Appeal to higher loyalties. A final technique the boys used to justify their actions was to consider loyalty to the gang more important than the norms of society. They might say, “I had to help my friends. That’s why I got in the fight.” Not incidentally, the boy may have shot two members of a rival group, as well as a bystander!

In the following Applying Sociology to Your Life, let’s consider how you use these five techniques of neutralization to protect your self concept.

labeling theory the view that the labels people are given affect both how they perceive themselves and how others perceive them, which channels their behavior toward either deviance or conformity

techniques of neutralization ways of thinking or rationaliz- ing that help people deflect (or neutralize) society’s norms

Applying Sociology to Your Life How Do You Use Techniques of Neutralization to Protect Your Self Concept? The five techniques of neutralization that Sykes and Matza uncovered have implications far beyond the group of boys that they studied. It is not only delinquents who try to neutralize the norms of mainstream society. Look again at

these techniques—don’t they sound familiar? Consider how you might be using these same techniques as part of your everyday life. Let’s take them one by one, with an example that you might have used at some time.

Deviance and Social Control 173

EMBRACING LABELS: THE EXAMPLE OF OUTLAW BIKERS

Years ago, in a defensive statement, the American Motorcyclists’ Association said that 99  percent of motorcyclists are law abiding citizens, that only 1 percent are thugs and criminals. The Outlaws, Hells Angels, and Warlocks then began to proudly display 1 per- cent on their uniforms (Stutzman 2014).

Sociologist Mark Watson (1980/2006) did participant–observation with outlaw bikers. He rebuilt Harleys with them, hung around their bars and homes, and went on “runs” (trips) with them. He concluded that outlaw bikers see the world as “hostile, weak, and effem- inate.” Holding the conventional world in contempt, gang members pride themselves on breaking its norms and getting in trouble, laughing at death, and treating women as lesser beings whose primary value is to provide them with services— especially sex. They take pleasure in shocking people by their appearance and behavior. They pride them- selves in looking “dirty, mean, and generally undesirable.” Outlaw bikers also regard themselves as losers, a view that is woven into their unusual embrace of deviance.

Although most of us resist attempts to label us as deviant, it is not only outlaw bik- ers who revel in a deviant identity. By their clothing, music, hairstyles, and body art, some teenagers make certain that no one misses their rejection of adult norms. Their status among fellow members of a subculture—within which they are almost obsessive conformists—is vastly more important than any status outside it.

LABELS CAN BE POWERFUL To label a teenager a delinquent can trigger a process that leads to greater involvement in devi- ance (Liberman et al. 2014).

Because of this, judges sometimes use diversion: To avoid the label of delinquent, they divert youthful offenders away from the criminal justice system. Instead of sending them to reform school or jail, they assign them to social workers and coun- selors. In the following Thinking Critically about Social Life, let’s consider how power- ful labeling can be.

1. Denial of responsibility: “I was so mad that I couldn’t help myself.”

2. Denial of injury: “You can say what you want, but who really got hurt?”

3. Denial of a victim: “Don’t you think she deserved that, after what she did?”

4. Condemnation of the condemners: “Who are you to talk?”

5. Appeal of higher loyalties: “I had to help my friends— wouldn’t you have done the same thing?”

All of us attempt to neutralize the moral demands of society. Neutralization helps us to sleep at night.

For Your Consideration → What other statements have you made (to others or to

yourself) to help deflect the norms of society?

→ How do the techniques of neutralization that you use help protect your self concept?

→ Can you think of any techniques of neutralization that people use other than these five?

How do you use techniques of neutralization to protect your self concept?

While most people resist labels of deviance, some embrace them. In what different ways do these photos illustrate the embracement of deviance?

174 Chapter 6

Thinking Critically about Social Life The Saints and the Roughnecks: Labeling in Everyday Life As you recall from Chapter 4, the Saints and the Rough- necks were high school boys. Both groups were “constantly occupied with truancy, drinking, wild parties, petty theft, and vandalism.” Yet their teachers looked on the Saints as “headed for success” and the Roughnecks as “headed for failure.” By the time they finished high school, not one Saint had been arrested, while the Roughnecks had been in constant trouble with the police.

Why did the members of the community perceive these boys so differently? Chambliss concluded that social class created this split vision. As symbolic interactionists emphasize, social class is like a lens that focuses our perceptions. The Saints came from respectable, middle- class families, while the Roughnecks were from less respectable, working-class families. These backgrounds led teachers and the authorities to expect good things from the Saints but trouble from the Roughnecks. And, like the rest of us, teachers and police saw what they expected to see.

The boys’ social class also affected their visibility. The Saints had automobiles, and they did their drinking and vandalism out of town. Without cars, the Roughnecks hung around their own street corners. There, their drinking and boisterous behavior drew the attention of police, confirming the negative impressions that the community already had of them.

The boys’ social class also equipped them with distinct styles of interaction. When police or teachers questioned them, the Saints were apologetic. Their show of respect for authority elicited a positive reaction from teachers and police, allowing the Saints to escape school and legal problems. The Roughnecks, said Chambliss, were “almost the polar opposite.” When questioned, they were hostile. Even when these boys tried to assume a respectful attitude, everyone could see through it. As a result, the teachers and police let the Saints off with warnings, but they came down hard on the Roughnecks.

Certainly, what happens in life is not determined by labels alone, but the Saints and the Roughnecks did live

up to the labels that the community gave them. As you may recall, all but one of the Saints went on to college. One earned a Ph.D., one became a lawyer, one a doctor, and the others business managers. In contrast, only two of the Roughnecks went to college. They earned athletic scholarships and became coaches. The other Roughnecks did not fare so well. Two of them dropped out of high school, later became involved in separate killings, and were sent to prison. Of the final two, one became a local bookie, and no one knows the whereabouts of the other.

For Your Consideration → Did you see anything like the reactions to the Saints and

the Roughnecks in your high school? If so, how did it work?

→ Besides labels, what else could have been involved in the life outcomes of these boys?

→ In what areas of life do you see the power of labels?

Stereotypes, both positive and negative, help to form the perception and reaction of authorities. What stereotypes come to mind when you look at this photo?

HOW DO LABELS WORK? How labels work is complicated because they involve self-concepts and reactions that vary from one individual to another. To analyze this pro- cess would require a book. For our purposes, let’s just note that unlike its meaning in sociology, in everyday life the term deviant is emotionally charged with negative judg- ment. This label closes doors of opportunity. It can lock people out of conforming groups and push them into almost exclusive contact with people who have been similarly labeled.

IN SUM Symbolic interactionists examine how people’s definitions of the situation underlie their deviating from or conforming to social norms. They focus on group mem- bership (differential association), how people balance pressures to conform and to deviate (control theory), and the significance of people’s reputations (labeling theory).

Deviance and Social Control 175

The Functionalist Perspective 6.4 Apply the functionalist perspective to deviance by explaining how deviance can

be functional for society, how mainstream values can produce deviance (strain theory), and how social class is related to crime (illegitimate opportunities).

When you think of deviance, you are likely to think about its dysfunctions, how, for example, crime is harmful to society. Let’s start this section with something you might find surprising—that deviance has functions.

Can Deviance Really Be Functional for Society? Most of us are upset by deviance, especially crime, and assume that society would be bet- ter off without it. In contrast to this common assumption, the classic functionalist theorist Emile Durkheim (1893/1933, 1895/1964) came to a surprising conclusion. Deviance— including crime—contributes to the social order in these three ways:

1. Deviance clarifies moral boundaries and affirms norms. By moral boundaries, Durkheim re- ferred to a group’s ideas about how people should think and act. Deviance challenges those boundaries. To call a member into account is to say, in effect, “You broke an important rule, and we cannot tolerate that.” Punishing deviants affirms the group’s norms and clarifies what it means to be a member of the group.

2. Deviance encourages social unity. To affirm the group’s moral boundaries by punishing deviants creates a “we” feeling among the group’s members. By saying, “You can’t get away with that,” the group affirms the rightness of its ways.

3. Deviance promotes social change. Not everyone agrees on what to do with people who push beyond the accepted ways of doing things. Some group members may even approve of the rule-breaking behavior. Boundary violations that gain enough sup- port become new, acceptable behaviors. Deviance, then, may force a group to rethink and redefine its moral boundaries, helping groups—and whole societies—to adapt to changing circumstances.

Strain Theory: How Mainstream Values Produce Deviance It is easy to think of crime as some alien element in our midst, something that is strange and unnatural. In contrast to this common view, functionalists view crime as a natural out- come of the conditions that people experience (Agnew 2012). Even mainstream values can generate crime. Consider what sociologists Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (1960) identi- fied as the crucial problem of the industrialized world: the need to locate and train talented people—whether they were born into wealth or into poverty—so that they can take over the key technical jobs of society. When children are born, no one knows which ones will have the ability to become dentists, nuclear physicists, or engineers. To get the most talented people to compete with one another, society tries to motivate everyone to strive for success.

We are quite successful in getting almost everyone to want cultural goals, success of some sort, such as wealth or prestige. But we are far from successful when it comes to providing everyone access to the institutionalized means, the legitimate ways to reach success. People who find their way to success blocked can come to see the cultural goals (such as working hard or pursuing higher education) as not applying to themselves. Sociologist Robert Merton (1956, 1949/1968) referred to this situation as anomie, a sense of normlessness. These people experience frustration, or what Merton called strain.

Table 6.1 presents a summary of Merton’s strain theory. The most common reaction to means and goals is conformity. Most people find at least adequate access to the institutional- ized means and use them to try to reach cultural goals. They try to get a quality education, good jobs, and so on. If well-paid jobs are unavailable, they take less desirable jobs. If they can’t get into Harvard or Stanford, they go to a state university. Others take night classes and go to vocational schools. In short, most people take the socially acceptable path.

cultural goals the objectives held out as legitimate or desirable for the members of a society to achieve

institutionalized means approved ways of reaching cultural goals

strain theory Robert Merton’s term for the strain engendered when a soci- ety socializes large numbers of people to desire a cultural goal (such as success), but withholds from some the approved means of reaching that goal; one adap- tation to the strain is crime, the choice of an innovative means (one outside the approved sys- tem) to attain the cultural goal

176 Chapter 6

FOUR DEVIANT PATHS The next four responses in Table 6.1 represent deviant reac- tions to the gap that people find between the goals they want and their access to the insti- tutionalized means to reach them. Let’s look at each. Innovators are people who accept the goals of society but use illegitimate means to try to reach them. Embezzlers, for instance, accept the goal of achieving wealth, but they reject the legitimate avenues for doing so. Other examples are drug dealers, robbers, and con artists.

The second deviant path is taken by people who start out wanting the cultural goals but become discouraged and give up on achieving them. Yet they still cling to conven- tional rules of conduct. Merton called this response ritualism. Although ritualists have given up on getting ahead at work, they survive by rigorously following the rules of their job. Teachers whose idealism is shattered (who are said to suffer from “burnout”), for example, remain in the classroom, where they teach without enthusiasm. Their response is considered deviant because they cling to the job even though they have abandoned the goal, which may have been to stimulate young minds or to make the world a better place.

People who choose the third deviant path, retreatism, reject both the cultural goals and the institutionalized means of achieving them. Some people stop pursuing success and retreat into alcohol or drugs. Although their path to withdrawal is considerably dif- ferent, women who enter a convent or men a monastery are also retreatists.

The final deviant response is rebellion. Convinced that their society is corrupt, reb- els, like retreatists, reject both society’s goals and its institutionalized means. Unlike retreatists, however, rebels seek to give society new goals, as well as new means for reaching them. Revolutionaries are the most committed type of rebels.

Merton either did not recognize anarchy as applying to his model or he did not think of it. In either case, the angry anarchist who wants to destroy society is not shown on Table 6.1. Like the retreatist and the rebel, anarchists have given up on both society’s goals and its means. Unlike the rebel, however, they do not want to replace the goals and means with anything. And unlike the retreatist, they do not want to withdraw and let others live in peace. Instead, they want to annihilate what exists and whoever stands in their way.

IN SUM Strain theory underscores the sociological principle that deviants are the prod- uct of society. Mainstream social values (cultural goals and institutionalized means to reach those goals) can produce strain (frustration, dissatisfaction). People who feel this strain are more likely than others to take deviant (nonconforming) paths.

Illegitimate Opportunity Structures: Social Class and Crime Over and over in this text, you have seen the impact of social class on people’s lives—and you will continue to do so in coming chapters. Let’s look at how the social classes pro- duce different types of crime.

STREET CRIME In applying strain theory, functionalists point out that industrialized societies have no trouble socializing the poor into wanting to own things. Like others,

Table 6.1 How People Match Their Goals to Their Means

SOURCE: Based on Merton 1968.

Do They Feel the Strain That Leads to Anomie?

Mode of Adaptation

Cultural Goals

Institutionalized Means

No Conformity Accept Accept

Deviant Paths:

Yes 1. Innovation Accept Reject

2. Ritualism Reject Accept

3. Retreatism Reject Reject

4. Rebellion Reject/Replace Reject/Replace

Deviance and Social Control 177

the poor are bombarded with messages urging them to buy everything from iPhones and iPads to designer jeans and new cars. Television and movies spew out images of middle-class people enjoying luxurious lives. The poor get the message—full-fledged Americans can afford society’s many goods and services.

Yet, the most common route to success, education, presents a bewildering world to the poor. Run by the middle class, schools are at odds with their background. In the schools, what the poor take for granted is unacceptable, questioned, even mocked. Their speech, for example, is built around nonstandard grammar. It is also often laced with what the middle class considers obscenities. Their ideas of punctuality and their poor preparation in reading and paper-and-pencil skills also make it difficult to fit in. Facing such barriers, the poor are more likely than their more privileged counterparts to drop out of school. Educational fail- ure, of course, slams the door on many legitimate avenues to success.

Not all doors slam shut, though. Woven into the inner city is what Cloward and Ohlin (1960) called an illegitimate opportunity structure. This alternative door to financial gain includes burglary, robbery, drug dealing, gambling, prostitution, and pimping (Anderson 1978, 1990, 2000; Horning and Marcus 2017). To those grow- ing up poor, pimps and drug dealers are often seen through the lens of a glamorous life— people who are in control and have plenty of “easy money.” For some, then, the “hustler” becomes a role model.

It should be easy to see why street crime attracts disproportionate numbers of the poor. In the following Down-to-Earth Sociology, let’s look at how gangs are part of the ille- gitimate opportunity structure that beckons disadvantaged youth.

illegitimate opportunity structure opportunities for crimes that are woven into the texture of life

Down-to-Earth Sociology Islands in the Street: Urban Gangs in the United States Gangs are part of urban life, but why do people join gangs?

For more than ten years, sociologist Martín Sánchez- Jankowski (1991) did participant– observation of thirty-seven ethnic gangs: African American, Chicano, Dominican, Irish, Jamaican, and Puerto Rican. The members of these gangs in Boston, Los Angeles, and New York City earned money through gambling, arson, mugging, and armed robbery. They also sold drugs, guns, moonshine, stolen car parts, and protection. Sánchez- Jankowski ate, slept, and fought with the gangs, but by mutual agreement he did not participate in drug dealing or other illegal activities. He was seriously injured twice during the study.

Contrary to stereotypes, Sánchez-Jankowski did not find that the motive for joining a gang was to escape a broken home (there were as many members from intact families as from broken homes) or to seek a substitute family (the same number of boys said they were close to their families as those who said they were not). Rather, the boys joined to gain access to money, sex, and drugs, to maintain anonymity in committing crimes, to get protection, and to help the community. This last reason may seem surprising,

but in some neighborhoods, gangs protect residents from outsiders and spearhead political change (Kontos et al.

2003). The boys also saw the gang as an alternative to the boring, dead- end jobs held by their parents.

Neighborhood residents are ambivalent about gangs. Although they fear the violence, the gang members are the children of people who live in the neighborhood, and many of the adults once belonged to gangs. In addition, some gangs provide better protection than the police.

Particular gangs will come and go, but gangs are likely to remain part of the city. Why? As functionalists point out, gangs fulfill needs of poor youth who live on the margins of society.

For Your Consideration → What functions do gangs fulfill (what needs do they meet)?

→ Suppose that you have been hired as an urban planner for the city of Chicago. How could you arrange to meet the needs that gangs fulfill in ways that minimize violence and encourage youth to follow mainstream norms?

178 Chapter 6

WHITE-COLLAR CRIME As with the poor, the forms of crime of the more privileged classes also match their life situation. And how different their illegitimate opportunities are! Physicians don’t hold up cabbies, but they do cheat Medicare. Investment managers like Bernie Madoff don’t rob gas stations, but they do run fraudulent schemes that cheat people around the world. Mugging, pimping, and burgling are not part of this more priv- ileged world, but evading income tax, bribing public officials, and embezzling are. Sociol- ogist Edwin Sutherland (1949) coined the term white-collar crime to refer to crimes that people of respectable and high social status commit in the course of their occupations.

A special form of white-collar crime is corporate crime, executives breaking the law in order to benefit their corporation. For example, to increase corporate profits, Sears executives defrauded $100 million from victims so poor that they had filed for bankruptcy. To avoid a criminal trial, Sears pleaded guilty. This frightened the parent companies of Macy’s and Bloomingdales, which were doing similar things, and they settled out of court (McCormick 1999). Not one of the corporate thieves at Sears, Macy’s, or Bloomingdales spent even a day in jail.

Here are two more big-name criminals: Bank of America, which paid $17 billion for its lawbreaking (Rexrode and Barrett 2014), and Wells Fargo, which paid $185 million in fines for opening two million accounts without their clients’ permission (Corkery 2016). Even more notorious is Citigroup, which was caught red-handed in 2004 stealing from the poor. For this crime, Citigroup paid $70 million (O’Brien 2004). In 2008, caught this time stealing money from its customers’ credit cards, Citigroup was fined $18 million (Read 2008). Like other career criminals addicted to easy money, Citigroup continued its lawbreaking ways, and in 2014 Citigroup paid another $7 billion for deceiving investors in subprime mortgages (Grossman and Rexrode 2014). Not one of the corporate crime chiefs at Citigroup, Bank of America, or Wells Fargo spent even a single day in jail.

Can you imagine what would have happened if these same executives had used guns to rob people on the street?

It is rare for white-collar crime to be taken seriously—even when those crimes result in death. In the 1930s, workers were hired to blast a tunnel through a mountain in West Virginia. The company knew the silica dust would kill the miners, and in just three months about six hundred died (Dunaway 2008). No owner went to jail. In the 1980s, Firestone executives recalled faulty tires in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela but allowed them to remain on U.S. vehicles. When those tires blew out, about two hundred Ameri- cans died (White et al. 2001). Not a single Firestone executive went to jail.

In 2001, General Motors found out that a jarring of the ignition key could shut down the car ’s engine and electrical system and disable the air bags. Did they fix the ignition? No. For a dozen years GM kept quiet. What did these decision makers care, as long as the profits—and their bonuses—kept rolling in? Their decision cost the lives of 124 people.

Not one executive was even arrested. GM just paid a fine (Spector and Matthews 2015).

Consider this: Under federal law, causing the death of a worker by willfully violating safety rules is a misde- meanor punishable by up to six months in prison. Yet to harass a wild burro on federal lands is punishable by a year in prison (Barstow and Bergman 2003).

At $500 billion a year, “crime in the suites” costs more than “crime in the streets” (Reiman and Leighton 2010). This refers only to dollar costs. The physical and emotional costs are another matter. For example, no one has figured out a way to compare the suffering of rape victims with the pain of elderly couples who lost their life savings to Madoff’s white-collar fraud.

Fear, however, centers on street crime, especially the violent stranger who can change your life forever. As the Social Map shows, the chances of such an encounter depend

white-collar crime Edwin Sutherland’s term for crimes committed by people of respectable and high social status in the course of their occupations; for example, brib- ery of public officials, securities violations, embezzlement, false advertising, and price fixing

corporate crime crimes committed by executives in order to benefit their corporation

White collar crime can be deadly and yet the criminals go unpunished. Faulty ignition switches on GM cars, not fixed after the problem was known, killed over 124 people. This father is holding a photo of his daughter, Brandlee, who was one of these 124 people.

Deviance and Social Control 179

GENDER AND CRIME Gender is not just something we do. Gender is a feature of society that surrounds us from birth. Gender pushes us, as male or female, into different corners in life, offering and nurturing some behaviors while it withdraws others. The opportunity to commit crime is one of the many consequences of how society sets up a gender order. The social changes that opened business and the professions to women also brought new opportunities for women to commit crime. From stolen property to illegal weapons, Table 6.2 shows how women have taken advantage of this new opportunity.

Table 6.2 Women and Crime: What a Change Of all those arrested, what percentage are women?

Crime 1992 2014 Change

Burglary 9.2% 17.8% +93%

Car theft 10.8% 20.3% +88%

Drunken driving 13.8% 25.0% +81%

Stolen property 12.5% 21.5% +72%

Robbery 8.5% 14.0% +65%

Aggravated assault 14.8% 23.0% +55%

Arson 13.4% 18.9% +41%

Larceny/theft 32.1% 43.2% +35%

Illegal drugs 16.4% 21.9% +34%

Illegal weapons 7.5% 8.8% +17%

Forgery and counterfeiting 34.7% 36.5% +5%

Fraud 42.1% 39.1% –7%

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States1994 and 2017:Table 357.

Figure 6.1 How Safe is Your State? Violent Crime in the United States

Violent crimes per 100,000 people. Safer than average (99–274)

More dangerous than average (396–636)

Average safety (279–391)

Safest

2. Maine (128)

1. Vermont (99)

3. New Hampshire, Virginia,Wyoming (196)

Most Dangerous

3. New Mexico (597)

2. Tennessee (608)

1. Nevada, Alaska (636)

ME 128

VT 99

NH 196

UT 216 VA

196

ID 212

WY 196

WI 290

KY 212

ND 265OR

232

RI 219

NE 280

SD 327

IA 274

MN 229

MT 324

MS 279

CT 237

HI 259

WA 285

OH 285

NJ 261

WV 302

CO 309

IN 365

NC 330

KS 349

PA 314

GA 377

NY 382

AZ 400

TX 406

CA 396

AL 427

MA 391

IL 370

MI 427

MO 443

OK 406 AR

480

MD 446

FL 541

LA 515

DE 489

NV 636

NM 597

SC 498

AK 636

TN 608 DC

1,244

NOTE: Violent crimes are murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. I estimated Minnesota’s rate, based on earlier data and reduced rates since then. The chance of becoming a victim of a violent crime is five times higher in Tennessee, the most dangerous state, than in Maine, the safest state. Washington, D.C., not a state, is in a class by itself. Its rate of 1,244 is twelve times higher than Vermont's rate.

SOURCE: Statistical Abstract of the United States 2017:Table 334.

on where you live. You can see that entire regions are safer—or more dangerous—than others. In general, the northern states are safer, the southern states more dangerous.

180 Chapter 6

IN SUM Functionalists stress that just as the social classes differ in opportunities for income and education, so they differ in opportunities for crime. As a result, street crime is greater among the lower social classes and white-collar crime greater among the higher social classes. The growing crime rates of women illustrate how chang- ing gender roles have given women more access to what sociologists call “illegitimate opportunities.”

The Conflict Perspective 6.5 Apply the conflict perspective to deviance by explaining how social class

is related to the criminal justice system and how the criminal justice system is oppressive.

Conflict theorists view the criminal justice system as an instrument that protects the rich and powerful and oppresses the poor and weak. Let’s find out why they have this view.

Class, Crime, and the Criminal Justice System TRW sold transistors to the federal government to use in its military satellites. The tran- sistors failed, and the government had to shut down its satellite program. TRW said that the failure was a surprise to them, that it must be due to some unknown defect. U.S. offi- cials then paid TRW millions of dollars to investigate the failure.

Then a whistle-blower appeared, informing the government that TRW knew the transistors would fail in satellites even before it sold them. The government sued Northrop Grumman Corporation, which had bought TRW, and the corporation was found guilty.

What was the punishment for a crime this serious? The failure of these satellites compro- mised the defense of the United States. When the executives of TRW were put on trial, how long were their prison sentences? Actually, these criminals weren’t even put on trial, and not one spent even a night in jail. In this case of white-collar crime, Grumman was fined $325 million. Then—and this is hard to believe—on the same day, the government settled a lawsuit that Grumman had brought against it for $325 million (Drew 2009). Cer- tainly a rare coincidence.

Contrast this backdoor deal between influential people with what happens to the poor who break the law. A poor person who is caught stealing even a $1,000 car can end up serving years in prison. How can a legal system that proudly boasts “justice for all” be so inconsistent? According to conflict theory, this question is central to the analysis of crime and the criminal justice system—the police, courts, and prisons that deal with people who are accused of having committed crimes. Let’s see what conflict theorists have to say about this.

The Criminal Justice System as an Instrument of Oppression Conflict theorists regard power and social inequality as the main characteristics of soci- ety. The criminal justice system, they stress, is a tool designed by the powerful to main- tain their power and privilege. For the poor, in contrast, the law is an instrument of oppression (Chambliss 2000; Davis and Sorensen 2013). The idea that the law operates impartially to bring justice to all, they say, is a cultural myth promoted by the capitalist class to secure the cooperation of the poor in their own oppression.

criminal justice system the system of police, courts, and prisons set up to deal with peo- ple who are accused of having committed a crime

Deviance and Social Control 181

The working poor and those below them pose a special threat to the power elite. Receiving the least of society’s mate- rial rewards, they hold the potential to rebel and overthrow the current social order. To prevent this, the law comes down hard on the poor and the underclass. They are the least rooted in soci- ety. They have only low-paying, part-time, or seasonal work— if they have jobs at all. Because their street crimes threaten the social order that keeps the elite in power, they are punished severely. From this class come most of the prison inmates in the United States.

The criminal justice system, then, does not focus on the exec- utives of corporations and the harm they do through manufactur- ing unsafe products, creating pollution, and manipulating prices. Yet the violations of the capitalist class cannot be ignored totally; if they become too extreme, they might outrage the working class, encouraging them to rise up and revolt. To prevent this, a flagrant violation by a member of the capitalist class is occasionally pros- ecuted. The publicity given to the case provides evidence of the “fairness” of the criminal justice system, which helps to stabi- lize the social system—and keeps the powerful in their positions of privilege.

The powerful are usually able to bypass the courts altogether, appearing instead before an agency that has no power to imprison (such as the Federal Trade Commission). These agencies are directed by people from wealthy backgrounds who sympathize with the intricacies of the corporate world. It is they who oversee most cases of price manipulation, insider stock trading, vio- lations of fiduciary duty, and so on. Is it surprising, then, that the typical sanction for corporate crime is a token fine?

IN SUM Conflict theorists stress that the power elite devel- oped the legal system to stabilize the social order. They use it to control the poor, who pose a threat to the powerful. The poor hold the potential of rebelling as a group, which could dislodge the power elite from their place of privilege. To pre- vent this, the criminal justice system makes certain that heavy penalties come down on the poor.

Reactions to Deviance 6.6 Be able to discuss street crime and imprisonment,

the three-strikes laws, the decline in violent crime, recidivism, bias in the death penalty, the medicalization of deviance, and the need for a more humane approach.

Whether it is cheating on a sociology quiz or holding up a liquor store, any violation of norms invites reaction. In the following Thinking Critically about Social Life, we will con- sider reactions to sexting, a controversial activity of many teenagers. After this we will turn to reactions to violent crimes.

The cartoonist’s hyperbole makes an excellent commentary on the social class disparity of our criminal justice system. Not only are the crimes of the wealthy not as likely to come to the attention of authorities as are the crimes of the poor, but when they do, the wealthy can afford legal expertise to wiggle around the law that the poor cannot.

In early capitalism, children worked alongside adults. At that time, just as today, most street criminals came from the marginal working class, as did these boys who worked in a glass works company in Indiana in 1908.

182 Chapter 6

Thinking Critically about Social Life Sexting: Getting on the Phone Isn’t What It Used to Be

“How can we impress them?” wondered the eighth- grade girls at a sleepover. “They don’t even know we’re interested.” The girls came up with an idea. They took off their clothes, covered themselves with whipped cream, and sent pictures to boys of themselves licking it off.

It seemed like a good idea at the time.

But not the next day. As the girls walked to class, the boys stood around leer- ing, laughing, and holding up the girls’ images on their cell phones.

The boys who received the images had forwarded them to their friends—who forwarded them to their friends, and so on.

And some photos were forwarded to the parents.

As they say, that’s when all hell broke loose.

If two people over the age of 18 send sexually explicit photos to one another, their sexting is a matter between the two. In contrast, those under the age of 18 are legally minors, and the law classifies their sexual photos as child pornography.

The legal consequences can be severe. Both those who send the photos and those who pass them on to others have possessed child pornography. Anyone convicted of this offense will have to register as a sex offender—and this lasts for decades!

“You’re getting excited about nothing,” is a common attitude of adolescents. “What’s the harm if we do this? Nude selfies don’t get anyone pregnant, and they don’t spread diseases. It’s a kind of safe sex.” (Sales 2016)

The law enforcers reply, “It’s not only stupid to show pictures of your genitals, but it’s also against the law.”

The general consensus seems to be that the law needs to catch up with this social change, that child pornography laws don’t really apply to minors who sext. A developing sentiment is that educational programs are more appropriate, maybe even community service.

Of course, we can’t overlook the more severe penalty— banning an offender from using cell phones for an entire year.

Teenagers might be naïve, but they are far from stupid. Many skirt the legal problem by sexting via Snapchat. Poof! After

being viewed, the photos vanish without leaving a trace.

For Your Consideration → Do you think that sexting by minors should be a private

matter, as it is for adults? Why or why not?

→ If you think there should be sanctions for sexting by minors, which ones?

→ Should the same sanctions apply for sexters age 13 and age 17? For nudity and for the depiction of sexual intercourse?

Sexting can be fun. It can also be dangerous. If a photo is of an underage person, or sent to one, an individual can be convicted of a sexual offense against a child. This man, Anthony Weiner, might have been mayor of New York City, but instead he is serving time in a federal prison for sexting a 15-year-old girl. He will also be required to register as a sex offender.

Street Crime and Prisons Let’s begin our overview of street crime and prisons with a stunning statistic: The United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population but about 25 percent of the world’s prisoners (Brayne 2013). One of 35 adults, 7 million Americans, is on probation or parole or in jail or prison (Statistical Abstract 2017:Tables 10, 375, 376, 381). No other country comes close to these totals. There are so many prisoners that, running out of places to keep them, the state and federal governments pay private companies to operate “private prisons.” About 126,000 Americans are locked up in these for-profit prisons (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2016).

To see how the number of prisoners has surged, look at Figure 6.2. As you can see, the number of prisoners peaked in 2009 and has dropped slightly since then. With the

Deviance and Social Control 183

Who are these prisoners? Let’s compare them with the U.S. population. As you look at Table 6.3, several things may strike you. Forty-three percent of all prisoners are younger than 35, and almost all the prisoners are men. Then there is this remarkable statistic: Although African Americans make up just 12.7 percent of the U.S. population, there are more African American prisoners than white prisoners.

Finally, note how marriage and education—two of the major ways that society “anchors” people into mainstream behavior—keep people out of prison. About half of prisoners have never married. And look at the power of education, a major compo- nent of social class. As I mentioned earlier, social class funnels some people into the criminal justice system while it diverts others away from it. You can see how people who drop out of high school have a high chance of ending up in prison—and how unlikely it is for a college graduate to have this unwelcome destination in life.

Figure 6.2 How Much Is Enough? The Explosion in the Number of U.S. Prisoners

0

1970 1980 1990 2010 2020

Year

2000

900

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

1,000

800

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

1,600

1,700

1,800

1,900

2,000

316,000

774,000

1,391,000

196,000

2009 was the peak of incarceration, with

1,616,000 prisoners

1,527,000

N u m

b e r

o f

fe d

e ra

l an

d s

ta te

p ri

so n e rs

(i n t

h o

u sa

n d

s)

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 1995:Table 349; 2014:Tables 2, 6, 363; 2017:Table 375; Carson and Anderson 2016. The broken line is the author’s estimate.

decline in violent crime, which we will review shortly, this decrease is likely to be per- manent. The broken line on this figure gives a rough indication of what the future might look like.

184 Chapter 6

Table 6.3 Comparing Prison Inmates with the U.S. Population

aBecause this column refers to Americans age 18 and over, the percentages will not agree with other totals in this book. For education, the percentages are based on Americans age 25 and over. bAge, race-ethnicity, and sex of prisoners are from Carson and Anderson while their marital status and education are from Sourcebook. cThe remainder after Sourcebook lists African American, white, and Hispanic; apparently includes Asian Americans, Native Americans, and people who claim two or more races. dThe marital status of prisoners applies only to inmates on death row. Data not available for other inmates.

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2013:Tables 6.0001, 6.45, 6.81; Carson and Anderson 2016:Tables 1, 3, 8; Statistical Abstract of the United States 2014:Tables 59, 243, 366; 2017:Tables 6, 10.

Characteristics Percentage of Prisoners with These Characteristics

Percentage of U.S. Population Age 18 and Over with These Characteristicsa

Ageb

18–24 11.3% 12.6%

25–34 32.1% 17.8%

35–44 26.7% 16.4%

45–54 18.9% 17.4%

55 and older 10.6% 35.8%

Race-Ethnicityb

African American 35.4% 12.7%

White 33.8% 64.6%

Latino 21.6% 15.5%

Otherc 9.1% 7.2%

Sexb

Male 92.7% 49.2%

Female 7.3% 50.8%

Marital Statusd

Never married 54.7% 27.6%

Married 21.9% 56.0%

Divorced and Widowed 23.0% 16.4%

Education

Less than high school 30.6% 12.4%

High school graduate 45.8% 30.4%

Some college 18.8% 26.3%

College graduate 4.8% 30.9%

Thinking Critically about Social Life What Should We Do About Repeat Offenders? The “Three-Strikes” Laws

In 1993, Polly Klaas, a 12-year old in Petaluma, Cali- fornia, had a sleepover at her home. A man on parole from rape, slipped in, tied up the girls, put pillow cases over their heads, and took Polly. Two months later, her partially nude body was found in a wooded area (Callahan 2013).

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, alarm and fear grew as violent crime soared. Amid outrage that violent criminals were being paroled from prison only to commit more violent crimes, the public demanded that “something be done.”

Politicians, also outraged at the crimes of repeat offenders like the man who abducted, raped, and killed Polly Klaas, passed “three-strikes” laws: Anyone convicted of a third felony would receive a mandatory sentence. In California, the third felony meant twenty-five years to life. Delaware’s version requires a life sentence for anyone convicted of a third violent crime (Albright 2016).

As intended, these laws have kept many repeat offenders off the street, but they also have had some unanticipated results:

For about the past twenty years or so, the United States has followed a “get tough” policy. One of the most significant changes was “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” laws, which have had unintended consequences, as you will see in the following Thinking Critically about Social Life.

Deviance and Social Control 185

The Decline of Violent Crime As you have seen, judges have put more and more people in prison, and legislators have passed the three-strikes laws. As these changes took place, the crime rate dropped sharply. Sociologists conclude that getting tough on criminals reduced crime, but they stress that this is only one of the reasons that violent crime dropped (Baumer and Wolff 2013). Other reasons include higher employment, a lower birth rate, an aging popula- tion, and even abortion. There are even those who say that the best explanation is the elimination of lead in gasoline (Drum 2013). We can rule out employment: When the unemployment rate shot up with the economic crisis, the lower crime rates continued (Oppel 2011).

When the FBI (2016) reported a one-year increase in violent crime, politicians and report- ers stoked fears of crime rising across the country. However, this increase could be just a blip in the statistics, or it could be the start of a longer-term increase. For this answer, we await future reports.

Recidivism If a goal of prisons is to teach their clients to stay away from crime, they are colos- sal failures. We can measure their failure by the recidivism rate—the percentage of released prisoners who are rearrested. Within just three years of their release, two out of

recidivism rate the percentage of released con- victs who are rearrested

• In California, a 64-year-old man who stole a package of cigarettes was sentenced to twenty-five-years-to-life in prison (Phillips 2013).

• Another California man, who passed a bad check for $94, was sentenced to twenty-five years to life (Jones 2008).

• In Florida, a man who stored cocaine in his girlfriend’s attic was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but his 27-year-old girlfriend, a mother of three, was sent to prison for life. The judge said the sentence was unjust, but since it was her third felony conviction he had no choice (Tierney 2012).

• In New York City, a man who was about to be sentenced for selling crack said to the judge, “I’m only 19. This is ter- rible.” He then hurled himself out of a courtroom window, plunging to his death sixteen stories below (Cloud 1998).

A sort of Oops! moment followed. This isn’t quite what was intended. The public had in mind someone who was convicted of violent crimes, such as a third brutal rape, being sent to prison for life. As in California, though, in some states the politicians neglected to limit the three- strikes to violent crimes.

Judges complained that the three-strikes laws bound their hands, limiting them from taking into consideration the circumstances that surround a crime. With the longer sentences taking many repeat offenders off the street, though, the public felt relieved, and there was little rush to change these laws. Eventually, the gap between justice and unfair sentencing became too great to ignore, and the states are now softening their three-strikes laws. Not incidentally, a political consideration in the face of budget crises is the huge costs of keeping offenders locked up.

For Your Consideration Apply the symbolic interactionist, functionalist, and conflict perspectives to the passage of the three-strikes laws and to their revision. → For symbolic interactionism, how does the meaning of

these laws depend on social location, especially where someone is in the criminal justice system?

→ For functionalism, what are some of the functions (bene- fits) of three-strikes laws? Their dysfunctions?

→ For the conflict perspective, which groups are in conflict? What different interests are represented, and who has the power to enforce their will on others?

Sequoia, 11, Floyd, 8, and Deonta, 6, hold photos of their father, Floyd Earl, who is in prison for 25 years to life for theft. California voters had approved the three-strikes law amid public furor over the 1993 kidnap, rape, and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas by Richard Allen Davis, a repeat offender on parole at the time.

186 Chapter 6

three (68 percent) are rearrested, and half are back in prison (Durose et al. 2014). Look- ing at Figures 6.3 and 6.4, it is safe to conclude that prisons fail to teach people that crime doesn’t pay.

Figure 6.4 Recidivism by Type of Crime

Car theft

The rearrest rates of those who had been convicted of:

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Illegal weapons

Illegal drugs

Drunk driving

Murder

Burglary

Of 405,000 prisoners released from U.S. prisons, what percentage were rearrested within three years?

78%

74%

73%

68%

48%

42%

Robbery 67%

Fraud 69%

Rape 51%

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Durose et al. 2014:Table 8.

Figure 6.3 How Fast They Return: Recidivism of U.S. Prisoners

60%

40%

20%

0

6 12 24 60

80%

18 30 36 42 48 54

Arrests

Back to prison

Months after release

100%

0

SOURCE: Modified by the author from Figure 1 of Durose et al. 2014.

The Death Penalty and Bias As you know, capital punishment, the death penalty, is the most extreme measure the state takes. As you also know, the death penalty arouses both impassioned opposition and support. Advances in DNA testing have given opponents of the death penalty a strong argument: Innocent people have been sent to death row, and some have been executed. Others are just as passionate about retaining the death penalty. They point to such crimes as those of the serial killers discussed in the following Down-to-Earth Sociology.

capital punishment the death penalty

Deviance and Social Control 187

Down-to-Earth Sociology The Killer Next Door: Serial Murderers in Our Midst Here is my experience with serial killers. As I was watching television one night, I was stunned by the images coming from Houston, Texas. Television cameras showed the police digging up dozens of bodies from under a boat storage shed. A few days later, I drove from Illinois, where I was teaching, to Houston, where 33-year-old Dean Corll had befriended Elmer Wayne Henley and David Brooks, two teenagers from broken homes. Together, they had killed twenty-seven boys. Elmer and David would pick up young hitchhikers and deliver them to Corll to rape and kill. They even brought him their neighbors and high school classmates.

On a city map, I plotted the locations of the homes of the local murder victims. Many clustered around the homes of the teenage killers. I then talked to one of Elmer’s neighbors, as he was painting his front porch. His 15-year-old son had gone to get a haircut one Saturday morning. That was the last time he saw his son alive. The police refused to investigate. They insisted that his son had run away.

I decided to spend my coming sabbatical writing a novel on this case. To get into the minds of the killers, I knew that I would have to “become” them day after day. Corll kept a piece of plywood in his apartment. In each of its corners, he had cut a hole. He and the boys would spread-eagle their handcuffed victims on this board and torture and rape them for hours. Sometimes, they would even pause to order pizza. I began to be concerned about immersing myself in torture and human degradation. Would I be the same person afterward? I decided not to write the book.

The three killers led double lives so successfully that their friends and family were unaware of their criminal activities. Henley’s mother swore to me that her son couldn’t possibly be guilty—he was a good boy. Some of Elmer’s high school friends told me that his being involved in homosexual rape and murder was ridiculous—he was interested only in girls. I was interviewing them in Henley’s bedroom, and for proof, they pointed to a pair of girls’ panties that were draped across a lamp shade.

Serial murder is killing three or more victims in separate events. The murders may occur over several days, weeks, or years. The elapsed time between murders distinguishes serial killers from mass murderers, those who do their killing all at once. Here are some infamous examples:

• During the 1960s and 1970s, Ted Bundy, shown here, raped and killed dozens of women in four states.

• Between 1974 and 1991, Dennis Rader killed ten people in Wichita, Kansas. Rader had written to the newspa-

pers, proudly calling himself the BTK (Bind, Torture, and Kill) strangler.

• In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Aileen Wuornos hitchhiked along Florida’s freeways. She killed seven men after having sex with them.

• In 2009, Anthony Sowell of Cleveland, Ohio, was discovered living with eleven decomposing bodies of women he had raped and strangled (Robbins 2009).

• The serial killer with the most victims appears to be Virginia de Souza, a physician in Brazil, who, between 2006 and 2014, is thought to have killed 320 patients to “free up the wards.” She injected her victims with muscle relaxants and then cut off their air supply (Feld- schreiber 2013).

Is serial murder more common now than it used to be? Not likely. In the past, police departments had

little communication with one another, and seldom did anyone connect killings in different jurisdictions. Today’s more efficient communications and investigative techniques, coupled with DNA matching, make it easier for the police to know when a serial killer is operating in an area. Part of the perception that there are more serial killers today is also due to ignorance of our history: In our frontier past, for example, serial killers went from ranch to ranch.

For Your Consideration → Do you think that serial killers should be given the death

penalty? Why or why not?

→ How does your social location influence your opinion on the death penalty?

Ted Bundy is shown here on trial in Miami for killing two women, both college students. He often used charm and wit to win the confidence of his victims. Like most serial killers, he blended in with society. Bundy was executed for his murders.

GEOGRAPHY It is clear that the death penalty is not administered evenly. Consider geography: You can see from the Social Map that where people commit murder greatly affects their chances of being put to death.

serial murder the killing of several victims in three or more separate events

188 Chapter 6

SOCIAL CLASS The death penalty also shows social class bias. As you know from news reports, it is rare for a rich person to be sentenced to death. Although the government does not collect statistics on social class and the death penalty, this common observation is borne out by the education of the prisoners on death row. Half of the prisoners on death row (48 percent) have not finished high school (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2014a).

GENDER There is also gender bias in the death penalty. Gender bias is so strong that it is almost unheard of for a woman to be sentenced to death, much less executed. Although women commit 9.6 percent of the murders, they make up only 2.0 percent of death row inmates (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2014a). Even on death row, the gender bias continues: Of those condemned to death, the state is much more likely to execute a man than a woman. As Figure 6.6 shows, of the 5,218 prisoners executed in the United States since 1930, only 46, a mere 0.9 percent, have been women. Rather than gender bias, perhaps the chances of being sentenced to death or being executed reflect the women’s previous offenses and the relative brutality of their murders. Not likely, but maybe. We need research to find out.

RACE–ETHNICITY At one point, racial–ethnic bias was so flagrant that the U.S. Supreme Court put a stop to the death penalty. Donald Partington (1965), a lawyer in Virginia, was shocked by the bias he saw in the courtroom, and he decided to document it. He found that 2,798 men had been convicted for rape and attempted rape in Virginia between 1908 and 1963—56 percent whites and 44 percent blacks. For rape, 41 men had been executed. For attempted rape, 13 had been executed. All those executed were black. Not one of the whites was executed.

After listening to evidence like this, in 1972 the Supreme Court ruled in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty, as applied, was unconstitutional. The execution of prison- ers stopped—but not for long. The states wrote new laws, and in 1977, they again began to execute prisoners. Since the death penalty was reinstituted, 57 percent of those put to death have been white, 34 percent African American, and 8 percent Latinos (Statistical Abstract 2017:Table 379).

Figure 6.5 Executions in the United States

States with death penalty

States without death penalty

States with death penalty that have not executed anyone

Highest Number of Executions

1. Texas (518)

2. Oklahoma (111)

3. Virginia (110)

AL 56

AK 0

AZ 37 AR

27

CA 13

CO 1

CT 1

DE 16

DC 0

FL 89

GA 55

HI 0

ID 3

IL 12

IN 20

IA 0

KS 0

KY 3

LA 28

ME 0

MD 5

MA 0 MI 0

MN 0

MS 21

MO 80

MT 3

NE 3

NV 12

NH 0

NJ 0

NM 1

NY 0

NC 43

ND 0

OH 53

OK 111

OR 2

PA 3

RI 0

SC 43

SD 3

TN 6

TX 518

UT 7

VT 0

VA 110

WA 5

WV 0

WI 0

WY 1

NOTE: Executions since 1977, when the death penalty was restored. The executions in states without the death penalty occurred before those states banned the death penalty.

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Bureau of Justice Statistics 2014b. Statistical Abstract of the United States 2017:Table 379.

Figure 6.6 Who Gets Executed? Gender Bias in Capital Punishment

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2017:Table 379.

99.1%

0.9%

46 Women

5,172 Men

Deviance and Social Control 189

It is difficult to say precisely what role racial–ethnic bias plays in these totals, especially because they reflect the much higher murder rate of blacks. Yet, here are two indications of how real racial bias is in the criminal justice system: In general, white jurors are more likely to convict black defendants than white defendants (Anwar et al. 2012). In murder trials, if the victim is white and the accused is black, juries are more likely to impose the death pen- alty than if the accused is white and the victim is black (Baumgartner et al. 2015).

