Technology in our contemporary society

Technology in our contemporary society


Technological development has been an integral part of human history. In pre-modern times, societies had some of the most important technological advancements – often as a result of necessity. Even today, when we are focussed on wireless and globalised technologies, we should remember the fact that the wheel was a technological advancement: and probably the world’s most important breakthrough!


In this blog, I want to look at the emergence and importance of technologies in shaping our lives in contemporary society. Importantly, we should remember that this is not a one way relationship: for it is the structure of our society that shapes technologies. In other words, just like other dimensions of life that I have discussed in these blogs, technology is socially constructed.


If we see technology as socially constructed, then we can avoid the trap of 'technological determinism': that is, the idea that technology is independent, autonomous and inevitable, and somehow disconnected from social processes. Our current technological advances have a historical and social basis. And as will be seen, a history and sociality that is strongly rooted in modernity.



Transport and communications

Before beginning, it is important to consider that technology takes many different shapes. Obviously it is impossible to discuss all technologies in a short blog, so I will be concentrating on transport and communication technology that affects our every day lives in contemporary society.


Once, transport and communications technology used to mean the same thing. But now, with massive advances in both, they have essentially separated. With regard to transport, we have seen the world grow smaller as we have moved from the steam train to the jet.


Similarly, the development of communications technology such as intercontinental cables, satellites and internet means communications can occur instantaneously over vast distances.


Technology and globalisation

While I will discuss globalisation in a future blog, it is not possible to discuss technology today without also looking at the issue of globalisation. To ensure that this blog makes sense, let me briefly describe globalisation as a process that essentially makes the world smaller! That is, in compresses time and space.


For this to make sense, think about how even ten years ago if you wanted to call someone to see if they were home, you would have to find a phone booth. Now you just grab your mobile and call them. Your friends seem much closer even if they live the same distance away. For those of us who use Skype to make international phone calls, we can log on and see who is on the net and call them anywhere in the world for free! Or you can contact 100 friends simultaneously via Facebook or twitter! Imagine trying to do that with everyone just by using a home phone!


Another example would be to see how easy and cheap it is to fly to Europe. It now costs less than $1,500 to fly to London, and you can get there in less than 24 hours. Some 15 years ago, the cheapest fair was $2,500, you would have to check visa requirements, and flights took hours longer. In other words, the world is much smaller than in previous times in history.


Such dramatic changes that affect our everyday lives in contemporary society could not be possible without the many benefits that technology brings.


We should, however, not just view technological change in a globalised world as consumers. We need to also understand how the world has changed from a production perspective. For example, once in the not too distant passed, cars were designed, built and assembled in one place and in one factory. Now a car will be designed in Europe with parts built from nations as diverse as South Africa, Indonesia and Australia, and assembled in Korea. Then they are exported all over the world on well established routes with payments made instantly via wireless connections.


Authors such as Manuel Castells (2000) – who s very influential in this area – refer to technology as involving capacities to develop new ways of doing things: often in a reproducible manner. That is, finding ways to better reproduce things in an easier, quicker and cheaper manner. Think of micro-processors that reproduce their own technology that allows computers to become smaller and faster.


It kind of hurts my head if I think about the many technological networks that we rely on everyday. In this way then, technological advances should not be seen in abstraction, they influence our daily lives in many ways – from the economy, to the way our politicians react, but also how we see ourselves (or our identity and subjectivities).


Think about how spaces on the net like Facebook or Secondlife.com allow people to establish multiple identities in a way that have never been possible before. How we now communicate via text messaging: people sustain whole friendships and relationships by sending messages to each other. (I mean I know I do.)


My point is that technology is closely aligned with a host of social changes at local and global levels.


Technology and modernity

As I said above, we should not think of technology as something that is prolific only in our contemporary society. Scientific and technological innovations were prolific in the Renaissance and early modern periods.


As I noted in a previous blog on modernity, the belief in progress, rationality, predictability and science offering us a better path through advances are all very much part of the intellectual paradigm that emerged during the Enlightenment. Technology fits into this world view. The Enlightenment and in many ways, modernity, were driven by a utopian vision which could be reached using technology.


