Class and class relationships
The issue of class is rarely discussed in contemporary Australia. If it is, it is usually to dismiss any one who might argue it exists. But I believe, and the evidence confirms, that class remains an important issue in our contemporary lives.
This blog gives provides some background to the issue of class and what it means. As you read it, you should reflect on what class means to you – if anything – and what are your own experiences of it.
What does class mean?
Unfortunately, like most of every concept in sociology, class has many meanings and your final understanding will ultimately depend on how you approach the term. There are two dimensions to class:
• Class refers to access to economic resources including money and capital; and
• Class refers to access of opportunities.
Those who believe class is important see society divided by a specific hierarchy of social groups defined in terms of their access to economic resources and with fundamentally different and opposed interests. Class groups can be divided by both wealth and status. This comes from two broad theoretical positions:
• Class in materialist terms
This position argues that we need to look and understand class through materialist (or money) terms. That is, we can divide and separate society into different groups based on their access to wealth: these are classes. (Personally, I think that this is much too simple, and while it is important to recognise wealth as a determinant to class, there is more to it than that.)
• Class and status
Another way to look at class is through social status: that is, money counts, but what is more important is your background and the opportunities that this affords. Therefore, you may be earning twice the amount of money than someone else, but if you do not live in the right area or go to the right school, speak with the proper accent, then your status can be seen as below hers.
Therefore, status creates a hierarchy (or order) of social groups with a shared sense of social belonging and prestige that becomes the basis for the unequal distribution of resources and also opportunities.
Theoretical framing
There are two broad schools of thought that are important in discussions of class. The first is historical materialism and its founder was Karl Marx who saw that the driver to all social change was class struggle. For Marx, the material class interests (or the class that we belong to) are the basis of society. This is how we identify who we are.
The class divisions and structures cause ongoing tensions within society. These tensions emerge as those with power exploit those with less power. This tension always creates a potentially explosive situation.
For Marx, and other materialists, this tension drives social change. So we can look at the 38-hour working week or maternity leave – this occurred not because one day the capitalist class felt that they should give workers more time. Rather, there was a struggle between the material interests of two classes: a conflict resulted that resulted in a compromise.
The second school of thought is that, while class is important in understanding society, conflict does not necessarily result. Society does function around class tensions but this creates a kind of harmony as we see the upper class and want to be like them. So we get consensus theories.
Australia – a classless society?
Every nation likes to portray a specific identity and Australia is no different as we often argue that we are a classless society: that is, there is no distinction and limitations of opportunities between different groups within Australia based on access to economic wealth and resources.
According to authors such as McGregor (2001), there is no such thing as a classless society because class provides the basic social structures for all modern societies. In other words, while we may pretend that Australia's does not have a class system, it does not mean class is not real. In fact, evidence provided by McGregor (2001) shows that in the last 10-15 years, the inequalities in Australia are becoming increasingly pronounced.
Sam Pietsch (2005) gives the following example in his attempt to convince readers that class counts in Australia:
• In the year 2000 the federal government announced its funding formula to secondary schools (that has subsequently been supported by the new, Rudd Government). The process was justified on grounds of 'socio-economic areas' – that is, geographic areas, as if in some way certain areas are all the same.
• The result was that the 62 richest schools in Australia received an extra $56 million in funding (including Kings and Knox getting an extra $1.3 million each). Parramatta high got a few thousand dollars extra.
• The Kings’s School and Parramatta High are in the same area: Kings has 15 cricket fields, 5 basketball courts, 12 tennis courts, 13 rugby fields, 3 soccer pitches, a gym and indoor climbing activities, not to mention an indoor rifle range). I am not sure which of these Parramatta has.
• If we look at the federal government, more than three-quarters of the politicians were educated in private schools (with both the current and previous prime ministers the notable exceptions).
This example is not used as a way to marginalise private schools or create some type of antagonism between public and private, but rather to highlight how privilege breeds privilege. Thus is because if you did go to Kings then this is because your family can afford it. The consequence is that the opportunities then afforded to you compared to Parramatta High, are significantly different.
Some more statistics:
• The 5 percent of the wealthiest Australians own more than the bottom 90 percent put together. These top 5 percent have access to the best education, career opportunities and the seats of power.