The official responses to deviance that we have discussed assume that the state (gov- ernment) is functioning. What happens when the state breaks down? Let’s consider this in the following Thinking Critically about Social Life.

Thinking Critically about Social Life Vigilantes: When the State Breaks Down

Residents of a town outside Veracruz, Mexico, were surprised one morning when they awoke to see the bodies of nine men and two women. The bodies, nude or partially clothed and bound at the ankles, showed the scars of torture. On one of the bodies was this sign: “You want a war, you’ll get a war.” (Woody 2017)

And the war is on.

A national meeting of states attorneys was to be held in a ritzy convention center in the capital city of the state of Veracruz. Two days before the meeting, a convoy of gunmen dressed in black drove up to the convention center. There they abandoned two trucks. In the trucks were the bodies of 35 men and women (de Cordoba 2017).

Many of us chafe under the coercive nature of the state: the IRS, Homeland Security, the NSA, the many police agencies from the CIA and FBI to who knows how many other groups that go by three capital letters. Little cameras litter society, seemingly recording our every move.

We certainly have given up a lot of freedoms—and we are likely to give up many more in the name of security. We can chafe and complain all we want, but as stressed in the preceding chapter, this wave of surveillance has tremendous momentum and is seemingly unstoppable.

There is another side to what is happening. The guns that the many uniformed and plainclothes men and women are carrying can also be aimed at us. But for now, they bring security. They indicate that the state is operating; perhaps overreaching, but functioning quite well.

What happens when the state fails, when the men and women who are authorized to carry guns don’t protect citizens from the bad guys who carry guns?

One reaction is vigilantism, people taking the law into their own hands. Remember what we call the Wild West? Citizens armed themselves, formed posses, chased the bad guys, and dispensed quick justice at the end of a rope. You’ve seen the movies.

And something like this is happening in Mexico. From the local to the national, the Mexican government

has failed. The drug lords have infiltrated the police and the politicians, and not just the lower levels. The most wanted drug lord in Mexico, “El Chapo” Guzman, who headed the feared Sinaloa cartel, used to drive openly into the state capital in an armored SUV. Guzman would even meet with the state governor (Johnson 2014).

It is difficult to overstate the extent of corruption in Mexico, but let’s add a couple more shocking findings. The man who directed Mexico’s national drug enforcement agency was on the drug lords’ payroll. Army generals take money to protect drug deals. A secret billion-dollar bank account was traced to the brother of Mexico’s president. (But why rush to judgment? Perhaps some taxi driver gave the president’s brother a billion-dollar tip because he was a good passenger.) In Gomez Palacio, prison administrators let prisoners out so they could kill members of a rival drug gang. They even loaned the prisoners their guns and cars to do the killing. Afterward, the men dutifully returned to the prison, turned in the cars and guns, and went back to their cells. Incredible, I know. But true.

Not all of Mexico’s officials are corrupt, and the drug war—between the state and the cartels, as well as between rival cartels—has grown in ferocity. The state uses Black Hawk helicopters to fire on houses, and the cartels have used high powered weapons to shoot one of them down (Woody 2017). Some surmise that in its frustration the Mexican government has become more interested in killing drug dealers than in arresting them. One thing is evident: Despite the arrest or killing of many top leaders, the cartels continue to thrive.

Shooting deaths by the police, the army, and the gangsters—with it sometimes difficult to distinguish which is which—run between 120,000 and 175,000 (de Cordoba 2017; Linthicum 2017). In Iguala, a town in the state of Guerrero, the mayor is accused of ordering his police to arrest forty-three college students and turn them over to the local drug cartel to be killed. The cartels have kidnapped so many young men and women that mothers of missing children have formed groups to search for hidden graves.

(continued)

190 Chapter 6

The Trouble with Official Statistics We must be cautious when it comes to official crime statistics. According to official statistics, working-class boys are more delinquent than middle-class boys. Yet, as we have seen, who actually gets arrested for what is influenced by social class, a point that has far-reaching implications. As symbolic interactionists point out, the police follow a symbolic system as they enforce the law. Ideas of “typical criminals” and “typical good citizens” permeate their work. The more a suspect matches their stereotypes of a lawbreaker (which they call “criminal profiles”), the more likely that person is to be arrested. Police discretion, the decision whether to arrest someone or even to ignore a matter, is a routine part of police work. Official crime statistics reflect these and many other biases.

Crime statistics do not have an objective, independent existence. They are not like oranges that you pick out in a grocery store. Rather, they are a human creation. If the police enforce laws strictly, crime statistics go up. Loosen the enforcement, and crime statistics go down. New York City provides a remarkable example. To keep their crime statistics low, the police keep some crime victims waiting in the police station for hours. Some victims give up and leave, and the crimes don’t enter official records. In other cases, the police listen to crime victims but make no written record of the crime (Baker and Goldstein 2011). Various forms of underreporting probably occur in most police departments.

police discretion the practice of the police, in the normal course of their duties, to either arrest or ticket someone for an offense or to overlook the matter

In the state of Veracruz, these despairing women found a mass burial site that contained 249 bodies (de Cordoba 2017).

The Mexican people have begun to take the law into their own hands. In the state of Guerrero, country folk put on masks, grabbed their old hunting rifles, raided the homes of drug dealers, and put them in makeshift jails. Blockading the roads leading to their little towns, they won’t let drug dealers, or any strangers, in. This includes the federal police, the state police, and the army, all of which they distrust. The official “enforcers of the law” are too corrupt, they say. They trust only the neighbors they grew up with.

With the state claiming the right to use violence only for itself, a conflict between the vigilantes and the state is inevitable. And it has begun. In the state of Michoacan, the people took up arms against the Knights Templar, the drug cartel that is terrorizing their area. As the citizen militias were gaining the upper hand, the military stepped in to stop them. This confused the people, who asked why the military was trying to disarm them and not the drug cartel. “First we must disarm you, so there won’t be bloodshed,” the military replied. “Then we can go after the drug dealers.”

The vigilantes asked if they could accompany the police and military as they pursue the drug cartel. The reply, “No, that’s our job. You go home.”

This didn’t make sense to the people, and they resisted. The military killed several of the citizens.

The people still don’t understand. The state isn’t doing its job, their lives are in danger, and the local citizens think they know how to take care of the problem.

The reaction of the local police, the honest ones? “Maybe the citizens can do something about the problem. We

can’t. If we try, the drug dealers will go to our homes and kill our families. They don’t know who these masked men are.”

Based on several sources, including Sheridan 1998; Malkin 2010; Casey 2013; de Cordoba and Montes 2014; Perez and de Cordoba 2014; Althaus and de Cordoba 2016; Woody 2017.

For Your Consideration → We don’t yet know the consequences of this incipient

vigilante movement in Mexico. But what else can the citizens do?

→ How much freedom are you willing to give up to have security?

→ Where is a balance between personal freedom and state security?

“Enough is enough!” This physician (center) in Michoacan, Mexico, organized vigilantes to replace the corrupt police. The police arrested him for carrying illegal guns.

Deviance and Social Control 191

As a personal example, someone took my mailbox (rural, located on the street). When I called and reported the theft, a police officer arrived promptly. He was incredibly friendly. He looked around and spotted the mailbox in the ditch. He retrieved it and then personally restored it to its post. He even used his tools to screw it back on. He then said, “I’m chalk- ing this one up to the wind.” I didn’t object. I knew what he was doing. No crime to report, no paperwork for him, and the area has one less incident to go into the crime statistics.

The Medicalization of Deviance: Mental Illness When the woman drove her car into the river, drowning her two small children strapped to their little car seats, people said that she had “gone nuts,” “went bonkers,” and just plain “lost it.”

NEITHER MENTAL NOR ILLNESS? When people cannot find a satisfying explanation for why someone does something weird or is “like that,” they often say that a “sickness in the head” is causing the unacceptable behavior. To medicalize something is to make it a medical matter, to classify it as a form of illness that properly belongs in the care of physicians. For the past hundred years or so, especially since the time of Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), the Viennese physician who founded psychoanalysis, there has been a growing tendency toward the medicalization of deviance. In this view, deviance, includ- ing crime, is a sign of mental sickness. Rape, murder, stealing, cheating, and so on are external symptoms of internal disorders, consequences of a confused or tortured mind, one that should be treated by mental health experts.

Thomas Szasz (1920–2012), a renegade in his profession of psychiatry, disagreed. He (1996, 1998, 2010) argued that what are called mental illnesses are neither mental nor ill- nesses. They are simply problem behaviors. Szasz broke these behaviors for which we don’t have a ready explanation into two causes: physical illness and learned deviance.

Some behaviors that are called “mental illnesses” have physical causes. That is, something in an individual’s brain leads to unusual perceptions or behavior. For exam- ple, a chemical imbalance in the brain can cause depression. The individual’s behaviors— crying, long-term sadness, or lack of interest in family, work, school, or grooming—are symptoms of this physical problem, one that can be treated by drugs.

Another example is attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a “mental illness” that seems to have come out of nowhere (Saul 2014). As Szasz said, “No one explains where this disease came from or why it didn’t exist 50 years ago. No one is able to diagnose it with objective tests.” A teacher or parent complains that a child is mis- behaving, and a psychiatrist or doctor says the child is suffering from ADD. Misbehav- ing children have been a problem throughout history, but now, with doctors looking to expand their territory, this problem behavior has become a sign of “mental illness” that they can treat.

All of us have troubles. Some of us face a constant barrage of problems as we go through life. Most of us continue the struggle, perhaps encouraged by relatives and friends and motivated by job, family responsibilities, religious faith, or life goals. Even when the odds seem hopeless, we carry on, not perfectly, but as best we can.

Some people, however, fail to cope well with life’s challenges. Overwhelmed, they become depressed, uncooperative, or hostile. Some strike out at others, while, in Merton’s term, others become retreatists and withdraw into their homes, refusing to come out. These may be inappropriate ways of coping, stressed Szasz, but they are behaviors, not mental illnesses. Szasz concluded that “mental illness” is a myth foisted on a naive public. Our medical profession uses pseudoscientific jargon that people don’t understand so

medicalization of deviance to make deviance a medical matter, a symptom of some underlying illness that needs to be treated by physicians

People whose behaviors violate norms are sometimes called mentally ill. “Why else would they do such things?” is a common response to deviant behaviors that we don’t understand. Mental illness is a label that contains the assumption that there is something wrong “within” people that “causes” their disapproved behavior. The surprise with this man, who changed his legal name to “Scary Guy,” is that he speaks at schools across the country, where he promotes acceptance, awareness, love, and understanding.

192 Chapter 6

it can expand its area of control and force nonconforming people to accept society’s definitions of “normal.”

Szasz’s controversial claims force us to look anew at the forms of deviance that we usually refer to as mental illness. To explain behavior that people find bizarre, he directs our attention not to disorders deep within the “subconscious” but, instead, to how people learn those behaviors. To ask, “What is the origin of someone’s inappropriate or bizarre behavior?” then becomes similar to asking “Why do some women steal?” “Why do some men rape?” “Why do some teenagers cuss their parents and stalk out of the room?” The answers depend on those people’s particular experiences in life, not on an illness in their mind. Some sociologists find Szasz’s renegade analysis refreshing because it points us away from illnesses of the mind to social experiences. Others, however, are uncomfortable with it, and some disagree wholeheartedly. Regardless of these disagreements, Szasz’s analysis applies not just to mental illness but also to deviance in general.

THE HOMELESS MENTALLY ILL

Jamie was sitting on a low wall surrounding the landscaped courtyard of an exclusive restaurant. She appeared unaware of the stares elicited by her layers of mismatched cloth- ing, her matted hair and dirty face, and the shopping cart that overflowed with her mea- ger possessions.

After sitting next to Jamie for a few minutes, I saw her point to the street and concen- trate, slowly moving her finger horizontally. I asked her what she was doing.

“I’m directing traffic,” she replied. “I control where the cars go. Look, that one turned right there,” she said, now withdrawing her finger.

“Really?” I said. After a while she confided that her cart talked to her. “Really?” I said again. “Yes,” she replied. “You can hear it, too.” At that, she pushed the shopping cart a bit. “Did you hear that?” she asked. When I shook my head, she demonstrated again. Then it hit me. She was referring to

the squeaking wheels! I nodded. When I left Jamie, she was pointing a finger toward the sky, for, as she told me, she

also controlled the flight of airplanes.

To most of us, Jamie’s behavior and thinking are bizarre. They simply do not match any reality we know. Could you or I become like Jamie?

Suppose for a bitter moment that you are homeless and have to live on the streets. You have no money, no place to sleep, no bathroom. You do not know if you are going to eat, much less where. You have no friends or anyone you can trust. You live in con- stant fear of being beaten and raped. Do you think this might be enough to drive you over the edge?

Consider just the problems of not having a place to bathe. (Shelters are often so dan- gerous that many homeless people prefer to sleep in public settings.) At first, you try to wash in the restrooms of gas stations, bars, the bus station, or a shopping center. But you are dirty, and people stare when you enter and call the management when they see you wash your feet in the sink. You are thrown out and told in no uncertain terms never to come back. So you get dirtier and dirtier. Eventually, you come to think of being dirty as a fact of life. Soon, maybe, you don’t even care. The stares no longer bother you—at least not as much.

No one will talk to you, and you withdraw more and more into yourself. You begin to build a fantasy life. You talk openly to yourself. People stare, but so what? They stare anyway. Besides, they are no longer important to you.

Jamie might be mentally ill. Some organic problem, such as a chemical imbalance in her brain, might underlie her behavior. But perhaps not. How long would it take you to exhibit bizarre behaviors if you were homeless—and hopeless? The point is that living on

Deviance and Social Control 193

the streets can cause mental illness—or whatever we want to label socially inappropriate behaviors that we find difficult to clas- sify. Homelessness and mental illness are reciprocal: Just as “mental illness” can cause homelessness, so the trials of being homeless, of living on cold, hostile streets, can lead to unusual thinking and behaviors.

The Need for a More Humane Approach As Durkheim (1895/1964:68) pointed out, deviance is inevitable—even in a group of saints.

Imagine a society of saints, a perfect cloister of exemplary indi- viduals. Crimes, properly so called, will there be unknown; but faults which appear invisible to the layman will create there the same scandal that the ordinary offense does in ordinary so- ciety.

With deviance inevitable, one measure of a society is how it treats its deviants. Our prisons certainly don’t say much good about U.S. society. Filled with the poor, unedu- cated, and unskilled, they are warehouses of the unwanted. White-collar criminals continue to get by with a slap on the wrist while street criminals are punished severely. Some deviants, who fail to meet current standards of admission to either prison or mental hospitals, take refuge in shelters, as well as in cardboard boxes tucked away in urban recesses. Although no one has the answer, it does not take much reflection to see that there are more humane approaches than these.

Because deviance is inevitable, the larger issues are to find ways to protect people from deviant behaviors that are harmful to themselves or others, to tolerate behaviors that are not harmful, and to develop systems of fairer treatment for deviants. In the absence of fundamental changes that would bring about an equitable society, most efforts are, unfortunately, like putting a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound. What we need is a more humane social system, one that would prevent the social inequalities that are the focus of the next four chapters.

Mental illness and drug/alcohol addiction are common among the homeless. This photo was taken in Miami, Florida, but it could have been taken in any large city in the United States.

Summary and Review What Is Deviance? 6.1 Explain what deviance is, why it is relative,

and why we need norms; also summarize the types of sanctions.

Deviance (the violation of norms) is relative. What people consider deviant varies from one culture to another and from group to group within the same society. As symbolic interactionists stress, it is not the act but the reactions to the act that make something deviant. All groups develop systems of social control to punish deviants—those who violate their norms.

Competing Explanations of Deviance: Sociobiology, Psychology, and Sociology 6.2 Contrast sociobiological, psychological,

and sociological explanations of deviance.

How do sociological and individualistic explanations of deviance differ?

To explain why people deviate, sociobiologists and psychol- ogists look for reasons within the individual, such as genetic predispositions or personality disorders. Sociologists, in contrast, look for explanations outside the individual, in so- cial experiences.

194 Chapter 6

The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective 6.3 Apply the symbolic interactionist perspective

to deviance by explaining differential association, control, and labeling.

How do symbolic interactionists explain deviance?

Symbolic interactionists have developed several theories to ex- plain deviance such as crime (the violation of norms that are written into law). According to differential association theory, people learn to deviate by associating with others. According to control theory, each of us is propelled toward deviance, but most of us conform because of an effective system of inner and outer controls. People who have less effective controls deviate.

Labeling theory focuses on how labels (names, reputa- tions) help to funnel people into or divert them away from deviance. People often use techniques of neutralization to deflect social norms.

The Functionalist Perspective 6.4 Apply the functionalist perspective to deviance

by explaining how deviance can be functional for society, how mainstream values can produce deviance (strain theory), and how social class is related to crime (illegitimate opportunities).

How do functionalists explain deviance?

Functionalists point out that deviance, including criminal acts, is functional for society. Functions include affirming norms and promoting social unity and social change. According to strain theory, societies socialize their members into desir- ing cultural goals. Many people are unable to achieve these goals in socially acceptable ways—that is, by institutionalized means. Deviants, then, are people who either give up on the goals or use disapproved means to attain them. Merton identi- fied five types of responses to cultural goals and institutional- ized means: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion. Because of illegitimate opportunity structures, peo- ple have different access to illegal means of achieving goals.

The Conflict Perspective 6.5 Apply the conflict perspective to deviance by ex-

plaining how social class is related to the criminal justice system and how the criminal justice system is oppressive.

How do conflict theorists explain deviance?

Conflict theorists take the position that the group in power imposes its definitions of deviance on other groups. From this perspective, the law is an instrument of oppression used by the powerful to maintain their position of privilege. The ruling class, which developed the criminal justice sys- tem, uses it to punish the crimes of the poor while diverting its own criminal activities away from this punitive system.

Reactions to Deviance 6.6 Be able to discuss street crime and imprisonment,

the three-strikes laws, the decline in violent crime, recidivism, bias in the death penalty, the medicalization of deviance, and the need for a more humane approach.

What are common reactions to deviance in the United States?

In following a “get-tough” policy, the United States has im- prisoned millions of people. African Americans and Latinos make up a disproportionate percentage of U.S. prisoners. The death penalty shows biases by geography, social class, gender, and race–ethnicity.

Are official statistics on crime reliable?

The conclusions of both symbolic interactionists (that the police operate with a large measure of discretion) and conflict theorists (that a power elite controls the legal sys- tem) indicate that we must be cautious when using crime statistics.

What is the medicalization of deviance?

The medical profession has attempted to medicalize many forms of deviance, claiming that they represent mental ill- nesses. Thomas Szasz disagreed, asserting that these are problem behaviors, not mental illnesses. The situation of homeless people indicates that problems in living can lead to bizarre behavior and thinking.

What is a more humane approach?

Deviance is inevitable, so the larger issues are to find ways to protect people from deviance that harms themselves and oth- ers, to tolerate deviance that is not harmful, and to develop systems of fairer treatment for deviants.

Thinking Critically about Chapter 6 1. Select some deviance with which you re personally

familiar. (It does not have to be your own—it can be something that someone you know did.) Choose one of the three theoretical perspectives to explain what happened.

2. As explained in the text, deviance can be mild. Recall some instance in which you broke a social rule in

dress, etiquette, or speech. What was the reaction? Why do you think people reacted like that? What was your response to their reactions?

3. What do you think should be done about the U.S. crime problem? What sociological theories support your view?

The Venetians Taking Riva sul Garda from the Milanese in 1440, ca. 1570, Jacopo Robusti, (fresco)

Chapter 7

Global Stratification

Let’s contrast two “average” families from around the world: For Getu Mulleta, 33, and his wife, Zenebu, 28, of rural Ethiopia, life is a constant struggle

to avoid starvation. They and their seven children live in a 320-square-foot manure-plastered hut with no electricity, gas, or running water. They have a radio, but the battery is dead. The family farms teff, a grain, and survives on $130 a year.

The Mulletas’ poverty is not due to a lack of hard work. Getu works about eighty hours a week, while Zenebu puts in even more hours. Housework for Zenebu includes fetching water, cleaning animal stables, and making fuel pellets out of cow dung for the open fire over which she cooks the family’s food. Like other Ethiopian women, she eats after the men.

In Ethiopia, the average male can expect to live to age 48, the average female to 50. The Mulletas’ most valuable possession is their oxen. Their wishes for the future: more

animals, better seed, and a second set of clothing. Springfield, Illinois, is home to the Kellys—Rick, 36, Patti, 34, Julie, 10, and Michael, 7.

The Kellys live in a four-bedroom, 2½-bath, 2,687-square-foot ranch-style house with a fireplace, central heating and air conditioning, a basement, and a two-car garage. Their home is equipped with a refrigerator, freezer, washing machine, clothes dryer, dishwasher, garbage disposal, vacuum cleaner, food processor, microwave, and a convection stovetop and oven.

Learning Objectives

After you have read this chapter, you should be able to:

7.1 Compare and contrast slavery (including bonded labor), caste, estate, and class systems of social stratification.

7.2 Contrast the views of Marx and Weber on what determines social class.

7.3 Contrast the functional and conflict views of why social stratification is universal.

7.4 Discuss the ways that elites keep themselves in power.

7.5 Contrast social stratification in Great Britain and the former Soviet Union.

7.6 Compare social stratification in the Most Industrialized Nations, the Industrializing Nations, and the Least Industrialized Nations.

7.7 Discuss how colonialism and world system theory explain how the world’s nations became stratified.

7.8 Explain how neocolonialism, multinational corporations, and technology help to maintain global stratification.

7.9 Identify strains in today’s system of global stratification.

They live in a 320-square- foot manure-plastered hut

196

Global Stratification 197

They also own computers, cell phones, color televisions, several digital cameras, an iPod, an iPad, a printer-scanner-fax machine, blow dryers, a juicer, an espresso coffee maker, a pickup truck, and an SUV.

Rick works forty hours a week as a cable splicer for a telephone company. Patti teaches school part-time. Together they make $66,632, plus benefits. The Kellys can choose from among dozens of superstocked supermarkets. They spend $5,765 for food they eat at home, and another $3,876 eating out, a total of 14 percent of their annual income.

In the United States, the average life expectancy is 77 for males, 82 for females. On the Kellys’ wish list are a solar car with Internet connection, a phablet, an Ultra

High-Definition bendable TV, a virtual-reality simulator, an in-ground heated swimming pool, a boat, a motor home, an ATV, and a lakeside cabin. (Menzel 1994; Statistical Abstract 2017:Tables 112, 714, 723, 995).

Systems of Social Stratification 7.1 Compare and contrast slavery (including bonded labor), caste, estate,

and class systems of social stratification.

Some of the world’s nations are wealthy, others poor, and some in between. This division of nations, as well as the layering of groups of people within a nation, is called social stratification. Social stratification is one of the most significant topics we will discuss in this book. As you saw in the opening vignette, social stratification pro- foundly affects our life chances—from our access to material possessions to the age at which we die.

Social stratification also affects the way we think about life. Look at the photo of the Mulleta family in Ethiopia. If you were a parent of this family, you would expect hunger

The Mulleta family of Ethiopia, described in the opening vignette, displaying all of their possessions.

198 Chapter 7

to be a part of life and would not expect all of your children to survive. You would also be illiterate and would assume that your children would be as well. In contrast, if you are an average U.S. parent, you expect your children not only to survive but also to be well fed, not only to be able to read but also to go to college. You can see that social stratification brings with it not just material things but also ideas of what we can expect out of life.

Social stratification is a system in which groups of people are divided into layers according to their relative property, power, and prestige. It is important to emphasize that social stratification does not refer to individuals. It is a way of ranking large groups of people into a hierarchy according to their relative privileges.

It is also important to note that every society stratifies its members. Some societies have more inequality than others, but social stratification is universal. In addition, in every society of the world, gender is a basis for stratifying people. On the basis of their gender, people are either allowed or denied access to the good things offered by their society.

Let’s consider four major systems of social stratification: slavery, caste, estate, and class.

Slavery Slavery, whose essential characteristic is that some individuals own other people, has been com- mon throughout history. The Old Testament even lays out rules for how owners should treat their slaves. So does the Quran. The Romans had slaves, as did the Africans and Greeks. In classical Greece and Rome, slaves did the work, freeing citizens to engage in politics and the arts. Slavery was most widespread in agricultural societies and least common among nomads, especially hunters and gatherers (Landtman 1938/1968; Rowthorn et al. 2011).

Let’s examine the causes and conditions of slavery. You probably will be surprised to learn how slavery has varied around the world.

C A U S E S O F S L AV E RY C o n t r a r y t o p o p u l a r assumption, slavery was usually based not on rac- ism but on one of three other factors. The first was debt. In some societies, creditors would enslave people who could not pay their debts. The sec- ond was crime. Instead of being killed, a murderer or thief might be enslaved by the victim’s family as compensation for their loss. The third was war. When one group of people conquered another, they often enslaved some of the vanquished. Historian Gerda Lerner (1986) notes that women were the first people enslaved through warfare. When tribal men raided another group, they killed the men, raped the women, and then brought the women back as slaves. The women were valued for sexual purposes, for reproduction, and for their labor.

Roughly 2,500 years ago, when Greece was but a collection of city-states, slavery was common. A city that became powerful and conquered another city would enslave some of the vanquished. Both slaves and slaveholders were Greek. Similarly, when Rome became the supreme power of the Mediterra- nean area about two thousand years ago, following the custom of the time, the Romans enslaved some of the Greeks they had conquered. More educated than their conquerors, some of these slaves served as tutors in Roman homes. Slavery, then, was a sign of debt, of crime, or of defeat in battle. It was not a sign that the slave was viewed as inherently inferior.

social stratification the division of large numbers of people into layers according to their relative property, power, and prestige; applies to both nations and to people within a nation, society, or other group

slavery a form of social stratification in which some people own other people

I have read a lot about slavery, but I did not know that slaves were ever offered as prizes in raffles. You might also note that top billing in this 1800s poster from Missouri goes to a horse.

Global Stratification 199

CONDITIONS OF SLAVERY The conditions of slavery have varied widely around the world. In some places, slavery was temporary. Slaves of the Israelites were set free in the year of jubilee, which occurred every fifty years. Roman slaves ordinarily had the right to buy themselves out of slavery. They knew what their purchase price was, and some were able to meet this price by striking a bargain with their owners and selling their services to oth- ers. In most instances, however, slavery was a lifelong condition. Some criminals, for exam- ple, became slaves when they were given life sentences as oarsmen on Roman warships. There they served until death, which often came quickly to those in this exhausting service.

Slavery was not necessarily inheritable. In most places, the children of slaves were slaves themselves. But in some instances, the child of a slave who served a rich family might even be adopted by that family, becoming an heir who bore the family name along with the other sons or daughters of the household. In ancient Mexico, the children of slaves were always free (Landtman 1938/1968:271).

Slaves were not necessarily powerless and poor. In almost all instances, slaves owned no property and had no power. Among some groups, however, slaves could accumulate property and even rise to high positions in the community. Occasionally, a slave might even become wealthy, loan money to the master, and, while still a slave, own slaves him- self or herself (Landtman 1938/1968). This, however, was rare.

BONDED LABOR IN THE NEW WORLD A gray area between slavery and contract labor is bonded labor, also called indentured service. People who wanted to start a new life in the American colonies but could not pay for their passage across the ocean would arrange for a ship captain to transport them on credit. When they arrived, wealthy colonists would pay the captain for the voyage, and these penniless people would become the colonists’ servants for a set number of years. During this period, the servants were required by law to serve their masters. If they ran away, they became outlaws who were hunted down and forcibly returned. At the end of their period of indenture, they were free to work and to live where they chose (Main 1965; Handler and Reilly 2017).

SLAVERY IN THE NEW WORLD When there were not enough inden- tured servants to meet the growing need for labor in the American col- onies, some colonists tried to enslave Native Americans. This attempt failed, in part because Indians who escaped knew how to survive in the wilderness and were able to make their way back to their tribes. The colonists then turned to Africans, who were being brought to North and South America by the Dutch, English, Portuguese, and Spanish.

Because slavery has a broad range of causes, some analysts conclude that racism didn’t lead to slavery but, rather, that slavery led to racism. To defend slavery, U.S. slave owners developed an ideology, beliefs that justify social arrangements, making those arrangements seem necessary and fair. They developed the view that their slaves were inferior. Some even said that they were not fully human. In short, the colonists wove elaborate justifica- tions for slavery, built on the presumed superiority of their own group.

To make slavery even more profitable, slave states passed laws that made slavery inheritable; that is, the babies born to slaves became the prop- erty of the slave owners (Stampp 1956). These children could be sold, bartered, or traded. To strengthen their control, slave states passed laws making it illegal for slaves to hold meetings or to be away from the mas- ter’s premises without carrying a pass (Lerner 1972). Sociologist W. E. B. Du Bois (1935/1992:12) noted that “gradually the entire white South became an armed camp to keep Negroes in slavery and to kill the black rebel.”

The Civil War did not end legal discrimination. For example, until 1954, many states operated separate school systems for blacks and whites. Until the 1950s, in order to keep the races from “mixing,” it was

bonded labor (indentured service) a contractual system in which someone sells his or her body (services) for a specified period of time in an arrangement very close to slavery, except that it is entered into voluntarily

ideology beliefs about the way things ought to be that justify social arrangements

During my research in India, I interviewed this 8-year-old girl. Mahashury is a bonded laborer who was exchanged by her parents for a 2,000 rupee loan (about $14). To repay the loan, Mahashury must do construction work for one year. She will receive one meal a day and one set of clothing for the year. Because this centuries-old practice is now illegal, the master bribes Indian officials, who inform him when they are going to inspect the construction site. He then hides his bonded laborers. I was able to interview and photograph Mahashury because her master was absent the day I visited the construction site.

200 Chapter 7

illegal in Mississippi for a white and an African American to sit together on the same seat of a car! There was no outright ban on blacks and whites being in the same car, however, so whites could employ African American chauffeurs.

SLAVERY TODAY Slavery continues to rear its ugly head in several parts of the world (Crane 2012). The Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Niger, and Sudan have a long history of slav- ery, and not until the 1980s was slavery made illegal in Mauritania and Sudan (Ayittey 1998). It took until 2003 for slavery to be banned in Niger, where it still continues (Mwiti 2013). ISIS practices slavery. After killing the adult men, “infidels” to them, they sell the girls and women as sex slaves, a reward to their fighters (Callimachi 2016).

The enslavement of children for work and sex is a problem in Africa, Asia, and South America (Trafficking in Persons Report 2017). A unique form of child slavery in some Mid- east countries involved buying little boys around the ages of 4 or 6 to race camels. Their screams of terror were thought to make the camels run faster. In Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which recently banned this practice, robots shaped like little boys have replaced the children (Hauser 2017).

Caste The second system of social stratification is caste. In a caste system, birth determines sta- tus, which is lifelong. Someone who is born into a low-status group will always have low status, no matter how much that person may accomplish in life. In sociological terms, a caste system is built on ascribed status (discussed in Chapter 4). Achieved status cannot change an individual’s place in this system.

Societies with this form of stratification try to make certain that the boundaries between castes remain firm. They practice endogamy, marriage within their own group, prohibiting the marriage of members of different castes. Rules about ritual pollution also keep contact between castes to a minimum. Touching someone from an inferior caste, for example, makes a member of the superior caste unclean.

INDIA’S RELIGIOUS CASTES India provides the best example of a caste system. Based not on race but on religion, India’s caste system has existed for almost three thousand years (Chandra 1993; Kapila 2017). Look at Figure 7.1, which shows India’s four main castes. These castes are subdivided into about three thousand subcastes, or jati. Each jati specializes in a particular occupation. For example, one subcaste washes clothes, another sharpens knives, and yet another repairs shoes.

The lowest group listed in Figure 7.1, the Dalit, make up India’s “outcastes,” mean- ing they are considered to be so low that they are outside the caste system. (They are not “cast out”; they are outside the caste system.) The Dalit used to be called the “untouch- ables.” If a Dalit touches someone other than a Dalit, that person becomes unclean (or contaminated). To restore purity, that person must follow ablution, or washing rituals.

An untouchable summed up his situation this way:

At the tea stalls, we have separate cups to drink from, chipped and caked with dirt. We have to walk for 15 minutes to carry water to our homes, because we’re not allowed to use the taps in the village that the upper castes use. We’re not allowed into temples. When I attended school, my friends and I were forced to sit outside the class- room. The upper caste children would not allow us even to touch the football they played with. We played with stones instead. (Guru and Sidhva 2001)

The Indian government formally abol- ished the caste system in 1949. However, these

caste system a form of social stratification in which birth determines people’s statuses, which are lifelong

endogamy the practice of marrying within one’s own group

SOURCE: By the author.

Brahmin Priests and teachers

Kshatriya Rulers and soldiers

Vaishya Merchants and traders

Shudra Peasants and laborers

Dalit The outcastes; degrading

or polluting labor

Figure 7.1 India’s Caste System

Global Stratification 201

centuries-old practices continue, and the caste system remains part of everyday life in India (Kapila 2017). The ceremonies people follow at births, marriages, and deaths are dictated by caste (Chandra 1993). Caste is so ingrained in the Indian mind that when couples visit a sperm bank, they insist on knowing the caste of the donor (Tewary 2012).

India’s caste system is changing, but only gradually. The federal government began an affirmative action plan that has increased education and jobs for the lower castes. Slowly, the caste system is giving way, being replaced by a social class system based on material wealth (Sankaran 2013).

SOUTH AFRICA In South Africa, Europeans of Dutch descent, a numerical minority called Afrikaners, used to control the government, the police, and the military. They used these sources of power to enforce a system called apartheid (ah-PAR-tate), the separation of the races. Everyone was classified by law into one of four groups: Europeans (whites), Africans (blacks), Coloureds (mixed races), and Asians. These classifications determined where people could live, work, and go to school. It also established where they could swim or see movies; by law, whites and the others were not allowed to mix socially.

Listen to what an Anglican priest observed when he arrived in South Africa:

I went to the post office to send my mother a letter telling her that I had arrived safely. There were two entrances, one marked “Whites only” and the other, “Non-whites.” … Durban is a seaside city and so I went off to explore the beach. There I discovered that even the sea was divided by race. The most beautiful beaches were where white people could swim; there was another for people of Indian descent, still another for people of mixed race, and far, far away, one for Africans. (Lapsley 2012)

After years of trade sanctions and sports boycotts, in 1990 Afrikaners began to dis- mantle their caste system, and in 1994, Nelson Mandela, a black, was elected president. Black Africans no longer have to carry special passes, public facilities are integrated, and all racial–ethnic groups have the right to vote and to hold office. Although apartheid has

apartheid the government-approved–and -enforced separation of racial– ethnic groups as was practiced in South Africa

In a caste system, status is determined by birth and is lifelong. At birth, these women received not only membership in a lower caste but also, because of their gender, a predetermined position in that caste. When I photographed these women, they were carrying sand to the second floor of a house being constructed in Andhra Pradesh, India.

202 Chapter 7

been dismantled, its legacy haunts South Africa. Whites still dominate the country’s social institutions, and most blacks remain uneducated and poor. Many new rights—such as the rights to higher education, to eat in restaurants, even to see a doctor—are of little use to people who can’t afford them. Political violence has been replaced by old-fashioned crime. Even though the U.S. murder rate intimidates foreigners, South Africa’s murder rate is six times higher (UNODC 2013). Apartheid’s legacy of prejudice, bitterness, and hatred appears destined to fuel racial tensions for generations to come.

A U.S. RACIAL CASTE SYSTEM Before leaving the subject of caste, we should note that when slavery ended in the United States, it was replaced by a racial caste system. From the moment of birth, race marked everyone for life. All whites, even if they were poor and uneducated, considered themselves to have a higher status than all African Americans. As in India and South Africa, the upper caste, fearing pollution from the lower caste, made intermarriage illegal. There were also separate schools, hotels, restaurants, and even toi- lets and drinking fountains for blacks and whites. In the South, when any white met any African American on a sidewalk, the African American had to move aside. The untouch- ables of India still must do this when they meet someone of a higher caste (Deliege 2001).

To see more parallels between the caste systems of the United States and India, see the following Down-to-Earth Sociology.

Down-to-Earth Sociology Rape: Blaming the Victim and Protecting the Caste System

Shana, just 16 years old, was raped by four men in Mississippi. She was walking alongside the road leading to her house when a car stopped. The men got out, shoved her into the car, and drove away. For several hours, they took turns raping the terrified young woman. When the rape (and the other abuse that I won’t describe) was over, they told Shana to keep her mouth shut. They would kill her if she told anyone.

Fearful of what her parents would say and how the neighbors would gossip, Shana told no one. She also knew that it would do no good to report the rape to the police, since they would do nothing. Shana carried the shame—and the anger—of her rape with her the rest of her life.

This is a composite story. Shana is a combined version of the many young black women who were raped by white men in the U.S. South years ago, at a time when rape brought shame to any woman, black or white, and the rape and the rapists were enshrouded in silence. For black women in the South at this time, it was useless to report a rape. The prosecutors, judges, and juries—all were white. And none was about to take a black woman’s word over that of white men.

This event just took place in India.

Shana, just 16 years old, was walking home when she was grabbed by several men and forced into a small stone shelter at the edge of a field. There, for three hours, eight men of the Jat subcaste raped her. When

they were finished, they told Shana to keep her mouth shut. They would kill her if she told anyone. Shana told no one. The shame would bring severe dishonor to her family. Besides, what good would it do? Shana is a Dalit, formerly called an Untouchable. She is a poor member of a caste in poverty, one that is despised by the Jat subcaste that controls the society. (Yardley 2012)

I don’t need to point out the parallels to you. Then something unusual happened. One of the rapists

from the Jat caste had used his cell phone to take trophy videos of the rape. As the video circulated, one man who saw it showed it to Shana’s father. Dishonored by the rape of his daughter, he committed suicide.

His suicide and Shana’s rape enraged the Dalits in the community. They marched to the police and demanded justice.

What did they get? One official said that the sexual drive of girls is causing rapes. He said that all girls should be married by the age of 16. Then there wouldn’t be any rapes. Another said that they never used to have any rapes, that it must be the new fast food the young people are

Global Stratification 203

Estate During the middle ages, Europe developed an estate stratification system. There were three groups, or estates. The first estate was made up of the nobility, the wealthy families who ruled the country. This group owned the land, which was the source of wealth at that time. The nobility did no farming themselves, or any “work,” for that matter. Work was considered beneath their dignity, something to be done by servants. The nobility’s responsibility was to administer their lands, to defend the king (and, in doing so, their own position), and to live “genteel” lives worthy of their high position.

The second estate consisted of the clergy. The Roman Catholic Church was a political power at this time. It also owned vast amounts of land and collected taxes from everyone who lived within the boundaries of a parish. The church’s power was so great that in order to be crowned, kings had to obtain the pope’s permission.

To prevent their vast land holdings from being carved into smaller chunks, members of the nobility practiced primogeniture, allowing only firstborn sons to inherit land. The other sons had to find some way to support themselves, and joining the clergy was a favorite way. (Other ways included becoming an officer in the military or practicing law.) The church was appealing because priests held lifetime positions and were guaranteed a comfortable living. At that time, the church sold offices, and, for example, a wealthy man could buy the position of bishop for his son, which guaranteed a high income.

The third estate consisted of the commoners. Known as serfs, they belonged to the land. If someone bought or inherited land, the serfs came with it. Serfs were born into the third estate, and they died within it, too. The rare person who made it out of the third estate was either a man who was knighted for extraordinary bravery in battle or some- one “called” into a religious vocation.

WOMEN IN THE ESTATE SYSTEM Women belonged to the estate of their husbands. Women in the first estate had no occupation, because, as in the case of their husbands, phys- ical work was considered beneath their dignity. Their responsibility was to administer the household, overseeing the children and servants. The women in the second estate, nuns,

estate stratification system the stratification system of medieval Europe, consisting of three groups or estates: the no- bility, clergy, and commoners

eating. The fast food causes hormonal imbalance, creating sexual urges in young women.

I know that these reactions to Shana’s rape sound incredible, but they happened.

When another Dalit woman reported her rape by an upper-caste man, the police officer asked how many

children she had. When she said “Four,” he asked how old the eldest was. When she said 14 or 15 (birthdays are not kept the same as in the West), the officer said, “Who would rape such an old woman?” and walked away (Pokharel and Lahiri 2013).

I want to add a personal note. The daughter of a man I know in India was raped. After the rape, the rapists poured kerosene on the girl and set her afire. Her screams brought help, and the rapists fled. The young woman was taken to a hospital, where she died. The monsters have not been arrested, and likely never will be.

For Your Consideration → How is the racial caste system that used to exist in the

United States similar to the religious caste system that currently exists in India? How is it different?

→ How does a caste system prevent people from receiving justice?

→ In what ways other than rape does a caste system tolerate and perhaps encourage exploitation?

→ Do you see how the ruling Jat subcaste “blamed the victim” instead of the rapists? How does this protect the caste system?

After centuries of silence, women of India are daring to protest rape publicly. This photo of students holding a candlelight march was taken in Allahabad, India.

204 Chapter 7

were the exception to the rule that women belonged to the estate of their husbands, as the Roman Catholic clergy did not marry. Women of the third estate shared the hard life of their husbands, including physical labor and food shortages. In addition, they faced the peril of rape by men of the first estate. A few commoners who caught the eye of men of the first estate did marry and join them in the first estate. This was rare.

Class As we have seen, stratification systems based on slavery, caste, and estate are rigid. The lines drawn between people are firm, and there is little or no movement from one group to another. A class system, in contrast, is much more open, because it is based primarily on money or material possessions, which can be acquired. This system, too, is in place at birth, when children are ascribed the status of their parents. Unlike the other sys- tems, however, individuals can change their social class by what they achieve (or fail to achieve) in life. In addition, no laws specify people’s occupations on the basis of birth or prohibit marriage between the classes. A major characteristic of the class system, then, is its relatively fluid boundaries. A class system allows social mobility, movement up or down the class ladder. The potential for improving one’s life—or for falling down the class ladder—is a major force that drives people to go far in school and to work hard. In the extreme, the family background that a child inherits at birth may present such obstacles that he or she has little chance of climbing very far—or it may provide such privileges that it is almost impossible to fall down the class ladder. Because social class is so significant for our own lives, we will focus on class in the next chapter.

Global Stratification and the Status of Females In every society of the world, gender is a basis for social stratification. In no society is gender the sole basis for stratifying people, but gender cuts across all systems of social stratification—whether slavery, caste, estate, or class (Huber 1990). In all these systems, on the basis of their gender, people are sorted into categories and given different access to the good things available in their society.

Apparently, these distinctions always favor males. It is remarkable, for example, that in every society of the world, men’s earnings are higher than women’s. Men’s dominance is even more evident when we consider female circumcision. That most of the world’s illiterate are females also drives home women’s relative position. Of the several hundred mil- lion adults who cannot read, about two-thirds are women (UNESCO 2017). Because gender is such a significant factor in what happens to us in life, we shall focus on it more closely in Chapter 10.

The Global Superclass The growing interconnections among the world’s wealth- iest people have produced a global superclass, one in which wealth and power are more concentrated than ever before. There are only about 6,000 members of the global superclass. The richest 1,000 of this superclass have more wealth than the 2½ billion poorest people on this planet (Roth- kopf 2008:37). Almost all are white, and, except as wives and daughters, few women are an active part of the global superclass. We will have more to say about the superclass in Chapter 11, but for now, let’s just stress their incredible wealth. There is nothing in history to compare with what you see in Figure 7.2.

class system a form of social stratification based primarily on income, edu- cation, and prestige of occupation

social mobility movement up or down the social class ladder

In early industrialization, children worked alongside adults. They worked twelve hours a day Monday to Friday and fifteen hours on Saturday, often in dangerous, filthy conditions. This photo of a child coal miner was taken in West Virginia in 1908.

...own 86 percent of the Earth's wealth

The wealthiest 10 percent of adults worldwide...

10%

90%90%

10%

14%

86%

...own 46 percent of the Earth's wealth

The wealthiest 1 percent of adults worldwide...

46%

54%

1%

99%99%

1%

Figure 7.2 The Distribution of the Earth’s Wealth

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Keating et al. 2013.

Global Stratification 205

What Determines Social Class? 7.2 Contrast the views of Marx and Weber on what determines social class.

In the early days of sociology, a disagreement arose about the meaning of social class. Let’s compare how Marx and Weber analyzed the issue.

Karl Marx: The Means of Production As we discussed in Chapter 1, as agricultural society gave way to an industrial one, masses of peasants were displaced from their traditional lands and occupations. Fleeing to cities, they competed for the few available jobs. Paid only a pittance for their labor, they wore rags, went hungry, and slept under bridges and in shacks. In contrast, the factory owners built mansions, hired servants, and lived in the lap of luxury. Seeing this great disparity between owners and workers, Karl Marx (1818–1883) concluded that social class depends on a sin- gle factor: people’s relationship to the means of production—the tools, factories, land, and investment capital used to produce wealth (Marx 1844/1964; Marx and Engels 1848/1967).

Marx argued that the distinctions people often make among themselves—such as their clothing, speech, education, and paycheck, or the neighborhood they live in and the car they drive—are superficial matters. These things camouflage the only dividing line that counts. There are just two classes of people, said Marx: the bourgeoisie (capitalists), those who own the means of production, and the proletariat (workers), those who work for the owners. In short, people’s relationship to the means of production determines their social class.

Marx did recognize other groups: farmers and peasants; a lumpenproletariat (people living on the margin of society, such as beggars, vagrants, and criminals); and a middle group of self-employed professionals. Marx did not consider these groups social classes, however, because they lacked class consciousness—a shared identity based on their rela- tionship to the means of production. In other words, they did not perceive themselves as exploited workers whose plight could be resolved by collective action. Marx thought of these groups as insignificant in the future he foresaw—a workers’ revolution that would overthrow capitalism.