However, this utopian vision was fractured by many of the atrocities of the 20th century. While technological innovations promised so much, it also brought us the Nazi death camps, Hiroshima nuclear bombs, nuclear accidents and the use of depleted uranium in Iraq today – which is having horrific side effects on Iraq civilians and US veterans alike.


So, while we celebrate technological advances, we need to put them in context of the historical periods from which they emerged, and the political beliefs that have driven them. Consequently, technology is not itself neutral and benign, and should not be viewed uncritically.


As we have also seen, networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have also given rise to internet bullying, while naked photos of ex-partners have often been distributed via texting: these are issues that have led to major social problems – even suicide.


Technology and politics

Let's take a closer look at this statement by looking at technological developments since WWII. While many of these have been beneficial to us, they are closely aligned with to political and military objectives.


For every piece of technology, you have those who celebrate it and those who raise concerns. The politics of nuclear power is one example. You cannot disconnect discussions of nuclear technologies from global politics. So while many celebrate the potential of nuclear power to achieve resource efficiency and decrease global warming, others raise the risks.


But even more than that, it is the world's wealthiest nations that have this technology, and it is in their strategic and economic interests to limit its availability to others. Think about how the USA has reacted to Iran's nuclear aspirations. Is this driven by concerns that Iran is really a nation that is a rogue state or is it of strategic importance to ensure the Middle East remains nuclear free?


Personally I would prefer that no-one has access to nuclear technologies, but you can think about that one. But while you do, think about the fact that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is about ensuring that nations without nuclear technology do not get it: those who already have it do not have to abide by the same rules.


We can draw also examples such as genetically modified seeds. Many promise that they can end world hunger – but many who do so are the same ones that develop the seeds and sell them. Others say it will merely make poorer nations even more reliant on the wealthy (see, for example, the work of Vandana Shiva).


Both these examples highlight how technology is used to maintain and enhance power relations rather than used to overcome them.


Technological enthusiasm

However, we should note that technological advancements are generally celebrated in our society – almost always seen as a good thing. This position that embraces technology and looks forward to more and more developments is titled 'technological enthusiasm'. In essence, technological enthusiasts embrace the following ideas:

• Technological advances in the second half of the 20th century have been the principle drivers of globalisation;
• Technological forces exceed the power of nation-states, leading to global markets and a global village;
• Technological advances renders national border meaningless;
• Technological advances, including those that promote a global economy, should not be interfered by governments;
• Technological advances are inevitable and desirable; and
• The concepts of the nation state and national economies have become essentially obsolete.

It is important to note that many who are viewed as technological enthusiasts also believe that technology cannot be stopped. In this way, they believe technology will shape society for the better and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. This returns us to the concept of technological determinism that I mentioned above – and warned you against!

Technology and inequality

Many authors, such as Francis Fukuyama and Thomas Friedman, celebrate technological innovations and the opportunities that they offer – and in this way they can be described as technological enthusiasts. They cite examples of communities that are struggling using the net to sell something unique products all over the world or jobs appearing in India in call centres that did not exist a few years ago. This is a celebration of technological capitalism and is embraced enthusiastically.

A more critical reading of this is offered by Manual Castells, who analyses the rise and development of information technologies in relation to globalisation and the economy. Like Fukuyama and Friedman, Castells sees a new economy that has emerged. However, this is different world vision and based on a group of networks that bypasses laws and solidarity units such as the state and labour unions. This allows capital to move easily with little regard for regulation or community needs, and results in exploiting the most vulnerable.

The conclusion that Castells draws is that we see an increasing polarisation – like the one I described when discussing class – driven by technology. Those who access technology can take advantages of the new economy, but those who cannot are left further and further behind.

It is important to stress that this takes place both within and between across nations: think about the technological ability of those using the net in Australia against those using it in the Solomon Islands. In addition, there are vast differences in the technology available to those living in remote parts of Australia with those in Sydney.

Likewise, this returns us to the availability of different technologies across public and private school issue I discussed in a previous blog: access to technology in public schools is much below that of private schools. Those with access have the ability to cement their position in social stratification in a way that those who do not, cannot.