• And this translates in many ways, not just income. Poorer Australians, including indigenous people, have high levels of health problems, suicide, are victims of crime and die younger.
• In addition, the truth is that most of us will not be able to move away from the class we were born in. Though class mobility is possible, it is a lot less than you would think.
• Class, working class, upper class or middle class, often defines our leisure time including the sports that we follow. How many working class people are interested in polo for example?
• Ownership of large companies is extremely concentrated, with the top 20 shareholders usually having control of the company. Directors of the top 20 companies hold an average of 2.2 directorships.
• The top 20% of households average $1.7 million p.a., while the bottom 20% owns just 1% of Australia’s wealth at $27,000 pa per household.
All this is evidence of the class system in action. So, the fact is that different classes in Australia have different incomes, different jobs, different interests, and different health experiences (just to mention a few). In other words, we see people living very different lives.
Class mobility in Australia
Though class mobility is possible, it is a lot less than you would think: that is, the ability to move up in different positions of status (and also income). Measured by the Gini-coefficient, which measures income equality/inequality, class mobility has decreased as inequality has increased in the last 10 years. So: do you know believe class exists in Australia?
Understanding class-consciousness
Despite this evidence, most politicians and political commentators in Australia rarely use the word and there us a belief that we live in an egalitarian society continues to dominate. There are two competing interpretations of why people are rarely conscious of these inequalities.
The first interpretation is that such denial of class makes us less conscious of class. This means that we allow things to occur that we otherwise would not. So, some commentators would look at the fact that full fee paying students are allowed to enter universities below the UAI scores and say that this confirms the class system in Australia. Further, the fact that there were no massive protests and public outcry means that we do not have a class consciousness. This all means that we allow those in power maintain the status quo.
This is an important dimension of understanding authors such as Karl Marx. Marx argued that structural inequalities would persist until we overcome the lack of consciousness to these inequalities.
The alternative interpretation is that a lack of class discussion means that we are not over exposed to such ideas and are much more attuned to identifying it when it emerges. If politicians or others begin to use class for political means, then we see a backlash against them. The issue of full fee paying students is not a class issue then, but something that adds to the choices made by many Australians.
Depending on your opinion, this will explain why there is no 'class conflict' in Australia. The first interpretation confirms that a lack of consciousness stops people from fighting back, while the later interpretation indicates that we see and accept inequality but that we also see it as not built in, but something that can be overcome.
Power and class
As indicated above, class relationships are also focussed on the issue of power. The wealthy owners are seen to attempt to gain as much profit as possible. In this way, capitalism is an economic system based on antagonism as businesses ruthlessly compete to make a profit. But while corporations compete on a daily basis, they do share certain fundamental political and economic interests – you could even say social. In other words, those in power with all the wealth actually work to keep society working to their advantage.
You should not think of this as a conspiracy, it is not. There are too many people involved and we all know how the system operates.
There are many views on how this operates, but one important perspective is the idea of 'hegemony'. Hegemony means 'dominance' over others. The term has been extended to refer to the dominance of one nation over others, and, following the work of Antonio Gramsci, of one class over others (see Ives 2004). Gramsci's use of the concept extends it beyond international relations to class structure and even to culture.
The middle class
Another explanation for general harmony is Australia revolves around the emergence of a strong middle class: with Australia sometimes called the most middle class society in the world. That is, historically society was defined by two classes: the bourgeoisie (owners of the factors of production or businesses) and the proletariat (the workers). The middle class did not rate a mention. But today, we refer to the class structure as upper, middle and lower.
The emergence of such a strong middle class is driven by:
• Self-identification (or the way we see ourselves) with 90 percent of people in studies identifying themselves as either middle or working class;
• Australia has very high levels of home ownership, dominance of white-collar occupations, high incomes and a large section of the population living in suburbs. (This means that you may not see yourself as a 'boss', but not a worker either because you have access to some economic capital.)
• Another important factor here is that 42% of shareholders hold less than $10,000 shares: this represents half of Australian adults owning shares directly or indirectly. (The income they receive is not enough to live on, and just as important is the fact that they will never have enough voting power to direct the company)
But is the middle class being hollowed out? Well, over the last 15 years or so we have seen massive amounts of social change brought about by globalisation and the accompanying neoliberal policies of free trade. These have undermined the stability of the Australian economy as well as that of the middle class.