As the capitalists grow even wealthier, Marx said, hostilities will increase. When work- ers come to realize that capitalists are the source of their oppression, they will unite and throw off the chains of their oppressors. In a bloody revolution, they will seize the means of production and usher in a classless society—and no longer will the few grow rich at the expense of the many. What holds back the workers’ unity and their revolution is false class consciousness, workers mistakenly thinking of themselves as capitalists. For example,

means of production the tools, factories, land, and investment capital used to pro- duce wealth

bourgeoisie Karl Marx’s term for capitalists, those who own the means of production

proletariat Karl Marx’s term for the exploit- ed class, the mass of workers who do not own the means of production

class consciousness Karl Marx’s term for awareness of a common identity based on one’s position in the means of production

These photos illustrate the contrasting worlds of social classes produced by early capitalism. The photo on the left was taken in 1890. These homeless boys who spent their nights sleeping on the sidewalk did not go to school. They made their living by selling newspapers. The children on the right, Cornelius and Gladys Vanderbilt, are shown in front of their parents’ estate. They went to school and did not work. You can see how the social locations illustrated in these photos would have produced different orientations to life and, therefore, politics, ideas about marriage, values, and so on— the stuff of which life is made.

false class consciousness Karl Marx’s term to refer to workers identifying with the interests of capitalists

206 Chapter 7

workers with a few dollars in the bank may forget that they are workers and instead see themselves as investors, or as capitalists who are about to launch a successful business.

The only distinction worth mentioning, then, is whether a person is an owner or a worker. This decides everything else, Marx stressed, because property determines people’s lifestyles, establishes their relationships with one another, and even shapes their ideas.

Max Weber: Property, Power, and Prestige Max Weber (1864–1920) was an outspoken critic of Marx. Weber argued that property is only part of the picture. Social class, he said, has three components: property, power, and prestige (Gerth and Mills 1958; Weber 1922/1978). Some call these the three P’s of social class. (Although Weber used the terms class, power, and status, some sociologists find property, power, and prestige to be clearer terms. To make them even clearer, you can substitute wealth for property.)

Property (or wealth), said Weber, is certainly significant in determining a person’s standing in society. On this point he agreed with Marx. But, added Weber, ownership is not the only significant aspect of property. For example, some powerful people, such as managers of corporations, control the means of production even though they do not own them. If managers can control property for their own benefit—awarding themselves huge bonuses and magnificent perks—it makes no practical difference that they do not own the property that they use so generously for their own benefit.

Power, the second element of social class, is the ability to control others, even over their objections. Weber agreed with Marx that property is a major source of power, but he added that it is not the only source. For example, prestige can be turned into power. Two well-known examples are actors Arnold Schwarzenegger, who became governor of California, and Ronald Reagan, who was elected governor of California and president of the United States. Figure 7.3 shows how property, power, and prestige are interrelated.

Prestige, the third element in Weber ’s analysis, is often derived from property and power because people tend to admire the wealthy and powerful. Prestige, however, can be based on other factors. Olympic gold medalists, for example, might not own property or be powerful, yet they have high prestige. Some are even able to exchange their prestige for property—such as those who are paid a small fortune for endorsing a certain brand of sportswear or for claiming that they start their day with “the breakfast of champions.” In other words, property and prestige are not one-way streets: Although property can bring prestige, prestige can also bring property.

IN SUM For Marx, the only distinction that counted was property, more specifically people’s relationship to the means of production. People are either owners or workers, which sets them

on contrasting paths in life. Their path determines their lifestyle and shapes their orientations to life. Weber, in contrast, argued that social class has three components—a combination of prop- erty, power, and prestige.

Why Is Social Stratification Universal? 7.3 Contrast the functional and conflict views of why

social stratification is universal.

What is it about social life that makes all societies stratified? We will first consider the explanation proposed by function- alists, which has aroused much controversy in sociology, and then explanations proposed by conflict theorists.

Figure 7.3 Weber’s Three Components of Social Class

Source: By the author.

(Warren Buffet; the wealthy in general)

(Olympic gold medalists who

endorse products)

(Abe Lincoln; Barack Obama)

(Donald Trump; the wealthy

who become presidents)

Property

Power Prestige

(Ronald Reagan; Arnold

Schwarzenegger)

Prestige

Power Property

(crooked politicians)

Power

Property Prestige

As the winner of 23 gold medals, Michael Phelps is the most decorated Olympian ever. From this photo, you can see Phelps converting prestige into property.

Global Stratification 207

workers with a few dollars in the bank may forget that they are workers and instead see themselves as investors, or as capitalists who are about to launch a successful business.

The only distinction worth mentioning, then, is whether a person is an owner or a worker. This decides everything else, Marx stressed, because property determines people’s lifestyles, establishes their relationships with one another, and even shapes their ideas.

Max Weber: Property, Power, and Prestige Max Weber (1864–1920) was an outspoken critic of Marx. Weber argued that property is only part of the picture. Social class, he said, has three components: property, power, and prestige (Gerth and Mills 1958; Weber 1922/1978). Some call these the three P’s of social class. (Although Weber used the terms class, power, and status, some sociologists find property, power, and prestige to be clearer terms. To make them even clearer, you can substitute wealth for property.)

Property (or wealth), said Weber, is certainly significant in determining a person’s standing in society. On this point he agreed with Marx. But, added Weber, ownership is not the only significant aspect of property. For example, some powerful people, such as managers of corporations, control the means of production even though they do not own them. If managers can control property for their own benefit—awarding themselves huge bonuses and magnificent perks—it makes no practical difference that they do not own the property that they use so generously for their own benefit.

Power, the second element of social class, is the ability to control others, even over their objections. Weber agreed with Marx that property is a major source of power, but he added that it is not the only source. For example, prestige can be turned into power. Two well-known examples are actors Arnold Schwarzenegger, who became governor of California, and Ronald Reagan, who was elected governor of California and president of the United States. Figure 7.3 shows how property, power, and prestige are interrelated.

Prestige, the third element in Weber ’s analysis, is often derived from property and power because people tend to admire the wealthy and powerful. Prestige, however, can be based on other factors. Olympic gold medalists, for example, might not own property or be powerful, yet they have high prestige. Some are even able to exchange their prestige for property—such as those who are paid a small fortune for endorsing a certain brand of sportswear or for claiming that they start their day with “the breakfast of champions.” In other words, property and prestige are not one-way streets: Although property can bring prestige, prestige can also bring property.

IN SUM For Marx, the only distinction that counted was property, more specifically people’s relationship to the means of production. People are either owners or workers, which sets them

on contrasting paths in life. Their path determines their lifestyle and shapes their orientations to life. Weber, in contrast, argued that social class has three components—a combination of prop- erty, power, and prestige.

Why Is Social Stratification Universal? 7.3 Contrast the functional and conflict views of why

social stratification is universal.

What is it about social life that makes all societies stratified? We will first consider the explanation proposed by function- alists, which has aroused much controversy in sociology, and then explanations proposed by conflict theorists.

The Functionalist View: Motivating Qualified People Functionalists take the position that the patterns of behavior that characterize a society exist because they are functional for that society. Because social inequality is universal, inequality must help societies survive. But how?

DAVIS AND MOORE’S EXPLANATION Two functionalists, Kingsley Davis and Wil- bert Moore (1945, 1953), wrestled with this question. They concluded that stratification of society is inevitable because:

1. For society to function, its positions must be filled.

2. Some positions are more important than others.

3. The more important positions must be filled by the more qualified people.

4. To motivate the more qualified people to fill these positions, they must offer greater rewards.

To flesh out this functionalist argument, consider college presidents and military generals. The position of college president is more important than that of student because the president’s decisions affect a large number of people, including many students. College presidents are also accountable for their performance to boards of trustees. It is the same with generals. Their decisions affect many people and some- times even determine life and death. Generals are accountable to superior generals and to the country’s leader.

Why do people accept demanding, high-pressure positions? Why don’t they just take easier jobs? The answer, said Davis and Moore, is that these positions offer greater rewards—more prestige, pay, and benefits. To get highly qualified people to compete with one another, some positions offer a salary of $5 million a year, country club mem- bership, a private jet and pilot, and a chauffeured limousine. For less demanding posi- tions, a $40,000 salary without fringe benefits is enough to get hundreds of people to compete. If a job requires rigorous training, it, too, must offer more salary and benefits. If you can get the same pay with a high school diploma, why suffer through the many tests and term papers that college requires?

TUMIN’S CRITIQUE OF DAVIS AND MOORE Davis and Moore did not attempt to justify social inequality. They were simply trying to explain why social stratification is universal. Nevertheless, their view makes many sociologists uncomfort- able, because they see it as coming close to justifying the inequalities in society. Its bottom line seems to be: The people who contribute more to society are paid more, while those who contribute less are paid less.

Melvin Tumin (1953) was the first sociologist to point out what he saw as major flaws in the functionalist position. Here are three of his arguments.

First, how do we know that the positions that offer the higher rewards are more important? A heart surgeon, for example, saves lives and earns much more than a garbage collector, but this doesn’t mean that garbage collectors are less important to society. By helping to pre- vent contagious diseases, garbage collectors save more lives than heart surgeons do. We need independent methods of measuring importance, and we don’t have them.

Second, if stratification worked as Davis and Moore described it, society would be a meritocracy, that is, positions would be awarded on the basis of merit. But is this what we have? The best predictor of who goes to college, for example, is not ability but income: The more a family earns, the more likely their children are to go to college.

To determine the social class of athletes as highly successful as the Williams sisters presents a sociological puzzle. With their high prestige and growing wealth, what do you think their social class is? Why?

meritocracy a form of social stratification in which all positions are awarded on the basis of merit

208 Chapter 7

Table 7.1 Functionalist and Conflict Views of Stratification: The Distribution of Society’s Resources

SOURCE: By the author.

Who Receives the Most Resources?

Who Receives the Least Resources?

The Functionalist View

Those who perform the more important functions (the more capable and more industrious)

Those who perform the less important functions (the less capable and less industrious)

The Conflict View Those who occupy the more powerful positions

Those who occupy the less powerful positions

(See Chapter 13.) Not merit, then, but money—another form of the inequality that is built into society. In short, people’s positions in society are based on many factors other than merit.

Third, if social stratification is so functional, it ought to benefit almost everyone. Yet social stratification is dysfunctional for many. Think of the people who could have made valuable contributions to society had they not been born in slums, dropped out of school, and taken menial jobs to help support their families. Then there are the many who, born female, are assigned “women’s work,” thus ensuring that they do not maximize their mental abilities.

IN SUM Functionalists argue that some positions are more important to society than others. Offering higher rewards for these positions motivates more talented people to take them. For example, to get highly talented people to become surgeons—to undergo years of rigorous training and then cope with life-and-death situations, as well as mal- practice suits—that position must provide a high payoff.

Next, let’s see how conflict theorists explain why social stratification is univer- sal. Before we do, look at Table 7.1 which compares the functionalist and conflict views.

The Conflict Perspective: Class Conflict and Scarce Resources Conflict theorists don’t just criticize details of the functionalist argument. Rather, they go for the throat and attack its basic premise. Conflict, not function, they stress, is the reason that we have social stratification. Let’s look at the major arguments.

MOSCA’S ARGUMENT Italian sociologist Gaetano Mosca argued that every society will be stratified by power. This is inevitable, he said in an 1896 book titled The Ruling Class (1896/1939), because:

1. No society can exist unless it is organized. This requires leadership to coordinate people’s actions.

2. Leadership requires inequalities of power. By definition, some people lead, while others follow.

3. Because human nature is self-centered, people in power will use their positions to seize greater rewards for themselves.

There is no way around these facts of life, added Mosca. Social stratification is inevi- table, and every society will stratify itself along lines of power.

Global Stratification 209

(See Chapter 13.) Not merit, then, but money—another form of the inequality that is built into society. In short, people’s positions in society are based on many factors other than merit.

Third, if social stratification is so functional, it ought to benefit almost everyone. Yet social stratification is dysfunctional for many. Think of the people who could have made valuable contributions to society had they not been born in slums, dropped out of school, and taken menial jobs to help support their families. Then there are the many who, born female, are assigned “women’s work,” thus ensuring that they do not maximize their mental abilities.

IN SUM Functionalists argue that some positions are more important to society than others. Offering higher rewards for these positions motivates more talented people to take them. For example, to get highly talented people to become surgeons—to undergo years of rigorous training and then cope with life-and-death situations, as well as mal- practice suits—that position must provide a high payoff.

Next, let’s see how conflict theorists explain why social stratification is univer- sal. Before we do, look at Table 7.1 which compares the functionalist and conflict views.

MARX’S ARGUMENT If he were alive to hear the functionalist argument, Marx would be enraged. From his point of view, the people in power are not there because of superior traits, as the functionalists would have us believe. This view is an ideol- ogy that members of the elite use to justify their being at the top—and to seduce the oppressed into believing that their welfare depends on keeping quiet and following authorities. What is human history, Marx asked, except the chronicle of class struggle? All of human history is an account of small groups of people in power using society’s resources to benefit themselves and to oppress those beneath them—and of oppressed groups trying to overcome that domination.

Marx predicted that the workers will revolt. Capitalist ideology now blinds them, but one day, class consciousness will rip that blindfold off and expose the truth. When workers realize their common oppression, they will rebel. The struggle to control the means of production may be covert at first, taking such forms as work slowdowns and industrial sabotage. Ultimately, however, resistance will break out into the open. But the revolution will not be easy because the bourgeoisie control the police, the military, and even the educational system, where they implant false class consciousness in the minds of the workers’ children.

CURRENT APPLICATIONS OF CONFLICT THEORY Just as Marx focused on over- arching historical events—the accumulation of capital and power and the struggle between workers and capitalists—so do some of today’s conflict sociologists. In ana- lyzing global stratification and global capitalism, they look at power relations among nations, how national elites control workers, and how power shifts as capital is shuffled among nations (Burgmann 2016; Smith 2016).

Other conflict sociologists, in contrast, examine conflict wherever it is found, not just as it relates to capitalists and workers. They examine how groups within the same class compete with one another for a larger slice of the pie (Collins 1999; King et al. 2010). Even within the same industry, for example, union will fight against union for higher salaries, shorter hours, and more power. Another focus of conflict theorists is conflict between racial–ethnic groups as they compete for work, education, housing, and even prestige— whatever rewards society has to offer. They also study the relations between women and men, which conflict theorists say are best understood as a conflict over power—over who controls society’s resources. Unlike functionalists, conflict theorists say that just beneath the surface of what may appear to be a tranquil society lies conflict that is barely held in check.

Lenski’s Synthesis As you can see, functionalist and conflict theorists disagree sharply. Is it possible to reconcile their views? Sociologist Gerhard Lenski (1966) thought so. He suggested that surplus is the key. He said that the functionalists are right when it comes to groups that don’t accumulate a surplus, such as hunting and gathering societies. These societies give a greater share of their resources to those who take on important tasks, such as war- riors who risk their lives in battle. It is a different story, said Lenski, with societies that accumulate surpluses. In them, groups fight over the surplus, and the group that wins becomes an elite. This dominant group rules from the top, controlling the groups below it. In the resulting system of social stratification, where you are born in that society, not personal merit, is what counts.

IN SUM Conflict theorists stress that in every society, groups struggle with one another to gain a larger share of their society’s resources. Whenever a group gains power, it uses that power to extract what it can from the groups beneath it. This elite group also uses the social institutions to keep itself in power.

210 Chapter 7

How Do Elites Maintain Stratification? 7.4 Discuss the ways that elites keep themselves in power.

Suppose that you are part of the ruling elite of your society. You want to make sure that you and your family and friends are going to be able to keep your privileged position for the next generation. How will you accomplish this?

You might think about passing laws and using the police and the military. After all, you are a member of the ruling elite, so you have this power. You could use force, but this can lead to resentment and rebellion. It is more effective to control people’s ideas, informa- tion, and technology—which is just what the elite try to do. Let’s look at some of their techniques.

Soft Control versus Force Let’s start with medieval Europe, where we find an excellent example of “soft” con- trol. At that time, land was the primary source of wealth—and only the nobility and the church could own land. Almost everyone was a peasant (a serf) who worked for these powerful landowners. The peasants farmed the land, took care of the livestock, and built the roads and bridges. Each year, they had to turn over a designated portion of their crops to their feudal lord. Year after year, for centuries, they did so. Why?

CONTROLLING PEOPLE’S IDEAS Why didn’t the peasants rebel and take over the land themselves? There were many reasons, not the least of which was that the nobility and church controlled the army. Coercion, however, goes only so far, because it breeds hostility and nourishes rebellion. How much more effective it is to get the masses to want to do what the ruling elite desires. This is where ideology (beliefs that justify the way things are) comes into play, and the nobility and clergy used it to great effect. They devel- oped an ideology known as the divine right of kings—the idea that the king’s authority comes directly from God. The king delegates authority to nobles, who, as God’s repre- sentatives, must be obeyed. To disobey is to sin against God; to rebel is to merit physical punishment on earth and eternal suffering in hell.

Controlling people’s ideas can be remarkably more effective than using brute force. Although this particular ideology governs few minds today, the elite in every society uses ideology to justify its position at the top. For example, around the world, schools teach that their country’s form of government—no matter what form of government it has— is good. Religious leaders teach that we owe obedience to authority, that laws are to be obeyed. To the degree that their ideologies are accepted by the masses, the elite remains securely in power.

Ideology is so powerful that it even sets limits on the elite. Although leaders use ideas to control people, the people can also insist that their leaders conform to those

same ideas. Pakistan is an outstanding example. If Pakistani leaders depart from fundamentalist Islamic ideology, their posi- tion is in jeopardy. For example, regardless of their personal views, Pakistani leaders cannot support Western ideas of morality. If they were to allow women to wear short skirts in public, for example, not only would they lose their positions of leadership but perhaps also their lives. To protect their position within a system of stratification, leaders, regardless of their personal opin- ions, must also conform at least outwardly to the controlling ideas.

divine right of kings the idea that the king’s authority comes from God; in an interest- ing gender bender, also applies to queens

Louis IV as he is crowned the Holy Roman Emperor in 1328 in Rome.

Global Stratification 211

CONTROLLING INFORMATION To maintain their power, elites try to control infor- mation. Chinese leaders have put tight controls on Internet cafes and search engines, and they block access to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (Wang 2017). For watching a Jackie Chan movie, North Koreans can be sentenced to 6 months of backbreaking work in a labor camp (LaFraniere 2010). Lacking such power in democracies, the ruling elites rely on covert means. A favorite tactic of U.S. presidents is to withhold information “in the interest of national security,” a phrase that often translates as “in the interest of protecting me.”

STIFLING CRITICISM Like the rest of us, the power elite doesn’t like to be criticized. But unlike the rest of us, they have the power to do something about it. Fear is a favorite tactic. In Thailand, you can be put in prison for criticizing the king—or even his dog (Hale 2016). Poetry is dangerous, too. Judges in Qatar sentenced a poet to life in prison because one of his poems criticized “the ruling family” (Delmar-Morgan 2012). It can be worse. In Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the penalty for telling a joke about Hussein was having your tongue cut out (Nordland 2003).

In a democracy, the control of critics takes a milder form. When the U.S. Defense Department found out that an author had criticized its handling of 9/11, it bought and destroyed 9,500 copies of his book (Thompson 2010).

BIG BROTHER TECHNOLOGY The ideal technology—“ideal” from the perspective of the elite—will allow citizens to be monitored without them knowing they are being watched. This dream of the elite is no longer part of the future. It is here now.

Drones patrol the skies, silent and unseen. Able to read molecules, the picosecond laser scanner can sense from 150 feet away if you have gunpowder residue on your body, as well as report your adrenaline level (Compton 2012). Software programs can read the entire contents of your computer in a second—and not leave a trace. Your image has been recorded countless times by security cameras, which some not so fondly call “Tiny Brothers.” The FBI’s face-recognition system can scan crowds and instantly match those faces with its files. Most of the faces in its digitized system are of regular (non-criminal) citizens (Waddell 2016). Face-recognition software can turn the police’s body cameras into surveillance machines, able to identify everyone an officer passes on the sidewalk (Kofman 2017).

Dictators have few checks on how they use this technology, but democracies do have some, such as requiring court orders for search and seizure. Such restraints on power frustrate officials, so they are delighted with our new Homeland Security laws that allow them to spy on citizens without their knowledge.

Just as with ideology, the new technology is a two-edged sword. It gives the elite powerful tools for monitoring citizens, but it also makes it difficult for the elite to con- trol information. With international borders meaning nothing to the Internet, it takes but seconds for e-mail, tweets, and photos to fly around the globe. Encryption also frustrates governments and excites privacy advocates. Silent Circle shreds files into thousands of pieces as they are sent to the cloud. Only the recipient has the key, which is deleted auto- matically after a file is downloaded (Gallagher 2013). Governments have not been able to break Silent Circle, PGP (Pretty Good Privacy, a free code), or Signal, which scrambles mes- sages until they reach the intended reader (Yadron 2015). The FBI is upset that Google and Apple have added an encryption option for their smartphones (Welch 2016). We will see how long these companies resist governmental pressure.

IN SUM To maintain stratification, the elite tries to dominate its society’s institutions. In a dictatorship, the elite makes the laws. In a democracy, the elite influences the laws. In both, the elite controls the police and military and can give orders to crush a rebellion—or to run the post office or air traffic control if workers strike. With force having its limits, especially the potential of provoking resistance, most power elites prefer to keep them- selves in power by peaceful means, especially by influencing the thinking of their people.

212 Chapter 7

Comparative Social Stratification 7.5 Contrast social stratification in Great Britain and the former Soviet Union.

Now that we have examined systems of social stratification, considered why stratifica- tion is universal, and looked at how elites keep themselves in power, let’s compare social stratification in Great Britain and in the former Soviet Union. In the next chapter, we’ll look at social stratification in the United States.

Social Stratification in Great Britain Great Britain is often called England by Americans, but England is only one of the countries that make up the island of Great Britain. The others are Scotland and Wales. In addition, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Like other industrialized countries, Great Britain has a class system that can be divided into lower, middle, and upper classes. Great Britain’s population is about evenly divided between the middle class and the lower (or working) class. A tiny upper class— wealthy, powerful, and highly educated—makes up perhaps 1 percent of the population.

Compared with Americans, the British are very class conscious (Lyall 2013). Like Amer- icans, they recognize class distinctions on the basis of the type of car a person drives or the stores someone patronizes. But the most striking characteristics of the British class system are language and education. Because these often show up in distinctive speech, accent has a powerful impact on British life (Cauldwell 2014). Accent almost always betrays class. As soon as someone speaks, the listener is aware of that person’s social class—and treats him or her accordingly.

Education is the primary way by which the British perpetuate their class system from one generation to the next (Kynaston and Kynaston 2014). Almost all children go to neighborhood schools. Great Britain’s richest 5 percent, however—who own half the nation’s wealth—send their children to exclusive private boarding schools. There the children of the elite are trained in subjects that are considered “proper” for members of the ruling class. An astounding 50 percent of the students at Oxford and Cambridge, the country’s most elite universities, come from this 5 percent of the population. So do half of the prime minister ’s cabinet (Neil 2011). To illustrate how powerful stratified education is, how it affects the national life of Great Britain, sociologist Ian Robertson (1987) said,

Eighteen former pupils of the most exclusive of [England’s high schools], Eton, have become prime minister. Imagine the chances of a single American high school producing eighteen presidents!

Social Stratification in the Former Soviet Union Heeding Marx’s call for a classless society, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870–1924) and Leon Trotsky (1879–1940) led a revolution in Russia in 1917. They, and the nations that fol- lowed their banner, never claimed to have achieved the ideal of communism, in which all contribute their labor to the common good and receive according to their needs. Instead, they used the term socialism to describe the intermediate step between capital- ism and communism, in which social classes are abolished but some inequality remains.

To tweak the nose of Uncle Sam, the socialist countries would trumpet their equality and point a finger at glaring inequalities in the United States. These countries, however, also were marked by huge disparities in privilege. Their major basis of stratification was membership in the Communist party. Party members decided who would gain admission to the better schools or obtain the more desirable jobs and housing. The equally qualified son or daughter of parents who were not members of the Communist Party would be turned down because such privileges came with demonstrated loyalty to the party.

The Communist party, too, was highly stratified. Most members occupied a low level, where they fulfilled such tasks as spying on fellow workers. For this, they might

Global Stratification 213

get easier jobs in the factory or occasional access to special stores to purchase hard-to- find goods. The middle level consisted of bureaucrats who were given better than aver- age access to resources and privileges. At the top level was a small elite: party members who enjoyed not only power but also limousines, imported delicacies, vacation homes, and even servants and hunting lodges. As with other stratification systems around the world, women held lower positions in the party. This was evident at each year ’s May Day, when the top members of the party reviewed the latest weapons paraded in Mos- cow’s Red Square. Photos of these events show only men.

The leaders of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) became frustrated as they saw the West thrive. They struggled with a bloated bureaucracy, the inefficiencies of central planning, workers who did the minimum because they could not be fired, and a military so costly that it spent one of every eight of the nation’s rubles (Statistical Abstract 1993:1432, table dropped in later editions). Socialist ideology did not call for their citizens to be deprived, and in an attempt to turn things around, the Soviet leadership allowed elections to be held in which more than one candidate ran for an office. (Before this, voters had a choice of only one candidate per office.) They also sold huge chunks of state-owned businesses to the public. Overnight, making investments to try to turn a profit changed from a crime into a respectable goal.

Russia’s transition to capitalism took a bizarre twist. As authority broke down, pow- erful mafias emerged. These criminal groups are headed by gangsters, crooked busi- nessmen, and corrupt government officials (including members of the Russian secret police, the FSB). They assassinate business leaders, reporters, and politicians who refuse to cooperate (Harding 2017). They launder money through banks they control and buy luxury properties in popular tourist areas in Europe and Asia. A favorite is Marbella, a watering and wintering spot on Spain’s Costa del Sol.

As Moscow reestablished its authority, its criminal ties brought wealth to some members of the government (Dawisha 2014). This group of organized criminals is taking its place as part of Russia’s new capitalist class.

Global Stratification: Three Worlds 7.6 Compare social stratification in the Most Industrialized Nations, the Industrial-

izing Nations, and the Least Industrialized Nations.

Let’s start this section a little differently. The Down-to-Earth Sociology that follows should get you thinking.

Down-to-Earth Sociology Inequality? What Inequality? There is a lot of talk about social inequality. Like so many things, maybe it’s overblown.

There are differences among us, of course. Some people do have newer cars than others. Some do have bigger houses, better clothing, and more expensive foods and drinks. We all know this.

So there are a few differences among us. But why the concern? Is this perhaps just a little rabble-rousing by a few radical sociologists and some other troublemakers?

Well, let’s see. To be logical, perhaps even a bit scientific, we probably should start out by determining if

there really is inequality. How can we do this? With all the statistical techniques available to us, things quickly could become mind-boggling. There must be a simpler way of doing this.

And there is. It turns out that the 85 richest people in the world own as much of the world’s wealth as the bottom half of the entire world’s population (Hardoon 2015).

Let’s see. If eighty-five people have as much as three and a half billion people, then …

Hmm. Maybe there is inequality. (continued)

214 Chapter 7

As was noted at the beginning of this chapter, just as the people within a nation are stratified by property, power, and prestige, so are the world’s nations. To depict global stratification, a simple model was used: First, Second, and Third Worlds. First World referred to the industrialized capitalist nations, Second World to the communist (or socialist) countries, and Third World to any nation that did not fit into the first two categories. The breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989 made these terms outdated. In addition, although first, second, and third did not mean “best,” “better,” and “worst,” they implied it. An alternative classification that some now use— developed, devel- oping, and undeveloped nations—has the same drawback. By calling ourselves “developed,” it sounds as though we are mature and the “undeveloped” nations are backward.

To resolve this problem, I use more neutral, descriptive terms: Most Industrialized, Industrializing, and Least Industrialized nations. We can measure industrialization with no judgment implied as to whether a nation’s industrialization represents “development,” ranks it “first,” or is even desirable at all. The intention is to depict on a global level the three primary dimensions of social stratification: property, power, and prestige. The Most Industrialized Nations have much greater property (wealth), power (they usually get their way in international relations), and prestige (they are looked up to as world leaders).

As you read this analysis, don’t forget the sociological significance of the stratifica- tion of nations, its far-reaching effects on people’s lives, as illustrated by the two families sketched in our opening vignette.

The Most Industrialized Nations The Most Industrialized Nations are the United States and Canada in North America; Great Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, and the other industrialized countries of western Europe; Japan in Asia; and Australia and New Zealand in the area of the world known as Oceania. Although there are variations in their economic systems, these coun- tries are capitalistic. As Table 7.2 shows, although these nations have only 16 percent of the world’s people, they possess 31 percent of the Earth’s land. Their wealth is so enor- mous that even their poor live better and longer lives than do the average citizens of the Least Industrialized Nations.

Table 7.2 Distribution of the World’s Land and Population

SOURCES: By the author. Computed from Kurian 1990, 1991, 1992.

Land Population

Most Industrialized Nations 31% 16%

Industrializing Nations 20% 16%

Least Industrialized Nations 49% 68%

Ah, maybe not. Perhaps this is just the normal state of affairs of the world, just another fact like there are more cats than dogs in the world, or more mice than elephants.

Or perhaps this indicates that something is out of kilter in the world, an imbalance that doesn’t seem quite right.

Hmm. Could be.

For Your Consideration → I don’t mean to skew this box too much in one direction.

Or maybe I just sort of can’t help it. This is perhaps one of the most mind-boggling statistics you will ever come across in your life, and I feel compelled to tell you about it. Anyway, what do you think?

In the following Social Map, you can see the tremendous disparities in wealth and poverty among the world’s nations. People in one country have $102,000 a year to live on, while people in another country must get by on just $400. One of the world’s poorest countries (see number 136) is just 700 miles from the United States.

Global Stratification 215

Figure 7.4 Global Stratification: Income of the World’s Nations

SOURCE: By the author. Based on CIA World Factbook 2017.

6

30

65 92

87

53

52

82

49 55 136

64 83

50

85

88 103

104 91

56 68

79

69

94

41

46 57

15

11

21

The Most Industrialized Nations

Nation Income per

Person

The Industrializing Nations

Nation Income per

Person

The Least Industrialized Nations

Nation Income per

Person

56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Nation Income per

Person

Luxembourg Singapore Norway Switzerland Hong Kong United States Netherlands Sweden Australia Germany Iceland Austria Taiwan Denmark Canada Belgium United Kingdom France Finland Japan Greenland Korea, South New Zealand Italy Israel Czech Republic Slovenia

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

$102,000 $87,100 $69,300 $59,400 $58,100 $57,300 $50,800 $49,700 $48,800 $48,200 $48,100 $47,900 $47,800 $46,600 $46,200 $44,900 $42,500 $42,400 $41,800 $38,900 $37,900 $37,900 $37,100 $36,300 $34,800 $33,200 $32,000

Ireland Spain Trinidad Slovakia Lithuania Estonia Portugal Poland Hungary Malaysia Greece Russia Latvia Chile Croatia Romania Turkey Mauritius Argentina Bulgaria Gabon Mexico Costa Rica China Brazil Venezuela South Africa Cuba

$69,400 $36,500 $31,900 $31,200 $29,900 $29,500 $28,500 $27,700 $27,200 $27, 200 $26,800 $26,100 $25,700 $24,100 $22,400 $22,300 $21,100 $20,500 $20,200 $20,100 $19,300 $18,900 $16,100 $15,400 $15,200 $15,100 $13,200 $11,600

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Panama Uruguay Lebanon Azerbaijan Belarus Turkmenistan Botswanab Thailand Dominican Rep. Suriname Algeria Macedonia Colombia Peru Mongolia Egypt

$22,800 $21,600 $18,500 $17,700 $17,500 $17,300 $16,900 $16,800 $15,900 $15,200 $15,000 $14,500 $14,200 $13,000 $12,200 $12,100

Albania Namibia Indonesia Tunisia Sri Lanka Jordan Bosnia Ecuador Georgia Swaziland Paraguay Jamaica Armenia El Salvador Morocco French Guiana Belize

$11,900 $11,800 $11,700 $11,700 $11,200 $11,100 $11,000 $11,000 $10,100 $9,800 $9,400 $9,000 $8,900 $8,900 $8,400 $8,300 $8,200

216 Chapter 7

The Least Industrialized Nations

Nation Income per

Person Nation Income per

Person Nation Income per

Person Nation Income per

Person

The Oil-Rich Nations

Nation Income per

Person

138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149

150

151

Gambia Sierra Leone Guinea-Bissau Madagascar Togo Eritrea Guinea Mozambique Malawi Niger Burundi Congo, Dem. Rep. Central African Rep. Somalia

$1,700 $1,700 $1,600 $1,500 $1,500 $1,300 $1,300 $1,200 $1,100 $1,100

$800

$800

$700 $400

Ukraine Bhutan Guatemala Guyana Philippines Bolivia Angola Congo, Rep. of India Uzbekistan Vietnam Burma (Myanmar) Nigeria Laos Honduras Nicaragua Moldova

$8,200 $8,100 $7,900 $7,900 $7,700 $7,200 $6,800 $6,800 $6,700 $6,500 $6,400 $6,000 $5,900 $5,700 $5,300 $5,300 $5,200

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

100 101 102 103 104 105

Pakistan Sudan Ghana Mauritania Bangladesh Zambia Cambodia Cote d'Ivoire Cameroon Kyrgyzstan Papua-New Guinea Djibouti Kenya Lesotho Tanzania Tajikistan

$5,100 $4,500 $4,400 $4,400 $3,900 $3,900 $3,700 $3,600 $3,500 $3,500

$3,500 $3,400 $3,400 $3,100 $3,100 $3,000

106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116

117 118 119 120 121

122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137

Syria Chad Senegal Nepal Western Sahara Yemen Mali Benin Uganda Afghanistan Zimbabwe Ethiopia Rwanda Burkina Faso Haiti Korea, North

$2,900 $2,600 $2,600 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,300 $2,200 $2,100 $2,000 $2,000 $1,900 $1,900 $1,800 $1,800 $1,800

152 153 154

155 156 157 158

159 160 161 162

Qatar Kuwait United Arab Emirates Saudi Arabia Bahrain Oman Equatorial Guinea Kazakhstan Iran Iraqc Libya

$129,700 $71,300

$67,700 $54,100 $50,300 $43,700

$38,700 $25,700 $18,100 $16,500 $14,200

1 4

2

93

116

37

74

9

23

3 8 19 39

159

51

100 110 90

102

63

97

125

70

2022 137

101728 14

12 27

26 31 36 43

47 44

42 78 18

29

86 66

75

147128

129 101 135

126

109

124 138 140

139 144

71

107

150

143

133

151

127

152

153 156155162 154

157

76

123

117

118 130

134 148

149 120

145 146

77

48 158 96

114 108

142

113

54

62 132

81 119

73

95 111

34 24

38 72

67

25 58

122

7 16

5 13

99 112

32 60

89 105

5984 80

61 98 115

121

106 131160161

40

35

33

45

141

Figure 7.4 (Continued)

Global Stratification 217

The Industrializing Nations The Industrializing Nations include most of the nations of the former Soviet Union and its former satellites in eastern Europe. As you saw in Table 7.2, these nations account for 20 percent of the Earth’s land and 16 percent of its people.

The dividing points between the three “worlds” are soft, making it difficult to know how to classify some nations. This is especially the case with the Industrial- izing Nations. Exactly how much industrialization must a nation have to be in this category? Although soft, these categories do pinpoint essential differences among nations. Most people who live in the Industrializing Nations have much lower incomes and standards of living than do those who live in the Most Industrialized Nations. The majority, however, are better off than those who live in the Least Indus- trialized Nations. For example, on such measures as access to electricity, indoor plumbing, automobiles, telephones, and even food, most citizens of the Industrial- izing Nations rank lower than those in the Most Industrialized Nations but higher than those in the Least Industrialized Nations. As you saw in this chapter ’s opening vignette, stratification affects even life expectancy. The benefits of industrialization are uneven. Large numbers of people in the Industrializing Nations remain illiterate and desperately poor. Conditions can be gruesome, as we explore in the following Thinking Critically about Social Life.

Thinking Critically about Social Life Open Season: Children as Prey What is childhood like in the Industrializing Nations?

The answer depends on who your parents are. If you are the son or daughter of rich parents, childhood can be pleasant—a world filled with luxuries and servants. If you are born into poverty but live in a rural area where there is plenty to eat, life can still be good—although there may be no books, television, and little education. If you live in a slum, however, life can be horrible—worse even than in the slums of the Most Industrialized Nations (Lyons 2013). Let’s take a glance at a notorious slum in Brazil.

Not enough food— this you can take for granted—along with wife abuse, broken homes, alcoholism, drug abuse, and a lot of crime: From your knowledge of slums in the Most Industrialized Nations, you would expect these things. What you may not expect, however, are the brutal conditions in which Brazilian slum (favela) children live.

Sociologist Martha Huggins (Huggins et al. 2002) reports that poverty is so deep that children and adults

swarm through garbage dumps to try to find enough decaying food to keep them alive. You might also be surprised to discover that the owners of some of these dumps hire armed guards to keep the poor out—so that they can sell the garbage for pig food. And you might be

shocked to learn that some shop owners hire hit men, auctioning designated victims to the lowest bidder!

Life is cheap in the poor nations—but death squads for children? To understand this, we must first note that Brazil has a long history of violence. Brazil also has a high rate of poverty, has only a tiny middle class, and is controlled by a small group of families who, under a veneer of democracy, make the country’s major decisions. Hordes

of homeless children, with no schools or jobs, roam the streets. To survive, they wash windshields, shine shoes, beg, and steal (Rosenblatt 2012).

The “respectable” classes see these children as nothing but trouble. They hurt business: Customers feel intimidated when they see begging children—especially

A woman and her two daughters in a favela in Brasilia, Brazil.

(continued)

218 Chapter 7

The Least Industrialized Nations In the Least Industrialized Nations, most people live on small farms or in villages, have large families, and barely survive. These nations account for 68 percent of the world’s people but only 49 percent of the Earth’s land.

Poverty plagues these nations to such an extent that some families actually live in city dumps. This is hard to believe, but look at the following photos, which I took in Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia. Although wealthy nations have their pockets of poverty, most people in the Least Industrialized Nations are poor. Most of them have no running water, indoor plumbing, or access to trained teachers or doctors. As we will review in Chap- ter 14, most of the world’s population growth occurs in these nations, placing even greater burdens on their limited resources and causing them to fall farther behind each year.

Modifying the Model To classify countries into Most Industrialized, Industrializing, and Least Industrialized is helpful in that it pinpoints significant similarities and differences among groups of nations. But then there are the oil-rich nations of the Middle East, those that provide much of the oil that fuels the machinery of the Most Industrialized Nations. Although these nations are not industrialized, some are immensely wealthy. To classify them sim- ply as Least Industrialized would gloss over significant distinctions, such as their mod- ern hospitals, extensive prenatal care, desalinization plants, abundant food and shelter, high literacy, and computerized banking. On the Social World Map, you saw that I clas- sify these countries separately. Table 7.3 also reflects this distinction.

teenaged boys—clustered in front of stores. Some shoplift. Others break into stores. With no effective social institutions to care for these children, one solution is to kill them. As Huggins notes, murder sends a clear message—especially if it is accompanied by ritual torture: gouging out the eyes, ripping open the chest, cutting off the genitals, raping the girls, and burning the victim’s body.

Not all life is bad in the Industrializing Nations, but this is about as bad as it gets.

For Your Consideration

→ Do you think there is anything the Most Industrialized Nations can do about this situation? Or is it, though unfor- tunate, just an “internal” affair that is up to Brazil to handle as it wishes?

→ Directed by the police, death squads in Brazil also assassinate criminals, while in the Philippine slums they kill rapists and drug dealers (Mogato and Baldwin 2017). What do you think about this?

Table 7.3 An Alternative Model of Global Stratification

SOURCE: By the author.

Four Worlds of Stratification

Most Industrialized Nations

Industrializing Nations

Least Industrialized Nations

Oil-rich, non-industrialized nations

Kuwait is an outstanding example. The government employs 90 percent of its working citizens, subsidizing their electricity and gasoline and giving them free edu- cation and health care. Citizens are also given free housing when they marry, although with the lower cost of oil, the government has fallen behind in providing the housing (“Tighten Your Belts” 2014). Most of the grunt work that the nation requires is done by migrant workers from the poor nations, while skilled workers from the Most Industri- alized Nations run the specialized systems that keep Kuwait’s economy going.

I did. And there I f ound a

highly developed s ocial

organization—an intricate

support system. B ecause words are

inadequate to depi ct the abject pover

ty

of the Least Indust rialized Nations,

these photos can p rovide more insigh

t into

these people’s lives than anything

I could say.

The Dump Peop le: Working and

Living and Play ing

in the City Dum p of Phnom Pen

h, Cambodia

I went to Cambodi a to inspect

orphanages, to see how well the child

ren

are being cared for . While in Phnom

Penh,

Cambodia’s capita l, I was told about

people

who live in the city dump. Live there?

I

could hardly believ e my ears. I knew

that

people made their living by picking s

craps

from the city dump , but I didn’t know

they

actually lived amo ng the garbage. Th

is I had

to see for myself.

This is a typical sight—family and friends

working together. The trash, which is constantly

burning, contains harmful chemicals. Why do

people work under such conditions? Because

they have few options. It is either this or starve.

After the garbage arrives by truck, people stream around it,

struggling to be the first to discover some thing of value. To

sift through the trash, the workers use me tal picks, like the

one this child is holding. Note that childr en work alongside

the adults. The children who live in the dump also play there. These children are riding bicycles on a “road,” a packed, leveled area of garbage that leads to their huts. The huge stacks in the background are piled trash. Note the ubiquitous Nike.

© James M. Henslin, all photos

Not too many visitors to Phnom Penh tell a cab driver to take them to the city dump. The cabbie looked a bit perplexed, but he did as I asked. Two cabs are shown here because my friends insisted on accompanying me.I know my friends were curious themselves, but they had also discovered that the destinations I want to visit are usually not in the tourist guides, and they wanted to protect me. Note the smoke from the smoldering garbage.

One of my many surprises was to find food stands in the dump. Although this one primarily offers drinks and snacks, others serve more substantial food. One even has broken chairs salvaged from the dump for its customers.

The people live at the edge of the dump, in homemade huts

(visible in the background). This woman, who was on her way

home after a day’s work, put down her sack of salvaged items

to let me take her picture. She still has her pick in her hand.

At the day’s end, the workers wash at the community pump. This hand pump serves all their water needs—drinking, washing, and cooking. There is no indoor plumbing. The weeds in the background serve that purpose. Can you imagine drinking water that comes from below this garbage dump?

I was surprised to lear n

that ice is delivered to

the dump. This woman

is using a hand grinde r

to crush ice for drinks

for her customers. The

customers, of course, a re

other people who also

live in the dump.

Global Stratification 221

Homeless people sleeping on the streets is a common sight in India’s cities. I took this photo in Chennai (formerly Madras).

How Did the World’s Nations Become Stratified? 7.7 Discuss how colonialism and world system theory explain how the

world’s nations became stratified.

How did the globe become stratified into such distinct worlds? The common-sense answer is that the poorer nations have fewer resources than the richer nations. As with many commonsense answers, this one falls short. Many of the Industrializing and Least Industrialized Nations are rich in natural resources, while one Most Industrial- ized Nation, Japan, has few. Three theories explain how global stratification came about.

Colonialism The first theory, colonialism, stresses that the coun- tries that industrialized first got a jump on the rest of the world. Beginning in Great Britain about 1750, industrialization spread throughout western Europe. Plowing some of their profits into powerful arma- ments and fast ships, these countries invaded weaker nations, making colonies out of them (Harrison 1993; Michalopoulos and Papaioannou 2017). After subduing these weaker nations, the more powerful countries left behind a controlling force in order to exploit the nations’ labor and natural resources. At one point, there was even a free-for-all among the industrialized European countries as they rushed to divide up an entire continent. As they sliced Africa into pieces, even tiny Belgium got into the act and acquired the Congo, which was seventy-five times larger than itself.

The purpose of colonialism was to establish eco- nomic colonies—to exploit the nation’s people and resources for the benefit of the elites of the “mother” country. The more powerful European countries would plant their national flags in a colony and send their representatives to run the government, but the United States usually chose to plant corporate flags in a colony and let these corporations dominate the territory’s govern- ment. Central and South America are prime examples. There were exceptions, such as the U.S. army’s conquest of the Philippines, which President William McKinley said was moti- vated by the desire “to educate the Filipinos and uplift and civilize and Christianize them” (Krugman 2002).

Colonialism, then, shaped many of the Least Industrialized Nations. In some instances, the Most Industrialized Nations were so powerful that when dividing their spoils, they drew lines across a map, creating new states without regard for tribal or cultural considerations (Duiker and Spielvogel 2017). Britain and France did just this as they divided up North Africa and parts of the Middle East—which is why the national boundaries of Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other countries are so straight. This legacy of European conquests is a background factor in much of today’s racial–ethnic and tribal violence: By the stroke of a pen, groups with no history of national identity were incorporated within the same political boundaries.

colonialism the process by which one nation takes over another nation, making a colony of it, usually for the purpose of exploiting its labor and natural resources

222 Chapter 7

World System Theory The second explanation of how global stratification came about was proposed by Imman- uel Wallerstein (1979, 1990, 2011). According to world system theory, industrialization led to four groups of nations. The first group consists of the core nations, the countries that industrialized first (Britain, France, Holland, and, later, Germany), which grew rich and powerful. The second group is the semiperiphery. The economies of these nations, located around the Mediterranean, stagnated because they grew dependent on trade with the core nations. The economies of the third group, the periphery, or fringe nations, developed even less. These are the eastern European countries, which sold cash crops to the core nations. The fourth group of nations includes most of Africa and Asia. Called the external area, these nations were left out of the development of capitalism altogether. The current expansion of capitalism has changed the relationships among these groups. Most notably, eastern Europe and Asia are no longer left out of capitalism.

The globalization of capitalism—the adoption of capitalism around the world—has created extensive ties among the world’s nations. Production and trade are now so inter- connected that events around the globe affect us all. Sometimes this is immediate, as hap- pens when a civil war disrupts the flow of oil, or—perish the thought—as would be the case if terrorists managed to get their hands on nuclear or biological weapons. At other times, the effects are like a slow ripple, as when a government adopts some policy that gradually impedes its ability to compete in world markets. All of today’s societies, then, no matter where they are located, are part of a world system.

The interconnections are most evident among nations that do extensive trading with one another. The following Thinking Critically about Social Life explores implications of Mexico’s maquiladoras.

world system theory a theory of how economic and political connections developed among nations, connections that now link the world’s countries

globalization of capitalism capitalism (investing to make profits within a rational system) becoming the globe’s dominant economic system

Thinking Critically about Social Life When Globalization Comes Home: Maquiladoras South of the Border Two hundred thousand Mexicans rush to Juarez each year, fleeing the hopelessness of the rural areas in pursuit of a better life. They have no running water or plumbing, but they didn’t have any in the coun- try either, and here they have the possibility of a job, a weekly check to buy food for the kids.