Castells argues that information technology is beyond the nation state control and we are seeing tensions emerging between state power and capital power. Riding on the back of developments in communication and transport technology, capital and its managers can go anywhere in the world and hold governments to ransom. If they do not get what they want – subsidies or reductions in taxation – they can move on. In this way, the powerful and large corporations can hold nation-states to ransom!

Another dimension of life that technology seems to cement is unequal relationships between different genders. In many parts of the world, and this includes Australia, men have greater access to technology in comparison to women. Young men are encouraged to a greater degree to access communication technologies and continue to dominate areas that require access to technology.

But technology is not always negative: again, it depends. There are many positive events in which technology has played an important role… and I will discuss some of these below

Transformative power of technology

Technology, particularly information technology, transforms the global political, economic and social landscape. One simple example is the internet – which has had profound effects socially and politically.

One researcher (Aronson 2001) has found that technological advances have a number of profound impacts on government institutions. One example is that information overload impacts on the ability of many governments to make decisions and has influenced policy making in various ways:

• Governments have so much information that their decision making can become paralysed;
• Governments often aim to centralise information when we are seeing many other organisations – civil society, media and corporations – decentralising information. This means that these other groups may even be better informed than government decision makers.
• Global networks increase the transparency of information. This means that issues such as terrorism and global warming cannot be dealt with unilaterally
  
  

Aronson also notes that the rapid growth in information technology has not been coupled with appropriate government regulation. This means that the information technology has allowed corporations to expand with little oversight. In this way, if we look at the 100 largest economies in the world today, more than half are private corporations. There are less than 200 governments but over 60,000 TNCs that individually and collectively wield a great deal of power.

The third dimension of transformation is the way that NGOs have proliferated and taken advantage of global communication technology – with some of them becoming important global actors. These include activist NGOs involved in promoting environmental and human rights issues, rallying against arms proliferation as well more conservative and right-wing organisations.

Finally, Aronson notes that we have seen global communications technology empower people and allow collective social movements to be formed. The internet, a structure designed by the military, is the very structure that has been used to protest against issues such as the Iraq invasion in 2003. But at the same time we should think how similar technologies were used to rally a large crowd that resulted in the Cronulla riots.

Conclusion

In concluding, I want to emphasise how technology is grounded in power relationships and is never neutral.

Importantly, technology interacts with many of the other dimensions of contemporary society that we have discussed in many ways and influences them as they influence technology.

References
Aronson, J. (2001) "The communication and internet revolution", in Baylis, J. and Smith, S. (eds.) The Globalisation of World Politics, Oxford University Press

Arvanitakis, J. (2009) Contemporary Society, OUP, Melbourne

Castells, M. (2000) The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell Publishing Limited

Friedman, T.L. (2000) The Lexus and The Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization, Farrar, Straus and Giroux

Fukuyama, F. (1992) The end of history and the last man, Penguin, London.

Shiva, V. (2000) Protect or plunder? Understanding intellectual property rights, Zed Books, London.


For more information on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty see http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/peace/solutions/international-solutions/npt

Putting the politics back into 'Politics'

One of the things that has always interested in me is why the myth persists that 'young people are just not interested in politics'. The truth is that they are...

I just co-wrote a new report for the Whitlam Institute on this issue... but not only highlighting the way that young people are interested in politics, but also, what we can do to make our democratic processes more attractive?

In the report we highlight how both national and international research has found clear evidence to support that young people are interesed in politics, but they are turning their backs on formal political processes (or capital ‘P' politics). Reasons for disengagement include a feeling that their efforts are not appreciated and a sense that no one is listening, a general distrust of politicians and Politics, and a belief that Politics is disconnected from everyday experiences.

To read an overview of the report, check out an article I recently published for the Centre for Policy Development.

If you are interested in the entire Report, it can be found on the Whitlam Institute website.

As always, feedback is welcome

Cheers, james

Why are we still listening to economists?

I am amazed that anyone listens to mainstream economists anymore.

As we have seen during this financial crisis, the economists who occupy the centre of public debate have never got it so wrong. In the face of the current global crisis, those economic liberals who were until recently defenders of the status quo need to face two things: first, this a crisis of their own making; and secondly, they have little (if anything) left to offer.