In a landmark survey, Michael Pussey (2001) from UNSW found that 85 percent of respondents were angry about the changes brought about by the forces of globalisation and its impacts on the middle class. The people interviewed felt that they could not count on a job for life, and their financial situations were dominated by stress, anxiety and a lack of control over their lives. This is spilling over into the community and we are seeing a decline in the sense of community that people experience.
The way that Pussey puts it, we can account for suicide, stress related illness and drinking, violence and gambling mainly as a result of stress placed on families
Maybe we can even interpret the reaction against refugees and even the Cronulla Riots from a class based perspective: that is, the stress that people in the middle and lower class is feeling is spilling over into violence.
Social commentator, Hugh Mackay, now believes that the middle class is shrinking. This is in part driven by the fact that the increase in casual and part-time work has seen a fall in middle class incomes. If anything, this is likely to get worse: we are seeing record levels of people going bankrupt and losing their homes. The Smith Family and other organisations that offer support to those struggling are seeing an increase in people turning up with nice cars: if you live in the outer suburbs, you need a car to survive rather than it being a luxury good
Despite such changes, self-identification persists, as does much other evidence to support the class hypothesis.
A divided society
There are two broad views in what is going to happen next in our society. The first is that we will continue to see a hollowing out of the middle class. One group, those who have adapted to the information age and the forces of globalisation are continuing to reap its benefits. Then there are those who have been left behind.
So in a way, we can look at the geography of Sydney and see a very different city depending on your life chances. Some of us can jump in a plane and get work in Europe, India or the USA. Others are unlikely to ever travel beyond the east coast of Australia for a holiday. So when you graduate, you may end up having more in common with teachers or other professionals in Pakistan, Israel or France, than what you do with those who live in the next suburb.
The second perspective is that this is a minor hiccup and we will return to a bulging middle class: people just have to get used to all the changes that are occurring.
We will find out soon enough.
Cheers, james
Bibliography
Arvanitakis, J. (2009) Contemporary Society, Oxford University Press, Melbourne
Ives, P. (2004) Language and hegemony in Gramsci, Ann Arbor, MI, London
McGregor, C. (2001) Chapter 1 'Class counts', Class in Australia, 2nd ed., Ringwood Vic.: Penguin pp. 1–29
Pietsch, S. (2005) 'To have and to hold on to: wealth, power and the capitalist class', in R. Kuhn (ed.) Class Struggle in Australia, Sydney, Pearson Education Australia, pp.22-38.
Pusey, M. (2003) The experience of middle Australia: the dark side of economic reform, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Van Krieken et al (2006) Sociology: Themes and perspectives, Pearson Education Australia, Frenches Forest
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Understanding modernity
Understanding modernity
Modernity is one of the most important concepts that you will come across when it comes to studying sociology. The terms modernity and modernisation are used to describe the complex range of phenomenon associated with these changes that separated contemporary society from previous (traditional) societies.
Specifically, modernity refers to the various characteristics I will describe while modernisation refers to the many processes that take a society along this path.
This blog is a simple introduction to the concept and in later blogs I will expand on some of the ideas. It will hopefully provide you some insights into this phenomenon. As these are listed, it is important to understand that modernity transformed both the structures and relationships of the world, and while it was concentrated in Europe, its effects were far reaching. This also transformed the way we see the world and learn.
Key thinkers of modernity focussed on attempting to understand the forces that shape contemporary life: that is, key features and social trends that have shaped society in the past, and shape our lives today and most likely to continue to shape society into the future. The thinkers who started researching these areas include August Comte, Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. They wanted to understand how societies moved from pre-industrial to modern societies, and what the future was likely to be.
Now the exact time we moved from pre-modern to modern societies is open to different views, but the starting point most often favoured is the beginning of the industrial revolution. These changes were described by Karl Polyani (1958) as the 'great transformation' of western societies.
The ten key dimensions of modernity are as follows:
1. Rationality
The first important characteristic of modernity is that society should be organised under 'rational' lines rather than according to tradition. That is, at one time, societies used to organise themselves according to tradition: women raised children because that was the tradition. No we have 'rationality', or rational principles. These principles emphasise the use of logic, observation, scientific principle and experimentation as the basis of what to believe and the actions to take.