The pay is about $100 for a 48-hour work week, about $2 an hour (Chacon and Davis 2006). Some workers earn just $39 for a week’s work (Bacon 2015).

This may not sound like much, but it is more than twice the minimum daily wage in Mexico.

Assembly-for-export plants, known as maquiladoras, dot the Mexican border. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) allows U.S. companies to import materials to Mexico without paying tax and then to export the finished products into the United States, again without tax. It’s a

sweet deal: few taxes and $8 to $16 a day for workers starved for jobs.

That these workers live in shacks, with no running water or sewage disposal, is not the employers’ concern.

Nor is the pollution. The stinking air doesn’t stay on the Mexican side of the border. Neither does the garbage. Heavy rains wash torrents of untreated sewage and industrial wastes into the Rio Grande (Casey and Watkins 2014).

There is also the loss of jobs for U.S. workers. Six of the fifteen poorest cities in the United States are located along the sewage- infested Rio Grande. NAFTA didn’t bring poverty to these cities. They were poor before this treaty, but residents resent the transfer of jobs across the border (Thompson 2001).

What if the maquilas (maquiladora workers) organize and demand better pay? Farther south, even cheaper

A maquiladora worker in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico. She assembles dashboard harnesses for GM cars.

Global Stratification 223

Culture of Poverty The third explanation of global stratification is quite unlike colonialism and world system theory. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith (1979) claimed that the cultures of the Least Industrialized Nations hold them back. Building on the ideas of anthropolo- gist Oscar Lewis (1966a, 1966b), Galbraith argued that some nations are crippled by a culture of poverty, a way of life that perpetuates poverty from one generation to the next. He explained it this way: Most of the world’s poor people are farmers who live on little plots of land. They barely produce enough food to survive. Living on the edge of starvation, they have little room for risk—so they stick to tried-and-true, traditional ways. To experiment with new farming techniques is to court disaster, since failure would lead to hunger and death.

Their religion also encourages them to accept their situation. It teaches fatalism, the belief that an individual’s position in life is God’s will. For example, in India, the Dal- its are taught that they must have done very bad things in a previous life to suffer so. They are supposed to submit to their situation, which they deserve—and in the next life, maybe they’ll come back in a more desirable state.

Evaluating the Theories Most sociologists prefer colonialism and world system theory. To them, an explanation based on a culture of poverty places blame on the victim—the poor nations themselves. It points to characteristics of the poor nations, rather than to international political arrangements that benefit the Most Industrialized Nations at the expense of the poor nations. But even taken together, these theories yield only part of the picture. None of these theories, for example, would have led anyone to expect that after World War II Japan would become an economic powerhouse: Japan had a religion that stressed fatalism, two of its major cities had been destroyed by atomic bombs, and it had been stripped of its colonies.

culture of poverty the assumption that the values and behaviors of the poor make them fundamentally different from other people, that these factors are largely responsible for their poverty, and that par- ents perpetuate poverty across generations by passing these characteristics to their children

labor beckons. Workers in Guatemala and Honduras, even more desperate than those in Mexico, will gladly take these jobs. China, too, is competing for them. And Vietnam and Thailand are competing for China’s jobs (Chu et al. 2016).

Many Mexican politicians would say that this presentation is one-sided. “Sure there are problems,” they would say, “but this is how it always is when a country industrializes. Don’t you realize that the maquiladoras bring jobs to people who have no

work? They also bring roads, telephone lines, and electricity to undeveloped areas.” “In fact,” said Vicente Fox, when he was the president of Mexico, “workers at the maquiladoras make more than the average salary in Mexico—and that’s what we call fair wages” (Fraser 2001).

For Your Consideration Let’s apply our three theoretical perspectives. → Some conflict theorists analyze how capitalists try to

weaken the bargaining power of workers by exploiting divisions among them. In what is known as the split labor market, capitalists pit one group of workers against another to lower the cost of labor. How do you think ma- quiladoras fit this conflict perspective?

→ When functionalists analyze a situation, they identify its functions and dysfunctions. What functions and dysfunc- tions of maquiladoras do you see?

→ Symbolic interactionists analyze how people’s experienc- es shape their views of the world. How would people’s experiences in contrasting social locations lead to different answers to these questions: Do maquiladoras represent exploitation or opportunity? and What multiple realities do you see here?Inside the home of a maquiladora worker in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.

224 Chapter 7

Each theory, then, yields but a partial explanation, and the grand theorist who will put the many pieces of this puzzle together has yet to appear.

Maintaining Global Stratification 7.8 Explain how neocolonialism, multinational corporations, and technology help

to maintain global stratification.

Regardless of how the world’s nations became stratified, why do countries remain rich— or poor—year after year? Let’s look at three explanations of how global stratification is maintained.

Neocolonialism Sociologist Michael Harrington (1977) argued that when colonialism fell out of style, it was replaced by neocolonialism. When World War II changed public sentiment about sending soldiers to conquer weaker countries and colonists to exploit them, the Most Industrialized Nations turned to the international markets as a way of controlling the Least Industrialized Nations. By selling them goods on credit—especially weapons that the local elites desire so they can keep themselves in power—the Most Industrialized Nations entrap the poor nations within a circle of debt.

As many of us learn the hard way, owing a large debt puts us at the mercy of our creditors. So it is with neocolonialism. The policy of selling weapons and other manufactured goods to the Least Industrialized Nations on credit turns those coun- tries into eternal debtors. The capital they need to develop their own industries goes instead as payments toward the debt, which becomes bloated with mounting interest. Keeping these nations in debt forces them to submit to trading terms dictated by the neocolonialists (Carrington 1993; Maloba 2017).

RELEVANCE TODAY Neocolonialism might seem remote from your life, but its her- itage affects you directly. Consider the oil-rich Middle Eastern countries, our wars in the Persian Gulf, and the terrorism that emanates from this region. Although this is an area of ancient civilizations, the countries themselves are recent. Great Britain created Saudi Arabia, drawing its boundaries and even naming the country after the man (Ibn Saud) whom British officials picked to lead it. This created a debt for the Saudi fam- ily. For decades, this family repaid its debt by providing low-cost oil, which the Most Industrialized Nations need to maintain their way of life. When other nations pumped less oil—no matter the cause, whether revolution or an attempt to raise prices—the Sau- dis helped keep prices low by making up the shortfall. In return, the United States (and other nations) overlooked the human rights violations of the Saudi royal family, keeping them in power by selling them the latest weapons. This mutually sycophantic arrange- ment continues, but in light of U.S. support for Israel and 9/11 led by Saudi Arabians, it is fraying at the edges (Wong 2016).

Multinational Corporations Multinational corporations, companies that operate across many national boundar- ies, also help to maintain the global dominance of the Most Industrialized Nations. In some cases, multinational corporations exploit the Least Industrialized Nations directly. A prime example is the United Fruit Company, a U.S. corporation that used to run Central American nations as its own fiefdoms. If a government became uncooperative, the CIA would plot and overthrow it (Central Intelligence Agency [CIA] 2003), while an occasional invasion by Marines would remind area politicians of the military power that backed U.S. corporations.

neocolonialism the economic and political dominance of the Least Indus- trialized Nations by the Most Industrialized Nations

multinational corporations companies that operate across national boundaries; also called transnational corporations

Global Stratification 225

Most commonly, however, it is simply by doing business that multinational corpora- tions help to maintain international stratification. A single multinational corporation may manage mining operations in several countries, manufacture goods in others, and mar- ket its products around the globe. No matter where the profits are made, or where they are reinvested, the primary beneficiaries are the Most Industrialized Nations, especially the one in which the multinational corporation has its world headquarters.

BUYING POLITICAL STABILITY In their pursuit of profits, the multinational corpo- rations need cooperative power elites in the Least Industrialized Nations (Schwartz and Cameron 2017; Maloba 2017). In return for funneling money to the elites and selling them modern weapons, the corporations get a “favorable business climate”—that is, low taxes and cheap labor. The corporations politely call the money they pay to the elites “sub- sidies” and “offsets”—which ring prettier on the ear than “bribes.” These elites, able to siphon money from their country’s tax collections and government budgets, live a sophisticated upper-class life in the major cities of their home country. Although most of the citizens of these countries live a hard-scrabble life, the elites are able to send their children to prestigious Western universities, such as Oxford, the Sorbonne, and Harvard.

You can see how this cozy arrangement helps to maintain global stratification. The significance of these payoffs is not so much the genteel lifestyles that they allow the elites to maintain but the translation of the payoffs into power. They allow the elites to purchase high-tech weapons with which they preserve their positions of privilege, even though they must oppress their people to do so. The result is a political stability that keeps alive this diabolical partnership between the multinational corporations and the national elites.

UNANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCES This, however, is not the full story. An uninten- tional by-product of the multinationals’ global search for cheap resources and labor is to modify global stratification. When corporations move manufacturing from the Most Industrialized Nations to the Least Industrialized Nations, they not only exploit cheap labor, but they also bring jobs and money to these nations. Although workers in the Least Industrialized Nations are paid a pittance, it is more than they can earn elsewhere. With new factories come opportunities to develop skills, acquire technology, and accumulate a capital base from which local elites can launch their own factories.

The Pacific Rim nations provide a remarkable example. In return for providing the “favorable business climate” just mentioned, multinational corporations invested billions of dollars in the “Asian tigers” (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan). These nations have developed such a strong capital base that, along with China, they have begun to rival the older capitalist countries. This has also made them subject to capitalism’s “boom and bust” cycles. When capitalism suffers a downturn, workers and investors in these nations, including those in the maquiladoras that you just read about, have their dreams smashed.

Technology and Global Domination The race between the Most and Least Industrialized Nations to develop and apply the new technologies might seem like a race between a marathon runner and someone with a broken leg. Can the outcome be in doubt? As the multinational corporations amass profits, they are able to invest huge sums in the latest technology while the Least Indus- trialized Nations are struggling to put scraps on the table.

So it would appear, but the race is not this simple. Although the Most Industrialized Nations have a seemingly insurmountable head start, some nations are shortening the distance between themselves and the front-runners. With cheap labor making their man- ufactured goods inexpensive, China and India are exporting goods on a massive scale. They are using the capital from these exports to buy high technology so they can mod- ernize their infrastructure (transportation, communication, electrical, and banking sys- tems). Although global domination remains in the hands of the West, it could be on the verge of a major shift from West to East.

226 Chapter 7

Strains in the Global System: Uneasy Realignments 7.9 Identify strains in today’s system of global stratification.

It is never easy to maintain global stratification. At the very least, a continuous stream of unanticipated events forces the elite to stay on their toes, and at times, huge currents of history threaten to sweep them aside. No matter how secure a stratification system may seem, it always contains unresolved matters. These contradictions can be covered up for a while, but inevitably the discontent multiplies and the demand for change grows louder. Some are just little dogs nipping at the heels of the world’s elites, bringing issues that can be resolved with a drone or a few tanks or bombs—or, better, with a scowl and the threat to bomb an opponent. Other issues are of a broader nature, part of huge histor- ical shifts. Baring their teeth, unresolved contradictions snarlingly demand change, even the rearrangement of global power.

Historical shifts bring cataclysmic disruptions. We are now living through such a time. The far-reaching economic–political changes in Russia and China have been accom- panied by huge cracks in a creaking global banking system. In desperation, the global powers have pumped trillions of dollars into their economic–political systems. As curi- ous as we are about the outcome and as much as our welfare is at stake, we don’t know the end point of this current strain in the global system and the power elites’ attempts to patch up the most glaring inconsistencies in their global domination. As this process of realignment continues, however, it is likely to sweep all of us into its unwelcome net.

Summary and Review Systems of Social Stratification 7.1 Compare and contrast slavery (including bonded

labor), caste, estate, and class systems of social stratification.

What is social stratification?

Social stratification refers to a hierarchy of privilege based on property, power, and prestige. Every society stratifies its members, and in every society, men-as-a-group dominate women-as-a-group.

What are four major systems of social stratification?

Four major stratification systems are slavery, caste, estate, and class. The essential characteristic of slavery is that some people own other people. Initially, slavery was based not on race but on debt, punishment for crime, or defeat in battle. Slavery could be temporary or permanent and was not necessarily passed on to the children. North American slavery was gradually buttressed by a racist ideology. In a caste system, people’s status, which is lifelong, is deter- mined by their caste’s relation to other castes. The estate system of feudal Europe consisted of three estates: the no- bility, clergy, and peasants (serfs). A class system is much more open than these other systems because it is based primarily on money or material possessions. Industrializa- tion encourages the formation of class systems. Gender cuts across all forms of social stratification.

What Determines Social Class? 7.2 Contrast the views of Marx and Weber on what

determines social class.

Karl Marx argued that a single factor determines social class: If you own the means of production, you belong to the bourgeoisie; if you do not, you are one of the prole- tariat. Max Weber argued that three elements determine social class: property, power, and prestige.

Why Is Social Stratification Universal? 7.3 Contrast the functional and conflict views of why

social stratification is universal.

To explain why stratification is universal, functional- ists Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore argued that to attract the most capable people to fill its important posi- tions, society must offer them greater rewards. Melvin Tumin said that if this view were correct, society would be a meritocracy, with positions awarded on the basis of merit. Gaetano Mosca argued that stratification is inevi- table because every society must have leadership, which, by definition, means inequality. Conflict theorists argue that stratification is the outcome of an elite emerging as groups struggle for limited resources. Gerhard Lenski suggested a synthesis between the functionalist and con- flict perspectives.

Global Stratification 227

How Do Elites Maintain Stratification? 7.4 Discuss the ways that elites keep themselves

in power.

To maintain social stratification within a nation, the ruling class adopts an ideology that justifies its current arrange- ments. It also controls information and uses technology. When all else fails, it turns to brute force.

Comparative Social Stratification 7.5 Contrast social stratification in Great Britain

and the former Soviet Union.

What are key characteristics of stratification systems in other nations?

The most striking features of the British class system are speech and education. In Britain, accent reveals social class, and almost all of the elite attend private schools. In the for- mer Soviet Union, communism was supposed to abolish class distinctions. Instead, it ushered in a different set of classes.

Global Stratification: Three Worlds 7.6 Compare social stratification in the Most

Industrialized Nations, the Industrializing Nations, and the Least Industrialized Nations.

How are the world’s nations stratified?

The model presented here divides the world’s nations into three groups: the Most Industrialized, the Industrializing, and the Least Industrialized. This layering represents rela- tive property, power, and prestige.

How Did the World’s Nations Become Stratified? 7.7 Discuss how colonialism and world system theory

explain how the world’s nations became stratified.

The main theories that seek to account for global stratifica- tion are colonialism, world system theory, and the culture of poverty. The text explains each.

Maintaining Global Stratification 7.8 Explain how neocolonialism, multinational

corporations, and technology help to maintain global stratification.

How do elites maintain global stratification?

There are two basic explanations for why the world’s coun- tries remain stratified. Neocolonialism is the ongoing dominance of the Least Industrialized Nations by the Most Industrialized Nations. The second explanation points to the influence of multinational corporations. The new technology gives further advantage to the Most Industrialized Nations.

Strains in the Global System 7.9 Identify strains in today’s system of global

stratification.

What strains are showing up in global stratification?

All stratification systems contain contradictions that threat- en to erupt, forcing the system to change. Currently, capital- ism is in crisis, and we seem to be experiencing a major shift in economic (and, ultimately, political and military) power and global influence from the West to the East.

Thinking Critically about Chapter 7 1. How do slavery, caste, estate, and class systems of

social stratification differ?

2. Why is social stratification universal?

3. How do elites maintain stratification (keep themselves in power)?

4. What shifts in global stratification seem to be taking place? Why?

A Boating Party, 1889, John Singer Sargent (oil on canvas)

229

Learning Objectives

After you have read this chapter, you should be able to:

8.1 Explain the three components of social class—property, power, and prestige; distinguish between wealth and income; explain how property and income are distributed; and describe the democratic façade, the power elite, and status inconsistency.

8.2 Contrast Marx’s and Weber’s models of social class.

8.3 Summarize the consequences of social class for physical and mental health, family life, education, religion, politics, and the criminal justice system.

8.4 Contrast the three types of social mobility, review gender issues in research on social mobility, and explain why social mobility brings pain.

8.5 Explain the problems in drawing the poverty line and how poverty is related to geography, race–ethnicity, education, feminization, and age.

8.6 Contrast the dynamics of poverty with the culture of poverty, explain why people are poor and how deferred gratification is related to poverty, and comment on the Horatio Alger myth.

8.7 Discuss the possibility that we are developing a three-tier society.

Chapter 8

Social Class in the United States

Ah, New Orleans, that fabled city on the Mississippi Delta. Images from its rich past floated through my head—pirates, treasure, intrigue. Memories from a pleasant vacation stirred my thoughts—the exotic French Quarter with its enticing aroma of Creole food and sounds of earthy jazz drifting through the air.

The shelter for the homeless forced me back to an unwelcome reality. The shelter was like those I had visited in the North, West, and East—only dirtier. The dirt, in fact, was the worst that I had encountered during my research. On top of that, this was the only shelter to insist on payment in exchange for sleeping in one of its filthy beds.

The men here looked the same as the homeless anywhere in the country—disheveled and haggard, wearing that unmistakable expression of sorrow and despair. Except for the accent, you wouldn’t know what region you were in. Poverty wears the same tired face wherever you are, I realized. The accent may differ, but the look remains the same.

I had grown used to the sights and smells of abject poverty. Those no longer surprised me. But after my fitful sleep with the homeless that night, I saw something that did. Just a block or so from the shelter, I was startled by a sight so out of step with the misery and despair I had just experienced that I stopped and stared.

“My mind refused to stop juxtaposing these images of extravagance with the suffering I had just seen.”

230 Chapter 8

I felt indignation swelling within me. Confronting me were life-sized, full-color photos mounted on the transparent Plexiglas shelter of a bus stop. Staring back at me were im- ages of finely dressed men and women, proudly modeling elegant suits, dresses, diamonds, and furs.

A wave of disgust swept over me. “Something is cockeyed in this society,” I thought, as my mind refused to stop juxtaposing these images of extravagance with the suffering I had just seen.

The disjunction—the mental distress—that I felt in New Orleans was triggered by the ads, but it was not the first time I had experienced this sensation. Whenever my research abruptly transported me from the world of the homeless to one of another social class, I experienced a sense of disjointed unreality. Each social class has its own ways of think- ing and behaving, and because these fundamental orientations to the world contrast so sharply, the classes do not mix well.

What Is Social Class? 8.1 Explain the three components of social class—property, power, and prestige;

distinguish between wealth and income; explain how property and income are distributed; and describe the democratic façade, the power elite, and status inconsistency.

If you ask most Americans about their country’s social class system, you are likely to get a blank look. If you press the matter, you are likely to get an answer like this: “There are the poor and the rich—and then there’s us, neither poor nor rich.” This is just about as far as most Americans’ consciousness of social class goes. Let’s try to flesh out this idea.

Our task is made somewhat difficult because sociologists have no clear-cut, agreed-on definition of social class. As was noted in the last chapter, conflict sociologists (of the Marxist orientation) see only two social classes: those who own the means of pro- duction and those who do not. The problem with this view, say most sociologists, is that it lumps too many people together. Teenage “order takers” at McDonald’s who work for $15,000 a year are lumped together with that company’s executives who make $500,000 a year—because they both are workers at McDonald’s, not owners.

Most sociologists agree with Max Weber that there is more to social class than just a person’s relationship to the means of production. Consequently, most sociologists use the components Weber identified and define social class as a large group of people who rank closely to one another in property, power, and prestige. These three elements give people different chances in life, separate them into different lifestyles, and provide them with distinctive ways of looking at the self and the world.

Let’s look at how sociologists measure these three components of social class.

Property Property comes in many forms, such as buildings, land, animals, machinery, cars, stocks, bonds, businesses, furniture, jewelry, and bank accounts. When you add up the value of someone’s property and subtract that person’s debts, you have what sociologists call wealth. This term can be misleading, as some of us have little wealth—especially most college students. Nevertheless, if your net total comes to $10, then that is your wealth. (Obviously, wealth as a sociological term does not mean wealthy.)

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN WEALTH AND INCOME Wealth and income are some- times confused, but they are not the same. Where wealth is a person’s net worth, income is a flow of money. Income has many sources: The most common is wages or a business, but other sources are rent, interest, and royalties. Even alimony, an allowance, and gam- bling winnings are part of income.

social class according to Weber, a large group of people who rank close to one another in property, power, and prestige; according to Marx, one of two groups: capitalists who own the means of production or workers who sell their labor

property material possessions: includes animals, bank accounts, bonds, buildings, businesses, cars, cash, commodities, copyrights, furni- ture, jewelry, land, and stocks

wealth the total value of everything someone owns, minus the debts

income money received, usually from a job, business, or assets

A mere one-half percent of Americans owns over a quarter of the entire nation’s wealth. Very few minorities are numbered among this 0.5 percent. An exception is Oprah Winfrey, who has had an ultra-successful career in entertainment and investing. Worth $3.0 billion, she is the 239th richest person in the United States. Winfrey has given millions of dollars to help minority children.

Social Class in the United States 231

Wealth and income usually go together, but not always. Some people have much wealth and little income. For example, a farmer may own a lot of land (a form of wealth), but bad weather can cause the income to dry up.

Then there are those who have a large income and no wealth. Here is a real-life example of someone who makes $375,000 a year and is dead broke:

Gregory Owens is a New York City lawyer who makes $375,000 a year. Yet he is broke. In his bankruptcy petition, Owens revealed that taxes, alimony, required retirement contributions, rent, food, and transportation eat up all his income. He spends $52 more a month than he earns. (Stewart 2014)

DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY If we add up the value of the property in the United States—all the houses, apartments, cars and trucks, farms, businesses, and bank accounts—the total comes to about $59 trillion (Statistical Abstract 2017:Table 748). This certainly is a hefty sum. And who owns this vast property? One answer, of course, is “everyone,” as this $59 trillion is the total of what all Americans own. What this state- ment overlooks, though, is how the nation’s property is divided among “everyone.”

You might be surprised at how concentrated U.S. wealth is. Look at Figure 8.1. Just 1 percent of Americans owns more than one-third of all real estate, stocks, bonds, and business assets in the entire country. As you can also see from this figure, 10 percent of Americans own 77 percent of the nation’s wealth.

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Wolff 2013.

...own 77 percent of the nation's wealth

The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans...

10%

90%90%

10%

23%

77%

1%

...own 35 percent of the nation's wealth

The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans...

99%

35%

65%

99%

1%

Figure 8.1 Distribution of the Wealth of Americans

DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME How is income distributed in the United States? Economist Paul Samuelson (Samuelson and Nordhaus 2005) put it this way: “If we made an income pyramid out of a child’s blocks, with each layer portraying $500 of income, the peak would be far higher than Mount Everest, but most people would be within a few feet of the ground.”

To better grasp this layering, look at Figure 8.2. You can see that if each block were 1½ inches tall, the typical American would be just 12 feet off the ground. This portrays the aver- age income in the United States of about $48,000 per year. (This is per capita income, which includes every American, even children.) The typical family climbs a little higher, since most families have more than one worker. Together, they average about $67,000 a year (Statistical Abstract 2017:Tables 705, 723). Compared with the few families who are on the mountain’s peak, the average U.S. family would still find itself only 17 feet off the ground.

232 Chapter 8

The fact that some Americans enjoy the peaks of Mount Everest while most—despite their efforts—make it only 12 to 17 feet up the slope presents a striking image of income inequality in the United States. Another picture emerges if we divide the U.S. popula- tion into five equal groups and rank them from highest to lowest income. As Figure 8.3 shows, the top 20 percent of the population receive half (51.1 percent) of all income in the United States. In contrast, the bottom 20 percent of Americans receive only 3.1 percent of the nation’s income.

Two features of Figure 8.3 stand out. First, look at how income inequality decreased from 1935 to 1970. Then notice how inequality has increased since 1970. Since 1970, the richest 20 percent of U.S. families have grown richer, while the poorest 20 percent have grown poorer. Despite numerous government antipoverty programs, the poorest 20 percent of Americans receive less of the nation’s income today than they did decades ago. The richest 20 percent, in contrast, are receiving more, as much as they did in 1935.

The chief executive officers (CEOs) of the nation’s largest corporations are espe- cially affluent. The Wall Street Journal surveyed the 300 largest U.S. companies to find out what they paid their CEOs. Their median compensation (including salaries, bonuses, and stock options) came to $11,000,000 a year. (Median means that half received more than this amount, and half less.) On Table 8.1, you can see the pay of the five high- est paid CEOs.

Table 8.1 The Five Highest-Paid CEOs

SOURCE: Melin 2017.

Name Company Compensation

Marc Lore Walmart $237 million

Tim Cook Apple $150 million

John Weinberg Evercore Partners $124 million

Sundar Pichai Alphabet $107 million

Elon Musk Tesla $100 million

Some U.S. families have incomes that exceed the height of Mt. Everest, 29,028 feet

Average U.S. individual income $48,000 or 12 feet

Average U.S. family income $67,000 or 17 feet

If a 1½-inch child’s block equals $500 of income, the average individual’s annual income of $48,000 would represent a height of 12 feet, and the average family’s annual income of $67,000 would represent a height of 17 feet. The income of some families, in contrast, would represent a height greater than that of Mt. Everest.

Figure 8.2 How the Income of Americans Is Distributed

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2017:Tables 705, 723.

The average income of these highest-paid CEOs is 3,000 times higher than the aver- age pay of U.S. workers (Statistical Abstract 2017:Table 705). This does not include these CEOs’ income from interest, dividends, or rents. Nor does it include the value of their company-paid limousines and chauffeurs, airplanes and pilots, and their private boxes at the symphony and sporting events. To really see the disparity, consider this:

Let’s suppose that you started working the year Jesus was born and that you worked full-time starting then. Let’s also assume that each year you earned today’s average per capita income of $47,669. As of this year, you would still have to work 3,000 more years to earn what the highest-paid executive listed in Table 8.1 earned in just one year.

Imagine how you could live with an income like Marc Lore’s. And this is precisely the point. Beyond these cold numbers lies a dynamic reality that profoundly affects people’s lives. The difference in wealth between those at the top and those at the bot- tom of the U.S. class structure means that people experience vastly different lives. For example,

A colleague of mine who was teaching at an exclusive Eastern university piqued his stu- dents’ curiosity when he lectured on poverty in Latin America. That weekend, one of the students borrowed his parents’ corporate jet and pilot, and in class on Monday, he and his friends related their personal observations on poverty in Latin America.

Few of us could ever say, “Mom and Dad, I’ve got to do a report for my soc class, so I need to borrow the jet—and the pilot—to run down to South America for the week- end.” What a lifestyle! Contrast this with Americans at the low end of the income ladder who lack the funds to travel even to a neighboring town for the weekend. For parents in

Social Class in the United States 233

Down-to-Earth Sociology How the Super-Rich Live

Larry Ellison, one of the richest men in the United States, loves basketball so much that he has his own basketball court on his yacht. When he misses the basket, a ball sometimes ends up in the ocean. Not to worry. Ellison has hired a man whose sole job is to drive a 44-foot powerboat behind the yacht to retrieve the errant balls.

And when Ellison gets bored with playing on his yacht’s basketball court? He climbs in his personal helicopter flown by his personal pilot. Flying above the yacht, he shoots hoops to his heart’s content. His personal basketball retriever faithfully trails the yacht, scooping up those errant balls. (Gay 2014)

As F. Scott Fitzgerald said in The Great Gatsby, “The rich are different than you and me.” And how!

Let’s take a glimpse at the lifestyle of another very rich man, John Castle (his real name). John has made more than $100 million in banking and securities (Lublin 1999). But the super-rich yearn for more than just money. Displayed in the right way, vast wealth can bring distinction and create envy.

Wanting to be connected to someone famous, John bought President John F. Kennedy’s “Winter White House,” an oceanfront estate in Palm Beach, Florida. John spent $11 million to remodel the 13,000-square-foot house so that it would be more to his liking. Among those changes: adding bathrooms numbers 14 and 15. He likes to show off John F. Kennedy’s bed and also the dresser that has the

drawer labeled “black underwear,” carefully hand-lettered by Rose Kennedy (Bloomfield 2012).

John has a yacht, too, a source of pleasure and pride. How much did his custom-built Hinckley yacht cost? John can’t tell you. As he says, “I don’t want to know what anything costs. When you’ve got enough money, price doesn’t make a difference. That’s part of the freedom of being rich.”

Right. And for John, being rich also means paying $1,000,000 to charter a private jet to fly Spot, his Appaloosa horse, back and forth to the vet. John didn’t want Spot to have to endure a long trailer ride. Oh, and of course, there was the cost of Spot’s medical treatment, another $500,000.

Other wealthy people besides Ellison and Castle spend extravagantly, too. If you are among them, you might spruce up your Saturday night with a $35,000 bottle of champagne at the 1 Oak Lounge in New York City (Haughney and Konigsberg 2008). Or perhaps a $10,000 cocktail at the Jardin in Las Vegas is more to your liking. But if you are looking for a bargain, you might consider the Jardin’s weekend Valentine package. For just $100,000, you can have this cocktail included (Stern 2016).

Parties are fun, but what if you want privacy? You can buy that, too. Wayne Huizenga, who sold a half ownership in the Miami Dolphins for $550 million (“Builder Stephen . . .” 2008), bought a 2,000-acre country club, complete with an 18-hole golf course, a 55,000-square-foot-clubhouse, and

Figure 8.3 The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Dividing the Nation’s Income

1Earliest year available. 2No data for 1940.

SOURCE: By the author. Based on U.S. Census Bureau. Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2014. Historical Tables, Income, Households, Table H-2. 2016; Statistical Abstract of the United States 1960:Table 417; 1970:Table 489; 2017:Table 721.

P e rc

e n ta

g e

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

1935 1941 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2014

The top 5th The bottom 5th The second 5th

The fourth 5th The third 5th

poverty, choices may revolve around whether to spend the little they have at the laun- dromat or on milk for the baby. The elderly poor might have to choose between purchas- ing the medicines they need or buying food. In short, divisions of wealth represent not “empty” numbers but choices that make vital differences in people’s lives. Let’s explore this topic in the following Down-to-Earth Sociology.

(continued )

234 Chapter 8

Power Let’s look at the second component of social class: power.

THE DEMOCRATIC FACADE Like many people, you may have said to yourself, “The big decisions are always made despite what I think. Certainly I don’t make the decision to send soldiers to Afghanistan or Iraq. I don’t order drones to launch missiles. I don’t decide to raise taxes, lower interest rates, or spend billions of dollars to bail out Wall Street fools and felons.”

And then another part of you may say, “But I do participate in these decisions through my representatives in Congress and by voting for president.” True enough—as far as it goes. The trouble is, it doesn’t go far enough. Such views of being a participant in the nation’s “big” decisions are a playback of the ideology we learn at an early age—an ideology that is promoted by the elites to legitimate and perpetuate their power. Some sociologists call this the “democratic facade” that conceals the real source of power in the United States.

Following this conflict perspective, let’s try to get a picture of where that power is located.

THE POWER ELITE In Chapter 1, I mentioned that in the 1950s, sociologist C. Wright Mills pointed out that power—the ability to get your way despite resistance—was con- centrated in the hands of a few. Mills met heavy criticism, because his analysis contradicted the dominant view that “the people” make the country’s decisions. This ideology is still dominant, and Mills’ analysis continues to ruffle feathers. Some still choke on the term power elite, which Mills coined to refer to those who make the big decisions in U.S. society.

Mills and others have stressed how wealth and power coalesce in a group of people who look at the world in the same way—and view themselves as a special elite. They belong to the same private clubs, vacation at the same exclusive resorts, and even hire the same bands for their daughters’ debutante balls (Domhoff 2006, 2014). This elite wields extraordinary power in U.S. society, so much so that many U.S. presidents have been mil- lionaire white men from families with “old money.”

Continuing in the tradition of Mills, sociologist William Domhoff (2006, 2014) argues that the power elite is so powerful that the U.S. government makes no major decision without its approval. He analyzed how this group works behind the scenes with elected officials to determine both foreign and domestic policy—from setting Social Security taxes to imposing tariffs on imported goods. Although Domhoff ’s

power the ability to carry out your will, even over the resistance of others

power elite C. Wright Mills’ term for the top people in U.S. corporations, military, and politics who make the nation’s major decisions

68 slips for visiting vessels. The club is so exclusive that its only members are Wayne and his wife (Fabrikant 2005).

Withdrawing behind gated estates is one way to gain privacy, but Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen has found another way. On his 414-foot yacht, the Octopus, are two helicopters, a swimming pool, and a submarine (Freeland 2011).

While the length of Allen’s yacht creates envy among the plutocracy that would make Freud break into a sweat, some might say that Charles Simonyi has even outdone this. He bought a $25-million ticket for a rocket ride to the International Space Station. Simonyi liked the experience so

much that he bought a second ticket (Leo 2008). No frequent flyer miles included. But at the pace that prices are increasing,

$50 million isn’t worth what it used to be anyway.

For Your Consideration → What effects has social class

had on your life? (Go beyond possessions to values and how you view life.)

→ How do you think you would see the world differently if you were Larry Ellison, John Castle, Paul Allen, Charles Simonyi, or Mrs. Wayne Huizenga?At 533 feet, the Eclipse is the world's second largest

yacht. It is owned by Roman Abramovich of Russia, the world's 11th richest person.

Social Class in the United States 235

conclusions are controversial—and alarming—they certainly follow logically from the principle that wealth brings power and extreme wealth brings extreme power.

Prestige Let’s look at the third component of social class, occu- pational prestige.

OCCUPATIONS AND PRESTIGE What are you thinking about doing after college? Chances are, you don’t have the option of lying in a hammock under palm trees in some South Pacific paradise. Almost all of us have to choose an occupation and go to work. Look at Table 8.2 to see how the career you are con- sidering stacks up in terms of prestige (the respect or regard people give it). Because we are moving toward a global society, this table also shows how the rankings given by Americans compare with those of the resi- dents of sixty other countries.

Why do people give more prestige to some jobs than to others? Look again at Table 8.2. The jobs at the top share four features:

1. They pay more.

2. They require more education.

3. They involve more abstract thought.

4. They offer greater autonomy (independence or self-direction).

Now look at the bottom of the list. You can see that people give less prestige to jobs with the opposite characteristics: These jobs pay little, require less edu- cation, involve more physical labor, and are closely supervised. In short, the professions and the white- collar jobs are at the top of the list, the blue-collar jobs at the bottom.

One of the more interesting aspects of these rankings is how consistent they are across countries and over time. For example, people in every country rank college professors higher than nurses, nurses higher than social workers, and social workers higher than janitors. Similarly, the occupations that were ranked high twenty-five years ago still rank high today—and likely will rank high in the years to come.

DISPLAYING PRESTIGE People want others to acknowledge their prestige. In times past, in some countries, only the emperor and his family could wear purple—it was the royal color. In France, only the nobility could wear lace. In England, no one could sit while the king was on his throne. Some kings and

Table 8.2 Occupational Prestige: How the United States Compares with Sixty Countries

NOTE: The rankings are based on 1 to 100, from lowest to highest. For five occupations not located in the 1994 source, the 1991 ratings were used: Supreme Court judge, astronaut, athletic coach, lives on public aid, and street sweeper. SOURCES: Treiman 1977: Appendices A and D; Nakao and Treas 1990, 1994: Appendix D.

Occupation United States Average of Sixty Countries

Physician 86 78

Supreme Court judge 85 82

College president 81 86

Astronaut 80 80

Lawyer 75 73

College professor 74 78

Airline pilot 73 66

Architect 73 72

Biologist 73 69

Dentist 72 70

Civil engineer 69 70

Clergy 69 60

Psychologist 69 66

Pharmacist 68 64

High school teacher 66 64

Registered nurse 66 54

Professional athlete 65 48

Electrical engineer 64 65

Author 63 62

Banker 63 67

Veterinarian 62 61

Police officer 61 40

Sociologist 61 67

Journalist 60 55

Classical musician 59 56

Actor or actress 58 52

Chiropractor 57 62

Athletic coach 53 50

Social worker 52 56

Electrician 51 44

Undertaker 49 34

Jazz musician 48 38

Real estate agent 48 49

Mail carrier 47 33

Secretary 46 53

Plumber 45 34

Carpenter 43 37

Farmer 40 47

Barber 36 30

Store sales clerk 36 34

Truck driver 30 33

Cab driver 28 28

Garbage collector 28 13

Waiter or waitress 28 23

Bartender 25 23

Lives on public aid 25 16

Bill collector 24 27

Factory worker 24 29

Janitor 22 21

Shoe shiner 17 12

Street sweeper 11 13

236 Chapter 8

queens required that subjects walk backward as they left the room—so that they would not “turn their back” on the “royal presence.”

Concern with displaying prestige has not let up. Military manuals specify who must salute whom. The U.S. president enters a room only after everyone else attending the function is present (to show that the president isn’t waiting for others). Everyone must also be standing when the president enters. In the courtroom, bailiffs, some with a gun at the hip, make certain that everyone stands when the judge enters.

Status symbols vary with social class. People who are striving to be upwardly mobile flaunt labels on their clothing or carry shopping bags from prestigious stores to show that they have “arrived.” The wealthy regard the status symbols of the “common” classes as cheap and tawdry. They, too, flaunt status symbols, but theirs are things like $100,000 Rolex watches and $50,000 diamond earrings. Like the other classes, the wealthy also try to outdo one another. They casually mention the length of their yacht or that a heli- copter flew them to their golf game (Fabrikant 2005). Or they offhandedly bring up the $40,000-a-night penthouse suite at the Four Seasons in New York City, asking, “Have you tried it yet? It’s ‘rather nice’” (Clemence 2013). Some hold their child’s birthday at places that charge $3,000, while others outdo them by buying their child an alligator backpack sold by Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen: just $39,000 (R. Smith 2014; Mose 2016). Then there is Shane Smith who treated a few guests to a $300,000 dinner that included $40,000 bot- tles of French Burgundy (Hagey 2016).

How about yourself? Nothing like this, I know, but how do you try to display prestige? Think about your clothing. How much more are you willing to pay for cloth- ing that bears some hot “designer” label? Purses, shoes, jeans, and shirts—many of us pay more if they have some little symbol than if they don’t. As we wear them proudly, aren’t we actually proclaiming, “See, I had the money (and the in-vogue taste, of course) to buy this particular item!”? For many, prestige is a primary factor in decid- ing which college to attend. Everyone knows how the prestige of a generic sheepskin from Regional State College compares with a degree from Harvard, Princeton, Yale, or Stanford.

Status Inconsistency Ordinarily, we have a similar rank on all three dimensions of social class—property, power, and prestige. The homeless men in the opening vignette are an example of these three dimensions lined up. Such people are status consistent. Some people, however, have a mixture of high and low ranks. This condition, called status inconsistency, leads to some interesting situations.

In classic research, sociologist Gerhard Lenski (1954, 1966) analyzed how people try to maximize their status, their position in a social group. Individuals who rank high on one dimension of social class but lower on others want people to judge them on the basis of their highest status. Others, however, are also trying to maximize their own status, so they may respond according to these people’s lowest rankings.

Another classic study of status inconsistency was done by sociologist Ray Gold (1952). After apartment-house janitors unionized in Chicago, they made more money than some of the tenants whose garbage they carried out. Residents became upset when they saw janitors driving more expensive cars than they did. Some attempted to “put the janitor in his place” by making “snotty” remarks to him. For their part, the janitors took delight in finding “dirty” secrets about the tenants in their garbage.

People who are status inconsistent, then, are likely to claim the higher status but be handed the lower one. This is so frustrating that the resulting tension can affect people’s health. Researchers who studied the health of thousands of Europeans over a decade found that men who were status inconsistent were twice as likely to have heart attacks as men who were status consistent. For reasons that no one knows, status inconsistent women do not have a higher risk of heath attacks (Braig et al. 2011).

status consistency ranking high or low on all three dimensions of social class

status inconsistency ranking high on some dimen- sions of social class and low on others; also called status discrepancy

status the position that someone occu- pies in a social group (also called social status)

prestige respect or regard

Social Class in the United States 237

How do you set yourself apart in a country so rich that of its 4.6 million people 79,000 are millionaires? Saeed Khouri (on the right), at an auction in Abu Dhabi, paid $14 million for the license plate “1.” His cousin was not as fortunate. His $9 million was enough to buy only “5.”

There are other consequences as well. Lenski (1954) found that people who are status inconsistent tend to be more politically radical. An example is college professors. Their prestige is very high, as you saw in Table 8.2, but their incomes are relatively low. Hardly anyone in U.S. society is more educated, and yet college professors don’t even come close to the top of the income pyramid. In line with Lenski ’s pre- diction, the politics of most college professors are left of center. This hypothesis may also hold true among academic departments; that is, the higher a department’s average pay, the more conservative are the members’ politics. Teach- ers in departments of business and medicine, for example, are among the most highly paid in the university—and they also are the most polit- ically conservative.

Instant wealth, the topic of the following Down-to-Earth Sociology, provides an interesting type of status inconsistency.

Down-to-Earth Sociology The Big Win: Life after the Lottery

“If I just win the lottery, life will be good. These prob- lems I’ve got, they’ll be gone. I can just see myself now.”

So goes the dream. And many people shell out megabucks every week, with the glimmering hope that “Maybe this week, I’ll hit it big.” Most are lucky to get $20 or maybe just another scratch-off ticket.

But some do hit it big. What happens to these winners? Are their lives all wine, roses, and chocolate afterward?

We don’t have any systematic studies of the big winners, so I can’t tell you what life is like for the average winner. But several themes are apparent from reporters’ interviews.

The most common consequence of hitting it big is that life becomes topsy-turvy (Susman 2012; Evans 2013). All of us are rooted somewhere. We have connections with others that provide the basis for our orientations to life and how we feel about the world. Sudden wealth can rip these moorings apart, and the resulting status inconsistency can lead to a condition sociologists call anomie (an`-uh-me).

First comes the shock. As Mary Sanderson, a telephone operator in Dover, New Hampshire, who won $66 million, said, “I was afraid to believe it was real and afraid to believe it wasn’t.” Mary says that she never slept worse than her first night as a multimillionaire. “I spent the whole time crying— and throwing up” (Tresniowski 1999).

Reporters and TV crews appear on your doorstep. “What are you going to do with all that money?” they demand. You haven’t the slightest idea, but in a daze you mumble something.

Then come the calls. Some are welcome. Your Mom and Dad call to congratulate you. But long-forgotten friends and distant relatives suddenly remember how close they are to you—and strangely enough, they all have emergencies that your money can solve. You even get calls from strangers who have ailing mothers, terminally ill kids, sick dogs …

You have to turn off your phone and change your number.

You might be flooded with marriage proposals. You certainly didn’t become more attractive or sexy overnight— or did you? Maybe money makes people sexy.

You can no longer trust people. You don’t know what their real motives are. Before, no one could be after your money because you didn’t have any. You may even fear kidnappers. Before, this wasn’t a problem—unless some kidnapper wanted a seven-year-old car as ransom.

The normal becomes abnormal. Even picking out a wedding gift becomes a problem. If you give the usual juicer, everyone will think you’re stingy. But should you write a check for $25,000? If you do, you’ll be invited to every wedding in town—and everyone will expect the same.

(continued )

238 Chapter 8

Figure 8.4 Marx’s Model of the Social Classes

SOURCE: By the author.

Capitalists (Bourgeoisie, those who own

the means of production)

Workers (Proletariat, those who work for the capitalists)

Inconsequential Others (beggars, etc.)

Jesús Davila, winner of $265 million in the Illinois lottery, who is retired, used to drive cars for a living. How do you think his lottery win will change his life?

Here is what happened to some lottery winners:

Mack Metcalf, a forklift operator in Corbin, Kentucky, hit the jackpot for $34 million. To fulfill a dream, he built and moved into a replica of George Washington’s Mount Vernon home. Then his life fell apart—his former wife sued him, his current wife divorced him, and his new girlfriend got $500,000 while he was drunk. Within three years of his “good” fortune, Metcalf had drunk himself to death. (Dao 2005).

When Abraham Shake- speare, a dead-broke truck driver’s assistant, won $31 million in the Florida lottery, he bought a million-dollar home in a gated community. He lent money to friends to start businesses, even paid for funerals (McShane 2010). This evidently wasn’t enough. His body was found buried in the yard of a “friend,” who was convicted of his murder. (Allen 2012).

Callie Rogers was just 16 years old when she won $3 million in the lottery. She proudly declared that she

wouldn’t change, that she’d drive a regular car, and so on. Then came the drugs ($380,000 on cocaine), the booze, the two boob jobs, and the four suicide attempts. Now broke, a mother, and married to a firefighter, she says, “I’m the happiest I’ve ever been in my life.” (Evans 2013).

Winners who avoid anomie seem to be people who don’t make sudden changes in their lifestyle or their behavior. They hold onto their old friends and routines—the anchors in life that give them identity and a sense of belonging. Some even keep their old jobs—not for the money, of course, but because the job anchors them to an identity with which they are familiar and comfortable.

Sudden wealth, in other words, poses a threat that has to be guarded against.

And I can just hear you say, “I’ll take the risk!”

For Your Consideration → How do you think your life would change if you won a

lottery jackpot of $10 million?

Sociological Models of Social Class 8.2 Contrast Marx’s and Weber’s models of social class.

The question of how many social classes there are is a matter of debate. Sociologists have proposed several models, but no single one has gained universal support. There are two main models: One builds on Karl Marx, the other on Max Weber.

Updating Marx As Figure 8.4 illustrates, Marx argued that there are just two classes—capitalists and workers—with membership based solely on a person’s relationship to the means of pro- duction. Sociologists have criticized this view, saying that these categories are too broad. For example, because executives, managers, and supervisors don’t own the means of production, they would be classified as workers. But what do these people have in com- mon with assembly-line workers? The category of “capitalist” is also too broad. Some people, for example, employ a thousand workers, and their decisions directly affect a thousand families. Others, in contrast, have very small businesses.

Consider a man I know in Godfrey, Illinois, who used to fix cars in his backyard. As Frank gained a following, he quit his regular job, and, in a few years, he put up a building with five bays and an office. Frank is now a capitalist: He employs five or six mechanics and owns the tools and the building (the “means of production”).