I published the following opinion piece for the Centre for Policy Development on this issue... check it out at:

http://cpd.org.au/article/why-are-we-still-listening-economists

Understanding the state in contemporary society

Understanding the state in contemporary society


Introduction

The aim of this blog is to look at the concept of the nation-state in contemporary society. Before doing so, I want to remind us of the definition of society that we have been using:

A social system made up of many smaller parts or institutions (including the family, the church, prisons, schools and social groups) living and working together in the pursuit of both self-interest and social harmony.

Society is made up of both its parts and the way that these parts are put together and organised. Therefore, it comprises of both organisations and social relations.

Probably one of the organisations in our modern lives is the ’state’: it is how we define ourselves; how we describe who we are (’I am an Australian’); we even claim our rights and the responsibilities we carry in terms of the state. It is linked with the quality of our lives (compare our lives to those people living in Zimbabwe), our identity and the daily interactions we have with both others and institutions (the laws of the land, bureaucracies and so on).

So, it is for this reason, the topic area of the state is one that crosses all academic fields and is an area that encroaches all dimensions of our lives: therefore, we cannot disconnect it from other aspects of our lives. This includes the fields of: politics (citizenship, immigration, law and order); economics; health and welfare; education; and as I mentioned above, identity.

Before proceeding, however, it is important to remember that ’states’ are not natural – they too are socially constructed. That is, the boundaries that define different states have been constructed over centuries of conflict, wars and negotiations. Political boundaries as we now them, have only come into existence over the last few hundred years – they are determined by humans and can and do change. East Timor, for example, went from being a Portuguese outpost, to a sovereign state, to being part of Indonesia to a sovereign state again: all in the space of a few decades.

Many academics have asserted that the international system of states, multinational corporations and organizations that exists today began in 1648 at the Peace of Westphalia – though many still dispute this.


Understanding the state

It is important to distinguish the nation and the state – but before doing so, I want to emphasise that, because of the above reason, we need to look at the state in a holistic manner considering the political institution, the nation and its society within a global manner.

Particularly in a time of globalisation, the state is not insulated from other parts of the world. The autonomy of the state is affected in many ways and by various global forces. While the state has borders, many global forces do not (for example environmental problems, terrorism and kinship networks)

Therefore, while Australia maybe an island geographically, it is not isolated from what is happening around the world. Even looking at today’s newspaper, you can see how international events are impacting on Australia: the global financial crisis, the swine flu pandemic the fact that Channel 10 may cancel the Simpsons because the producers are asking too much money!

There is an important distinction between the nation and the state that must be understood.

The state – like the term country – is a political institution that claims sovereignty over a given territory. Within this territory, the state has a monopoly over the use of force and attempts to control and define power. While defined by borders, the state’s territory can always be breached in both major ways (such as invasion) and minor ways (such as refugees arriving).

As a political institution it is ruled by bureaucracies and laws – which intertwine. Think of how passports are both bureaucratic and legal instruments: you need one to travel and to get pass border control. If you do not do this, you will be delayed. If you cross borders without one, then you will be arrested.

In contrast, the nation is culturally defined. It is a community of people who claim to have a common culture. Therefore, while the state is a political grouping, the nation is a cultural grouping. So we have Greece as a state – but the nation of Greeks can extend to many different parts of the globe. This is the same when we hear the term ’The nation of Islam’ – this is not a country but a cultural grouping.

Importantly, we need to also understand that this is not a homogenous grouping – there are a wide variety of different groups represented within the nation of Islam – so even the term ’nation’ can be seen as somewhat problematic.

People living in a state may share a common citizenship but have very little else in common: think about the many different ways that Australians would spend the Easter weekend: for some Easter is a religious festival, for others it is nothing more than an excuse to party hard. Even for those who see it as a religious festival, the type of ceremony followed, the language spoken and the way it was spent all vary considerably.

We must remember that no state is uni-cultural: even the most homogenous states such as Japan have diversity (including the very different culture from Okinawa). In this way, all states have multiple nations inside them. Therefore, we can think of multi-cultural as meaning one state containing many nations.