2. A 'belief' in science
Implicit in the belief that the world should become more rational is a belief in science and scientific method. As a result, science has become one of the core guiding principles in our society. We build houses and buildings based on scientific knowledge not traditional processes. Medicine has become a dominant way that we see our lives – what we eat, how we exercise and issues of hygiene. But this has not always been the case.
3. The nation state
Modernity has also seen the nation-state as the key organising principle and political organisation of our lives. On pre-modern times, boundaries between social groups were quite fluid and open to dispute. Modernity has brought the emergence of nation states with (generally) fixed and stable borders, and accompanied by strong centralised governments that have the ultimate military power within its borders. This type of social organisation was vital for the development of capital and industry. This is closely linked with the rise and development of bureaucracy and the intrusion of the state into the daily lives of its citizens – the focus of the research undertaken by Max Weber (which I will probably discuss at sometime in the future).
4. The emergence of 'class' structures
The key theorist here is Karl Marx, who argued that what separates modern (capitalist) societies from other social orders and what brings us to modern life is that people do not produce goods for their own consumption but for markets and for profit. Up until the emergence of modern societies, most things were produced for consumption with the excess traded. But this changed under conditions of modernity as people began to make extra produce specifically to sell and make a profit. This caused a split in society in two: the bosses (or the owners of the factors of production) and the workers (those who had to work for a living).
5. The belief in 'progress'
If we think about pre-modern societies, life moved in cycles often relying on weather patterns and seasons. But under conditions of modernity, human beings and societies are believed to be evolving or progressing to a 'better' state, which can deal with injustice, poverty and inequality. This is associated with a long-term belief that all societies will become democratic, and that certain 'freedoms' will become universal. But as we also discussed last week, this is not something that is universally accepted.
6. The rise of the individual and freedom
The sixth dimension of modernity is the rise of the individual and individualism. A key dimension of the move from traditional to modern life was the idea that you as an individual could make choices. Where once all your life choices were bound by tradition. Once, as women, your role was assigned as mother, home-maker, and care giver. I am not saying that there are still not power relationships that do not limit your choices, what I am saying is that now at least the very idea of 'life choice' exists. This concept of choice is reflected in many ways in our contemporary society – not only with the emergence of life choices but also with the idea of consumption and consumer choice. As individual consumers, we are not bound by one choice, but pick how we want to consume. Our roles on consumers of leisure, for example, may be 'masculine' or feminine.
7. Self expression and identity
The move from traditional societies to modern ones was also supposed to allow us the ability to for our own identities and express these the way we wanted to. So your identity was basically dependent on your birth. The move from traditional societies to modern ones was also supposed to allow us the ability to for our own identities and express these the way we wanted to. There are a number of ways to do this: through your choice of career but also fashion and what you buy.
8. Expression of culture in the negotiation of power
Modern life is also is awash with signs, images and meanings. Most obviously it involves the aestheticisation of our lives through commodities and advertising, packaging and so on. Much of these images actually create issues around power. So, that is, in modern societies, power is expressed in a number of ways. While it is also portrayed through guns, armies and force, it also emerges through symbols that show you what is preferred, establishing unequal power relationships. One example I is the idea of happy families in advertising that encourages how comfortable we fill in our environment. Think of any advertising and ask yourself, what is the image – the skin colour, body shape, good looks – and think about how that makes you feel about who you are. How many veiled newsreaders are there? How many indigenous faces are portrayed on packaging? There is a specific hierarchy of happiness and authenticity in modern society that is embedded within broader society.
9. Control
This then takes us to the issue of 'control'. Once you free people from tradition, their choices are always an area of concern for the governing elites. The ninth characteristic of modern society is that we are meant to have control over lives, but the issue is, we cannot have too much choice because this threatens the stability of society. So choice exists but it is within boundaries. Even today there is a great deal of debate about how leisure time should be spent, the work-life balance is constantly in the news, how much alcohol we drink and so on.