But what does this man have in common with a factory owner who controls the lives of one thousand workers? Not only is Frank’s work different, so are his lifestyle and the way he looks at the world.

To resolve this problem, sociologist Erik Wright (1985) suggests that some peo- ple are members of more than one class at the same time. They occupy what he calls

anomie Durkheim’s term for a condi- tion of society in which people become detached from the usual norms that guide their behavior

Social Class in the United States 239

contradictory class locations. By this, Wright means that a person’s position in the class structure can generate contradictory interests. For example, the automobile- mechanic-turned-business-owner may want his mechanics to have higher wages because he, too, has experienced their working conditions. At the same time, his cur- rent interests—making profits and remaining competitive with other repair shops— lead him to resist pressures to raise their wages.

Because of such contradictory class locations, Wright modified Marx’s model. As sum- marized in Figure 8.5, Wright identifies four classes: (1) capitalists, business owners who employ many workers; (2) petty bourgeoisie, small business owners; (3) managers, who sell their own labor but also exercise authority over other employees; and (4) workers, who sim- ply sell their labor to others. As you can see, this model allows finer divisions than the one Marx proposed, yet it maintains the primary distinction between employer and employee.

Problems persist, however. For example, in which category would we place college professors? And as you know, there are huge differences in the power of managers. An executive at Toyota, for example, may manage a thousand workers, while a shift manager at McDonald’s may be responsible for only a handful. They, too, have little in common.

Updating Weber Sociologists Joseph Kahl and Dennis Gilbert (Gilbert and Kahl 1998; Gilbert 2014) devel- oped a six-tier model to portray the class structure of the United States and other capi- talist countries. Think of this model, illustrated in Figure 8.6, as a ladder. Our discussion starts with the highest rung and moves downward. In line with Weber, on each lower rung, you find less property (wealth), less power, and less prestige. Note that in this model, education is also a primary measure of class.

contradictory class locations Erik Wright’s term for a position in the class structure that gener- ates contradictory interests

Figure 8.5 Wright’s Modification of Marx’s Model of the Social Classes

1. Capitalists

2. Petty bourgeoisie

3. Managers

4. Workers

SOURCE: By the author.

Figure 8.6 The U.S. Social Class Ladder

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Gilbert and Kahl 1998 and Gilbert 2014; income estimates are inflation-adjusted and modified from Duff 1995.

Capitalist

Upper Middle

Lower Middle

Working

Working Poor

Underclass

Social Class Education Income Percentage of

Population

Prestigious university

College or university, often with postgraduate study

High school or college; often apprenticeship

High school

High school or just some high school

Some high school

Occupation

Investors and heirs, a few top executives

Professionals and upper managers

Semiprofessionals and lower managers, craftspeople, foremen

Factory workers, clerical workers, low-paid retail sales, and craftspeople

Laborers, service workers, low-paid salespeople

Unemployed and part-time, on welfare

$1,000,000+

$125,000+

About $60,000

About $36,000

About $19,000

Under $12,000

1%

15%

34%

30%

15%

5%

240 Chapter 8

THE CAPITALIST CLASS The twenty richest Americans have more wealth than all the Americans (160 million) in the bottom half of the U.S. population (Collins and Hoxie 2015). One U.S. family, the Waltons of Wal-Mart Stores fame, has more money than the entire bottom 40 percent of all Americans, more than 125 million of their fellow citizens (Magdoff and Belamy 2014).

These two facts tell you more about the concentration of wealth in the United States than almost anything else I could say. But let’s try anyway: The sliver at the top of the capitalist class, a tiny one-tenth of 1 percent of the U.S. population, is worth more than the entire bottom 90 percent of the country (Saez and Zuchman 2016).

Power and influence cling to this small elite on the top rung of the class ladder. With their vast wealth, its members have access to top politicians, and their decisions open or close job opportunities for millions of people. They even help to shape the consciousness of the nation: They own our major media and entertainment outlets— newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, and sports franchises. They also control the boards of directors of our most influential colleges and universities. The super-rich perpetuate themselves in privilege by passing on their assets and social net- works to their children.

The capitalist class can be divided into “old” and “new” money. The longer that wealth has been in a family, the more it adds to the family’s prestige. The children of “old” money seldom mingle with “common” folk. Instead, they attend exclusive private schools where they learn views of life that support their privileged position. They don’t work for wages; instead, many study business or become lawyers so that they can manage the family fortune. These old- money capitalists (also called “blue bloods”) wield vast power as they use their extensive polit- ical connections to protect their economic empires (Domhoff 1990a, 2006, 2014; Lofgren 2016).

At the lower end of the capitalist class are the nouveau riche, those who have “new money.” Although they have made fortunes in business, the stock market, inventions, entertainment, or sports, they are outsiders to the upper class (Peretz 2013). They have not attended the “right” schools, and they don’t share the social networks that come with old money. Not blue bloods, they aren’t trusted to have the “right way” of thinking. Even their “taste” in clothing and status symbols is suspect (Fabrikant 2005). Donald Trump, whose money is “new,” is not listed in the Social Register, the “White Pages” of the blue bloods that lists the most prestigious and wealthy one-tenth of 1 percent of the U.S. population. Trump said he “doesn’t care,” but he revealed his true feelings by adding that his heirs will be in it (Kaufman 1996). He is probably right, since the children of new money can ascend into the top part of the capitalist class—if they go to the right schools and marry old money.

Many in the capitalist class are philanthropic. They establish foundations and give huge sums to “causes.” Their motives vary. Some feel guilty because they have so much while others have so little. Others seek prestige, acclaim, or fame. Still others feel a responsibility—even a sense of fate or destiny—to use their money for doing good. Bill Gates, who has given more money to the poor and to medical research than anyone else in history, seems to fall into this latter category.

THE UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS Of all the classes, the upper-middle class is the one most shaped by education. Almost all members of this class have at least a bachelor ’s degree, and many have postgraduate degrees in business, management, law, or medicine. These people manage the corporations owned by the capitalist class, operate their own busi- nesses, or pursue professional careers. As Gilbert and Kahl (1998) say,

[These positions] may not grant prestige equivalent to a title of nobility in the Germany of Max Weber, but they certainly represent the sign of having “made it” in contemporary America …. Their income is sufficient to purchase houses and cars and travel that become public symbols for all to see and for advertisers to portray with words and pictures that connote success, glamour, and high style.

Consequently, parents and teachers push children to prepare for upper-middle-class jobs. Around 15 percent of the population belong to this class.

The wealthiest person on the planet: Bill Gates, the cofounder of Microsoft, is worth $86 billion. He has also given away $30 billion, more than anyone in history.

Social Class in the United States 241

THE LOWER-MIDDLE CLASS About 34 percent of the U.S. population are in the lower-middle class. Their jobs require that they follow orders given by members of the upper-middle class. With their technical and lower-level management positions, they can afford a mainstream lifestyle, although they struggle to maintain it. Many anticipate being able to move up the social class ladder. Feelings of insecurity are common, how- ever, with the threat of inflation, recession, and job insecurity bringing a nagging sense that they might fall down the class ladder.

The distinctions between the lower-middle class and the working class on the next rung below are more blurred than those between other classes. In general, however, members of the lower-middle class work at jobs that have slightly more prestige, and their incomes are generally higher.

THE WORKING CLASS About 30 percent of the U.S. population belong to this class of relatively unskilled blue-collar and white-collar workers. Compared with the lower- middle class, they have less education and lower incomes. Their jobs are also less secure, more routine, and more closely supervised. One of their greatest fears is that of being laid off during a recession. With only a high school diploma or a fleeting attempt at college, the average member of the working class has little hope of climbing up the class ladder. Job changes usually bring “more of the same,” so most concentrate on getting ahead by achieving seniority on the job rather than by changing their type of work. They tend to think of themselves as having “real jobs” and regard the “suits” above them as paper pushers who have no practical experience and don’t do “real work” (Morris and Grimes 2005).

THE WORKING POOR Members of this class, about 15 percent of the population, work at unskilled, low-paying, temporary and seasonal jobs, such as sharecropping, migrant farm work, housecleaning, and day labor. Most are high school dropouts. Many are functionally illiterate, finding it difficult to read even the want ads. Believing that their situation won’t change no matter what party is elected to office, they are less likely than other groups to vote (U.S. Census Bureau 2016b).

Although they work full time, millions of the working poor depend on food stamps (cards from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program) and local food banks to survive on their meager incomes (Bello 2011; Carlson et al. 2016). It is easy to see how you can work full time and still be poor. Suppose that you are married and have a baby 3 months old and another child 3 years old. Your spouse stays home to care for them, so earning the income is up to you. But as a high-school dropout, all

Sociologists use income, education, and occupational prestige to measure social class. For most people, this works well, but not for everyone, especially entertainers. To what social class do these celebrities belong? Here is their net worth: Leonardo DiCaprio $245 million, Taylor Swift $380 million, Dwayne Johnson $65 million, and Selena Gomez $54 million.

242 Chapter 8

you can get is a minimum wage job. At $7.25 an hour, you earn $290 for 40 hours. In a year, this comes to $15,080—before deduc- tions. Your nagging fear—and recurring nightmare—is of ending up “on the streets.”

THE UNDERCLASS On the lowest rung, and with next to no chance of climbing anywhere, is the underclass. Concentrated in the inner city, this group has little or no connection with the job market. Those who are employed—and some are—do menial, low-paying, tempo- rary work. Welfare, if it is available, along with food stamps and food pantries, is their main support. Most members of other classes con- sider these people the “ne’er-do-wells” of society. Life is the toughest in this class, and it is filled with despair. About 5 percent of the popu- lation fall into this class.

The homeless men described in the opening vignette of this chapter, and the women and children like them, are part of the underclass. These are the people whom most Americans wish would just go away. Their presence on our city streets bothers pass- ersby from the more privileged social classes—which includes just about everyone. “What are those obnoxious, dirty, foul- smelling people doing here, cluttering up my city?” appears to be a com- mon response. Some people react with sympathy and a desire to do something. But what? Almost all of us just shrug our shoul- ders and look the other way, despairing of a solution and some- what intimidated, perhaps irritated, by their presence. If only they would disappear.

The homeless are the “fallout” of our postindustrial economy. In another era, they would have had plenty of work. They would have tended horses, worked on farms, dug ditches, shoveled coal, and run the factory looms. Some would have explored and settled the West. The prospect of gold would have lured others to California, Alaska, and Australia. Today, however, with no frontiers to settle, factory jobs scarce, and farms that are becoming technological marvels, we have little need for their unskilled labor.

Consequences of Social Class 8.3 Summarize the consequences of social class for physical and mental health,

family life, education, religion, politics, and the criminal justice system.

The man was a C student in school. As a businessman, he ran an oil company (Arbusto) into the ground. A self-confessed alcoholic until age 40, he was arrested for drunk driving. With this background, how did he become president of the United States?

Accompanying these personal factors was the power of social class. George W. Bush was born the grandson of a wealthy senator and the son of a businessman who, after serving as a member of the House of Representatives and director of the CIA, was elected president of the United States. For high school, he went to an elite private prep school, Andover; for his bachelor’s degree to Yale; and for his MBA to Harvard. He was given $1 million to start his own business. When that business (Arbusto) failed, Bush fell softly, landing on the boards of several corporations. Taken care of even further, he was made the managing director of the Texas Rangers baseball team and allowed to buy a share of the team for $600,000, which he sold for $15 million.

When it was time for him to get into politics, Bush’s connections financed his run for governor of Texas and then for the presidency.

underclass a group of people for whom pov- erty persists year after year and across generations

A primary sociological principle is that people’s views are shaped by their social location. Many people from the middle and upper classes cannot understand how anyone can work and still be poor.

Social Class in the United States 243

Does social class matter? And how! Think of each social class as a broad subculture with distinct approaches to life, so significant that it affects your health, family life, education, religion, politics, and even your experiences with crime and the criminal justice system. Let’s look at some of the ways that social class affects our lives.

Physical Health If you want to get a sense of how social class affects health, take a ride on Washington’s Metro system. Start in the blighted Southeast section of downtown D.C. For every mile you travel to where the wealthy live in Montgom- ery County in Maryland, life expectancy rises about a year and a half. By the time you get off, you will find a twenty-year gap in life ex- pectancy between the poor blacks where you started your trip and the rich whites where you ended it. (Cohen 2004)

As you can see this from Figure 8.7, the principle is simple: As you go up the social- class ladder, health improves. As you go down the ladder, health worsens (Annan- dale 2016; Cooper and Campbell 2017). Age makes no difference. Infants born to the poor are more likely to die before their first birthday, and a larger percentage of poor people in their old age—whether 75 or 95—die each year than do the elderly who are wealthy.

How can social class have such dramatic effects? Although there are many reasons, here are three. First, social class opens and closes doors to medical care. People with good incomes o r w i t h g o o d m e d i c a l i n s u r a n c e a re a b l e t o choose their doctors and pay for whatever treat- ment and medications are prescribed. The poor, in contrast, don’t have the money or insurance to afford this type of medical care. How much difference the new health reform will make is yet to be seen.

A second reason is lifestyle, which is shaped by social class. People in the lower classes are more likely to smoke, eat a lot of fats, be overweight, abuse drugs and alcohol, get little exercise, and practice unsafe sex (Woolf et al. 2015). This, to understate the matter, does not improve people’s health.

There is a third reason, too. Life is hard on the poor. The persistent stresses they face weaken their immune systems, causing their bodies to wear out faster (John-Henderson et al. 2013; Magdoff and Foster 2014). For the rich, life is so much better. They have fewer problems and vastly more resources to deal with the ones they have. This gives them a sense of control over their lives, a source of both phys- ical and mental health.

Figure 8.7 Physical Health, by Income: People Who Have Difficulty with Everyday Physical Activities

NOTE: In a national health survey, these people said they had difficulty walking, climbing steps, stooping, reaching overhead, grasping small objects, and carrying over 10 pounds.

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Schiller et al. 2012:Table 19.

Less than $35,000

$35,000 to $50,000

$50,000 to $75,000

$75,000 to $100,000

Over $100,000

24.5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

8.7%

9.6%

12.6%

16.6%

With tough economic times, a lot of people have lost their jobs—and their homes. If this happens, how can you survive? Maybe a smile and a sense of humor to tap the kindness of strangers. I took this photo outside Boston’s Fenway Park.

244 Chapter 8

Mental Health Back in the 1930s, sociologists found that the mental health of the lower classes was worse than that of the higher classes (Faris and Dunham 1939). From Figure 8.8, you can see that people with less income continue to have more problems of mental health. The symptoms in Figure 8.8 are indicators of depression.

Why is mental health worse in the lower social classes? The basic reason is the greater stress and sense of failure that comes with less income. Compared with middle- and upper-class Americans, the poor have less job security and lower wages. They are more likely to divorce, to be the victims of crime, and to have more physical illnesses. Couple these conditions with bill col- lectors and the threat of eviction and you can see how they deal severe blows to people’s emotional well-being.

Family Life Social class also makes a significant difference in our choice of spouse, our chances of getting divorced, and how we rear our children.

CHOICE OF HUSBAND OR WIFE Members of the capitalist class place strong emphasis on family tradi- tion. They stress the family’s history, even a sense of pur-

pose or destiny in life (Baltzell 1979; Aldrich 1989). Children of this class learn that their choice of husband or wife affects not just them but the entire family, that it will have an impact on the “family line.” These background expectations shrink the field of “eligible” marriage partners, making it narrower than it is for the children of any other social class. As a result, parents in this class play a strong role in their children’s mate selection.

DIVORCE The more difficult life of the lower social classes, especially the many tensions that come from insecure jobs and inadequate incomes, leads to higher marital friction and a greater likelihood of divorce. Consequently, children of the poor are more likely to grow up in broken homes.

CHILD REARING Lower-class parents focus more on getting their children to follow rules and obey authority, while middle-class parents focus more on developing their children’s creative and leadership skills (Lareau 2011). Sociologists have traced this dif-

ference to the parents’ occupations (Kohn 1977; Stephens et al. 2014). Lower-class parents are closely supervised at work, and they antici- pate that their children will have similar jobs. Consequently, they try to teach their children to defer to authority. Middle-class parents, in contrast, enjoy greater independence at work. Anticipating similar jobs for their children, they encourage them to be more creative. Out of these contrasting orientations arise different ways of disciplining chil- dren: Lower-class parents are more likely to use physical punishment, while the middle classes rely more on verbal persuasion.

Education In Figure 8.6, you saw how education increases as one goes up the social class ladder. It is not just the amount of education that changes but also the type of education. Children of the capitalist class bypass public schools. They attend exclusive private schools

Figure 8.8 Mental Health, by Income: Feelings of Sadness, Hopelessness, or Worthlessness

NOTE: In a national health survey, these people answered “Always” or “Almost always” when they were asked how often they felt sad, hopeless, or worthless.

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Schiller et al. 2012:Table 14.

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

$35,000 to

$50,000

1.9%

2.3%

3.2%

$50,000 to

$75,000

1.1%

1.5%

2.3%

I always or almost always feel sad, hopeless, or worthless

Sad Hopeless Worthless

$75,000 to

$100,000

0.6%

1.3%

0.6%

Less than $35,000

6.4%

4.6%

3.8%

Over $100,000

0.6% 0.5%

1.2%

Among the customs of the rich, sometimes called the monied class, is ostentatious philanthropy. Shown here are women at the Frederick Law Olmsted lunch, a charity event in New York City. The women try to outdo one another with hats created for this event.

Social Class in the United States 245

where they are trained to take a commanding role in society. These schools teach upper-class values and prepare their students for prestigious universities (Stevens 2009; Khan 2011).

Keenly aware that private schools can be a key to upward social mobility, some upper-middle-class parents do their best to get their children into the prestigious pre- schools that feed into these exclusive prep schools. So popular are these schools that even those that charge $37,000 a year have waiting lists (Anderson 2011). Figuring that waiting until birth to enroll a child is too late, some parents-to-be enroll their child as soon as the wife knows she is pregnant (Ensign 2012). Other parents hire tutors to train their 4-year- olds in test- taking skills so they can get into public kindergartens for gifted students. Experts teach these preschoolers to look adults in the eye while they are being inter- viewed for these limited positions (Banjo 2010). You can see how such parental involve- ment and resources make it more likely that children from the more privileged classes go to college—and graduate.

Religion One area of social life that we might think would not be affected by social class is reli- gion. (“People are just religious, or they are not. What does social class have to do with it?”) As we shall see in Chapter 13, however, the classes tend to cluster in different denominations. Episcopalians, for example, are more likely to attract the middle and upper classes, while Baptists draw heavily from the lower classes. Patterns of worship also follow class lines: The lower classes are attracted to more expressive worship ser- vices and louder music, while the middle and upper classes prefer more “subdued” worship.

Politics As I have stressed throughout this text, people perceive events from their own corner in life. Political views are no exception to this symbolic interactionist principle, and the rich and the poor walk different political paths. The higher that people are on the social class ladder, the more likely they are to vote for Republicans (Gelman 2014). In contrast, most members of the working class believe that the government should intervene in the economy to provide jobs and to make citizens financially secure.

The disparities of social class in the United States are extreme. If you take the back roads in rural America, you will see thousands of trailers like this one in Davenport, Florida. In contrast is this swimming pool, part of a home of luxury in Sammamish, Washington.

246 Chapter 8

They are more likely to vote for Democrats. Although the working class is more liberal on economic issues (policies that increase government spending), it is more conservative on social issues, such as opposing abortion (Houtman 1995; Seib and O’Connor 2016). People toward the bottom of the class structure are also less likely to be politically active—to campaign for candidates or even to vote (Gilbert 2014; U.S. Census Bureau 2016a).

Crime and Criminal Justice If justice is supposed to be blind, it certainly is not when it comes to our chances of being arrested (Henslin 2018). In Chapter 6, we discussed how the social classes com- mit different types of crime. The white-collar crimes of the more privileged classes are more likely to be dealt with outside the criminal justice system, while the police and courts deal with the street crimes of the lower classes. One consequence of this class standard is that members of the lower classes are more likely to be in prison, on proba- tion, or on parole. In addition, since those who commit street crimes tend to do so in or near their own neighborhoods, the lower classes are more likely to be robbed, burglar- ized, raped, or murdered.

Social Mobility 8.4 Contrast the three types of social mobility, review gender issues in research

on social mobility, and explain why social mobility brings pain.

No aspect of life, then—from work and family life to politics—goes untouched by social class. Because life is so much more satisfying in the more privileged classes, people strive to climb the social class ladder. What affects their chances?

Three Types of Social Mobility Janice’s mom, a single mother, sold used cars at a Toyota dealership. Janice worked summers and part-time during the school year, earned her BA, and then her MBA. After graduate school, she worked at IBM, but she missed her home town. When her mom’s boss retired, Janice grabbed the chance to put a down payment on the Toyota dealer- ship. She has since paid the business off and has opened another at a second location.

When grown-up children like Janice end up on a different rung of the social class lad- der from the one occupied by their parents, it is called intergenerational mobility. You can go up or down, of course. Janice experienced upward social mobility. If her mother had owned the dealership and Janice had dropped out of college and ended up selling cars, she would have experienced downward social mobility.

We like to think that individual efforts are the reason people move up the class ladder—and their faults the reason they move down. In this example, we can identify intelligence, hard work, and ambition. Although individual factors, such as these, do underlie social mobility, we must place Janice in the context of structural mobility. This second basic type of mobility refers to changes in society that allow large numbers of people to move up or down the class ladder.

Janice grew up during a boom time of easy credit and business expansion. Oppor- tunities were abundant, and colleges were looking for women from working-class backgrounds. It is far different for people who grow up during an economic bust when opportunities are shrinking. As sociologists point out, in analyzing social mobility, we must always look at structural mobility, how changes in society (its structure) make opportunities plentiful or scarce.

intergenerational mobility the change that family members make in social class from one generation to the next

upward social mobility movement up the social class ladder

downward social mobility movement down the social class ladder

structural mobility movement up or down the social class ladder that is due more to changes in the structure of society than to the actions of individuals

Social Class in the United States 247

The third type of social mobility is exchange mobility. This occurs when large num- bers of people move up and down the social class ladder, but, on balance, the proportions of the social classes remain about the same. Suppose that a million or so working-class people are trained in some new technology, and they move up the class ladder. Sup- pose also that because of a surge in imports, about a million skilled workers have to take lower- status jobs. Although millions of people change their social class, there is, in effect, an exchange among them. The net result more or less balances out, and the class system remains basically untouched.

How much social mobility is there? If you are aiming for success, trying to raise your social class, you should find the following Applying Sociology to Your Life to be quite encouraging.

exchange mobility a large number of people mov- ing up the social class ladder, while a large number move down; it is as though they have exchanged places, and despite much social mobility the social class system shows little change

The term structural mobility refers to changes in society that push large numbers of people either up or down the social class ladder. A remarkable example was the stock market crash of 1929 when thousands of people suddenly lost their wealth. People who once “had it made” found themselves standing on street corners selling apples or, as depicted here, selling their possessions at fire-sale prices. The crash of 2008 brought similar problems to untold numbers of people.

Applying Sociology to Your Life “The American Dream”: Social Mobility Today What is “The American Dream”? For most people, this term means achieving a better life. The sociological definition of the American Dream is similar, but it is more specific: It refers to children being able to pass their parents as they climb the social class ladder. So how much upward mobility is there?

Vast Changes Contrary to the many dismal reports of social life today, the American Dream remains vibrant. Let’s look at national research that compares today’s adult

children with their parents. From Figure 8.9, you can see that whether children start life at the top of the nation’s income or at the bottom, about the same percentage move from their starting point. Of those who start life at the bottom, 43 per- cent are still there when they grow up, but most, 57 percent, have moved up. Four percent even make it to the top fifth of the nation’s income. Now look at those who start life at the top. When they grow up, 40 percent are still there, but most, 60 percent, have dropped down. Eight percent have dropped all the way to the bottom (Lopoo and DeLeire 2012).

(continued )

248 Chapter 8

Figure 8.9 Income of Adult Children Compared with that of their Parents

SOURCE: Pursuing the American Dream: Economic Mobility Across Generations, p. 6. © July, 2013 the Pew Charitable Trusts.

43%

25%

14% 9% 8%

27%

24%

20%

20%

10%

17%

18%

23%

23%

19%

9%

20%

24%

24%

23%

4% 14% 19% 24% 40%

Chances of moving up or down the family income ladder, by parents’ income

P e rc

e n t

o f

ad u lt

c h ild

re n i n e

ac h f

am ily

i n co

m e q

u in

ti le

Percent of adult children whose income is in the:

Richest fifth

Next to the richest fifth

Middle fifth

Next to the poorest fifth

Poorest fifth

Poorest fifth

Next to the poorest fifth

Middle fifth

Next to the richest fifth

Richest fifth

When the children were growing up, their parents’ family income

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Incomes If we look at incomes, even though the income was not enough to move the adult child into a different quin- tile, we find something impressive: 84 percent of today’s adults have family incomes higher than their parents had at the same age. (The incomes of the parents and their adult child were adjusted for inflation, so the dollars have the same value.) One of the surprises is that the children most likely to surpass their parents were reared at the bottom of the nation’s income ladder. Of the adult children who started life there, 93 percent have incomes higher than their parents did at the same age.

With incomes stagnating today, many fear that the “American Dream” has been shattered. Although poverty has increased, the Great Recession did not crush the dream, just deflated it (Chetty et al. 2014).

What Do These Findings Mean? People have a lot of things they want to prove, and they like to use statistics to make their point. These data allow you to go either way. You can stress that 43 percent of the very poorest kids never get out of the bottom—or you can point to the 57 percent who do. It is the same with the richest kids: You can stress the 40 percent who stay at the top of the nation’s income or the 60 percent who drop down. No matter what your opinion, any way you look at it this is a lot of social mobility.

You could get lost in the details, but don’t lose sight of the broader principle: Children of high-income parents enjoy benefits that tend to keep them afloat, while children of low- income parents confront obstacles that tend to weigh them down. Yet, as you can see, the benefits don’t keep most of the children up, nor do the obstacles keep most of the children down.

For Your Consideration → How can you apply these findings to yourself?

→ In ten years, do you think your social class will be higher, lower, or the same as that of your parents? Why?

→ If you are in a higher class, what can you do to help make sure that you stay there—or even rise higher? If you are in a lower class, what can you do to help make sure that you achieve a higher class?

Women in Studies of Social Mobility About half of sons pass their fathers on the social class ladder, about one-third stay at  the same level, and about one-sixth fall down the ladder. (Blau and Duncan 1967; Featherman 1979)

“Only sons!” protested feminists in response to these classic studies on social mobility. “Do you think it is good science to ignore daughters? And why do you assign women the class of their husbands? Do you think that wives have no social class position of their own?” (Davis and Robinson 1988; Western et al. 2012). The male sociologists brushed off these objections, replying that there were too few women in the labor force to make a difference.

The main avenue to upward social mobility is education.

Social Class in the United States 249

Obviously, the times have changed. Almost half of U.S. workers are now women, and sociologists include women in their research. However, sociologists sometimes still single out sons in their research (Lopoo and DeLeire 2012).

In recent decades, millions of white-collar jobs and the professions have opened up to women. Even with this vast structural change, there is a gender gap in social mobility: As adults, women are less likely than men to live in families with higher income than the one in which they grew up (Reeves and Venator 2013). Researchers have also found that behind upwardly mobile women are parents who encouraged their daughters to postpone marriage and get an education (Higginbotham and Weber 1992). For upwardly mobile African American women, strong mothers are especially significant (Robinson and Nelson 2010).

With research on the social class of women in its infancy, the social mobility of women is going to be a fruitful area of research in coming years.

The Pain of Social Mobility: Two Distinct Worlds When you go from working-class to professional-class, almost everything about your old life becomes unfashionable at best or unhealthy at worst.

J. D. Vance 2016

You know it would be painful if you were knocked down the social class ladder. But are you aware that it also hurts to climb this ladder?

In the preceding quote, you can see that there is a starting point and a destination. The culture of the starting point does not match the culture of the destination. The old must be shed, to be replaced by new norms, a most uncomfortable process.

Individuals who make this transition find themselves caught between two worlds—their old working-class origin and their new middle-class life. Sociologist Steph Lawler (1999) studied British women who had moved from the working class to the middle class Their moth- ers, still in the working class, didn’t like their daughters’ “uppity” new ways. They felt that their daughters thought they were better than they were. Tensions ran high, as the mothers criticized their daughters’ pref- erences in furniture and food, their speech, even the way they reared their children. As you can expect, this didn’t help the mother–daughter relationship.

When sociologists Richard Sennett and Jonathan Cobb (1972/1988) studied working-class parents in Boston, they found something simi- lar. So their children could go to college, the fathers had worked two jobs and even postponed medical care. They expected their children to appreciate their sacrifice. But again, the result was two distinct worlds. The children’s educated world was so unlike that of their par- ents that it became awkward for parents and children to even talk to one another. The parents felt betrayed and bitter: Their sacrifices had ripped their children from them.

Torn from their roots, some of those who make the jump from the working to the middle class never become comfortable with their new social class (Vance 2016). The following Cultural Diversity in the United States discusses other costs that come with the climb up the social class ladder.

Both downward and upward social mobility bring challenges that require life adjustments. An extreme instance is the case of Sly Stone, the front man of the 1970s funk band, Sly and the Family Stone. His saga includes going from wealth of millions to living in a van.

250 Chapter 8

Cultural Diversity in the United States Social Class and the Upward Social Mobility of African Americans The overview of social class presented in this chapter doesn’t apply equally to all the groups that make up U.S. society. Consider geography: What constitutes the upper class of a town of 5,000 people will differ from that of a city of a million. In small towns, which have fewer extremes of wealth and occupation, family background and local reputa- tion are more significant.

So it is with racial–ethnic groups. All racial–ethnic groups are marked by social class, but what constitutes a particular social class can differ from one group to another—as well as from one historical period to another. Consider social class among African Americans (Landry and Marsh 2011).

The earliest class divisions can be traced to slavery— to slaves who worked in the fields and those who worked in the “big house.” Those who worked in the plantation home were exposed more to the customs, manners, and forms of speech of wealthy whites. Their more privileged position—which brought with it better food and clothing, as well as lighter work— was often based on skin color. Mulattos, lighter-skinned slaves, were often chosen for this more desirable work. One result was the development of a “mulatto elite,” a segment of the slave population that, proud of its distinctiveness, distanced itself from other slaves. At this time, there also were free blacks. Not only were they able to own property but some even owned black slaves.

After the War between the States (as the Civil War is known in the South), these two groups, the mulatto elite and the free blacks, formed an upper class that distanced itself from other blacks. By the 1870s, just ten or fifteen years after this war, some African Americans had become millionaires (Graham 1999). After World War II, the black middle class expanded as African Americans entered a wider range of occupations. Today, more than half of all African American adults work at white-collar jobs, about 29 percent at the professional or managerial level (Beeghley 2008; U.S. Census Bureau 2014d).

An unwelcome cost greets many African Americans who move up the social class ladder: an uncomfortable distancing from their roots, a separation from significant others—parents, siblings, and childhood

friends (Lacy 2007; Khare et al. 2014). The upwardly mobile enter a world unknown to those left behind, one that demands not only different appearance and speech, but also different values, aspirations, and ways of viewing

the world. These are severe challenges to the self and often rupture relationships with those left behind.

An additional cost is a subtle racism that lurks beneath the surface of some work settings, poisoning what could be easy, mutually respectful interaction. To be aware that white co-workers perceive you as different—as a stranger, an intruder, or “the other”—engenders frustration, dissatisfaction, and cynicism (Carbado and Gulati 2014). To cope, many nourish their racial identity and stress the “high value of black culture and being black” (Lacy and Harris 2008). Some move to neighborhoods of upper-middle-class African Americans, where they can live among like-minded people who have similar experiences (Wiggins et al. 2011).

For Your Consideration → In the Cultural Diversity box on upward social mobility

in Chapter 3, we discussed how Latinos face a similar situation. Why do you think this is?

→ What connections do you see among upward mobility, frustration, and racial–ethnic identity?

→ How do you think that the costs of upward mobility of whites differ from those of Latinos and African Americans? Why?

Social Class in the United States 251

Poverty 8.5 Explain the problems in drawing the poverty line and how poverty is related

to geography, race–ethnicity, education, feminization, and age.

Many Americans find that the “limitless possibilities” of the American dream are quite elusive. As illustrated in Figure 8.6, the working poor and underclass together form about one-fifth of the U.S. population. This translates into a huge number: more than 60 million people. Who are these people?

Drawing the Poverty Line To determine who is poor, the U.S. government draws a poverty line. This measure was set in the 1960s, when poor people were thought to spend about one-third of their incomes on food. On the basis of this assumption, each year, the government computes a low-cost food budget and multiplies it by 3. Families whose incomes are less than this amount are classi- fied as poor; those whose incomes are higher—even by a dollar—are considered “not poor.”

poverty line the official measure of poverty; calculated to include incomes that are less than three times a low-cost food budget

High rates of rural poverty have been a part of the United States from its origin to the present. This 1937 photo shows a 32-year-old woman who had seven children and no food. She was part of a huge migration of people from the Dust Bowl of Oklahoma in search of a new life in California.

252 Chapter 8

That a change in the poverty line can instantly make millions of people poor—or take away their poverty—would be laughable, if it weren’t so serious. Although this line is arbi- trary, because it is the official measure of poverty, we’ll use it to see who in the United States is poor. Before we do this, though, how do you think that your ideas of the poor match up with sociological findings? You can find out in the following Down-to-Earth Sociology.

Down-to-Earth Sociology What Do You Know about Poverty? A Reality Check Check what you think you know with these answers.

1. Poverty is unusual. False. Over a three-year period, one-third of all Americans experience poverty for at least two months (DeNavas-Walt, et al. 2013).

2. People with less education are more likely to be poor. True. Most definitely. See Figure 8.12.

3. Most poor people are poor because they do not want to work. False. About 40 percent of the poor are under age 18 and another 10 percent are age 65 or older. Most of the rest work at jobs that are seasonal, undependable, or pay poverty wages (O’Hare 1996a, 1996b; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016a).

4. Most of the poor are trapped in a cycle of poverty. We have to go true and false on this one. Most pover- ty lasts less than a year (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2013), but just over half of those who escape poverty will return to poverty within five years (Ratcliffe and McKernan 2010).

5. The percentage of children who are poor is higher than the percentage of adults who are poor. True. Look at Figure 8.15.

6. Most children who are born in poverty are poor as adults. False. See Figure 8.7.

7. Most African Americans are poor. False. This one was easy. We just reviewed some statistics in the box on upward mobility—plus you have Figure 8.14.

8. Most of the poor are African Americans. False. There are many more poor whites than any other group. Look at Figure 8.10.

9. Most of the poor live in the inner city. False. Most of the poor live in the suburbs (Kneebone 2016).

10. Most of the poor are single mothers and their children. False. About 38 percent of the poor match this stereotype, but 34 percent of the poor live in married-couple families, 22 percent live alone or with

This official measure of poverty is grossly inadequate. Poor people actually spend only about one-fifth of their income on food, so to determine a poverty line, we ought to multi- ply their food budget by 5 instead of 3 (Chandy and Smith 2014). Another problem is that mothers who work outside the home and have to pay for child care are treated the same as mothers who don’t have this expense. The poverty line is also the same for everyone across the nation, even though the cost of living is much higher in New York than in Alabama. On the other hand, much of the income of the poor is not counted: food stamps, rent assistance, public housing, subsidized child care, and the earned income tax credit (Meyer and Mittag 2015). In the face of these criticisms, the Census Bureau has developed alternative ways to measure poverty. These show higher poverty, but the official measure has not changed.

Social Class in the United States 253

nonrelatives, and 6 percent live in other settings (O’Hare 1996a, 1996b; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016).

11. Most of the poor live on welfare. False. Most of the incomes of people in poverty come from wages, pensions, and Social Security. Somewhere between 11 percent and 25 percent of their incomes come from welfare (O’Hare 1996a, 1996b; Lang 2012).

12. There is more poverty in urban than in rural areas. False. We’ll review this in the following section.

For Your Consideration → What stereotypes of the poor do you (or people you know)

hold?

→ How would you test these stereotypes?

Who Are the Poor? To better understand American society, it is important to understand poverty. Let’s start by exploring a myth.

BREAKING A MYTH A common idea is that most of the poor in the United States are African Americans who crowd the welfare rolls. Look at Figure 8.10. You can see that there are more poor white Americans than poor Americans of any other racial–ethnic group. The reason is that there are so many more white Americans than those of any other racial–ethnic group. With this in mind, let’s turn to the geography of poverty, how the poor are distrib- uted in the county.

THE GEOGRAPHY OF POVERTY From the following Social Map, you can see how poverty varies by region. The striking clustering of poverty in the South has prevailed for more than 150 years.

A second pattern of geography, rural poverty, also goes back a couple of centuries. At 16 percent, rural poverty is higher than the national average of 15 percent. Helping to maintain this higher rate are the lower education of the rural poor and the scarcity of rural jobs. The

Figure 8.10 An Overview of Poverty in the United States

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2017:Table 35.

Of all the U.S. poor, what percentages are from these groups?

2% Native Americans 4%

Asian Americans

28%

Latinos

22%

African Americans

44%

White Americans

Figure 8.11 Patterns of Poverty

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2017:Table 734.

States with the least poverty: 9.2% to 12.5%

States with average poverty: 13.2% to 16.6%

States with the most poverty: 17.2% to 21.5%

Percentage of the population in poverty

VA 11.8

WY 11.2

ND 11.5

NE 12.4

MN 11.5

IA 12.2

WI 13.2

NH 9.2 MA 11.6

CT 10.8 NJ 11.1

DE 12.5

MD 10.1

Highest Poverty

1. Mississippi (21.5%) 2. New Mexico (21.3%) 3. Louisiana (19.8%)

Lowest Poverty

1. New Hampshire (9.2%)

2. Maryland (10.1%)

3. New Jersey (10.8%)

VT 12.2

AK 11.2

HI 11.4

UT 11.7

WA 13.2

NV 15.2

MT 15.4

CO 12.0

SD 14.2

KS 13.6

MO 15.5

IN 15.2

PA 13.6

ME 14.1

RI 14.3

IL 14.4

NY 15.9

OH 15.8

ID 14.8

CA 16.4

FL 16.5

OK 16.6

MI 16.2

OR 16.6

NC 17.2TN 18.3

TX 17.2

WV 18.3

DC 17.7

SC 18.0

AL 19.3

AZ 18.2

GA 18.3

KY 19.1

AR 18.9

LA 19.8

NM 21.3

MS 21.5

States with the least poverty: 9.2% to 12.5%

States with average poverty: 13.2% to 16.6%

States with the most poverty: 17.2% to 21.5%

Percentage of the population in poverty

VA 11.8

WY 11.2

ND 11.5

NE 12.4

MN 11.5

IA 12.2

WI 13.2

NH 9.2 MA 11.6

CT 10.8 NJ 11.1

DE 12.5

MD 10.1

Highest Poverty

1. Mississippi (21.5%) 2. New Mexico (21.3%) 3. Louisiana (19.8%)

Lowest Poverty

1. New Hampshire (9.2%)

2. Maryland (10.1%)

3. Connecticut (10.8%)

VT 12.2

AK 11.2

HI 11.4

UT 11.7

WA 13.2

NV 15.2

MT 15.4

CO 12.0

SD 14.2

KS 13.6

MO 15.5

IN 15.2

PA 13.6

ME 14.1

RI 14.3

IL 14.4

NY 15.9

OH 15.8

ID 14.8

CA 16.4

FL 16.5

OK 16.6

MI 16.2

OR 16.6

NC 17.2TN 18.3

TX 17.2

WV 18.3

DC 17.7

SC 18.0

AL 19.3

AZ 18.2

GA 18.3

KY 19.1

AR 18.9

LA 19.8

NM 21.3

MS 21.5

254 Chapter 8

Poverty comes in many forms. Families who go into debt to buy possessions squeak by month after month until a crisis turns their lives upside down. I took this photo of a family in Georgia, parked alongside a highway selling their possessions to survive our economic downturn.

third aspect of poverty and geography, the suburban- ization of poverty, is new. With the extensive migration from cities to suburbs, more of the nation’s poor now live in the suburbs than in the cities (Kneebone 2016). This major change is not likely to be temporary.

In addition to geography, U.S. poverty follows lines of education, family structure, race–ethnicity, and age. Let’s turn to these major patterns.

EDUCATION You are already aware that educa- tion is a vital aspect of poverty, but you may not know just how powerful it is. Look at Figure 8.12. One of every 4 people who drop out of high school is poor, but only 5 of 100 people who finish col- lege end up in poverty. As you can see, the chances that someone will be poor become less with each higher level of education. Although this principle applies regardless of race–ethnicity, you can also see how race–ethnicity makes an impact at every level of education.

FAMILY STRUCTURE: THE FEMINIZATION OF POVERTY Family structure is one of the best

indicators of whether or not a family is poor. From Figure 8.13, you can see that the families least likely to be poor are headed by both a mother and father, while those the most likely to be poor are headed by only a mother. The reason for this can be summed up in one statistic: Women average only 72 percent of what men earn. (We’ll review this statistic in detail in chapter 10.) With our high rate of divorce combined with the large number of births to single women, mother-headed families have become more common. Sociologists call this association of poverty with women the feminization of poverty.

feminization of poverty a condition of U.S. poverty in which most poor families are headed by women

Figure 8.12 Who Ends Up Poor? Poverty by Education and Race–Ethnicity

SOURCE: By the author. Based on U.S. Census Bureau 2016b:Table POV29.

0

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

P e rc

e n ta

g e i n P

o ve

rt y

All Racial–Ethnic Groups

White Americans

Asian Americans

Latinos African Americans

College graduate College dropout High school graduate High school dropout

11

14

24

5

9 10

17

4

13 13

20

8

13

17 17

25 27

36

Figure 8.13 Poverty and Family Structure

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2017:Table 741.

0

5% 6.2%

15.7%

30.6%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

A Married Couple A Man

A Woman

Who heads the family?

Percent in poverty when the family is headed by

RACE–ETHNICITY One of the strongest factors in poverty is race–ethnicity, as you can see in Figure 8.14. Overall, 12 percent of Asian Americans are poor, followed closely by whites at 13 percent. From there, the poverty rate jumps, with 24 percent of Latinos and 26 percent of African Americans living in poverty.

Social Class in the United States 255

Because whites are, by far, the largest group in the United States, their lower rate of poverty translates into larger numbers. As a result, there are many more poor whites than poor people of any other racial– ethnic group. As you saw in Figure 8.10, 44 percent of all poor people are whites.

AGE AND POVERTY Figure 8.15 shows one of the most signifi- cant aspects of poverty in the United States. There are several things you should learn from this figure. First, note that the elderly are less likely than the general population to be poor. This is quite a change. It used to be that growing old increased people’s chances of being poor. Elderly poverty was so common that there was a lot of publicity— television programs and newspaper and magazine articles accom- panied by photos of “pitiful, suffering old folks.” Then government policies to redistribute income—Social Security and subsidized housing, food stamps, and medical care—slashed the rate of poverty among the elderly.

Figure 8.15 also shows how the prevailing racial–ethnic patterns carry over into old age. You can see how much more likely elderly minorities are to be poor than elderly whites.

In the next section, we will focus on a third aspect of Figure 8.15, how common pov- erty is among children.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

The elderly age 65 and over

Children under age 18

21

18

13

32

37All racial– ethnic groups White Americans Asian Americans Latinos African Americans

What percentage of these groups is poor?

10

15

18

9

19

Figure 8.15 Poverty, Age, and Race-Ethnicity

NOTE: Only these groups are listed in the source. The poverty line is $24,230 for a family of four. SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2017:Tables 35, 735, 738.

15% 13%

12%

24% 26%

5%

0%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30% Americans in Poverty

National average

White Americans

Asian Americans

Latinos

African Americans

Figure 8.14 Poverty and Race-Ethnicity

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2017:Table 738.

Children of Poverty In Figure 8.15, you can see the high poverty rate of U.S. children. High childhood poverty holds true regardless of race–ethnicity, but from this figure you can see how much greater poverty is among Latino and African American children. That

256 Chapter 8

Thinking Critically about Social Life The Nation’s Shame: Children in Poverty One of the most startling statistics in sociology is shown in Figure 8.15. For Asian Americans, one of seven or eight children is poor; for whites, close to one of five; for Latinos, an astounding one of three; and for African Americans, an even higher total, with almost two of every five children living in poverty. These percentages translate into incredible numbers—approximately 16 million children.

Why do so many U.S. children live in poverty? A major reason is the large number of births to women who are not married, about 1.6 million a year. This number has increased sharply, going from one of twenty in 1960 to eight of twenty today. With the total jumping eight times, single women now account for 40 percent of all U.S. births (Statistical Abstract 2017:Tables 92, 96).

But do births to single women actually cause poverty? Consider the obvious: Children born to wealthy single women don’t live in poverty. Then consider this: In some countries, such as Sweden, single women are more likely to give birth than are single women in the United States, yet their rate of child poverty is lower than ours (OECD 2016). The reason for this is because their governments provide extensive support for rearing these children—from providing day care to health checkups. Why, then, can’t we point to the lack of government support for children as the cause of the poverty of children born to single women?

Now look at Figure 8.16. You can see that the less education that single women have, the more likely they are to bear children. From Figure 8.17, you can also see that the single women who can least afford children are those most

likely to give birth. Their children face severe obstacles to building a satisfying life. They are more likely to go hungry, to be malnourished, to have health problems, even to die in infancy. They also are more likely to drop out of school, to become involved in crime, and to have children while still in their teens—perpetuating a cycle of poverty.

For Your Consideration On Figures 8.16 and 8.17, you can see how births to single women drop as education and income increase. In answering these two questions, be specific and practical.

→ What programs would you suggest to help women attain more education?

→ What other ways would you suggest to reduce child poverty?

Figure 8.16 How Does Education Influence Births to Single Women

SOURCE: Shuttuck and Kreider 2013:Table 2.

Unmarried Married

0% 100%80%60%40%20%

Graduate or professional degree

Bachelor’s degree

Associate’s degree

Some college, no degree

High school graduate

High school dropout

Of women with this education who give birth, what percentages are single or married?