The political institution of the state comes into existence through a constitution. Interestingly, the Australian constitution does not recognise our rights as citizens but depends on the law courts and judgements. In contrast, states like the USA build their citizenship rights into the constitution


An imagined community


Despite not really having anything in common except a shared citizenry, we imagine that we are a ’national’ community and all have something in common. So we see Grant Hackett or Ricky Ponting on television and we feel an affinity towards him for no other reason than he is Australian.

This is a process that has seen the state described as an ’imagined community.’ This concept of imagined community is an important one and was originally discussed by Benedict Anderson (1991).

Benedict Anderson defined a state as "an imagined political community [that is] imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign". This imagined community should be seed as different from an actual community because it cannot be based on face-to-face interactions between its members. Rather, we imagine an affinity based around some shared values. Therefore, according to Anderson, a state:

…is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.

These communities are imagined as both limited and sovereign. That is, they are limited in that they are seen to have "…finite, if elastic boundaries, beyond which lie other nations." They are sovereign insofar as no monarchy can claim authority over them – an idea arising because of modernity:

...the concept was born in an age in which Enlightenment and Revolution were destroying the legitimacy of the divinely-ordained, hierarchical dynastic realm. Coming to maturity at a stage of human history when even the most devout adherents of any universal religion were inescapably confronted with the living pluralism of such religions, and the [direct relationship] between each faith’s ontological claims and territorial stretch, nations dream of being free, and, if under God, directly so. The gage and emblem of this freedom is the sovereign state. (pp. 6-7)

Finally, a nation is an imagined community because "regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings."

According to Anderson, creation of imagined communities became possible because of ’print-capitalism’. That is, capitalist entrepreneurs printed their books and media in the ’national’ dialect rather than exclusive languages such as Latin in order to maximize circulation. As a result, readers speaking various local dialects became able to understand each other, and a common discourse emerged. Anderson argued that the first European nation-states were thus formed around their "national print-languages."


The state and government


There is a need to make a distinction between the state and government: governments come and go, but the political institution of the state remains. So when Kevin Rudd replaced John Howard as Prime Minister, but the political institution of the state remained the same.

The state exercises power through different organs including:
• Executive power (government, military, police, prisons and public bureaucracies)
• Legislative power (parliaments which pass laws) and
• Judicial power (courts which pass judgements and set precedents)

It is easy to see how the state through all these dimensions can regulate all aspects of our lives.


The state and power


Importantly, you also cannot disconnect the state from politics: because politics is all about relations of power. Here we must consider the nature of power and how it is distributed between a centralised institution called the state and the rest of us.

Consequently, citizens must always remain vigilant to ensure that their rights are not impinged upon: we must constantly consider whose interests are being represented. So when we see changes to laws, we must consider who do they benefit? Do they reinforce or challenge current power structures? What are the long-term consequences of these changes?

There are many critics that raise concerns about the ways states exercise power both within and outside their borders, while others believe that the state should have a greater role in our lives. Many see that the role of the state should be somewhere in the middle: involved in the public sphere but leaving the private sphere to individuals

Out of the major supporters and critics, three broad theories have emerged:
• Liberal: where the bed is neutral and works on consensus. The state is seen as being the only legitimate power and without it you have anarchy
• Pluralist: again the state is seen as neutral. The state is also independent and it mediates between different groups as a plurality of competing interests emerge
• Marxist: here the state is seen to exist only to protect the interests of capitalists and is in constant struggle between the capitalists and workers


Conclusion


The state is a key element of modernity: never before in history have sovereign lines described as border been such an important element of the global landscape. Today we see barbed wire between states and the rights of citizenship clearly protected.

However, we cannot think of the state as something separated from social, political and economic processes: all these influence the state dramatically. In this way, the power that the state distributes should not be seen as neutral but may be considered as cementing and promoting certain powerful interests. Consequently, we must remain vigilant and always be prepared to challenge its authority – ensuring it remains a servant of the people.

We will return to the issues of the state when we discuss globalisation: the question that many have asked is whether the processes of globalisation are eroding state sovereignty and what the implications are: does it benefit us or detract from the quality of our lives.


References
Anderson, B. (2006/1991) Imagined Communities, New, London, New York: Verso
Arvanitakis, J. (2009) Contemporary Society, OUP, Melbourne

Background: Social construction

Background: Social construction

A term that I often use in these blogs (and teaching more generally) is ‘social construction’.