10. The private sphere
The final dimension discussed f the gap between the public and private sphere: that is, in modern societies we separate what is public and what is private – though this is a division that keeps on moving. This clear division has existed to a degree throughout history, but we have never there are two differences. The first is that we have never lived in urban centres before – meaning that privacy and being surrounded by strangers has never been such an important issue. The second issue, and even more important, is the fact that there are many choices we make that are, at least in principle, unconstrained. That is, no one has the right to tell you how to spend your money or your leisure time. But this issue of the private sphere actually creates an interesting challenge: that sometimes what suits the private is actually problematic for the public. Think of the discussion around greenhouse emissions. Each of us chooses to drive and to use a heater or air conditioner at home. This is our private choice and right. But the impacts on the broader community are leading to climate change and actually challenging the very infrastructures which hold our communities together.
That is a quick summary of the characteristics of modernity: I will add some more stuff on the complexities of modernity at some later date.
As always, feedback welcome
Cheers, j
References
- Arvanitakis, J. (2009) Contemporary Society, Oxford University Press, Melbourne
- Slater, D. (1997) Consumer Culture and Modernity, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
- Van Krieken et al (2006) Sociology: Themes and perspectives, Pearson Education Australia, Frenches Forest
Modernity is one of the most important concepts that you will come across when it comes to studying sociology. The terms modernity and modernisation are used to describe the complex range of phenomenon associated with these changes that separated contemporary society from previous (traditional) societies.
Specifically, modernity refers to the various characteristics I will describe while modernisation refers to the many processes that take a society along this path.
This blog is a simple introduction to the concept and in later blogs I will expand on some of the ideas. It will hopefully provide you some insights into this phenomenon. As these are listed, it is important to understand that modernity transformed both the structures and relationships of the world, and while it was concentrated in Europe, its effects were far reaching. This also transformed the way we see the world and learn.
Key thinkers of modernity focussed on attempting to understand the forces that shape contemporary life: that is, key features and social trends that have shaped society in the past, and shape our lives today and most likely to continue to shape society into the future. The thinkers who started researching these areas include August Comte, Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. They wanted to understand how societies moved from pre-industrial to modern societies, and what the future was likely to be.
Now the exact time we moved from pre-modern to modern societies is open to different views, but the starting point most often favoured is the beginning of the industrial revolution. These changes were described by Karl Polyani (1958) as the 'great transformation' of western societies.
The ten key dimensions of modernity are as follows:
1. Rationality
The first important characteristic of modernity is that society should be organised under 'rational' lines rather than according to tradition. That is, at one time, societies used to organise themselves according to tradition: women raised children because that was the tradition. No we have 'rationality', or rational principles. These principles emphasise the use of logic, observation, scientific principle and experimentation as the basis of what to believe and the actions to take.
2. A 'belief' in science
Implicit in the belief that the world should become more rational is a belief in science and scientific method. As a result, science has become one of the core guiding principles in our society. We build houses and buildings based on scientific knowledge not traditional processes. Medicine has become a dominant way that we see our lives – what we eat, how we exercise and issues of hygiene. But this has not always been the case.
3. The nation state
Modernity has also seen the nation-state as the key organising principle and political organisation of our lives. On pre-modern times, boundaries between social groups were quite fluid and open to dispute. Modernity has brought the emergence of nation states with (generally) fixed and stable borders, and accompanied by strong centralised governments that have the ultimate military power within its borders. This type of social organisation was vital for the development of capital and industry. This is closely linked with the rise and development of bureaucracy and the intrusion of the state into the daily lives of its citizens – the focus of the research undertaken by Max Weber (which I will probably discuss at sometime in the future).
4. The emergence of 'class' structures
The key theorist here is Karl Marx, who argued that what separates modern (capitalist) societies from other social orders and what brings us to modern life is that people do not produce goods for their own consumption but for markets and for profit. Up until the emergence of modern societies, most things were produced for consumption with the excess traded. But this changed under conditions of modernity as people began to make extra produce specifically to sell and make a profit. This caused a split in society in two: the bosses (or the owners of the factors of production) and the workers (those who had to work for a living).
5. The belief in 'progress'
If we think about pre-modern societies, life moved in cycles often relying on weather patterns and seasons. But under conditions of modernity, human beings and societies are believed to be evolving or progressing to a 'better' state, which can deal with injustice, poverty and inequality. This is associated with a long-term belief that all societies will become democratic, and that certain 'freedoms' will become universal. But as we also discussed last week, this is not something that is universally accepted.