Figure 8.17 How Does Income Influence Births to Single Women

SOURCE: Shuttuck and Kreider 2013:Table 2.

Single Married

0% 100%80%60%40%20%

$200,000 and higher

$75,000 to $100,000

$50,000 to $75,000

$150,000 to $200,000

$100,000 to $150,000

$25,000 to $50,000

$10,000 to $25,000

Less than $10,000

Of women with this income who give birth, what percentages are single or married?

H o

u se

h o

ld I n co

m e

millions of U.S. children are reared in poverty is shocking when one considers the wealth of this country and our supposed concern for the well-being of children. This tragic aspect of poverty is the topic of the following Thinking Critically about Social Life.

Social Class in the United States 257

The Dynamics of Poverty versus the Culture of Poverty 8.6 Contrast the dynamics of poverty with the culture of poverty, explain

why people are poor and how deferred gratification is related to poverty, and comment on the Horatio Alger myth.

Some have suggested that the poor get trapped in a culture of poverty (Lewis 1966a; Suh and Heise 2014). They assume that the values and behaviors of the poor “make them fun- damentally different from other Americans and that these factors are largely responsible for their continued long-term poverty” (Ruggles 1989:7). Lurking behind this concept is the idea that the poor are lazy people who bring poverty on themselves. Certainly, some individuals and families do match this stereotype—many of us have known them. But is a self-perpetuating culture—one that poor people transmit across generations and that locks them in poverty—the basic reason for U.S. poverty?

Contrary to the stereotype of lazy people who contentedly sit back sucking welfare, poverty is dynamic. Many people live on the edge of poverty, managing, but barely, to keep their heads above poverty. But then comes some dramatic life change, such as a divorce, an accident, an illness, or the loss of a job. This poverty trigger propels them over the edge they were holding onto, and they find themselves in the poverty they fiercely had been trying to avoid (Western et al. 2012).

With people moving in and out of poverty, most poverty is short-lived, lasting less than a year. Yet from one year to the next, the number of poor people remains about the same. This means that the people who move out of poverty are replaced by people who move into poverty. Most of these newly poor will also move out of poverty within a year. Some people even bounce back and forth, never quite making it securely out of poverty (Rank and Hirschi 2015).

Few poor people enjoy poverty—and they do what they can to avoid being poor. In the end, though, poverty touches a lot more people than the annual totals indicate. Although 15 percent of Americans may be poor at any one time, before they turn 65, about 60 percent of the U.S. population will experience a year of poverty (Rank and Hirschi 2015).

Why Are People Poor? Two explanations for poverty compete for our attention. The first, which sociologists pre- fer, focuses on social structure. Sociologists stress that features of society deny some people access to education or training in job skills. They emphasize racial–ethnic, age, and gen- der discrimination, as well as changes in the job market—fewer unskilled jobs, businesses closing, and manufacturing jobs moving overseas. In short, some people find their escape route from poverty blocked.

A competing explanation focuses on the characteristics of individuals. Sociologists reject explanations, such as laziness and lack of intelligence, viewing these as worth- less stereotypes. Individualistic explanations that sociologists reluctantly acknowledge include dropping out of school and bearing children in the teen years. Most sociologists are reluctant to speak of such factors in this context because they appear to blame the victim, something that sociologists bend over backward not to do.

A third explanation is the poverty triggers that were just mentioned, the unexpected events in life that push people into poverty.

Deferred Gratification Not all poverty is short, and about 12 percent of Americans are poor for ten years or longer (Rank and Hirschi 2015). One consequence of a life of deprivation punctuated by emergencies—and of viewing the future as promising more of the same—is a lack of deferred

culture of poverty the assumption that the values and behaviors of the poor make them fundamentally different from other people, that these factors are largely responsible for their poverty, and that par- ents perpetuate poverty across generations by passing these characteristics to their children

258 Chapter 8

gratification, giving up things in the present for the sake of greater gains in the future. It is difficult to practice this middle-class virtue of deferring gratification if you do not have a middle-class surplus—or middle-class hope.

In a classic 1967 study of black street-corner men, sociologist Elliot Liebow noted that the men did not defer gratification. Their jobs were low-paying and insecure, their lives pitted with emergencies. With the future looking exactly like the present and any savings they did manage gobbled up by emergencies, it seemed pointless to save for the future. The only thing that made sense from their perspective was to enjoy what they could at the moment. Immediate gratification, then, was not the cause of their poverty but, rather, its consequence. Cause and consequence loop together, however: Their immediate gratification helped perpetuate their poverty. For another look at this “looping,” see the following Down-to-Earth Sociology, in which I share my personal experience with poverty.

deferred gratification going without something in the present in the hope of achieving greater gains in the future

Down-to-Earth Sociology Poverty: A Personal Journey I was born in poverty. My parents, who could not afford to rent either a house or an apartment, rented the tiny office in their minister’s house. This is where I was born.

My father, who had only a seventh-grade education, began to slowly climb the social class ladder. His fitful odyssey took him from laborer to truck driver to the owner of a series of small businesses (tire repair shop, bar, hotel), and from there to vacuum cleaner salesman, and back to bar owner. He converted a garage into a house. Although it had no indoor plumbing, it was a start. Later, he bought a house, and then he built a new home. After that we moved into a trailer, and then back to a house. Although he always had a low income, poverty eventually became a distant memory for him.

My social class took a leap—from working class to upper-middle class—when, after attending college and graduate school, I became a university professor. I entered a world that was unknown to my parents, one much more pampered and privileged. I had opportunities to do research, to publish, and to travel to exotic places. My reading centered on sociological research, and I read books in Spanish as well as in English. My father, in contrast, never read a book in his life, and my mother read only detective stories and romance paperbacks. One set of experiences isn’t “better” than the other, just significantly different in determining what windows of perception it opens onto the world.

My interest in poverty, rooted in my own childhood experiences, stayed with me. I traveled to a dozen or so skid rows across the United States and Canada, talking to

homeless people and staying in their shelters. In my own town, I spent considerable time with people on welfare, observing how they lived. I constantly marveled at the connections between structural causes of poverty (low education, low skills, low pay, the irregularity of unskilled jobs, undependable transportation) and personal causes (the culture of poverty—alcohol and drug abuse, multiple out-of-wedlock births, frivolous spending, all-night partying, domestic violence, criminal involvement, and a seeming incapacity to keep appointments—except to pick up the welfare check).

Sociologists haven’t unraveled this connection, and as much as we might like for only structural causes to apply, both are at work (Duneier 1999:122; Suh and Heise 2014). The situation can be illustrated by looking at the perennial health problems I observed among the poor—the constant colds, runny noses, backaches, and injuries. The health problems stem from the social structure (less access to medical care, less capable physicians, drafty houses, little knowledge about nutrition, and more dangerous jobs). At the same time, personal characteristics—hygiene, eating habits, drug and alcohol abuse—cause health problems. Which is the cause and which the effect? Both, of course: One loops into the other. The medical problems (which are based on both personal and structural causes) feed into the poverty these people experience, making them less able to perform their jobs successfully—or even to show up at work regularly.

What an intricate puzzle for sociologists!

If both structural and personal causes are at work, why do sociologists emphasize the structural explanation? Reverse the situation for a moment. Suppose that members of the middle class drove old cars that broke down, faced threats from the utility company to shut off the electricity and heat, and had to make a choice between paying the rent or buying medicine and food and diapers. How long would they practice deferred gratifica- tion? Their orientations to life would likely make a sharp U-turn.

Social Class in the United States 259

Sociologists, then, do not view the behaviors of the poor as the cause of their poverty but, rather, as the result of their poverty. Poor people would welcome the middle-class opportunities that would allow them the chance to practice the middle-class virtue of deferred gratification. Without those opportunities, though, they just can’t afford it.

Where Is Horatio Alger? The Social Functions of a Myth In the late 1800s, Horatio Alger was one of the country’s most popular authors. The rags-to-riches exploits of his fictional boy heroes and their amazing successes in over- coming severe odds motivated thousands of boys of that period. Although Alger ’s char- acters have disappeared from U.S. literature, they remain alive and well in the psyche of Americans. From real-life examples of people of humble origin who climbed the social class ladder, Americans know that anyone who really tries can get ahead. In fact, they believe that most Americans, including minorities and the working poor, have an aver- age or better-than-average chance of getting ahead—obviously a statistical impossibility (Kluegel and Smith 1986).

The accuracy of the Horatio Alger myth is less important than the belief that sur- rounds it—that limitless possibilities exist for everyone. Functionalists would stress that this belief is functional for society. On the one hand, it encourages people to compete for higher positions, or, as the song says, “to reach for the highest star.” On the other hand, it places blame for failure squarely on the individual. If you don’t make it—in the face of ample opportunities to get ahead—the fault must be your own. The Horatio Alger myth helps to stabilize society: Because the fault is viewed as the individual’s, not society’s, current social arrangements can be regarded as satisfactory. This reduces pressures to change the system.

Horatio Alger myth the belief that due to limitless possibilities anyone can get ahead if he or she tries hard enough

A society’s dominant ideologies are reinforced throughout the society, including its literature. Horatio Alger provided inspirational heroes for thousands of boys. The central theme of these many novels, immensely popular in their time, was rags to riches. Through rugged determination and self-sacrifice, a boy could overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles to reach the pinnacle of success. (Girls did not strive for financial success, but were dependent on fathers and husbands.)

As Marx and Weber pointed out, social class penetrates our consciousness, shap- ing our ideas of life and our “proper” place in society. When the rich look at the world around them, they sense superiority and anticipate control over their own des- tiny. When the poor look around them, they are more likely to sense defeat and to

260 Chapter 8

anticipate that unpredictable forces will batter their lives. Both rich and poor know the dominant ideology: The reasons for success—or failure—lie solely with the self. Like fish that don’t notice the water, people tend not to perceive the effects of social class on their own lives.

Peering into the Future: Will We Live in a Three-Tier Society? 8.7 Discuss the possibility that we are developing a three-tier society.

Now that we have looked at social class in the United States, you should be much more aware not only of how social class influences your life but also of how the social classes fit together to form the whole that we call American society.

Let’s go beyond this and in the following Thinking Critically about Social Life try to peer into the future. We will consider the disturbing possibility that society is being restratified—and that the picture coming into focus is not pleasant. Unfortunately, this will give us a much darker ending to this chapter than I prefer. But let’s go on.

Thinking Critically about Social Life The Coming Three-Tier Society and the Militarization of the Police A three-tier society seems to be looming over us. On the top tier will be the wealthy, who will live in luxury behind gated fortresses, protected from the prying eyes of the unwashed masses. On the middle tier will be the techni- cally trained, an army of servants who will run the essential affairs of society. They will maintain the computers that con- trol the financial system, the infrastructure of utilities, and the government surveillance. There will also be the teach- ers, the elite ones for the children of the elite and the regular ones whose task is to indoctrinate and control the children of the poor. These technical servants of society’s controllers will be backed up by a police force that has come to look more like the military than the police.

And the third tier? This one will consist of the jobless poor. The need for unskilled work is drying up. We still need some fruit pickers and some house cleaners, and an occasional someone to hold up flags when a road is being constructed. But there is little of this kind of work. And most of what there is pays little. Enter one of today’s new factories, and you will be struck by the absence of people. You will see untiring robots that never complain, don’t take coffee breaks, and need neither vacations nor retirement pay. With each passing year, we need fewer human workers.

Widespread joblessness will trigger hopelessness and deep despair in some, resentment and hostility in others. To keep the lid on violence as long as possible, two solutions will be followed. The first will be to pacify the jobless through food stamps, subsidized housing, entertainment, and drugs. Videos and television will divert most of the “dangerous poor” from seeking political solutions. Drugs

will be tolerated because the poor who flee into them to escape their misery do not threaten the top tier by agitating for political change. Not all will be hopeless: Powerball— with its illusions—will remain.

The second solution, coexisting with the first, is the militarization of the police. That the police are beginning to look like the military is not coincidental. This is preparation for the armed force that will be necessary to control the impoverished masses of the third tier. The media have been willing handmaidens of the elite, preparing the public for the militarization of the police by stoking constant fears of “terrorists.” This comes not without a plan from the controllers. The hostile elements of society—the masses left behind with little future, the resentful ones who do not choose to escape into drugs or television—pose a threat to the first tier. For most of the jobless poor, welfare food, televised sports, and the stream of “latest revelations” about vaunted celebrities provide escape adequate to keep them in line. But if what the Romans called food and circus fail to keep minds numb and wills weak, the militarized police with their powerful new weapons, armored vehicles, and trained snipers stand ready to take care of the rest.

For Your Consideration This is not a pleasant picture of the future, but your author sees it as a looming possibility. → Do you think the three-tier society is our likely destiny?

Why or why not?

→ What do you think we can do to produce a better future than the three-tier society?

Social Class in the United States 261

Summary and Review What Determines Social Class? 8.1 Explain the three components of social class—

property, power, and prestige; distinguish between wealth and income; explain how property and income are distributed; and describe the democrat- ic façade, the power elite, and status inconsistency.

What is meant by the term social class?

Most sociologists have adopted Weber’s definition of social class: a large group of people who rank closely to one an- other in terms of property (wealth), power, and prestige. Wealth—consisting of the value of property and income— is concentrated in the upper classes. From the 1930s to the 1970s, the trend in the distribution of wealth in the United States was toward greater equality. Since 1970, the trend has been toward greater inequality. Power is the ability to get your way even though others resist. C. Wright Mills coined the term power elite to refer to the small group that holds the reins of power in business, government, and the military. Prestige is linked to occupational status.

How does occupational prestige differ around the world?

From country to country, people rank occupational prestige similarly. Globally, the occupations that bring greater pres- tige are those that pay more, require more education and ab- stract thought, and offer greater independence.

What is meant by the term status inconsistency?

Status is social position. Most people are status consistent; that is, they rank high or low on all three dimensions of so- cial class. People who rank higher on some dimensions than on others are status inconsistent. The frustrations of status inconsistency tend to produce political radicalism.

Sociological Models of Social Class 8.2 Contrast Marx’s and Weber’s models of social class.

What models are used to portray the social classes?

Erik Wright developed a four-class model based on Marx: (1) capitalists (owners of large businesses), (2) petty bourgeoisie (small business owners), (3) managers, and (4) workers. Kahl and Gilbert developed a six-class model based on Weber. At the top is the capitalist class. In descending order are the upper-middle class, the lower-middle class, the working class, the working poor, and the underclass.

Consequences of Social Class 8.3 Summarize the consequences of social class for

physical and mental health, family life, education, religion, politics, and the criminal justice system.

How does social class affect people’s lives?

Social class leaves no aspect of life untouched. It affects our chances of dying early, becoming ill, receiving good health care, and getting divorced. Social class membership also affects child rearing, educational attainment, religious affil- iation, political participation, the crimes people commit, and their contact with the criminal justice system.

Social Mobility 8.4 Contrast the three types of social mobility, review

gender issues in research on social mobility, and explain why social mobility brings pain.

What are three types of social mobility?

The term intergenerational mobility refers to changes in social class from one generation to the next. Structural mobility refers to changes in society that lead large numbers of people to change their social class. Exchange mobility is the movement of large numbers of people from one social class to another, with the net result that the relative pro- portions of the population in the classes remain about the same.

Poverty 8.5 Explain the problems in drawing the poverty line

and how poverty is related to geography, race– ethnicity, education, feminization, and age.

Who are the poor?

The poverty line, although it has serious consequences, is arbitrary. Poverty is unequally distributed in the United States. Racial–ethnic minorities (except Asian Ameri- cans), children, households headed by women, and rural Americans are more likely than others to be poor. The poverty rate of the elderly is less than that of the general population.

8.6 Contrast the dynamics of poverty with the culture of poverty, explain why people are poor and how deferred gratification is related to poverty, and comment on the Horatio Alger myth.

Why are people poor?

They dynamics of poverty (huge numbers moving into and out of poverty) indicate that the culture of poverty is not generally true. Rather than looking at the characteristics of individuals as the cause of poverty, sociologists stress the structural features of society, such as employment opportu- nities. There also are poverty triggers. Sociologists generally

262 Chapter 8

conclude that life orientations are a consequence, not the cause, of people’s position in the social class structure.

How is the Horatio Alger myth functional for society?

The Horatio Alger myth—the belief that anyone can get ahead if only he or she tries hard enough—encourages people to strive to get ahead. It also stabilizes society by deflecting blame for failure from society to the individual.

8.7 Discuss the possibility that we are developing a three-tier society.

What is meant by a three-tier society?

Trends indicate an alarming future. In the top tier of a three- tier society will live a wealthy ruling elite. In the middle tier will be well-compensated people who serve this elite. At the bottom tier will be a large underclass considered dangerous to society. It will be kept under control by welfare, entertain- ment, drugs, and a militarized police force.

Thinking Critically about Chapter 8 1. The belief that the United States is the land of oppor-

tunity draws millions of legal and illegal immigrants to the United States. How do the materials in this chapter support or undermine this belief?

2. In what three ways is social class having an ongoing impact on your life?

3. What social mobility has your own family experienced? In what ways has this affected your life?

4. What indications do you see that we are or are not developing a three-tier society?

Three North American Indians, ca. 1836, George Catlin (oil on canvas)

264

Learning Objectives

After you have read this chapter, you should be able to:

9.1 Contrast the myth and reality of race; compare race and ethnicity and minority and dominant groups; discuss ethnic work.

9.2 Contrast prejudice and discrimination and individual and institution- al discrimination; discuss learning prejudice, internalizing dominant norms, and institutional discrimination.

9.3 Contrast psychological and sociological theories of prejudice: include functionalism, conflict, and symbolic interactionism.

9.4 Explain genocide, population transfer, internal colonialism, segregation, assimilation, and multiculturalism.

9.5 Summarize the major patterns that characterize European Americans, Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans.

9.6 Discuss immigration, affirmative action, and a multicultural society.

Chapter 9

Race and Ethnicity

Imagine that you are an African American man living in Macon County, Alabama, during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Your home is a little country shack with a dirt floor. You have no electricity or running water. You never finished grade school, and you make a living, such as it is, by doing odd jobs. You haven’t been feeling too good lately, but you can’t afford a doctor.

Then you hear incredible news. You rub your eyes in disbelief. It is just like winning the lottery! If you join Miss Rivers’ Lodge (and it is free to join), you will get free physical exam- inations at Tuskegee University for life. You will even get free rides to and from the clinic, hot meals on examination days, and a lifetime of free treatment for minor ailments.

You eagerly join Miss Rivers’ Lodge. After your first physical examination, the doctor gives you the bad news. “You’ve got bad

blood,” he says. “That’s why you’ve been feeling bad. Miss Rivers will give you some medicine and schedule you for your next exam. I’ve got to warn you, though. If you go to another doctor, there’s no more free exams or medicine.”

You can’t afford another doctor anyway. You are thankful for your treatment, take your medicine, and look forward to the next trip to the university.

What has really happened? You have just become part of what is surely slated to go down in history as one of the most callous experiments of all time, outside of the infamous World War II Nazi and Japanese experiments. With heartless disregard for human life, the U.S. Public Health Service told 399 African American men that they had joined a social club and burial society called Miss Rivers’ Lodge. What the men were not told was that they had syphilis, that there was no real Miss Rivers’ Lodge, that the doctors were just using this term so they could study what happened when syphilis went untreated. For 40 years, even after penicillin was used to treat syphilis, the “U.S. Public Health Service” allowed these men to go without treatment—and kept testing them each year—to study the progress of the disease. The “U.S.

“You have just become part of one of the most callous experiments of all time.”

Race and Ethnicity 265

public health” officials even had a control group of 201 men who were free of the disease (Jones 1993; Duff-Brown 2017).

By the way, the men did receive a benefit from “Miss Rivers’ Lodge,” a free autopsy to determine the ravages of syphilis on their bodies.

Laying the Sociological Foundation 9.1 Contrast the myth and reality of race; compare race and ethnicity and minority

and dominant groups; discuss ethnic work.

As unlikely as it seems, this is a true story. Rarely do racial–ethnic relations degenerate to this point, but reports of troubled race relations surprise none of us. Today’s newspapers, TV, and Internet regularly report on racial problems. Sociology can contribute greatly to our understanding of this aspect of social life—and this chapter may be an eye-opener for you. For example, could race be a myth? Let’s find out.

Race: Reality and Myth As humans spread throughout the world, their adaptations to diverse climates and other living conditions, combined with genetic mutations, added distinct characteristics to the peoples of the globe.

THE REALITY OF HUMAN VARIETY With its more than 7 billion people, the world offers a fascinating variety of human shapes and colors. Skin colors come in all shades between black and white, heightened by reddish and yellowish hues. Eyes come in shades of blue, brown, and green. Lips are thick and thin. Hair is straight, curly, kinky, black, blonde, red—and, of course, all shades of brown.

In this sense, the concept of race—a group of people with inherited physical charac- teristics that distinguish it from another group—is a reality. Humans do, indeed, come in a variety of colors and shapes.

THE MYTH OF PURE RACES Humans show such a mixture of physical characteristics that there are no “pure” races. Instead of falling into distinct types that are clearly sepa- rate from one another, human characteristics—skin color, hair texture, nose shape, head shape, eye color, and so on—flow endlessly together. The mapping of the human genome system shows that any two individuals in the world have 99.6 percent of their genetic material in common (Beauchamp et al. 2011). What are called racial groups differ from one another only once in a thousand subunits of the genome (Angler 2000; Frank 2007). As you can see from the example of Tiger Woods, discussed in the following Cultural Diversity in the United States, these minute gradations make any attempt to draw lines of pure race purely arbitrary.

race a group whose inherited physi- cal characteristics distinguish it from other groups

Humans show remarkable diversity. Shown here is just one example— He Pingping, from China, who at 2 feet 4 inches, was the world’s shortest man, and Svetlana Pankratova, from Russia, who, according to the Guinness Book of World Records, is the woman with the longest legs. Race–ethnicity shows similar diversity.

Cultural Diversity in the United States Tiger Woods: Mapping the Changing Ethnic Terrain Tiger Woods, perhaps the top golfer of all time, calls himself Cablinasian. Woods invented this term as a boy to try to explain to himself just who he was—a combination of Caucasian, Black, Indian, and Asian (Leland and Beals 1997; McKibbin 2014). Woods wanted to embrace all sides of his family.

266 Chapter 9

Like many of us, Tiger Woods’ heritage is difficult to specify. Analysts who like to quantify ethnic heritage put Woods at one-quarter Thai, one-quarter Chinese, one- quarter white, an eighth Native American, and an eighth African American. From this chapter, you know how ridiculous such computations are, but the sociological question is why many people consider Tiger Woods to be African American. The U.S. racial scene is indeed complex, but a good part of the reason is that Woods has dark skin, and this is the label the media placed on him. The attitude seems to be “Everyone has to fit somewhere.” And for Tiger Woods, the media chose African American.

The United States once had a firm “color line”—barriers between racial–ethnic groups that you didn’t dare cross, especially in dating or marriage. This barrier has broken down, and today such marriages are common (Statistical Abstract 2017:Table 61). Children born in these marriages have a difficult time figuring out how to classify themselves (Saulny 2011). To help them make an adjustment in college, some colleges have interracial student organizations.

As we enter unfamiliar ethnic terrain, our classifications are bursting at the seams. Here is how Kwame Anthony Appiah, of Harvard’s Philosophy and Afro-American Studies Departments, described his situation:

My mother is English; my father is Ghanaian. My sisters are married to a Nigerian and a Norwegian. I have nephews who range from blond-haired kids to very black kids. They are all first cousins. Now according to the American scheme of things, they’re all black—even the guy with blond hair who skis in Oslo. (Wright 1994)

I marvel at what racial experts the U.S. census takers once were. When they took the national census, which is done every 10 years, they looked at people and assigned them a race. At various points, the census contained these categories: mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, Negro, black, Mexican, white, Indian, Filipino, Japanese, Chinese, and Hindu. Quadroon (one-fourth black and

three-fourths white) and octoroon (one-eighth black and seven-eighths white) proved too difficult to “measure,” and these categories were used only in 1890. Mulatto appeared in the 1850 census and lasted until 1920. The Mexican government complained about Mexicans being treated as a race, and this category was used only in 1930. I don’t know whose idea it was to make Hindu a race, but it lasted for three censuses, from 1920 to 1940 (Bean et al. 2004; Tafoya et al. 2005).

In the 2010 census, we were first asked to declare whether we were or were not “Spanish/Hispanic/Latino.” After this, we were asked to check “one or more races”

that we “consider ourselves to be.” We could choose from White; Black, African American,

or Negro; American Indian or Alaska Native; and Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese,

Korean, Vietnamese, Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, or Samoan. There were boxes for Other Asian and Other Pacific Islander, with examples that listed Hmong, Pakistani, and Fijian as races. If these didn’t do it, we could check a box called “Some Other Race” and then write whatever we wanted.

Perhaps the census should list Cablinasian, after all. We could also have ANGEL for African-Norwegian- German-English-Latino Americans, DEVIL for those of Danish-English-Vietnamese-Italian-Lebanese descent, and STUDENT for Swedish-Turkish-Uruguayan-Danish-English- Norwegian-Thai Americans. As you read farther in this chapter, you will see why these terms make as much sense as the categories we currently use.

For Your Consideration Perhaps you can use the materials in this chapter to answer these questions:

→ Why do we count people by “race”? → Why not eliminate race from the U.S. census? (Race

became a factor in 1790 during the first census. To determine the number of representatives from each state, a slave was counted as three-fifths of a person!)

→ Why is race so important to some people?

Tiger Woods as he answers questions at a news conference.

THE MYTH OF A FIXED NUMBER OF RACES Although large groupings of people can be classified by blood type and gene frequencies, even these classifications do not uncover “race.” Rather, the term is so arbitrary that biologists and anthropologists cannot even agree on how many “races” there are (Glasgow 2013). Ashley Montagu (1964, 1999), a physical anthropologist, pointed out that some scientists have classified humans into only two “races,” while others have found as many as two thousand. Montagu (1960) himself classified humans into forty “racial” groups.

“Race” is so fluid that even a plane ride can change someone’s race. If you want to see how, read the following Down-to-Earth Sociology.

Race and Ethnicity 267

What “race” are these two Brazilians? Is the child’s “race” different from her mother’s “race”? The text explains why “race” is such an unreliable concept that it changes even with geography.

Down-to-Earth Sociology Can a Plane Ride Change Your Race? At the beginning of this text, I mentioned that common sense and sociology often differ. This is especially so when it comes to race. According to common sense, our racial classifications represent biological differences between people. Sociologists, in contrast, stress that what we call races are social classifications, not biological categories.

Sociologists point out that our “race” depends more on the society in which we live than on our biology. For example, the racial categories common in the United States are only one of numerous ways by which people around the world classify physical appearances (Mukhopadhyay et al. 2014). Although various groups use different categories, each group assumes that its categories are natural, merely a response to visible biology.

To better understand this essential sociological point—that race is more social than it is biological— consider this: In the United States, children born to the same parents are all of the same race. “What could be more natural?” Americans assume. But in Brazil, children born to the same parents may be of different races—if their appearances differ. “What could be more natural?” assume Brazilians.

Consider how Americans usually classify a child born to a “black” mother and a “white” father. Why do they usually say that the child is “black”? Wouldn’t it be equally as logical to classify the child as “white”? Similarly, if a child has one grandmother who is “black,” but all her other ancestors are “white,” the child is often considered “black.” Yet she has much more “white blood” than “black blood.” Why, then, is she considered “black”? Certainly not because of biology.

Such thinking is a legacy of slavery. In an attempt to preserve the “purity” of their “race” in the face of the many

children whose fathers were white slave masters and whose mothers were black slaves, whites classified anyone with even a “drop of black blood” as black. They actually called this the “one-drop” rule.

Even a plane trip can change a person’s race. In the city of Salvador in Brazil, people classify one another

by color of skin and eyes, breadth of nose and lips, and color and curliness of hair. They use

at least seven terms for what we call white and black. Consider again a U.S. child who has “white” and “black” parents. If she flies to Brazil, she is no longer “black”; she now belongs to one of their several “whiter” categories (Fish 1995).

If the girl makes such a flight, would her “race” actually change? Our common sense revolts at this, I know, but it actually would. We want to argue that because her biological characteristics remain unchanged, her race remains unchanged. This is because we think of race as biological, when race is actually a label we use to describe perceived biological characteristics. Simply put, the race we “are” depends on our social location—on who is doing the classifying.

“Racial” classifications are also fluid, not fixed. Even now, you can see change occurring in U.S. classifications. The category “multiracial,” for example, indicates changing thought and perception.

For Your Consideration → How would you explain to someone that race is more a

social classification than a biological one? Can you come up with any arguments to refute this statement?

→ How do you think our racial–ethnic categories will change in the future?

THE MYTH OF RACIAL SUPERIORITY Regardless of what anthropologists, biologists, and sociologists say, however, people do divide one another into races, and we are stuck with this term. People also tend to see some races (mostly their own) as superior and others as inferior. As with language, however, no race is better than another. All races have their geniuses—and their idiots. Yet the myth of racial superiority abounds, a myth that is particularly dangerous. Adolf Hitler, for example, believed that the Aryans were a superior race, destined to establish an advanced culture and a new world order. This destiny required them to avoid the “racial contamination” that would come from breed- ing with inferior races. The Aryans, then, had a “cultural duty” to isolate or destroy races that threatened their racial purity and culture.

268 Chapter 9

Hitler ’s views, put into practice, were appalling. The Nazis slaughtered those they deemed inferior: Jews, Slavs, gypsies, homosexuals, and people with mental and physi- cal disabilities. Horrific images of gas ovens and emaciated bodies stacked like cordwood have haunted the world’s nations. At Nuremberg, the Allies, flush with victory, put the top Nazis on trial, exposing their heinous deeds to a shocked world. Their public execu- tions, everyone assumed, marked the end of such grisly acts.

Obviously, they didn’t.

“Which one of your seven children are you going to throw into this grave?” the men asked the woman. “If you refuse to tell us, they’ll all be buried alive.” (Isaacs 2014)

Fifty years after the Nazis, a mother in Rwanda had to make this haunting choice. Over 100 days in 1994, Hutus slaughtered about 900,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus—mostly with machetes (Wiafe-Amoako 2017). That same decade, Serbian leaders in Bosnia massa- cred Muslims, giving the world the term ethnic cleansing. In North Korea today, prisoners deemed genetically inferior—defiling the “sacred Korean race”—are tortured, raped, and starved to death (Eberstadt 2014b). As these events sadly attest, genocide—the attempt to destroy a group of people because of their presumed race or ethnicity—remains alive and well. Although more recent killings are not accompanied by swastikas and gas ovens, the perpetrators’ goal is the same.

THE MYTH CONTINUES The idea of race, of course, is far from a myth. Firmly embed- ded in our culture, it is a powerful force in our everyday lives. That no race is superior and that even biologists cannot decide how people should be classified into races is not what counts. “I know what I see, and you can’t tell me any different” seems to be the common attitude. As was noted in Chapter 4, sociologists W. I. and D. S. Thomas (1928) observed, “If people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” In other words, people act on perceptions and beliefs, not facts. As a result, we will always have people like Hitler and, as illustrated in our opening vignette, calloused bureaucrats like those in the U.S. Public Health Service who thought that it was fine to experiment with people whom they deemed inferior. Although few hold such extreme views, most people appear to be ethnocentric enough to believe that their own race is—at least just a little—superior to others.

genocide the annihilation or attempt- ed annihilation of a people because of their presumed race or ethnicity

The reason I selected these photos is to illustrate how seriously we must take all preaching of hatred and of racial supremacy, even though it seems to come from harmless or even humorous sources. The strange looking person with his hands on his hips, who is wearing lederhosen, traditional clothing of Bavaria, Germany, is Adolf Hitler. His actions led to the concentration camps. This is just one small pile of bodies found when the U.S. Army liberated Buchenwald.

Race and Ethnicity 269

Ethnic Groups In contrast to race, which people use to refer to supposed bio- logical characteristics that distinguish one group of people from another, ethnicity and ethnic refer to cultural character- istics. Derived from the word ethnos (a Greek word meaning “people” or “nation”), ethnicity and ethnic refer to people who identify with one another on the basis of common ancestry and cultural heritage. Their sense of belonging may center on their nation or region of origin, distinctive foods, clothing, language, music, religion, or family names and relationships.

People often confuse the terms race and ethnic group. For example, many people, including many Jews, consider Jews a race. Jews, however, are more properly considered an ethnic group because it is their cultural characteristics, especially their religion, that bind them together. Wherever Jews have lived in the world, they have intermarried. Con- sequently, Jews in China may have Chinese features, while some Swedish Jews are blue- eyed blonds. The confusion of race and ethnicity is illustrated in this photo.

Minority Groups and Dominant Groups Sociologist Louis Wirth (1945) defined a minority group as people who are singled out for unequal treatment and who regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination. World- wide, minorities share several conditions: Their physical or cultural traits are held in low esteem by the dominant group, which treats them unfairly, and they tend to marry within their own group (Wagley and Harris 1958). These conditions tend to create a sense of common identity among minorities (a feeling of “we-ness”). In some instances, even a sense of shared destiny emerges (Chandra 1993).

NOT SIZE, BUT DOMINANCE AND DISCRIMINATION Surprisingly, a minority group is not necessarily a numerical minority. For example, before India’s independence in 1947, a handful of British colonial rulers dominated tens of millions of Indians. Similarly, when South Africa practiced apartheid, a smaller group of Afrikaners, primarily Dutch, discrim- inated against a much larger number of blacks. And all over the world, as we discuss in Chapter 10, females are a minority group. Because of this, sociologists refer to those who do the discriminating not as the majority but, rather, as the dominant group. Regardless of its numbers, the dominant group has the greater power and privilege.

Possessing political power and unified by shared physical and cultural traits, the dominant group uses its position to discriminate against those with different—and supposedly inferior—traits. The dominant group considers its privileged position to be obvious proof of its own innate superiority.

EMERGENCE OF MINORITY GROUPS A group becomes a minority in one of two ways. The first is through the expansion of political boundaries. With the exception of females, tribal societies contain no minority groups. There everyone shares the same culture, including the same language, and belongs to the same group. When a group expands its political boundaries, however, it produces minority groups if it incorporates people with different customs, languages, religions, values, or physical characteristics into the same political entity and discriminates against them. For example, in 1848, after defeating Mexico in war, the United States took over the Southwest. The Mexicans living there, who had been the dominant group prior to the war, were transformed into a minority group, a master status that has influenced their lives ever since. Referring to his ancestors, one Latino said, “We didn’t move across the border—the border moved across us.”

Immigration is a second way in which a group becomes a minority. The immigration can be voluntary, as with the Mexicans and South Americans who have chosen to move

ethnicity (and ethnic) having distinctive cultural characteristics

minority group people who are singled out for unequal treatment and who regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination

dominant group the group with the most power, greatest privileges, and highest social status

Assumptions of race-ethnicity influence both perception and behavior. This photo is of Jews in Gondar, Ethiopia, awaiting their immigration to Israel. It took Israeli authorities several years to acknowledge that the Ethiopian Jews were “real Jews” and then allow them to immigrate.

270 Chapter 9

to the United States, or involuntary, as with the Africans who were brought in chains to the United States. (The way females became a minority group represents a third way, but, as discussed in Chapter 10, no one knows just how this occurred.)

Ethnic Work: Constructing Our Racial–Ethnic Identity Some of us have a greater sense of ethnicity than others, and we feel firm boundaries between “us” and “them.” Others of us have assimilated so extensively into the main- stream culture that we are only vaguely aware of our ethnic origins. With interethnic marriage common, some do not even know the countries from which their families originated—nor do they care. If asked to identify themselves ethnically, they respond with something like “I’m Heinz 57—German and Irish, with a little Italian and French thrown in—and I think someone said something about being one-sixteenth Indian, too.”

Why do some people feel an intense sense of ethnic iden- tity, while others feel hardly any? Figure 9.1 portrays four factors, identified by sociologist Ashley Doane, that heighten or reduce our sense of ethnic identity. From this figure, you can see that the keys are relative size, power, appearance, and discrimination. If your group is relatively small, has little power, looks different from most people in society, and is an object of discrimina- tion, you will have a heightened sense of ethnic iden- tity. In contrast, if you belong to the dominant group that holds most of the power, look like most people in the society, and feel no discrimination, you are likely to experience a sense of “belonging”—and to wonder why ethnic identity is such a big deal.

We can use the term ethnic work to refer to the ways we construct our ethnicity. For people who have a strong ethnic identity, this term refers to how they enhance and main- tain their group’s distinctions—from clothing, food, and language to religious practices and holidays. For people whose ethnic identity is not as firm, ethnic work refers to attempts to recover their ethnic heritage, such as trying to trace family lines or visiting the country of their family’s origin. The prevailing view has been that the United States would be a melting pot, with most of its groups blending into a sort of ethnic stew. To a large extent, this has happened, but because so many Americans are fascinated with their “roots,” some analysts suggest that “tossed salad” is a more appropriate term than “melting pot.” From the follow- ing photo essay on ethnic work, you can see why this awkward term might be appropriate.

Prejudice and Discrimination 9.2 Contrast prejudice and discrimination and individual and institutional

discrimination; discuss learning prejudice, internalizing dominant norms, and institutional discrimination.

With prejudice and discrimination so significant in social life, let’s consider the origin of prejudice and the extent of discrimination.

Learning Prejudice Prejudice and discrimination are common throughout the world. In Mexico, Mexicans of Hispanic descent discriminate against Mexicans of Native American descent; in Israel, Ashkenazi Jews, primarily of European descent, discriminate against Sephardic Jews from the Middle East; in China, the Han discriminate against the Uighurs. In some places, the elderly discriminate against the young; in others, the young discriminate against the elderly. And all around the world, men discriminate against women.

ethnic work activities designed to discover, enhance, maintain, or transmit an ethnic or racial identity

Figure 9.1 A Sense of Ethnicity

A Low Sense

A Heightened Sense

Part of the majority Greater power Similar to the “national identity”

No discrimination

Smaller numbers Lesser power Different from the “national identity”

Discrimination SOURCE: By the author. Based on Doane 1997.

Ethnic Work

As some groups do ethnic work, they

produce a mythical long-lost heritage, as in

this photo of “1500s Spanish” that I took in

St. Augustine, Florida.

Explorations in Cultural Identity Ethnic work refers to the ways that people establish, maintain, and transmit their ethnic identity. As shown here, among the techniques people use to forge ties with their roots are dress, dance, and music.

Many Native Americans have maintained continu- ous identity with their tribal roots. This member of the Sioux tribe wears traditional dancing dress as he performs at the American Indian Arts Festival in Westampton, New Jersey.

Many European Americans are involved in ethnic work, attempting to maintain an identity more precise than “from Europe.” These women of Czech ancestry are performing for a Czech community in a small town in Nebraska.

The Cinco de Mayo

celebration is used to

recall roots and renew

ethnic identities. This

one was held in

Denver, Colorado.

Many African Americans are trying to get in closer contact with their roots. Can you identify some of the ways this grandmother is helping her granddaughter appreciate her African heritage?

272 Chapter 9

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION Discrimination is an action—unfair treatment directed against someone. Discrimination can be based on many characteristics: age, sex, height, weight, skin color, clothing, speech, income, edu- cation, marital status, sexual orientation, disease, disability, religion, and politics. When the basis of discrimination is someone’s perception of race, it is known as racism. Dis- crimination is often the result of an attitude called prejudice—a prejudging of some sort, usually in a negative way. There is also positive prejudice, which exaggerates the virtues of a group, as when people think that some group is superior to others. Most prejudice, however, is negative and involves prejudging a group as inferior.

LEARNING PREJUDICE FROM ASSOCIATING WITH OTHERS As with our other attitudes, we are not born with prejudice. Rather, we learn prejudice from the people around us. You probably know this, but here is a twist that sociologists have found. Michael Kimmel (2007), who interviewed neo-Nazi skinheads in Sweden, found that the young men were attracted mostly by the group’s tough masculinity, not its hatred of immigrants. Kathleen Blee (2005, 2011), who interviewed female members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and Aryan Nations in the United States, found something similar. They were attracted to the hate group because someone they liked belonged to it. They learned to be racists after they joined the group. Both Blee and Kimmel found that the members’ racism was not the cause of their joining but, rather, joining was the cause of their racism.

Just as our associations can increase prejudice, so they can reduce prejudice, the topic of our following Down-to-Earth Sociology.

discrimination an act of unfair treatment di- rected against an individual or a group

racism prejudice and discrimination on the basis of race

prejudice an attitude or prejudging, usual- ly in a negative way

contact theory the idea that prejudice and negative stereotypes decrease and racial–ethnic relations improve when people from different racial–ethnic back- grounds, who are of equal status, interact frequently

Down-to-Earth Sociology College Dorms and Contact Theory From your own experience, you know that friends influence one another. Much of this influence comes from talking. As friends talk about their experiences and share their ideas, they help give shape to one another’s views of life.

It is no different for friends who are from different racial–ethnic groups. As they interact with one another, their understandings change and their perspectives broaden. Over time, if they cannot see the world through each other’s eyes, they at least get a glimpse of what that world looks like.

If one of the goals of college is to increase students’ understanding of the world and change their attitudes while helping to integrate racial–ethnic groups—and this is a big if—then why do some colleges have separate dorms for African American students, Jewish students, and so on? And when there aren’t separate dorms, why do some colleges assign roommates so blacks will room with blacks and whites with whites?

The goal of such room assignments, of course, is to

make minority students feel comfortable and help prevent them from feeling lost in a sea of white faces and suffering from anomie, feelings of not belonging.

These good intentions have an unanticipated result. As African American students interact in these “little corners” of the campus, their interracial friendships decrease. At the end of their freshman year in college, African American students have about 10 percent fewer interracial friends than when they began college. What

happens if colleges assign students of different racial–ethnic groups to be roommates? It is not surprising, but these students end up with more interracial friendships than those who have roommates of their own race–ethnicity.

Mixed racial–ethnic roommate arrangements, though, are more likely to fail. About 17 percent end during the school year, compared to 10 percent of white–white pairings and 9 percent of black–black pairings. The dissatisfactions cut both

Contact theory indicates that prejudice decreases and relations improve when individuals of different racial–ethnic backgrounds who are of equal status interact frequently.

Race and Ethnicity 273

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION Discrimination is an action—unfair treatment directed against someone. Discrimination can be based on many characteristics: age, sex, height, weight, skin color, clothing, speech, income, edu- cation, marital status, sexual orientation, disease, disability, religion, and politics. When the basis of discrimination is someone’s perception of race, it is known as racism. Dis- crimination is often the result of an attitude called prejudice—a prejudging of some sort, usually in a negative way. There is also positive prejudice, which exaggerates the virtues of a group, as when people think that some group is superior to others. Most prejudice, however, is negative and involves prejudging a group as inferior.

LEARNING PREJUDICE FROM ASSOCIATING WITH OTHERS As with our other attitudes, we are not born with prejudice. Rather, we learn prejudice from the people around us. You probably know this, but here is a twist that sociologists have found. Michael Kimmel (2007), who interviewed neo-Nazi skinheads in Sweden, found that the young men were attracted mostly by the group’s tough masculinity, not its hatred of immigrants. Kathleen Blee (2005, 2011), who interviewed female members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and Aryan Nations in the United States, found something similar. They were attracted to the hate group because someone they liked belonged to it. They learned to be racists after they joined the group. Both Blee and Kimmel found that the members’ racism was not the cause of their joining but, rather, joining was the cause of their racism.

Just as our associations can increase prejudice, so they can reduce prejudice, the topic of our following Down-to-Earth Sociology.

discrimination an act of unfair treatment di- rected against an individual or a group

racism prejudice and discrimination on the basis of race

prejudice an attitude or prejudging, usual- ly in a negative way

contact theory the idea that prejudice and negative stereotypes decrease and racial–ethnic relations improve when people from different racial–ethnic back- grounds, who are of equal status, interact frequently

ways, with blacks and whites requesting transfers at about the same rate.

But note that the vast majority of these interracial pairings last. They don’t always blossom into friendships, of course, and like other roommate assignments, some roommates can barely tolerate one another. But contacts and cross-racial friendships do increase in most cases, changing understandings and perspectives. We need in- depth research to uncover who is changed in what ways.

In Sum

Mutual understandings increase, prejudice decreases, and relations improve when people of equal status who are from

different racial–ethnic backgrounds interact frequently and work toward mutual goals. The shorthand for these findings is contact theory.

SOURCES: Based on Riley 2009; King et al. 2013.

For Your Consideration → Do you think colleges should eliminate dormitories

themed by race–ethnicity?

→ What is your opinion about colleges assigning students of different racial–ethnic groups to the same dorm rooms?

THE FAR-REACHING NATURE OF PREJUDICE It is amazing how much prejudice people can learn. In a classic article, psychologist Eugene Hartley (1946) asked people how they felt about several racial–ethnic groups. Besides Negroes, Jews, and so on, he included the Wallonians, Pireneans, and Danireans—names he had made up. Most peo- ple who expressed dislike for Jews and Negroes showed similar contempt for these three fictitious groups.

Hartley’s study shows that prejudice does not depend on negative experiences with others. It also reveals that people who are prejudiced against one racial or ethnic group also tend to be prejudiced against other groups. People can be, and are, prejudiced against people they have never met—and even against groups that do not exist!

This photo, taken in Birmingham, Alabama, provides a glimpse into the determination and bravery of the civil rights demonstrators of the 1960s and the severe opposition they confronted.

274 Chapter 9

The neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan base their existence on prejudice. These groups believe that race is real, that white is best, and that beneath society’s surface is a murky river of mingling conspiracies (Ezekiel 1995). In the following Down-to-Earth Sociology, sociologist Raphael Ezekiel reveals some of the insights he gained during his remarkable study of these groups.

Down-to-Earth Sociology The Racist Mind First, you should know something about Rafael Ezekiel, a sociologist I admire for his daring research. Rafe told me that his interest in racial-ethnic relations was stimulated by the con- tradictions he experienced as a child: He grew up with liberal, northern, Jewish parents in a deeply racist East Texas town.

Rafe wanted to see the racist mind from the inside. Participant observation, which you studied in Chapter 1, is the way to do this, but as a Jew, would participant observation be possible for him? To find out, Rafe told Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi leaders that he was a Jew and that he wanted to interview them and attend their meet- ings. Surprisingly, they agreed. Rafe published his path-breaking research in a book, The Racist Mind (1995).