6. The rise of the individual and freedom
The sixth dimension of modernity is the rise of the individual and individualism. A key dimension of the move from traditional to modern life was the idea that you as an individual could make choices. Where once all your life choices were bound by tradition. Once, as women, your role was assigned as mother, home-maker, and care giver. I am not saying that there are still not power relationships that do not limit your choices, what I am saying is that now at least the very idea of 'life choice' exists. This concept of choice is reflected in many ways in our contemporary society – not only with the emergence of life choices but also with the idea of consumption and consumer choice. As individual consumers, we are not bound by one choice, but pick how we want to consume. Our roles on consumers of leisure, for example, may be 'masculine' or feminine.
7. Self expression and identity
The move from traditional societies to modern ones was also supposed to allow us the ability to for our own identities and express these the way we wanted to. So your identity was basically dependent on your birth. The move from traditional societies to modern ones was also supposed to allow us the ability to for our own identities and express these the way we wanted to. There are a number of ways to do this: through your choice of career but also fashion and what you buy.
8. Expression of culture in the negotiation of power
Modern life is also is awash with signs, images and meanings. Most obviously it involves the aestheticisation of our lives through commodities and advertising, packaging and so on. Much of these images actually create issues around power. So, that is, in modern societies, power is expressed in a number of ways. While it is also portrayed through guns, armies and force, it also emerges through symbols that show you what is preferred, establishing unequal power relationships. One example I is the idea of happy families in advertising that encourages how comfortable we fill in our environment. Think of any advertising and ask yourself, what is the image – the skin colour, body shape, good looks – and think about how that makes you feel about who you are. How many veiled newsreaders are there? How many indigenous faces are portrayed on packaging? There is a specific hierarchy of happiness and authenticity in modern society that is embedded within broader society.
9. Control
This then takes us to the issue of 'control'. Once you free people from tradition, their choices are always an area of concern for the governing elites. The ninth characteristic of modern society is that we are meant to have control over lives, but the issue is, we cannot have too much choice because this threatens the stability of society. So choice exists but it is within boundaries. Even today there is a great deal of debate about how leisure time should be spent, the work-life balance is constantly in the news, how much alcohol we drink and so on.
10. The private sphere
The final dimension discussed f the gap between the public and private sphere: that is, in modern societies we separate what is public and what is private – though this is a division that keeps on moving. This clear division has existed to a degree throughout history, but we have never there are two differences. The first is that we have never lived in urban centres before – meaning that privacy and being surrounded by strangers has never been such an important issue. The second issue, and even more important, is the fact that there are many choices we make that are, at least in principle, unconstrained. That is, no one has the right to tell you how to spend your money or your leisure time. But this issue of the private sphere actually creates an interesting challenge: that sometimes what suits the private is actually problematic for the public. Think of the discussion around greenhouse emissions. Each of us chooses to drive and to use a heater or air conditioner at home. This is our private choice and right. But the impacts on the broader community are leading to climate change and actually challenging the very infrastructures which hold our communities together.
That is a quick summary of the characteristics of modernity: I will add some more stuff on the complexities of modernity at some later date.
As always, feedback welcome
Cheers, j
References
- Arvanitakis, J. (2009) Contemporary Society, Oxford University Press, Melbourne
- Slater, D. (1997) Consumer Culture and Modernity, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
- Van Krieken et al (2006) Sociology: Themes and perspectives, Pearson Education Australia, Frenches Forest
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
What is structuralism?
What is structuralism?
A term often used in sociology is ‘functional structuralism’.
I thought I would write a quick blog and answer the question: What is structuralism?
Structuralism is an important sociological school of thought. The basic premise here is the assumption that human action can be primarily understood as a product of the underlying 'structures' (van Krikan et al 2006). These structures include the economic and political systems that we live in, as well as the ideological systems that dominate. For example, because we live in a capitalist system with specific capitalist structures, all our actions should be primarily understood from this perspective.
Structuralists (or those that support the theory of structuralism) also believe that these structures are concrete and immovable, and therefore almost impossible to change.
Think about it this way – how difficult is it to imagine living without structures that are central to our capitalist system. Is it possible to imagine bartering rather than shopping?
Sociological structures express the idea that social formations are organised. This organisation occurs along patterned lines that endure and persist over time. We may not even be aware that these patterns exist, but they are there and act as a constraint for those living within them. In some ways, this position is instinctive, as it is hard to argue that we are not born into a social vacuum. Rather, there are an existing set of social arrangements which carry with them expectation that, if we transgress, we may be punished.