I asked Rafe to share with you some of the insights he gained during his fascinating socio- logical adventure. This is what he wrote.

Dear students, Jim Henslin asked me to write about my field-

work. I got stuck, so I decided to interview myself. Interviewer: What did you do, Professor?

Rafe: I spent three years hanging out with a neo-Nazi group in Detroit. After that, I interviewed na- tional leaders from neo-Nazi groups and from Klans. I also went to their national and regional meetings. My book, The Racist Mind, comes from that work.

Interviewer: Did they know you were a Jew? Rafe: I made sure they knew I was a Jew and

opposed to racism. Good interviewing is interplay be- tween you and your respondent—kind of a dance. That requires trust; trust requires openness and honesty.

Interviewer: But, then, why did they talk with you? Rafe: Because I told them the truth—that I believe

every person creates a life that makes sense to him or her, and my professional work is to go onto the turf of people whose lives seem unusual to most folk and let these people tell me, in their own words, the sense their lives make to them. That made sense to them.

Interviewer: Did you find anything out? Rafe: Yeah. The leaders and members are real

different. The leaders are men—this is essentially a male movement—force, macho, blood, all that. The leaders are not motivated primarily by hate or by racism. They are motivated primarily by hunger for power: Power is the goal; racism is the tool. To move a crowd by what they say. To scare a community by saying that they’re

coming. To fill the media with scare stories. A whole lot of this is theater—they provide the stimulus; we provide the fantasies.

There are always suckers whom you can recruit by talking racism. If you line up 100 white Americans, ranked by how much they fear and dislike African Amer-

icans, the big leaders wouldn’t be at the head of the line—they’d be about 30 places back.

Interviewer: And the ordinary members? Rafe: That’s a whole different story. This is

not a movement built on hate. It’s a movement built on fear. When you talk with a member, talk honestly about his life—his, again—the emotion you sense under the surface is fear. The kids in the Detroit group felt, deep down, that their own lives might be snuffed out at any moment, like a candle in the wind.

Interviewer: Do you have any hints on how to do good fieldwork?

Rafe: Yeah. First, check yourself out—why are you doing this? What does it mean to you? Second, be real—with them, with yourself. Third, field notes. When you finish your interview and start home, roll the interview around in your mind. Don’t analyze, just let it play in your mind. Like remembering a dream. Don’t talk to anyone—no phoning—don’t listen to the radio—just keep the interview rolling around. Go straight home and start writing. Write first pure emotion— primary process stuff—associations, feelings. What’s going on inside you after this interview? What does it remind you of? Then write your secondary process stuff—what went on and what you think it means. Then, in terms of your project, where does this take you? Do you need more questions? Respondents? Finally, ask yourself: “So what?” What difference does it make to the world what you think you are understanding? As you write that, you will be writing much of your book.

For Your Consideration → Would you have thought it possible for a Jew to openly

attend meetings of the Klan and neo-Nazis? Ezekiel is dispassionate in his analysis, but in his book he reveals some of the fears he felt during his research. Could you ever do such research?

→ Can you see why it can be exciting to be a sociologist?

→ What does Ezekiel mean when he says that the neo- Nazis and Klans are not based on hate? How can this be?

Raphael Ezekiel

Race and Ethnicity 275

INTERNALIZING DOMINANT NORMS People can even learn to be prejudiced against their own group. A national survey found that African American men think that lighter-skinned African American women are more attractive than those with darker skin (Hill 2002). Participant observation in the inner city also reveals a preference for lighter skin (Jones 2010). Sociologists call this internalizing the norms of the dominant group.

To study the internalization of dominant norms, psychologists Mahzarin Banaji and Anthony Greenwald created the Implicit Association Test. In one version of this test, good and bad words are flashed on a screen along with photos of African Americans and whites (Blair et al. 2013). Most subjects are quicker to associate positive words (such as “love,” “peace,” and “baby”) with whites and negative words (such as “cancer,” “bomb,” and “devil”) with blacks. Here’s the clincher: This is true for both whites and blacks (Dasgupta et al. 2000; Greenwald and Krieger 2006). Apparently, we all learn the ethnic maps of our culture and, along with them, their route to biased perception.

Individual and Institutional Discrimination Sociologists stress that we should move beyond thinking in terms of individual discrimination, the negative treatment of one person by another. Although such behav- ior creates problems, it is primarily an issue between individuals. With their focus on the broader picture, sociologists encourage us to examine institutional discrimination, that is, to see how discrimination is woven into the fabric of society. Let’s look at two examples.

HOME MORTGAGES Bank lending provides an excellent illustration of institutional discrimination. Reviewing national samples of loan applications, researchers found that bankers often refuse to make loans to minorities (Thomas 1991, 1992). When confronted, the bankers said they didn’t have a discriminatory bone in their bodies—the whites sim- ply had better credit history. The researchers retested their data. They found that even when applicants had identical credit, bankers were 60 percent more likely to reject Afri- can Americans and Latinos. The problem continues. Look at Figure 9.2. You can see that minorities are more likely to be turned down for a loan—and this is true whether their incomes are below or above the median income of their community.

individual discrimination person-to-person or face-to-face discrimination; the negative treatment of people by other individuals

institutional discrimination negative treatment of a mi- nority group that is built into a society’s institutions; also called systemic discrimination

20%

5%

30%

10%

15%

25%

35%

40%

45%

Applicants whose income was below the median income

Applicants whose income was above the median income

These Applicants Were Charged Higher Interest (given subprime loans)

Applicants who had 100% to 120% of median income

Whites Latinos African Americans

15

25

30

11

26

30

14

36

43

These Applicants Were Denied a Mortgage

Figure 9.2 Buying a House: Institutional Discrimination and Predatory Lending This figure, based on a national sample, illustrates institutional discrimination. Rejecting the loan appli- cations of minorities and gouging minorities with higher interest rates are a nationwide practice, not the acts of a rogue banker here or there. Because the discrimination is part of the banking system, it is also called systemic discrimination.

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Kochbar and Gonzalez-Barrera 2009.

276 Chapter 9

In the Great Recession that we just suffered through, African Americans and Latinos were hit harder than whites. The last set of bars on Figure 9.2 shows one of the reasons for this: Banks purposely charged minorities higher interest rates, a practice called predatory lending. When the economic crisis hit, the results were devastating. Many African Amer- icans and Latinos who could have continued to make their house payments if they had the lower interest rates lost their homes (Ropiequet et al. 2012).

Would nice bankers really do predatory lending? After checking data like these, the Justice Department accused Countrywide Financial, a major mortgage lender, of discrim- inating against 200,000 Latino and African American borrowers. Countrywide agreed to pay a fine of $335 million, the largest fair-lending settlement in history (Savage 2011).

HEALTH CARE Losing your home is devastating. Losing your mother or baby is even worse. Look at Table 9.1. You can see that institutional discrimination can be a life-and- death matter. In childbirth, African American mothers are more than three times as likely to die as white mothers, while their babies are more than twice as likely to die during their first year of life. This is not a matter of biology, as though African American mothers and chil- dren are more fragile. It is a matter of social conditions, primarily nutrition and medical care.

Table 9.1 Health and Race–Ethnicity Infant Maternal Life Expectancy

Deaths1 Deaths Male Female

Whites 4.9 11.1 76.7 81.4

African Americans 11.0 36.5 72.5 78.4

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2017:Tables 113, 122.

1The death rates given here are the number per 1,000. Infant deaths refer to the number of infants younger than 1 year who die in a year per 1,000 live births. The source does not provide data for other racial–ethnic groups.

Discrimination is not always deliberate. Unintentional discrimination can be so sub- tle that no one is aware of it—neither those being discriminated against nor those doing the discriminating (Hausmann et al. 2014). Researchers studied the race–ethnicity of peo- ple who receive knee replacements and coronary bypass surgery. They found that white patients are more likely than Latino or African American patients to receive these proce- dures (Skinner et al. 2003; Popescu et al. 2007). They found a similar pattern in treatment after a heart attack: Whites are more likely than blacks to be given cardiac catheterization, a test to detect blockage of blood vessels. This study of 40,000 patients held a surprise: Both black and white doctors are more likely to give this preventive care to whites (Stolberg 2001).

Researchers are trying to figure out how race–ethnicity becomes a factor in medical decisions (Penner et al. 2014). With both white and black doctors involved, we can be certain that physicians do not intend to discriminate. Apparently, the implicit bias that comes with the internalization of dominant norms becomes a subconscious motivation for giving or denying access to advanced medical procedures. Race seems to work like gender: In Chapter 10, you will see how women’s higher death rates in coronary bypass surgery can be traced to implicit attitudes about gender. In the same way, race–ethnicity is somehow a subconscious motivation in giving or denying access to advanced medical procedures (Blair et al. 2013).

Theories of Prejudice 9.3 Contrast psychological and sociological theories of prejudice: include

functionalism, conflict, and symbolic interactionism.

Social scientists have developed several theories to explain prejudice. Let’s first look at psychological explanations, then at sociological ones.

Race and Ethnicity 277

Psychological Perspectives Let’s look at two main theories of prejudice in psychology.

FRUSTRATION AND SCAPEGOATS

“Why are we having a depression? The answer is simple. The Jews have taken over the banking system, and they want to suck every dollar out of us.”

This was a common sentiment in Germany in the 1930s during the deep depression that helped propel Hitler to power. People often unfairly blame their troubles on a scapegoat—often a racial–ethnic or religious minority. Why do they do this? Psycholo- gist John Dollard (Dollard et al. 1939) suggested that prejudice is the result of frustra- tion. People who are unable to strike out at the real source of their frustration (such as unemployment) look for someone to blame. This person or group becomes a target on which they vent their frustrations. Gender and age are also the basis for scapegoating. Immigrants, too, often find that they are scapegoats.

How easily frustration can lead to prejudice was illustrated in a simple, yet fascinat- ing experiment. A team of psychologists measured the prejudice of a group of students (Cowen 1959). They then gave the students two puzzles to solve, making sure the students did not have enough time to finish. After the students had worked furiously on the puzzles, the experimenters shook their heads in disgust and expressed disbelief that the students couldn’t complete such a simple task. They then retested the students. The results? Their scores on prejudice increased. The students had directed their frustrations outward, trans- ferring them to people who had nothing to do with the contempt they had experienced.

THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

“I don’t like the British. They never laugh. And I don’t like the Italians. They’re always talking with their hands. I don’t like the Walloneans, either. They’re always smiling at something. And I don’t like librarians. And my job sucks. Hitler might have had his faults, but he put people to work during the Great Depression.”

Have you ever wondered whether some people’s personalities make them more inclined to be prejudiced and others more fair-minded? For psychologist Theodor Adorno, who had fled from the Nazis, this was no idle speculation. With the horrors he had observed still fresh in his mind, Adorno wondered whether there might be a certain type of person who is more likely to fall for the racist spewings of people like Hitler, Mussolini, and those in the Ku Klux Klan.

To find out, Adorno gave three tests to about two thousand people, ranging from col- lege professors to prison inmates (Adorno et al. 1950). He measured their ethnocentrism, anti-Semitism (bias against Jews), and support for strong, authoritarian leaders. People who scored high on one test also scored high on the other two. For example, people who agreed with anti-Semitic statements also said that governments should be authoritarian and that foreign customs pose a threat to the “American way.”

Adorno concluded that highly prejudiced people have deep respect for authority and are submissive to authority figures. He termed this the authoritarian personality. These people believe that things are either right or wrong. Ambiguity disturbs them, especially in matters of religion or sex. They become anxious when they confront norms and values that are different from their own. To view people who differ from themselves as inferior assures them that their own positions are right.

Adorno’s research stimulated more than a thousand research studies. In general, the researchers found that people who are older, less educated, less intelligent, and from a lower social class are more likely to be authoritarian. Critics say that this doesn’t indi- cate a particular personality, just that the less educated are more prejudiced—which we already knew (Yinger 1965; Ray 1991). Nevertheless, researchers continue to study this concept (Aichholzer and Zandonella 2016).

scapegoat an individual or group unfair- ly blamed for someone else’s troubles

authoritarian personality Theodor Adorno’s term for peo- ple who are prejudiced and rank high on scales of conformity, intolerance, insecurity, respect for authority, and submissive- ness to superiors

278 Chapter 9

other racial–ethnic groups are ready to take their jobs, African Americans often per- ceive Latinos as competitors (Glanton 2013), and men know that women are eager to get promoted. All of this helps to keep workers in line.

Conflict theorists, as you will recall, focus on how groups compete for scarce resources. Owners want to increase profits by holding costs down, while workers want better food, health care, housing, education, and leisure. Divided, workers are weak, but united, they gain strength. The split labor market is one way that owners divide workers so they can’t take united action to demand higher wages and better working conditions.

Another tactic that owners use is the reserve labor force. This is simply another term for the unemployed. To expand production during economic booms, companies hire people who don’t have jobs. When the economy contracts, they lay off unneeded workers. That there are desperate people looking for work is a lesson not lost on those who have jobs. They fear eviction and worry about having their cars and furniture repossessed. Many know they are just one or two paychecks away from ending up “on the streets.”

Just like the boys in the Sherif experiment, African Americans, Latinos, whites, and others see themselves as able to make gains only at the expense of other groups. Some- times this rivalry shows up along very fine racial–ethnic lines, such as that in Miami between Haitians and African Americans, who distrust each other as competitors. Divisions among workers deflect anger and hostility away from the power elite and direct these powerful emotions toward other racial–ethnic groups. Instead of recogniz- ing their common class interests and working for their mutual welfare, workers learn to fear and distrust one another.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

“I know her qualifications are good, but yikes! She’s ugly. I don’t want to have to look at her every day. Let’s hire the pretty one with the nice curves.”

While conflict theorists focus on the role of the owner (or capitalist) class in exploiting racial–ethnic divisions, symbolic interactionists examine how labels affect perception and create prejudice.

HOW LABELS CREATE PREJUDICE Symbolic interactionists stress that the labels we learn affect the ways we perceive people. Labels create selective perception; that is, they lead us to see certain things while they blind us to others. If we apply a label to a group, we tend to perceive its members as all alike. We shake off evidence that doesn’t fit (Simpson and Yinger 1972; Drakulich 2012). Shorthand for emotionally charged stereotypes, some racial–ethnic labels are especially powerful. As you know, the term nigger is not neutral. Nor are cracker, dago, guinea, honky, kike, kraut, limey, mick, spic, or any of the other scornful words people use to belittle other groups. As in the statement above, ugly can work in a similar way. Such words overpower us with emotions, blocking out rational thought about the people to whom they refer (Allport 1954).

LABELS AND SELF-FULFILLING STEREOTYPES Some stereotypes not only justify prejudice and discrimination but also produce the behavior depicted in the stereotype. We examined this principle in Chapter 4 in the Down-to-Earth Sociology on beauty. Let’s consider Group X. According to stereotypes, the members of this group are lazy, so they don’t deserve good jobs. (“They are lazy and wouldn’t do the job well.”) Denied the bet- ter jobs, most members of Group X do “dirty work,” the jobs few people want. (“That’s the right kind of work for that kind of people.”) Since much “dirty work” is sporadic, members of Group X are often seen “on the streets.” The sight of their idleness reinforces the original stereotype of laziness. The discrimination that created the “laziness” in the first place passes unnoticed.

split labor market workers split along racial– ethnic, gender, age, or any other lines; this split is exploited by owners to weaken the bargain- ing power of workers

reserve labor force the unemployed; unemployed workers are thought of as being “in reserve”—capitalists take them “out of reserve” (put them back to work) during times of high production and then put them “back in reserve” (lay them off) when they are no longer needed

selective perception seeing certain features of an ob- ject or situation, but remaining blind to others

Sociological Perspectives Sociologists find psychological explanations inadequate. They stress that the key to understanding prejudice cannot be found by looking inside people but, rather, by examining conditions outside of them. For this reason, sociologists focus on how social environments influence prejudice. With this background, let’s compare functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist perspectives on prejudice.

FUNCTIONALISM

In a television documentary, journalist Bill Moyers interviewed Fritz Hippler, a Nazi who was just 29 when he was put in charge of the entire German film industry. When Hit- ler came to power, Hippler said, the Germans were no more anti-Semitic than the French. Hippler was told to increase anti-Semitism in Germany. Obediently, he produced movies that contained vivid scenes comparing Jews to rats—with their breeding threatening to infest the population.

Why was Hippler told to create hatred? Prejudice and discrimination were functional for the Nazis. Defeated in World War I and devastated by fines levied by the victors, Germany was on its knees. Runaway inflation was destroying its middle class. To help unite this fractured Germany, the Nazis created a scapegoat to blame for their troubles. In addition, the Jews owned businesses, bank accounts, fine art, and other property that the Nazis could confiscate. Jews also held key positions (as university professors, reporters, judges, and so on), which the Nazis could give as prizes to their followers. In the end, hatred also showed its dysfunctional face, as the Nazi officials hanged at Nuremberg discovered.

Prejudice becomes practically irresistible when state machinery is used to advance the cause of hatred. To produce prejudice, the Nazis harnessed government agencies, the schools, police, courts, and mass media. The results were devastating. Do you recall Jack and Oskar featured in the Down-to-Earth Sociology on identical twins in Chapter 3? Jack and Oskar had been separated as babies. Jack was brought up as a Jew in Trinidad, while Oskar was reared as a Catholic in Czechoslovakia. Under the Nazi regime, Oskar learned to hate Jews, unaware that he himself was a Jew.

That prejudice is functional and shaped by the social environment was demon- strated in another classical experiment by psychologists Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif (1953). In a boys’ summer camp, the Sherifs assigned friends to different cabins and then had the cabin groups compete in sports. In just a few days, strong in-groups had formed. Even lifelong friends began to taunt one another, calling each other “crybaby” and “sissy.”

The Sherif study teaches us important lessons about social life. Note how it is pos- sible to arrange the social environment to generate either positive or negative feelings about people, and how prejudice arises if we pit groups against one another in an “I win, you lose” situation. You can also see that prejudice is functional, how it creates in-group solidarity. And, of course, it is obvious how dysfunctional prejudice is, when you observe the way it destroys human relationships.

CONFLICT THEORY

“The Japanese have gone on strike? They’re demanding a raise? And they even want a rest period? We’ll show them who’s boss. Hire those Koreans who have been begging for work.”

This did happen. When Japanese workers in Hawaii struck, owners of plantations hired Koreans (Jeong and You 2008). The division of workers along racial–ethnic and gender lines is known as a split labor market (Du Bois 1935/1992; Piketty 2014). Although today’s exploitation of these divisions is more subtle, whites are aware that

Race and Ethnicity 279

other racial–ethnic groups are ready to take their jobs, African Americans often per- ceive Latinos as competitors (Glanton 2013), and men know that women are eager to get promoted. All of this helps to keep workers in line.

Conflict theorists, as you will recall, focus on how groups compete for scarce resources. Owners want to increase profits by holding costs down, while workers want better food, health care, housing, education, and leisure. Divided, workers are weak, but united, they gain strength. The split labor market is one way that owners divide workers so they can’t take united action to demand higher wages and better working conditions.

Another tactic that owners use is the reserve labor force. This is simply another term for the unemployed. To expand production during economic booms, companies hire people who don’t have jobs. When the economy contracts, they lay off unneeded workers. That there are desperate people looking for work is a lesson not lost on those who have jobs. They fear eviction and worry about having their cars and furniture repossessed. Many know they are just one or two paychecks away from ending up “on the streets.”

Just like the boys in the Sherif experiment, African Americans, Latinos, whites, and others see themselves as able to make gains only at the expense of other groups. Some- times this rivalry shows up along very fine racial–ethnic lines, such as that in Miami between Haitians and African Americans, who distrust each other as competitors. Divisions among workers deflect anger and hostility away from the power elite and direct these powerful emotions toward other racial–ethnic groups. Instead of recogniz- ing their common class interests and working for their mutual welfare, workers learn to fear and distrust one another.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

“I know her qualifications are good, but yikes! She’s ugly. I don’t want to have to look at her every day. Let’s hire the pretty one with the nice curves.”

While conflict theorists focus on the role of the owner (or capitalist) class in exploiting racial–ethnic divisions, symbolic interactionists examine how labels affect perception and create prejudice.

HOW LABELS CREATE PREJUDICE Symbolic interactionists stress that the labels we learn affect the ways we perceive people. Labels create selective perception; that is, they lead us to see certain things while they blind us to others. If we apply a label to a group, we tend to perceive its members as all alike. We shake off evidence that doesn’t fit (Simpson and Yinger 1972; Drakulich 2012). Shorthand for emotionally charged stereotypes, some racial–ethnic labels are especially powerful. As you know, the term nigger is not neutral. Nor are cracker, dago, guinea, honky, kike, kraut, limey, mick, spic, or any of the other scornful words people use to belittle other groups. As in the statement above, ugly can work in a similar way. Such words overpower us with emotions, blocking out rational thought about the people to whom they refer (Allport 1954).

LABELS AND SELF-FULFILLING STEREOTYPES Some stereotypes not only justify prejudice and discrimination but also produce the behavior depicted in the stereotype. We examined this principle in Chapter 4 in the Down-to-Earth Sociology on beauty. Let’s consider Group X. According to stereotypes, the members of this group are lazy, so they don’t deserve good jobs. (“They are lazy and wouldn’t do the job well.”) Denied the bet- ter jobs, most members of Group X do “dirty work,” the jobs few people want. (“That’s the right kind of work for that kind of people.”) Since much “dirty work” is sporadic, members of Group X are often seen “on the streets.” The sight of their idleness reinforces the original stereotype of laziness. The discrimination that created the “laziness” in the first place passes unnoticed.

split labor market workers split along racial– ethnic, gender, age, or any other lines; this split is exploited by owners to weaken the bargain- ing power of workers

reserve labor force the unemployed; unemployed workers are thought of as being “in reserve”—capitalists take them “out of reserve” (put them back to work) during times of high production and then put them “back in reserve” (lay them off) when they are no longer needed

selective perception seeing certain features of an ob- ject or situation, but remaining blind to others

280 Chapter 9

Down-to-Earth Sociology The Man in the Zoo

The Bronx Zoo in New York City used to keep a 22-year-old pygmy in the Monkey House. The man— and the orangutan he lived with—became the most popular exhibit at the zoo. Thousands of visitors would arrive daily and head straight for the Monkey House. Eyewitnesses to what they were told was a lower form of human in the long chain of evolution, the visitors were fascinated by the pygmy, especially by his sharp- ened teeth.

To make the exhibit even more alluring, the zoo director scattered animal bones in front of the man.

I know it sounds as though I must have made this up, but this is a true story. The World’s Fair was going to be held in St. Louis in 1904, and the U.S. Department of Anthropology wanted to show villages from different cul- tures. They asked Samuel Verner, an explorer, if he could bring some pygmies to St. Louis to serve as live exhibits. Verner agreed, and on his next trip to Africa, in the Belgian Congo he came across Ota Benga, a pygmy who had been enslaved by another tribe. Benga, then about age 20, said he was willing to go to St. Louis. After Verner bought Benga’s freedom for some cloth and salt, Benga recruited several other pygmies to go with them.

After the World’s Fair, Verner took the pygmies back to Africa. When Benga found out that a Belgian military had wiped out his village and killed his family, he asked Verner if he could return with him to the United States. Verner agreed.

When they returned to New York, Verner ran into financial trouble and wrote some bad checks. No longer able to care for Benga, Verner left him with the director of the American Museum of Natural History. Later, Benga was turned over to the Bronx Zoo, which put him on display in the Monkey House, with the same type of sign they used to identify animal specimens:

The African Pygmy, “Ota Benga.” Age 23 years. Height 4 feet 11 inches. Weight 103 pounds. Brought from the Kasai River, Congo Free State, South Central Africa by Dr. Samuel P. Verner. Exhibited each afternoon during September.

Exhibited with an orangutan, Benga became a sensation. An article in The New York Times said it was fortunate that Benga couldn’t think very deeply or else living with monkeys might bother him.

When the Colored Baptist Ministers’ Conference protested that exhibiting Benga was degrading, zoo officials replied that they were “taking excellent care of the little fellow.” They added that “he has one of the best rooms at the primate house.” (I

wonder what animal had the best room.) Not surprisingly, this reply didn’t satisfy

the ministers. When they continued to protest, zoo officials decided to let Benga out of his cage. They put a white shirt on him and let him walk around the zoo. At night, Benga slept in the monkey house.

Benga’s life became even more miserable. Zoo visitors would follow him, howling, jeering, laughing, and poking at him. One day, Benga found a knife in the feeding room of the Monkey House and flourished it at the visitors. Unhappy zoo officials took the knife away.

Benga then made a little bow and some arrows and began shooting at the obnoxious visitors. This ended the fun for the zoo officials. They decided that Benga had to leave.

After living in an orphanage for African American children, Benga went to work as a laborer in a tobacco factory in Lynchburg, Virginia.

Always treated as a freak, Benga was desperately lonely. In 1916, at about the age of 32, in despair that he had no home or family to return to in Africa, Benga ended his misery by shooting himself in the heart.

SOURCES: Based on Bradford and Blume 1992; Crossen 2006; Bergman 2014.

For Your Consideration → See what different views emerge as you apply the three

theoretical perspectives (functionalism, symbolic interac- tionism, and conflict theory) to exhibiting Ota Benga at the Bronx Zoo.

→ How does the concept of ethnocentrism apply to this event?

→ Explain how the concepts of prejudice and discrimination apply to what happened to Benga.

Ota Benga, 1906, on exhibit in the Bronx Zoo.

To apply these three theoretical perspectives and catch a glimpse of how amazingly different things were in the past, read the following Down-to-Earth Sociology.

Race and Ethnicity 281

Global Patterns of Intergroup Relations 9.4 Explain genocide, population transfer, internal colonialism, segregation,

assimilation, and multiculturalism.

In their studies of racial–ethnic relations around the world, sociologists have found six basic ways that dominant groups treat minority groups. These patterns are shown in Figure 9.3. Let’s look at each.

Figure 9.3 Global Patterns of Intergroup Relations: A Continuum

The dominant group structures the social institu- tions to maintain minimal contact with the minority group (e.g., the

U.S. South before the 1960s)

The dominant group tries to destroy the

minority group (e.g., Germany and Rwanda)

The dominant group exploits

the minority group (e.g., low-paid, menial work)

The dominant group expels the minority group

(e.g., Native Americans forced onto reservations)

The dominant group absorbs

the minority group (e.g., American

Czechoslovakians)

The dominant group encourages racial and ethnic variation; when

successful, there is no longer a

dominant group (e.g., Switzerland)

Genocide Population

Transfer Internal

Colonialism Segregation Assimilation Multiculturalism

(Pluralism)

INHUMANITY

REJECTION

HUMANITY

ACCEPTANCE

SOURCE: By the author.

Genocide

When gold was discovered in northern California in 1849, the fabled “Forty-Niners” rushed in. In this region lived 150,000 Native Americans. To get rid of them, the white government put a bounty on their heads. It even reimbursed the whites for their bullets. The result was the slaughter of 120,000 Native American men, women, and children. (Schaefer 2004)

Could you ever participate in genocide? Don’t be too quick in answering. Gaining an understanding of how ordinary people take part in genocide will be our primary goal in this section. Those who did the killing in the California gold fields were regular people— people like you and me. The killing was promoted by calling the Native Americans “sav- ages,” making them seem inferior, somehow less than human. Killing them, then, didn’t seem the same as killing whites in order to take their property.

Most Native Americans, though, died not from bullets but from the diseases the whites brought with them. Measles, smallpox, and the flu came from another continent, and the Native Americans had no immunity against them. But disease wasn’t enough. To accomplish the takeover of the Native Americans’ resources, the settlers and soldiers destroyed their food supply (crops and buffalo). From all causes, about 97 percent of Native Americans died (Schaefer 2015). Ordinary, “good” people were intent on destroy- ing the “savages.”

Now consider last century’s two most notorious examples of genocide. In Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, Hitler and the Nazis attempted to destroy all Jews. In the 1990s, in Rwanda, the Hutus tried to destroy all Tutsis. One of the horrifying aspects of these two slaughters is that the killers did not crawl out from under a rock someplace. In some cases, even the victims’ neighbors, friends, and teachers did the killing. The killing

282 Chapter 9

was facilitated by labels that marked the victims as enemies who deserved to die (Huttenbach 1991; Browning 1993; Wiafe-Amoako 2017).

IN SUM Labels are powerful; dehumanizing ones are even more so. They help people to compartmentalize—to separate their acts of cruelty from their sense of being good and decent people. To regard members of some group as inferior opens the door to treat- ing them inhumanely. In some cases, these labels help people to kill—and to still retain a good self-concept (Bernard et al. 1971). In short, labeling the targeted group as inferior or even less than fully human facilitates genocide.

Population Transfer There are two types of population transfer: indirect and direct. Indirect transfer is achieved by making life so miserable for members of a minority that they leave “volun- tarily.” Under the bitter conditions of czarist Russia, for example, millions of Jews made this “choice.” Direct transfer occurs when a dominant group expels a minority. Examples include the U.S. government relocating Native Americans to reservations and putting Americans of Japanese descent in internment camps during World War II.

In the 1990s, a combination of genocide and population transfer occurred in Bos- nia and Kosovo, parts of the former Yugoslavia. A hatred nurtured for centuries had been kept under wraps by Tito’s iron-fisted rule from 1944 to 1980. After Tito’s death, these suppressed, smoldering hostilities soared to the surface, and Yugoslavia split into warring factions. When the Serbs gained power, Muslims rebelled and began guerilla warfare. The Serbs vented their hatred by what they termed ethnic cleansing: They ter- rorized villages with killing and rape, forcing survivors to flee in fear. In Iraq in 2014, ISIS began doing the same thing with ethnic–religious minorities.

Internal Colonialism In Chapter 7, the term colonialism was used to refer to one way that the Most Industrialized Nations exploit the Least Industrialized Nations. Conflict theorists use the term internal colonialism to describe how a country’s dominant group exploits minority groups for its economic advantage. The dominant group manipulates the social institutions to suppress minorities and deny them full access to their society’s benefits. Slavery, reviewed in Chapter 7,

is an extreme example of internal colonialism, as was the South African system of apartheid. Although the dominant Afrikaners despised the minority, they found its presence neces-

sary. As Simpson and Yinger (1972) put it, who else would do the hard work?

Segregation Internal colonialism is often accompanied by segregation—the sepa-

ration of racial or ethnic groups. Segregation allows the dominant group to maintain social distance from the

minority and yet to exploit their labor as cooks, cleaners, chauffeurs, nan-

nies, farmworkers, and so on. Even today, in some villages of India,

an ethnic group, the Dalits (untouchables), is forbidden to use the village pump. Dalit women must walk long dis- tances to streams or pumps

outside of the village to fetch their water (author’s notes).

Do you recall from Chapter 7 the account of apartheid in South

compartmentalize to separate acts from feelings or attitudes

population transfer the forced transfer of a minority group

ethnic cleansing a policy of eliminating a popula- tion; includes forcible expulsion and genocide

internal colonialism the policy of exploiting minority groups for economic gain

segregation the policy of keeping racial– ethnic groups apart

Amid fears that Japanese Americans were “enemies within” who would sabotage industrial and military installations on the West Coast, in the early days of World War II Japanese Americans were transferred to “relocation camps.” To make sure they didn’t get lost, the children were tagged like luggage. This is one of two major examples of popula- tion transfer in the United States. The other is transferring Native Americans to reservations.

Race and Ethnicity 283

Africa, where the beaches were divided by racial groups? It was once like this in parts of the United States, too. In St. Augustine, Florida, Butler Beach was reserved for blacks, while the area’s many other beaches were for whites (author ’s notes). Until the 1960s, in the U.S. South, by law, African Americans and whites had to stay in separate hotels, go to separate schools, and use separate bathrooms and even drinking fountains. In thirty- eight states, laws prohibited marriage between blacks and whites. The punishment for violating these marriage laws? Prison. The last law of this type was repealed in 1967 (Rothman 2015).

Assimilation There are two types of assimilation, the process by which a minority group is absorbed into the mainstream culture. In forced assimilation, the dominant group refuses to allow the minority to practice its religion, to speak its language, or to follow its customs. Before the fall of the Soviet Union, for example, the dominant group, the Russians, required that Armenian children attend schools where they were taught in Russian. Armenians could celebrate only Russian holidays, not Armenian ones. Permissible assimilation, in contrast, allows the minority to adopt the dominant group’s patterns in its own way and at its own speed.

Multiculturalism (Pluralism) A policy of multiculturalism, also called pluralism, permits or even encourages racial–ethnic variation. The minority groups are able to maintain their separate identi- ties, yet participate freely in the country’s social institutions, from education to politics. Switzerland provides an outstanding example of multiculturalism. The Swiss population includes four ethnic groups: French, Italians, Germans, and Romansh. These groups have kept their own languages, and they live peacefully in political and economic unity. Mul- ticulturalism has been so successful that none of these groups can properly be called a minority.

Racial–Ethnic Relations in the United States 9.5 Summarize the major patterns that characterize European Americans, Latinos,

African Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans.

Writing about race–ethnicity is like stepping onto a minefield: One never knows where to expect the next explosion. Serbian students have written to me, saying that I have been unfair to their group. So have American whites. Even basic terms are controversial. Some people classified as African Americans reject this term because they identify themselves as blacks. Similarly, some Latinos prefer the term Hispanic American, but others reject it, say- ing that it ignores the Native American side of their heritage. Some would limit the term Chicanos—commonly used to refer to Americans from Mexico—to those who have a sense of ethnic oppression and unity; they say that it does not apply to those who have assimilated.

No term that I use here, then, will satisfy everyone. Racial–ethnic identity is fluid, constantly changing, and all terms carry a risk as they take on politically charged meanings. Nevertheless, as part of everyday life, we classify ourselves and one another as belonging to distinct racial–ethnic groups. As Figures 9.4 and 9.5 show, on the basis of self-identity, whites make up 61 percent of the U.S. pop- ulation, minorities (African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans) 36 percent. About 3 percent claim membership in two or more racial– ethnic groups.

assimilation the process of being absorbed into the mainstream culture

multiculturalism (or pluralism) a policy that permits or encour- ages ethnic differences

Figure 9.4 Race–Ethnicity of the U.S. Population

Whites 61%

Latinos 17%

Asian Americans 5%

African Americans 13%

Native Americans 1% Claim more than one race-ethnicity 3%

SOURCE: By the author. See Figure 9.5.

284 Chapter 9

disparaging brushstrokes. From what Franklin said, you can see that they didn’t like Germans either.

The political and cultural dominance of the WASPs placed intense pressure on immigrants to assimilate into the mainstream culture. The children of most immigrants embraced the new way of life and quickly came to think of themselves as Americans rather than as Germans, French, Hungarians, and so on. They dropped their distinc- tive customs, especially their clothing and languages, often viewing them as symbols of shame. This second generation of immigrants was sandwiched between two worlds: “the old country” of their parents and their new home. Their children, the third gener- ation, had an easier adjustment because they had fewer customs to discard. As white ethnics assimilated into this Anglo-American culture, the meaning of WASP expanded to include them.

And for those who weren’t white? Perhaps the event that best illustrates the racial view of the nation’s founders occurred when Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, declaring that only white immigrants could apply for citizenship. Relationships between the various racial–ethnic groups since the founding of the nation have been, at best, tense and rocky.

IN SUM Because Protestant English immigrants settled the colonies, they established the culture—from the dominant language to the dominant religion. Highly ethnocentric, they regarded the customs of other groups as inferior. Because white Europeans took power, they determined the national agenda to which other ethnic groups had to react and con- form. Their institutional and cultural dominance still sets the stage for current racial–ethnic relations, a topic we explore in the following Down-to-Earth Sociology.

WASP White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

white ethnics white immigrants to the United States whose cultures differ from WASP culture

Figure 9.5 U.S. Racial–Ethnic Groupsa

Americans of European Descent aInterestingly, this total is seven times higher than

all the Irish who live in Ireland. bIncludes French-Canadian. cIncludes “Scotch-Irish.” dMost Latinos trace at least part of their ancestry to Europe. eIn descending order, the largest groups of Asian Americans are from China, India, the Philippines, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan. See Figure 12.9 Also includes those who identify themselves as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. fIncludes Native Alaskan. gThe source comes up with various overall totals of the U.S. population.

197,871,000 60.9%

118,846,000 36.6%

Claim more than one race-ethnicity 2.5%

Overall Total: 324,713,000 12%0 8%4% 16% 20% 24% 28% 32% 36% 40%

Percentage of Americans

55,388,000 17.0%

42,158,000 13.0%

17,339,000 5.3%

3,961,000 1.2%

7,996,000 2.5%

46,163,000 14.2%German

33,348,000 10.3%Irish

25,785,000 7.9%English/British

Italian

10,329,000 3.2%French b

8,287,000 2.6%Scottish c

9,383,000 2.9%Polish

4,484,000 1.4%Norwegian

4,272,000 1.3%Dutch

3,913,000 1.2%Swedish

2,845,000 0.9%Russian

1,441,000 0.4%Czech

1,438,000 0.4%Hungarian

1,374,000 0.4%Portuguese

1,777,000 0.5%Welsh

1,311,000 0.4%Danish

1,265,000 0.4%Greek

23,234,000 7.2%Others

Latino Americans of African, Asian, North, Central, and South American Descent Asian American

African American

Native American f

e

d

g

17,222,000 5.3%

a

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2016:Tables 10, 52.

As you can see from the following Social Map, the distribution of dominant and minority groups among the states does not come close to the national average. This is because minority groups tend to be clustered in regions. The extreme distributions are found in Maine, where whites outnumber minorities 16 to 1, and Hawaii, where minori- ties outnumber whites 3 to 1. With this as background, let’s review the major groups in the United States, going from the largest to the smallest.

European Americans Benjamin Franklin said, “Why should the Palatine boors (Germans) be suffered (allowed) to swarm into our settlements and by herding together establish their language and man- ners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to germanize us instead of our anglifying them?” (in Alba and Nee 2003:17)

At the founding of the United States, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) held deep prejudices against other whites. There was practically no end to their disdain- ful stereotypes of white ethnics—immigrants from Europe whose language and other customs differed from theirs. The English despised the Irish, viewing them as dirty, lazy drunkards, but they also painted Poles, Jews, Italians, and others with similar

Race and Ethnicity 285

disparaging brushstrokes. From what Franklin said, you can see that they didn’t like Germans either.

The political and cultural dominance of the WASPs placed intense pressure on immigrants to assimilate into the mainstream culture. The children of most immigrants embraced the new way of life and quickly came to think of themselves as Americans rather than as Germans, French, Hungarians, and so on. They dropped their distinc- tive customs, especially their clothing and languages, often viewing them as symbols of shame. This second generation of immigrants was sandwiched between two worlds: “the old country” of their parents and their new home. Their children, the third gener- ation, had an easier adjustment because they had fewer customs to discard. As white ethnics assimilated into this Anglo-American culture, the meaning of WASP expanded to include them.

And for those who weren’t white? Perhaps the event that best illustrates the racial view of the nation’s founders occurred when Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, declaring that only white immigrants could apply for citizenship. Relationships between the various racial–ethnic groups since the founding of the nation have been, at best, tense and rocky.

IN SUM Because Protestant English immigrants settled the colonies, they established the culture—from the dominant language to the dominant religion. Highly ethnocentric, they regarded the customs of other groups as inferior. Because white Europeans took power, they determined the national agenda to which other ethnic groups had to react and con- form. Their institutional and cultural dominance still sets the stage for current racial–ethnic relations, a topic we explore in the following Down-to-Earth Sociology.

WASP White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

white ethnics white immigrants to the United States whose cultures differ from WASP culture

Less than average: 6.2% to 19.9%

Average: 20.7% to 36.3%

Higher than average: 36.9% to 77.0%

SC 36.1

NC 35.9

VA 36.9

WA 29.6

OR 23.0

CA 61.5

NV 48.5

ID 17.2

MT 13.7

WY 15.9

AZ 43.8

NM 61.1

CO 31.0

ND 13.4

SD 17.0

NE 19.5

KS 23.2

OK 33.0

TX 56.5

MN 18.6

IA 12.9

MO 19.9

AR 26.6

LA 40.7

WI 17.8

IL 37.7

KY 14.6

TN 25.4

MS 42.7

AL 33.8

GA 45.7

FL 44.2

IN 19.7

MI 24.2

WV 7.5

PA 22.1

NY 43.5

ME 6.2

NH 8.7 MA 25.7

RI 25.5

CT 31.2 NJ 43.2

DE 36.3

MD 47.4

DC 64.2

OH 19.9UT

20.7%

AK 38.1

VT 6.5

HI 77

Percentage Minority groups

Highest percentage of minority groups

1. Hawaii (77%) 2. California (61.5%) 3. New Mexico (61.1%)

Lowest percentage of minority groups

2. Vermont (6.5%)

1. Maine (6.2%)

3. West Virginia (7.5%)

Figure 9.6 The Distribution of Dominant and Minority Groups

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2016:Table 19.

As immigrants assimilate into a new culture, they learn and adapt new customs. This photo was taken in New York City at the annual American Muslim Parade.

286 Chapter 9

Down-to-Earth Sociology Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack: Exploring Cultural Privilege Overt racism in the United States has dropped sharply, but doors still open and close on the basis of the color of our skin. Whites have a difficult time grasping the idea that good things come their way because they are white. They usually fail to perceive how “whiteness” oper- ates in their own lives.

Sociologist Peggy McIntosh, of Irish descent, began to wonder why she was so seldom aware of her race–ethnicity, while her African American friends were so conscious of theirs. She realized that people are not highly aware of things that they take for granted—and that “whiteness” is a “taken-for-granted” background assumption of U.S. society. (You might want to review Figure 9.1.) To explore this, she drew up a list of taken-for-granted privileges that come with her “whiteness,” what she calls her “invisible knapsack.” Because she is white, McIntosh (1988) says:

1. When I go shopping, store detectives don’t follow me.

2. If I don’t do well as a leader, I can be sure people won’t say that it is because of my race.

3. When I watch television or look at the front page of the paper, I see people of my race presented positively.

4. When I study our national heritage, I see people of my color and am taught that they made our country great.

5. To protect my children, I do not have to teach them to be aware of racism.

6. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.

7. I can speak at a public meet- ing without putting my race on trial.

8. I can achieve something and not be “a credit to my race.”

9. If a traffic cop pulls me over, I can be sure that it isn’t be- cause I’m white.

10. I can be late to a meeting without people thinking I was late because “That’s how they are.”

For Your Consideration → Can you think of other “background privileges” that come

to whites because of their skin color? (McIntosh’s list contains forty-six items.)

→ Why are whites seldom aware that they carry an “invisible knapsack”?

One of the cultural privileges of being white in the United States is less suspicion of wrongdoing.

Latinos (Hispanics) Let’s get an overview of the largest minority group in the United States.

UMBRELLA TERM Latino is an umbrella term that lumps people from many cul- tures into a single category. Taken together, people who trace their origins to the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America form the largest ethnic group in the United States.

Few people who are classified as Latino, however, con- sider themselves to be part of a single ethnic group. Instead, they think of themselves as Americans of Mexican origin (Mexicanos), Americans of Cuban origin (Cubanos), Americans from Puerto Rico (Puertoricanos), and so on. Nor do most iden- tify with the umbrella term Hispanic, another artificial group- ing of peoples. It is also important to stress that neither Latino nor Hispanic refers to race. Latinos may identify themselves as African American, white, or Native American. Some even refer to themselves as Afro Latino.

COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN As you can see from Figure 9.7, roughly 32 million people trace their origin to Mexico, 8 million to Central and South America, 5 million to Puerto Rico, and 2 million to Cuba. Although most Latinos of Mexican origin live

Figure 9.7 Geographical Origins of U.S. Latinos

Mexico 32,000,000 68%

Puerto Rico 4,600,000 10%

Cuba 1,800,000 4% El Salvador 1,700,000 4% Dominican Rep.1,400,000 3% Guatemala1,000,000 2% Colombia 900,000 2%

Spain 600,000 1% Other Central America 1,900,000 4% Other South America 1,300,000 3%

SOURCE: By the author. Based on the U.S. Census 2010.

Race and Ethnicity 287

in the Southwest, most Latinos from Puerto Rico live in New York City, and those from Cuba live primarily in Florida.

U N A U T H O R I Z E D I M M I G R A N T S Although most Latinos are U.S. citi- zens, about 9 million have entered the country illegally (7 million from Mexico and 2 million from Central and South America) (Statistical Abstract 2017: Table 45). During the economic crisis, the number of unauthorized immi- grants dropped but each year about 400,000 people are arrested at the bor- der and returned to Mexico (U.S. Bor- der Patrol 2017). Some come to the United States for temporary work and then return home. Most do not.

O n e re a c t i o n t o t h i s m a s s i v e unauthorized entry into the United States has been welcoming. Twelve states, for exam- ple, offer drivers licenses (Sanchez 2016). Several major cities, including San Francisco, have become “sanctuary cities.” They will not cooperate in apprehending people ille- gally present in the United States.

Another reaction is to prevent illegal entry. Immigration officers check documents at entry points and patrol the borders. With this being ineffective, in 1994 Under President Bill Clinton, the United States began building a wall along its 2,000-mile border with Mexico. As the costs mounted, the building stopped. “The Wall” became a campaign issue in the presidential race of 2016, and under President Trump its building has resumed. Still another response has come from Arizona, where many of the illegal cross- ings take place. This state passed a law that gives its police the power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. When the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the law, it upheld the state’s right to check the immigration status of anyone the police stop or arrest (Liptak 2012). Facing protest against racial profiling, Arizona agreed not to stop anyone because of suspicions that they are in the United States illegally (Schwartz 2016).

To gain insight into why this vast subterranean migration exists and will continue, see the following Cultural Diversity in the United States.

Cultural Diversity in the United States The Illegal Travel Guide Manuel was a drinking buddy of José, a man I had met in Colima, Mexico. At 45, Manuel was friendly, outgoing, and enterprising.

Manuel, who had lived in the United States for 7 years, spoke fluent English. Preferring to live in his hometown in Colima, where he palled around with his childhood friends, Manuel always seemed to have money and free time.

When Manuel invited me to go on a business trip with him, I accepted. I never could figure out what he did for a living or how he could afford a car, a luxury that none of his friends had. As we traveled from one remote village to another, Manuel would sell used clothing that he had heaped in the back of his older-model Ford station wagon.

At one stop, Manuel took me into a dirt-floored, thatched-roof hut. While chickens ran in and out, Manuel whispered to a slender man who was about 23 years old. The

For millions of people, the United States represents a land of opportunity and freedom from oppression. Shown here are Cubans who reached the United States by transforming their 1950s truck into a boat.

288 Chapter 9

poverty was overwhelming. Juan, as his name turned out to be, had a partial grade school education. He also had a wife, four hungry children under the age of 5, and two pigs—his main food supply. Although eager to work, Juan had no job; there was simply no work available in this remote village.

As we were drinking a Coke, which seems to be the national beverage of Mexico’s poor, Manuel explained to me that he was not only selling clothing—he was also lining up migrants to the United States. For a fee, he would take a man to the border and introduce him to a “wolf,” who would help him cross into the promised land.

When I saw the hope in Juan’s face, I knew nothing would stop him. He was borrowing every cent he could from every friend and relative to scrape the money together. Although Juan would be facing dangers and risked losing everything if apprehended, he would make the trip: Beckoning to him was a future with opportunity, perhaps even with wealth. He knew people who had been to the United States and spoke glowingly of its opportunities. Manuel, of course, salesman as he was, stoked the fires of hope.

Looking up from the little children playing on the dirt floor with chickens pecking about them, I saw a man

who loved his family. In order to make the desperate bid for a better life, he would suffer an enforced absence, as well as the uncertainties of a foreign culture whose language he did not know.

Juan opened his billfold, took something out, and slowly handed it to me. I looked at it curiously. I felt tears as I saw the tenderness with which he handled this piece of paper. It was his passport to the land of opportunity: a Social Security card made out in his name, sent by a friend who had already made the trip and who was waiting for Juan on the other side of the border.

It was then that I realized that the thousands of Manuels scurrying about Mexico and the millions of Juans they are

transporting can never be stopped, since only the United States can fulfill their dreams of a better life.

For Your Consideration The vast stream of immigrants illegally crossing the Mexican–U.S. border has become a national issue.

→ What do you think is the best way to deal with this issue? Why?

→ How does your social location affect your view?

A coyote leading a group into the United States at Nogales, Arizona.

RESIDENCE As Figure 9.8 shows, seven of every ten Latinos live in just six states—California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, and Arizona. With its prom- inent Latino presence, Miami has been called “the capital of South America.”

SPANISH The factor that clearly distinguishes Latinos from other U.S. minorities is the Spanish language. Although not all Latinos speak Spanish, most do, with about 39 million speaking Spanish at home (Statistical Abstract 2017:Table 54). Many Latinos cannot speak English or can do so only with dif- ficulty. Being fluent only in Spanish in a society where English is spoken almost exclusively is an obstacle.

Schools should be a solution to producing English-proficient students, but California is a marvelous example of the confusion surrounding how to do so. From 1855 until 1968, California followed an “English immersion” pol- icy and banned teaching in Spanish in its schools. Then after a 1974 deci- sion of the U.S. Supreme Court (Lau v. Nichols), California used bilingual

instruction for Spanish-speaking children (Vidal 1977). But in 1998, California voters decided that schools should return to a policy of “English immersion, no Spanish.” Then in 2016, California voters switched back to the bilingual Spanish and English policy (Ulloa 2016).

Figure 9.8 Where U.S. Latinos Live

California 27% Texas

19%

Other States 23%

New York 7%

Illinois 4%

New Jersey 3% Colorado 2%New Mexico 2%

Florida 9%

Arizona 4%

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2017:Table 19.

Race and Ethnicity 289

The use of Spanish has provoked an “English-only” movement. Although the con- stitutional amendment that was proposed never got off the ground, several states have passed laws that declare English their official language.

ECONOMIC WELL-BEING To see how Latinos are doing on major indicators of well- being, look at Table 9.2. Their family income averages 40 percent less than that of whites, and they are almost twice as likely as whites to be poor. On the positive side, as you can see from Table. 9.3, one of every six Latino families has an income higher than $100,000 a year.

Table 9.3 Race–Ethnicity and Income Extremes

Less than $15,000

More than $100,000

Asian Americans 5.9% 42.7%

Whites 6.7% 32.9%

African Americans 16.2% 17.2%

Latinos 12.6% 16.1%

SOURCE: By the author: Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2017:Table 723.

NOTE: These are family incomes. Only these groups are listed in the source.

Table 9.2 Indicators of Relative Economic Well-Being Family Income Families In Poverty

Median Family Income

Compared to Whites

Percentage Below Poverty

Compared to Whites

Whites $74,700 12.7%

Asian Americans

$84,900 14% higher 12.0% 6% lower

Latinos $44,900 40% lower 23.6% 86% higher

African Americans

$42,800 43% lower 26.2% 106% higher

Native Americans

$43,400 42% lower 29.1% 129% higher

SOURCES: By the author. Based on Krogstad 2014; Statistical Abstract of the United States 2017:Tables 35, 736.

NOTE: These totals are for families, which have less poverty than “persons,” the unit of the tables in Chapter 8.

From Table 9.4, you can see that Latinos are the most likely to drop out of high school and that they are the least likely to graduate from college. In a postindustrial society that increasingly requires advanced skills, these totals indicate that huge numbers of Latinos are being left behind. However, in each edition that I do of this text, I see that the educa- tional levels of Latinos are increasing.

Table 9.4 Race–Ethnicity and Education Education Completed Doctorates

Racial–Ethnic Group

Less Than High School High School Some College

Associate’s Degree

College (BA or Higher)

Percentage of all U.S. Doctorates1

Percentage of U.S. Population

Whites 8.0% 28.2% 21.5% 8.7% 33.6% 70.4% 61.0%

Latinos 34.7% 27.2% 17.7% 6.0% 14.4% 6.8% 17.3%

Country or Area of Origin

Cuba 17.4% NA2 NA NA 29.1% NA 0.6%

Puerto Rico 22.5% NA NA NA 19.7% NA 1.4%

Central and South America

44.3% NA NA NA 22.1% NA 2.2%

Mexico 29.2% NA NA NA 10.5% NA 10.4%

African Americans 15.6% 31.6% 25.1% 8.0% 19.7% 8.1% 13.2%

Asian Americans 13.7% 15.5% 12.6% 6.7% 51.5% 12.3% 5.4%

Native Americans 20.7% 31.9% 25.2% 8.4% 13.9% 0.6% 1.2%

1Percentage after the doctorates awarded to nonresidents and those claiming two or more races are deducted from the total. 2Not Available.

SOURCE: By the author. Based on Statistical Abstract of the United States 2017:Tables 35, 36, 315, and Figure 9.5 of this chapter.

290 Chapter 9

POLITICS Because of their huge numbers, we might expect sixteen or seventeen of the one hundred U.S. senators to be Latino. How many are there? Two. In addition, Latinos hold only 7 percent of the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives (Statistical Abstract 2014:Table 432). Yet, compared with the past, even these small totals represent substantial gains. On

the positive side, several Latinos have been elected as state governors. The first Latina to become a governor is Susana Martinez of New Mexico, who was elected in 2010. In 2016, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada broke new ground, becoming the first Latina senator.

It is likely that Latinos soon will play a larger role in U.S. politics, perhaps one day even beyond their overall numbers. This is because the six states in which they are concentrated hold one-third of the country’s 538 electoral votes: California (55), Texas (38), Florida (29), New York (29), Illinois (20), and Arizona (11). Lati- nos have received presidential appointments to major federal positions, such as Secretary of the Interior, Sec- retary of Transportation, and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

What holds back the political power of Latinos? It is primarily the divisions based on country of origin. As I mentioned, Latinos do not think of themselves as a single people, and national origin remains highly significant. People from Puerto Rico, for example, feel little sense of unity with people from Mexico. It is similar with those from Venezuela, Colombia, or El Salvador. It used to be the same with European immigrants. Those who came from Ger- many and Sweden or from England and France did not identify with one another. With time, the importance of the country of origin was lost, and the Europeans came to think of them- selves as Americans. Perhaps this will happen to Latinos as well, but for now, these distinc- tions nourish disunity and create political disagreements.

African Americans It was 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama. As specified by law, whites took the front seats of the bus and blacks went to the back. As the bus filled up, blacks had to give up their seats to whites.

When Rosa Parks, a 42-year-old African American woman and secretary of the Montgomery NAACP, was told that she would have to stand so white folks could sit, she refused (Bray 1995). She stubbornly sat there while the bus driver raged and whites felt insulted. Her arrest touched off mass demonstrations, led 50,000 blacks to boycott the city’s buses for a year, and thrust an otherwise unknown preacher into a historic role.

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who had majored in sociology at Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia, took control. He organized car pools and preached nonviolence. Incensed at this radical organizer and at the stirrings in the normally compliant black community, segregationists also put their beliefs into practice—by bombing the homes of blacks and dynamiting their churches.

After slavery was abolished, the Southern states passed legislation (Jim Crow laws) to seg- regate blacks and whites. In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that it was a reasonable use of state power to require “separate but equal” accommodations for blacks. Whites used this ruling to strip blacks of the political power they had gained after the Civil War. Declaring political primaries to be “white,” they prevented blacks from vot- ing in them. Not until 1944 did the Supreme Court rule that political primaries were not “white” and were open to all voters. White politicians then passed laws that restricted voting only to people who could read—and they determined that most African Americans were illiterate. Not until 1954 did African Americans gain the legal right to attend the same public schools as whites, and, as recounted in the vignette you just read, even later to sit where they wanted on a bus.

Catherine Cortez Masto, the first Latina U.S. senator. She is shown after her election in Nevada, where she had been the state's attorney general.

Race and Ethnicity 291

RISING EXPECTATIONS AND CIVIL STRIFE The barriers came down, but they came down slowly. In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, making it illegal to discrim- inate on the basis of race. African Americans were finally allowed in “white” restaurants, hotels, theaters, and other public places. Then in 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, banning the fraudulent literacy tests that the Southern states had used to keep African Americans from voting.

African Americans then experienced what sociologists call rising expectations. They expected that these sweeping legal changes would usher in better conditions in life. How- ever, the lives of the poor among them changed little, if at all. Frustrations built up, exploding in Watts in 1965, when people living in that ghetto of central Los Angeles took to the streets in the first of what were termed the urban revolts. When a white supremacist assassinated King on April 4, 1968, inner cities across the nation erupted in fiery violence. Under threat of the destruction of U.S. cities, Congress passed the sweeping Civil Rights Act of 1968.

CONTINUED GAINS Since then, African Americans have made remarkable gains in politics, education, and jobs. At 10 percent, the number of African Americans in the U.S. House of Representatives is two to three times what it was a generation ago (Statistical Abstract 1989:Table 423; 2017:Table 454). As college enrollments increased, the middle class expanded, and today half of all African American families make more than $40,000 a year. As you can see from Table 9.3, one in six has an income higher than $100,000 a year.

African Americans have become prominent in politics. Jesse Jackson (another sociol- ogy major) competed for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984 and 1988. In 1989,

rising expectations the sense that better conditions are soon to follow, which, if un- fulfilled, increases frustration

Until the 1960s, the South’s public facilities were segregated. Some were reserved for whites, others for blacks. This apartheid was broken by blacks and whites who worked together and risked their lives to bring about a fairer society. Shown here is a 1963 sit-in at a Woolworth’s lunch counter in Jackson, Mississippi. Sugar, ketchup, and mustard are being poured over the heads of the demonstrators.

292 Chapter 9

L. Douglas Wilder was elected governor of Virginia, and in 2006, Deval Patrick became governor of Massachu- setts. These accomplishments, of course, pale in com- parison to the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States in 2008 and his reelection in 2012.

CURRENT LOSSES Despite these remarkable gains, African Americans continue to lag behind in politics, economics, and education. According to their share of the population, we would expect about thirteen African American senators. How many are there? Two. There have been only eight in U.S. history. As Tables 9.2 and 9.3 show, African Americans average only 57 percent of white income, experience much more poverty, and are less likely to have a college education. That one of six African American families has an income higher than $100,000 is only part of the

story. Table 9.3 also shows the other part—that one of every six African American fami- lies makes less than $15,000 a year.

RACE OR SOCIAL CLASS? A SOCIOLOGICAL DEBATE Let’s turn to an ongoing dis- agreement in sociology. Sociologist William Julius Wilson (1978, 2000, 2007) argues that social class is more important than race in determining the life chances of African Ameri- cans. Some sociologists disagree.

For background on why Wilson makes his argument, let’s start with civil rights. Prior to the civil rights laws, African Americans were excluded from avenues of eco- nomic advancement: good schools and good jobs. When civil rights laws opened new opportunities, African Americans seized them, and millions entered the middle class. As the better-educated African Americans obtained white-collar jobs, they moved to better areas of the city and to the suburbs.

Left behind in the inner city were the less educated and less skilled, who depended on blue-collar jobs. At this time, a second transition was taking place: Manufacturing was moving from the city to the suburbs. This took away those blue-collar jobs. Without work, those in the inner city have the least hope, the most despair, and the violence that so often dominates the evening news.

This is the basis of Wilson’s argument. The upward mobility of millions of African Americans into the middle class created two worlds of African American experience—one educated and affluent, the other uneducated and poor. Those who have moved up the social class ladder live in comfortable homes in secure neighborhoods. Their jobs provide decent incomes, and they send their children to good schools. The group that is stuck in the inner city has little opportunity for work, lives in depressing poverty, and attends poor schools. This group is filled with hopelessness and despair, combined with apathy or hostility.

Our experiences shape our views on life, our attitudes, our values, and our behav- ior. Look at how vastly different these two worlds of experiences are. Those who learn middle-class views, with its norms, aspirations, and values, have little in common with the orientations to life that arise from living in neighborhoods of deep poverty. Wilson, then, stresses that social class—not race—has become the more significant factor in the lives of African Americans.

Some sociologists reply that this analysis overlooks the discrimination that continues to underlie the African American experience. They note that African Americans who do the same work as whites average less pay and even receive fewer tips (Lynn et al. 2008; Brewster and Linn 2014). Others document how young black males experience daily indignities and are objects of suspicion and police brutality (Goonan 2016). These, they argue, point to racial discrimination, not to social class.

In 2008, Barack Obama was elected president of the United States, the first minority to achieve this office. In 2012, he was reelected. This photo was taken during his last months in office.

Race and Ethnicity 293

What is the answer to this debate? Wilson would reply that it is not an either–or question. My book is titled The Declining Significance of Race, he would say, not The Absence of Race. Certainly racism is still alive, he would add, but today, social class is more central to the African American experience than is racial discrimination.

RACISM AS AN EVERYDAY BURDEN

Researchers sent out 5,000 résumés in response to help wanted ads in the Boston and Chicago Sunday papers. The résumés were identical, except some appli- cants had white-sounding names, such as Emily and Brandon, while others had black-sounding names, such as Lakisha and Jamal. Although the quali- fications of these supposed job applicants were identical, the white-sounding names elicited 50 percent more callbacks than the black-sounding names (Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004).

Certainly racism continues as a regular feature of society, often something that whites, not subjected to it, are only vaguely aware of. But for those on the receiving end, racism can be an everyday burden. Here is how an African American professor describes his experiences:

[One problem with] being black in America is that you have to spend so much time thinking about stuff that most white people just don’t even have to think about. I worry when I get pulled over by a cop…. I worry what some white cop is going to think when he walks over to our car, because he’s holding on to a gun. And I’m very aware of how many black folks accidentally get shot by cops. I worry when I walk into a store, that someone’s going to think I’m in there shoplifting…. And I get resentful that I have to think about things that a lot of people, even my very close white friends whose politics are similar to mine, simply don’t have to worry about. (Feagin 1999:398)

Asian Americans I have stressed in this chapter that our racial–ethnic categories are based more on social factors than on biological ones. Perhaps this point will become less foreign to your think- ing when we examine the category Asian American. As Figure 9.9 shows, those who are called Asian Americans came to the United States from many nations. With neither cul- ture nor “race” unifying these people, why should they be clustered together and assigned a single label? Think about it. What culture or race–ethnicity do Samoans and Vietnamese have in common? Or people from Japan and those from India? Yet all these groups—and more— are lumped together and called Asian Americans. Apparently, the U.S. government is not satisfied until it is able to pigeonhole everyone into some racial–ethnic category.

To make this point even clearer, consider how Jay Kang (2017), who is placed in this classification, put it: “Asian-American is a mostly meaningless term. Nobody grows up speaking Asian-American, nobody sits down to Asian-American food with your Asian-American parents, and nobody goes on pilgrimages back to the mother- land of Asian America.”

Because Asian American is a standard term, however, let’s look at the character- istics of the 17 million people of diverse backgrounds who are lumped together and assigned this label.

A BACKGROUND OF DISCRIMINATION

Lured by gold strikes in the West and an urgent need for unskilled workers to build the rail- roads, 200,000 Chinese immigrated between 1850 and 1880. When the famous golden spike was driven at Promontory, Utah, in 1869 to mark the completion of the railroad to the West Coast, white workers prevented Chinese workers from being in the photo—even though Chi- nese made up 90 percent of Central Pacific Railroad’s labor force (Hsu 1971).

After the transcontinental railroad was complete, the Chinese competed with whites for other jobs. Anglos then formed vigilante groups to intimidate them. They also used the

Sociologists disagree about the relative significance of race and social class in determining social and economic conditions of African Americans. William Julius Wilson, shown here, is an avid proponent of the social class side of this debate.

Figure 9.9 Countries of Origin of Asian Americans

China 23%

India 19%

Philippines 18%

Korea 10% Vietnam

11%

Japan 5%

Other Countries

14%

SOURCE: By the author. Based on U.S. Census Bureau 2010.

294 Chapter 9

law. California’s 1850 Foreign Miners Act required Chinese (and Latinos) to pay $20 a month in order to work—when wages were a dollar a day. The  California Supreme Court ruled that Chinese could not testify against whites ( Carlson and Colburn 1972). In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, suspending all Chinese immigration for 10 years. Four years later, the Statue of Liberty was dedicated. The tired, the poor, and the huddled masses it was intended to welcome were obviously not Chinese.

When immigrants from Japan arrived, they encountered spillover bigotry, a stereotype that lumped Asians together, depicting them as sneaky, lazy, and untrustworthy. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, conditions grew worse for the 110,000 Japanese Americans who called the United States their home. U.S. authorities feared that Japan would invade the United States and that the Japanese Americans would fight on Japan’s side. They also feared that Japanese Americans would sabotage military installations on the West Coast. Although no Japanese American had been involved in even a single act of sabotage, on February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered that everyone who was one-eighth Japanese or more be confined in detention centers (called “internment camps”). These people were charged with no crime, and they were allowed no trials. Japanese ancestry was sufficient cause for being imprisoned.

DIVERSITY As you can see from Tables 9.2 and 9.3, the income of Asian Americans has outstripped that of all groups, including whites. More than two of every five families (43 percent) have incomes higher than $100,000 a year. This has led to the stereotype that all Asian Americans are successful. Are they? Well, more than all other groups. Yet one of seventeen Asian American families—one million families—makes less than $15,000 a year. As with Latinos, country of origin is significant: Poverty is lower for Chinese and Japanese Americans, but it clusters among Americans from Southeast Asia.

REASONS FOR FINANCIAL SUCCESS The remarkably high average incomes of Asian Americans can be traced to three major factors: family life, education, and assim- ilation into mainstream culture. Of all ethnic groups, including whites, Asian American children are the most likely to grow up with two parents and the least likely to be born to a single mother (Statistical Abstract 2017:Tables 67, 98). Common in these families is a stress on self-discipline, thrift, and hard work (Suzuki 1985; Bell 1991). This early social- ization provides strong impetus for the other two factors.

The second factor, an unprecedented success in education, traces back to the family, where the parents place tremendous pressure on their children to do well in school (Kim 2013). As Table 9.4 shows, more than 50 percent of Asian Americans complete college. To realize how stunning this is, compare their rate with those of the other groups shown on this table. Although only 1 of 19 Americans are of Asian background, they earn 1 of every 8 doctorates. Educational achievement, in turn, opens doors to economic success.

The most striking indication of the third factor, assimilation, is a high rate of inter- marriage. About 45 percent of all new marriages of Asian Americans are with someone of a different racial–ethnic group (Frey 2014). The intermarriage of Japanese Americans is so extensive that two of every three of their children have one parent who is not of Japanese descent (Schaefer 2012).

POLITICS Asian Americans are becoming more prominent in politics. With about half of its citizens being Asian American, Hawaii has elected Asian American governors and sent several Asian American senators to Washington. Currently however, the Senate has no Asian American members. The first Asian American governor outside of Hawaii was Gary Locke, who served from 1997 to 2005 as governor of Washington, a state in which Asian Americans make up less than 6 percent of the population. In 2008, Bobby Jindal became the first Indian American governor when he was elected governor of Louisiana, a state in which Asian Americans make up less than 2 percent of the population.

Race and Ethnicity 295

Native Americans

“I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are—and I shouldn’t inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.”

—Teddy Roosevelt, 1886 (President of the United States 1901–1909) (As cited in “Past Imperfect” 2012)

DIVERSITY OF GROUPS This quote from Teddy Roosevelt provides insight into the rampant racism of earlier generations. Yet, even today, thanks to countless grade-B Westerns, some Americans view the original inhabitants of what became the United States as uncivilized savages, a single group of people subdivided into separate tribes. The European immigrants to the colonies, however, encountered diverse groups of peo- ple who spoke over seven hundred languages. Their variety of cultures ranged from nomadic hunters and gatherers to farmers who lived in wooden houses (Schaefer 2004). Each group had its own norms and values—and the usual ethnocentric pride in its own culture. Consider what happened in 1744 when the colonists of Virginia offered college scholarships for “savage lads.” The Iroquois replied:

“Several of our young people were formerly brought up at the colleges of Northern Prov- inces. They were instructed in all your sciences. But when they came back to us, they were bad runners, ignorant of every means of living in the woods, unable to bear either cold or hunger, knew neither how to build a cabin, take a deer, or kill an enemy…. They were totally good for nothing.”

They added, “If the English gentlemen would send a dozen or two of their children to Onondaga, the great Council would take care of their education, bring them up in really what was the best manner and make men of them.” (Nash 1974; in McLemore 1994)

Native Americans, who numbered about 10 million, had no immunity to the diseases the Europeans brought with them. With deaths due to disease—and war- fare, a much lesser cause—their population plummeted (Schaefer 2015). The low point came in 1890, when the census reported only 250,000 Native Americans. If the census and the estimate of the original population are accurate, Native Americans had been reduced to about one-fortieth their original size. The population has never recovered, but Native Americans now num- ber close to 4 million (see Figure 9.5). Native Americans, who today speak 139  different languages, do not think of themselves as a single people who fit neatly within a single label (Schaefer 2015).

FROM TREATIES TO GENOCIDE AND POP- ULATION TRANSFER At first, the Native Americans tried to accommodate the strang- ers, since there was plenty of land for both the few newcomers and themselves. Soon, however, the settlers began to raid Indian vil- lages and pillage their food supplies (Horn 2006). As wave after wave of settlers arrived, Pontiac, an Ottawa chief, saw the future—and didn’t like it. He convinced several tribes to unite in an effort to push the Europeans into the sea. He almost succeeded, but failed when the English were reinforced by fresh troops (McLemore 1994).

This depiction breaks stereotypes, but is historically accurate. Shown here is an Iroquois fort. Can you guess who the attackers are?

296 Chapter 9

A pattern of deception evolved. The U.S. government would make treaties to buy some of a tribe’s land, with the promise to honor forever the tribe’s right to what it had not sold. European immigrants, who continued to pour into the United States, would then disregard these boundaries. The tribes would resist, with death tolls on both sides. The U.S. government would then intervene—not to enforce the treaty it had made but to force the tribe off its lands. In its relentless drive westward, the U.S. government embarked on a policy of genocide. It assigned the U.S. cavalry the task of “pacification,” which translated into slaughtering Native Americans who “stood in the way” of this territorial expansion.

The acts of cruelty perpetrated by the Europeans against Native Americans appear endless, but two are especially notable. The first is the Trail of Tears. The U.S. govern- ment adopted a policy of population transfer (see Figure 9.3), which it called Indian Removal. The goal was to confine Native Americans to specified areas called reservations. In the winter of 1838–1839, the U.S. Army rounded up 15,000 Cherokees and forced them to walk a thousand miles from the Carolinas and Georgia to Oklahoma. Conditions were so brutal that about 4,000 of those who were forced to make this midwinter march died along the way. The second notable act of cruelty also marked the symbolic end of Native American resistance to the European expansion. In 1890 at Wounded Knee, South Dakota, the U.S. cavalry gunned down three hundred Hunkpapa Sioux who were sur- rendering their weapons. Half of them were women and children. After the massacre, the soldiers threw the bodies into a mass grave (Thornton 1987; Warren 2017).

THE INVISIBLE MINORITY AND SELF-DETERMINATION Native Americans can truly be called the invisible minority. Because about half live in rural areas and one-third in just three states—Oklahoma, California, and Arizona—most other Americans are hardly aware of a Native American presence in the United States. The isolation of about one-third of Native Americans on reservations further reduces their visibility (Schaefer 2015).

The systematic attempts of European Americans to destroy the Native Americans’ way of life and their forced resettlement onto reservations continue to have deleterious effects. The rate of suicide among Native Americans is high, and their life expectancy is lower than that of the nation as a whole (CDC 2015a; Indian Health Service 2016). Table 9.4 shows that their educational attainment also lags behind most groups: Only 13 percent graduate from college.

Native Americans are experiencing major changes. In the 1800s, U.S. courts ruled that Native Americans did not own the land on which they had been settled and had no right to develop its resources. They made Native Americans wards of the state, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs treated them like children (Mohawk 1991; Schaefer 2012). Then, in the 1960s, Native Americans won a series of legal victories that gave them control of reservation lands. With this legal change, many Native American tribes have opened businesses—ranging from fish canneries to industrial parks that serve metropolitan areas. The Skywalk, opened by the Hualapai, which offers breathtaking views of the Grand Can- yon, gives an idea of the varieties of businesses to come (Audi 2012).

THE CASINOS It is the casinos operated by more than 250 tribes, though, that have attracted the most attention. These casinos, which employ 600,000 people, bring in $30 billion a year, more than all the casinos in Las Vegas combined (Frosch and Trottman 2015; Statistical Abstract 2017:Table 1270). Some tribes located near large cities have made a kill- ing. California’s United Auburn tribe has only two hundred adult members; its casino nets $30,000 a month for each member (Onishi 2012). To get part of the action, some tribes have bought land to build casinos. The land is not part of their reservation, but they have obtained “off reservation” permits to build casinos. The rich gambling revenues have led to intense envy among tribes. Those that operate casinos, the “haves,” fight in court to keep the “have-nots” casinoless (Lovett 2014).

Another controversy is the separatism embraced by some Native Americans. Because Native Americans were independent peoples when the Europeans arrived and they never willingly joined the United States, many tribes maintain the right to remain separate

Race and Ethnicity 297

from the U.S. government. The chief of the Onondaga tribe in New York, a member of the Iroquois Federation, summa- rized the issue this way:

For the whole history of the Iroquois, we have maintained that we are a separate nation. We have never lost a war. Our government still operates. We have refused the U.S. government’s reorganization plans for us. We have kept our language and our traditions, and when we fly to Geneva to UN meetings, we carry Hau de no sau nee passports. We made some treaties that lost some land, but that also con- firmed our separate-nation status. That the U.S. denies all this doesn’t make it any less the case. (Mander 1992)

DETERMINING IDENTITY AND GOALS Native Ameri- cans have formed national and regional organizations, and they even operate their own embassy in Washington, D.C. (“National Congress…” 2017). Their most common cooper- ative organization is intertribal councils. Although these or- ganizations represent a diversity of cultures and contrasting ideas, through them runs this common sentiment: “It is we who must determine whether to establish a common iden- tity and work together or to stress separatism and identify solely with individual tribes. It is up to us to assimilate into the dominant culture or to stand apart from it; to move to cities or to remain on reservations; or to operate casinos or to engage only in traditional activities. We are sovereign nations, separate governments guaranteed by treaties, and we will not take orders from the victors of past wars.”

Looking toward the Future 9.6 Discuss immigration, affirmative action, and a multicultural society.

Back in 1903, sociologist W. E. B. Du Bois said, “The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line—the relation of the darker to the lighter races.” Incredibly, over a hundred years later, the color line remains one of the most volatile topics facing the United States. From time to time, the color line takes on a different complexion, as with the war on terrorism and the corresponding discrimination directed against people of Middle Eastern descent.

In another hundred years, will yet another sociologist lament that the color of peo- ple’s skins still affects human relationships? Given our past, it seems that although racial–ethnic walls will diminish, some even crumbling, the color line is not likely to dis- appear. Let’s close this chapter by looking at two issues we are currently grappling with, immigration and affirmative action.

The Immigration Controversy Throughout its history, the United States has both welcomed immigration and feared its consequences. The gates opened wide (numerically, if not in attitude) for waves of immi- grants in the 1800s and early 1900s. During the past 20 years, a new wave of immigration has brought close to a million new residents to the United States each year. Today, more immigrants (40 million) live in the United States than at any other time in the country’s history (Statistical Abstract 2007:Table 5; 2017: Table 40).

In contrast to earlier waves, in which immigrants came almost exclusively from western Europe, the current wave of immigrants is changing the U.S. racial–ethnic mix. If current trends in immigration (and birth) persist, in about 50 years, the “average”

The success of Native American casinos has created intense envy. Some non-Native Americans resent the new wealth that the casinos have brought tribes that were in poverty, and some Native American tribes are suing other tribes to prevent them from opening rival casinos. Shown here is a member of the Crow tribe who works as a security guard at the Crow's casino in Montana.

298 Chapter 9

American will trace his or her ancestry to Africa, Asia, South America, the Pacific Islands, the Middle East—almost anywhere but white Europe. This change is discussed in the following Cultural Diversity in the United States.

Cultural Diversity in the United States Glimpsing the Future: The Shifting U.S. Racial–Ethnic Mix During the next 25 years, the population of the United States is expected to grow by about 22 percent. To see what the U.S. population will look like at that time, can we simply add 22 percent to our current racial–ethnic mix? The answer is a resounding no. As you can see from Figure 9.10, some groups will grow much more than others, giving us a different-looking United States. Some of the changes in the U.S. racial–ethnic mix will be dramatic. By 2050, one of every twelve Americans is expected to have an Asian background, and, in the most dramatic change, one of four is expected to be of Latino ancestry.

The basic causes of this fundamental shift are the racial–ethnic groups’ different rates of immigration and birth. Both will change the groups’ proportions of the U.S. population, but immigration is by far the more important. From Figure 9.10, you can see that the proportion of non-Hispanic whites is expected to shrink, that of African Americans and Native Americans to remain about the same, and that of Asian Americans and Latinos to increase sharply.

For Your Consideration This shifting racial–ethnic mix is one of the most significant events occurring in the United States. To better understand its implications, apply the three theoretical perspectives.

→ Use the conflict perspective to identify the groups that are likely to be threatened by this change. Over what

resources are struggles likely to develop? What impact do you think this changing mix might have on European Americans? On Latinos? On African Americans? On Asian Americans? On Native Americans? What changes in im- migration laws (or their enforcement) can you anticipate?

→ To apply the symbolic interactionist perspective, consider how groups might perceive one another differently as their proportions of the population change. How do you think that these changed perceptions will affect people’s behavior?

→ To apply the functionalist perspective, try to determine how each racial–ethnic group will benefit from this changing mix. How will other parts of society (such as businesses) benefit? What functions and dysfunctions can you anticipate for politics, economics, education, or religion?

Figure 9.10 Projections of the Racial–Ethnic Makeup of the U.S. Population

European descent Latinos African Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Claim membership in two or more groups

Year 2025 347 million

6.2% 0.7%

2.6% 0.7%

19.6%

57.5%

12.5%

Year 2050 398 million

4.1%

47.3%

25.4%

12.8% 8.4%

SOURCE: By the author. Based on U.S. Census Bureau 2009; Statistical Abstract of the United States 2017:Table 13.

In some states, the future is arriving much sooner than this. In California, racial– ethnic minorities have become the majority. California has 24 million minorities and 15 million whites (Statistical Abstract 2017:Table 19). Californians who request new tele- phone service from Pacific Bell can speak to customer service representatives in Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, Mandarin, Cantonese—or English.

Race and Ethnicity 299

As in the past, there is concern that “too many” immigrants will change the char- acter of the United States. “Throughout the history of U.S. immigration,” write sociol- ogists Alejandro Portés and Rubén Rumbaut (1990), “a consistent thread has been the fear that the ‘alien element’ would somehow undermine the institutions of the country and would lead it down the path of disintegration and decay.” A hundred years ago, the widespread fear was that the immigrants from southern Europe would bring com- munism with them. Today, some fear that Spanish-speaking immigrants threaten the primacy of the English language. In addition, the age-old fear that immigrants will take jobs away from native-born Americans remains strong. Finally, minority groups that struggled for political representation fear that newer groups will gain political power at their expense.

The Affirmative Action Controversy For decades, affirmative action has been at the center of a national debate about racial– ethnic relations.

A BRIEF HISTORY In this policy, initiated by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, goals based on race and sex were used in hiring, promotion, and college admissions. As lib- erals, both white and minority, put it at the time: Affirmative action is the most direct way to level the playing field of economic opportunity. If whites are passed over, this is an unfortunate but necessary cost to make up for past discrimination. As conservatives, both white and minority, put it: Opportunity should be open to all, but to place race or sex ahead of an individual’s ability is reverse discrimination. It discriminates against qualified people who had nothing to do with past inequality.

SUPREME COURT RULINGS This national debate led to a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings. One of the most significant was upholding the 1996 amendment to the California state constitution, called Proposition 209, which made it illegal to give prefer- ence to minorities and women in hiring, promotion, and college admissions. In 2003, the Court ruled that universities can consider race a “plus factor” in admissions, but they cannot use a point system to give minorities an edge. After this ruling, Michigan and several other states amended their constitutions to make it illegal for public institutions to consider race or sex in college admissions and in hiring and issuing contracts. After years of legal battles, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that voters have the right to ban affirmative action (Bravin 2014).

THE BAMBOO CURTAIN Then came the case against Harvard, with Asian Americans claiming that they are discriminated against in college admissions because they are so highly prepared for college. As I write, this case is not yet settled. It has divided Asian Americans, who mostly prefer not to be involved in controversy but to remain quietly on the sidelines (Williams 2017).

THE POTENTIAL SOLUTION The solution to this meaty problem can be social class. One of the most significant cases decided by the Court was Fisher v. University of Texas in 2013. The Court ruled that diversity is an excellent goal of colleges, but they should find paths to reach this goal that don’t explicitly weigh race. Giving a hand to qualified applicants who come from low-income homes, regardless of their race– ethnicity, will provide college access and upward social mobility to those most in need. Apparently, it will also increase the number of minorities who are admitted to college (Kahlenberg 2014).

As leaders search for ways to overcome the effects of past discrimination and at the same time to offer fair means to do so, further Supreme Court rulings are inevitable, making it certain that affirmative action in our multicultural society will remain center stage for quite some time.

300 Chapter 9

Less Racism One of the more positive aspects of today’s race–ethnic relations is the reduction of prej- udice and discrimination. These problems continue to exist, as we have reviewed in this chapter, but their reduction is extraordinary. The quote by Teddy Roosevelt indicates how socially acceptable racism used to be. To get a broader picture, consider this:

In 1876, a white mob burned down a Chinese immigrant community in Antioch, Califor- nia. An editorial in The San Francisco Chronicle, Northern California’s main newspaper, said that this attack should “meet with the hearty approval of every man, woman, and child on the Pacific coast.” (Stein 2014)

Compare this with today. When Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, a professional basketball team, made a racist comment to his girlfriend, the National Basketball Association fined Sterling $2.5 million and banned him from professional bas- ketball for life.

From approval of burning down homes and businesses to severe sanctions for mak- ing a comment—what an extraordinary, fundamental change. We can expect even less racism in the future.

Toward a True Multicultural Society The United States has the potential to become a society in which racial–ethnic groups not only coexist but also respect one another—and thrive— as they work together for mutually beneficial goals. In a true multicultural society, the minority groups that make up the United States would participate fully in the nation’s social institutions while maintaining their cultural integrity. Reach- ing this goal will require that we understand that “the biological differences that divide one race from another add up to a drop in the genetic ocean.” For a long time, we have given racial cate- gories an importance they never merited. Now we need to figure out how to reduce them to the irrele- vance they deserve. In short, we need to make real the abstraction called equality that we profess to believe (Cose 2000).

The United States is the most racially–ethnically diverse society in the world. This can be our central strength, with our many groups working together to build a harmonious society, a stellar example for the world. Or it can be our Achilles heel, with us breaking into feuding groups, a Balkanized society that marks an ill-fitting end to a grand social experiment. Our reality will probably fall somewhere between these extremes.

Summary and Review Laying the Sociological Foundation 9.1 Contrast the myth and reality of race; compare race

and ethnicity and minority and dominant groups; discuss ethnic work.

How is race both a reality and a myth?

In the sense that different groups inherit distinctive physical traits, race is a reality. There is no agreement regarding what

makes up a particular race, however, or even how many races there are. In the sense of one race being superior to an- other and of there being pure races, race is a myth. The idea of race is powerful, shaping relationships among people.

How do race and ethnicity differ?

Race refers to inherited biological characteristics, ethnicity to cultural ones. Members of ethnic groups identify with

Race and Ethnicity 301

one another on the basis of common ancestry and cultural heritage.

What are minority and dominant groups?

Minority groups are people who are singled out for un- equal treatment by members of the dominant group, the group with more power and privilege. Minorities originate with migration or the expansion of political boundaries.

What heightens ethnic identity, and what is “ethnic work”?

A group’s ethnic identity is heightened or reduced by its relative size, power, and physical characteristics, as well as the amount of discrimination it faces. Ethnic work is the process of constructing and maintaining an ethnic identity. For people without a firm ethnic identity, ethnic work is an attempt to recover their ethnic heritage. For those with strong ties to their culture of origin, ethnic work involves enhancing group distinctions.

Prejudice and Discrimination 9.2 Contrast prejudice and discrimination and

individual and institutional discrimination; discuss learning prejudice, internalizing dominant norms, and institutional discrimination.

Why are people prejudiced?

Prejudice is an attitude, and discrimination is an action. Like other attitudes, prejudice is learned in association with others. Prejudice is so extensive that people can show prej- udice against groups that don’t even exist. Minorities also internalize the dominant norms, and some show prejudice against their own group.

How do individual and institutional discrimination differ?

Individual discrimination is the negative treatment of one person by another, while institutional discrimination is negative treatment that is built into social institutions. Institutional discrimination can occur without the aware- ness of either those who do the discriminating or those who are discriminated against. Discrimination in health care is one example.

Theories of Prejudice 9.3 Contrast psychological and sociological theories

of prejudice: include functionalism, conflict, and symbolic interactionism.

How do psychologists explain prejudice?

Psychological theories of prejudice stress the authoritarian personality and frustration displaced toward scapegoats.

How do sociologists explain prejudice?

Sociological theories focus on how different social environ- ments increase or decrease prejudice. Functionalists stress the benefits and costs that come from discrimination. Conf lict theorists look at how the groups in power exploit racial–ethnic divisions in order to control workers and maintain power. Symbolic interactionists stress how labels create selective perception and self-fulfilling prophecies.

Global Patterns of Intergroup Relations 9.4 Explain genocide, population transfer, internal

colonialism, segregation, assimilation, and multi- culturalism.

What are the major patterns of minority and dominant group relations?

Beginning with the least humane, they are genocide, popula- tion transfer, internal colonialism, segregation, assimilation, and multiculturalism (pluralism).

Racial–Ethnic Relations in the United States 9.5 Summarize the major patterns that characterize

European Americans, Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans.

What are the major racial–ethnic groups in the United States?

From largest to smallest, the major groups are European Americans, Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans.

What are some issues in racial–ethnic relations and characteristics of minority groups?

Latinos are divided by social class and country of origin. African Americans are increasingly divided into middle and lower classes, with two sharply contrasting worlds of experience. On many measures, Asian Americans are bet- ter off than white Americans, but their well-being varies with country of origin. For Native Americans, the primary issues are poverty, nationhood, and settling treaty obliga- tions. The overarching issue for minorities is overcoming discrimination.

Looking toward the Future 9.6 Discuss immigration, affirmative action, and

a multicultural society.

What main issues dominate U.S. racial–ethnic relations?

The main issues are immigration, affirmative action, and how to develop a true multicultural society. We can expect racism to decline.

302 Chapter 9

Thinking Critically about Chapter 9 1. How many races do your friends or family think there

are? Do they think that one race is superior to the oth- ers? What do you think their reaction would be to the sociological position that racial categories are primar- ily social?

2. A hundred years ago, sociologist W. E. B. Du Bois said, “The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line—the relation of the darker

to the lighter races.” Why do you think that the color line remains one of the most volatile topics facing the nation?

3. If you were appointed head of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, what policies would you propose to reduce racial–ethnic strife in the United States? Be ready to explain the sociological principles that might give your proposals a higher chance of success.

303Monastic Produce, 1888, Eduard von Grutzner (oil on panel)

Learning Objectives

After you have read this chapter, you should be able to:

10.1 Distinguish between sex and gender; use research on Vietnam veterans and testosterone to explain why the door to biology is opening in sociology.

10.2 Discuss the origin of gender discrimination, and review global aspects of violence against women.

10.3 Review the rise of feminism, and summarize gender inequality in health care and education.

10.4 Explain reasons for the pay gap; discuss the glass ceiling and sexual harassment.

10.5 Summarize violence against women: rape, murder, and violence in the home.

10.6 Discuss changes in gender and politics.

10.7 Explain why the future looks hopeful.

10.8 Understand how attitudes toward the elderly vary around the world; explain how industrialization led to a graying globe.

10.9 Discuss changes in perceptions of the elderly.

10.10 Summarize theories of disengagement, activity, and continuity.

10.11 Explain the conflict perspective on Social Security, and discuss intergenerational competition and conflict.

10.12 Discuss developing views of aging and the impact of technology on how long people live.

Chapter 10

Gender and Age

In Tunis, the capital of Tunisia on Africa’s northern coast, I met some U.S. college students and spent a couple of days with them. They wanted to see the city’s red light district, but I wondered whether it would be worth the trip. I already had seen other red light districts, in- cluding the unusual one in Amsterdam where a bronze statue of a female prostitute lets you know you’ve entered the area; the state licenses the women and men, requiring that they have medical checkups (certificates must be posted); and the prostitutes add sales tax to the receipts they give customers. The prostitutes sit behind lighted picture windows while customers stroll along the narrow canal-side streets and “window shop” from the outside. Tucked among the brothels are day care centers, bakeries, and clothing stores. Amsterdam itself is an unusual place—in cafes, you can smoke marijuana but not tobacco.

304

The prostitutes sit behind lighted picture windows while customers stroll along the narrow canal-side streets and “window shop” from the outside.

Gender and Age 305

Inequalities of Gender Let’s begin by considering the distinctions between sex and gender.

Issues of Sex and Gender 10.1 Distinguish between sex and gender; use research on Vietnam veterans and

testosterone to explain why the door to biology is opening in sociology.

When we consider how females and males differ, the first thing that usually comes to mind is sex, the biological characteristics that distinguish males and females. Primary sex characteristics consist of a vagina or a penis and other organs related to reproduction. Secondary sex characteristics are the physical distinctions between males and females that are not directly connected with reproduction. These characteristics become clearly evident at puberty when males develop larger muscles, lower voices, more body hair, and greater height, while females develop breasts and form more fatty tissue and broader hips.

Gender, in contrast, is a social, not a biological characteristic. Gender consists of whatever behaviors and attitudes a group considers proper for its males and females. Sex refers to male or female, and gender refers to masculinity or femininity. In short, you inherit your sex, but you learn your gender as you learn the behaviors and attitudes your culture asserts are appropriate for your sex.

As the following photo montage illustrates, the expectations associated with gender differ around the world. They vary so greatly that sociologists often replace the terms masculinity and femininity with masculinities and femininities.

The Sociological Significance of Gender The sociological significance of gender is this: Gender is a device by which society controls its members. Gender sorts us, on the basis of sex, into different life experiences. It opens and closes doors to property, power, and prestige. Like social class, gender is a structural feature of society.

Before examining inequalities of gender, let’s consider why the behaviors of men and women differ.

sex biological characteristics that distinguish females and males, consisting of primary and sec- ondary sex characteristics

gender the behaviors and attitudes that a society considers proper for its males and females; masculinity or femininity

I decided to go with the students. We ended up on a wharf that extended into the Mediterranean. Each side was lined with a row of one-room wooden shacks, one crowding against the next. In front of each open door stood a young woman. Peering from outside into the dark interiors, I could see that each door led to a tiny room with an old, well-worn bed.

The wharf was crowded with men who were eyeing the women and negotiating prices. Many of the men wore sailor uniforms from countries that I couldn’t identify.

As I looked more closely, I could see that some of the women had runny sores on their legs. Incredibly, with such visible evidence of their disease, men still sought them out.

With a sick feeling in my stomach, I kept a good distance between the beckoning women and myself. One tour of the two-block area was more than sufficient.

Somewhere nearby, out of sight, I knew that there were men whose wealth derived from exploiting these women who were condemned to short lives punctuated by fear and misery.

In the previous chapter, we considered how race–ethnicity affects people’s well-being and their position in society. In this chapter, we examine gender stratification—males’ and females’ unequal access to property, power, and prestige. We also explore the preju- dice and discrimination directed to people because of their age.

Gender and age are especially significant because, like race–ethnicity, they are mas- ter statuses; that is, they cut across all aspects of social life. We all are labeled male or female and are assigned an age category. These labels are powerful. Not only do they convey images and expectations about how we should act, but they also serve as a basis for distributing property, power, and prestige.

gender stratification the unequal access of men and women to property, power, and prestige

Standards of Gender

Jordan

Kenya

China

Ethiopia

India

Mexico

Brazil

Papua New Guinea

Each human group determines its ideas of “maleness” and “femaleness.” As you can see from these photos of four women and four men, standards of gender are arbitrary and vary from one culture to another. Yet, in its ethno centrism, each group thinks that its preferences reflect what gender “really” is. As indicated here, around the world men and women try to make them selves appealing by aspiring to their group’s standards of gender.