Every time you go shopping, you support the capitalist system that we live in. Imagine you decided to 'fight back' against the capitalist system by refusing to pay for things? You would not get very far… and this is called stealing!
It is the ideological structures that are the subtlest because they are essentially invisible. Despite this, these ideological structures shape our assumptions, establishing what is seen as being true, inevitable and basic commonsense.
Our society is not unique in this way as all societies at all times are shaped by patterned way of doing things – and it is this that we define as 'social structure'.
One of the fathers of sociology, Emile Durkheim, used the term 'social fact' to express this notion (Van Kriekan 2006). Durkheim argued that who we are and how we behave in society is a result of the influence of these social facts, arguing that it is specific social arrangements that constrain and regulate our actions as humans.
Structuralism is broadly split into two broad versions: consensus structuralism (or structural functionalism) and conflict structuralism (also known as critical or conflict theory). We discussed these in class but I will probably cover them in further blogs.
References
Van Krieken et al (2006) Sociology: Themes and perspectives, Pearson Education Australia, Frenches Forest
A term often used in sociology is ‘functional structuralism’.
I thought I would write a quick blog and answer the question: What is structuralism?
Structuralism is an important sociological school of thought. The basic premise here is the assumption that human action can be primarily understood as a product of the underlying 'structures' (van Krikan et al 2006). These structures include the economic and political systems that we live in, as well as the ideological systems that dominate. For example, because we live in a capitalist system with specific capitalist structures, all our actions should be primarily understood from this perspective.
Structuralists (or those that support the theory of structuralism) also believe that these structures are concrete and immovable, and therefore almost impossible to change.
Think about it this way – how difficult is it to imagine living without structures that are central to our capitalist system. Is it possible to imagine bartering rather than shopping?
Sociological structures express the idea that social formations are organised. This organisation occurs along patterned lines that endure and persist over time. We may not even be aware that these patterns exist, but they are there and act as a constraint for those living within them. In some ways, this position is instinctive, as it is hard to argue that we are not born into a social vacuum. Rather, there are an existing set of social arrangements which carry with them expectation that, if we transgress, we may be punished.
Every time you go shopping, you support the capitalist system that we live in. Imagine you decided to 'fight back' against the capitalist system by refusing to pay for things? You would not get very far… and this is called stealing!
It is the ideological structures that are the subtlest because they are essentially invisible. Despite this, these ideological structures shape our assumptions, establishing what is seen as being true, inevitable and basic commonsense.
Our society is not unique in this way as all societies at all times are shaped by patterned way of doing things – and it is this that we define as 'social structure'.
One of the fathers of sociology, Emile Durkheim, used the term 'social fact' to express this notion (Van Kriekan 2006). Durkheim argued that who we are and how we behave in society is a result of the influence of these social facts, arguing that it is specific social arrangements that constrain and regulate our actions as humans.
Structuralism is broadly split into two broad versions: consensus structuralism (or structural functionalism) and conflict structuralism (also known as critical or conflict theory). We discussed these in class but I will probably cover them in further blogs.
References
Van Krieken et al (2006) Sociology: Themes and perspectives, Pearson Education Australia, Frenches Forest
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The referendum in Venezuela...
On 15 February 2009 Venezuelan President, Hugo Chávez, won an historic referendum clearing the way for him to keep running in — and possibly winning — presidential elections. Chávez justified the constitutional change on the grounds that he needs to continue his reign for another 10 years in order to implement his 21st-century version of socialism. He won over 54 per cent in a vote that had the second-lowest abstention rate in the last 10 years.
This seems to be a developing trend in Latin America, with Colombian President proposing a similar referendum.
In this article, co-written with Amy Tyler, we attempt to consider whether: "Is Chávez's Win A Good Thing?"
Check it out at....
Cheers, james
This seems to be a developing trend in Latin America, with Colombian President proposing a similar referendum.
In this article, co-written with Amy Tyler, we attempt to consider whether: "Is Chávez's Win A Good Thing?"
Check it out at....
http://www.newmatilda.com/2009/02/27/chavez-win-good
Cheers, james
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)