When something is socially constructed, it is a phenomenon that is constructed by members of a particular culture or society. These constructions emerge and remain because people agree – either consciously or subconsciously – to follow certain conventions and to behave in certain ways. As I note in my book, one of the challenges in our investigation of contemporary society is to detect and unmask the social constructions that we, by our very actions, support.

Key to understanding social construction is the idea that members of a society which interact together form, over time, representations of what to expect from each other. That is, we establish expectations of how certain people behave: be it boys, girls, Greeks, Italians or Lebanese.

Eventually these become embedded in the behaviours we expect and are also reflected in the way institutions such as schools are organised. In the process, we see the construction shape what we consider to be ‘reality’.

The structure of society then revolves around this constructed reality (or realities) that we accept as being both natural and normal (or innate). One example of a social construct is gender roles: that males and females act different ways. Here the concept of masculinity is based around how ‘real men’ are expected to behave: play sports, be tough, and not be overly emotional. From when we are born, boys are dressed a more masculine blue compared to the pink we give to girls.

When I was growing up, I was repeatedly told that I should ‘act like a man’: something that I imagined was kind of like Arnie in the Terminator. Though these roles are slowly changing, we are still aware of the roles men are supposed to play by what is portrayed in the media, the sports boys play (more males play rugby than netball) and the insults dished out to those who do not meet these criteria (such as ‘you throw like a girl’ or ‘put a skirt on’).

The reality is, however, that these are constructions: there is no reason that boys should wear blue, and as a female friend said to me once, ‘If you are so tough, trying coping with the pain of giving birth’.

One article that a student sent me that explores these ideas is from Sesame Street. You can read it in at:

www.sesameworkshop.org


As always, feedback welcomed…

Cheers, james

Background: Race and ethnicity

Background: Race and ethnicity


Before getting into this blog, I want to remind you all of the concept of ‘social construction’: when discussing issues such as the social expectations around gender (what is expected of males and females), these expectations are socially constructed. In other words, they are not natural or innate. We are not discussing obvious physical differences (our bits so to speak), rather, we are looking at those things that are socially constructed.

In this blog, I want to discuss how similar issues emerge around ‘race’. What will we see, is that while we use the word ‘race’ in everyday language, it is a word that has an important and specific meaning that has to do with identifying the social as well as the biological traits that people display. This is the key theme of this blog, is that the word race is about looking at not simply biological traits, but the personality and social traits that has come to be associated with skin colour!

As we will see, this belief was driven and also drove scientific research that justified colonialism and slavery. As I discuss this, you will probably draw important parallels between historical attitudes to women and the attitudes we see towards different groups of people based on their skin, hair and eye colour.


What is race?


Theoretically, the concept of race is based on the idea that a specific population differs in the “frequency of one or more biological traits” (Blakey 1999: 1). In this way, races are usually characterised as having several distinguishing characteristics. Now, the way that we think of these characteristics in our contemporary society is usually biological: as I mentioned, skin colour, eye colour and shape, hair and other such features.

Importantly however, though race is a biological concept, it is also socially constructed (Blakey 1999: 1). Now there are two important dimensions to this.

The first is that biological traits are linked to social traits. That is, the colour of your skin and other such biological features also gives us insight into your personality and aspects of who you are. That is, by looking at the colour of your skin, I could automatically tell you the type of person that you. There are many examples of this that you may recognise include:

• That Asians are are good at maths;
• Middle Easterners do not respect women;
• Pacific Islanders and Africans are inherently lazy; and
• Jews are good with money.

Hopefully you can see that these generalisations are pretty silly: there is no reason that just because you come from somewhere in Asia (Vietnam, China, Thailand or the dozen or so other countries), you would be automatically good with maths. The point here is that we see social traits seen to extend biological features.

These are broad generalisations – and wrong ones at that – used to describe and define entire populations of people. All you need to do is think about the people that you know: how much are they represented by these descriptions?

Well, the obvious answer is that they are not: my friend Ella is Chinese: she is hopeless at maths. But according to the above descriptions, she should be: she should be genetically programmed to be good at maths. So we can immediately question these descriptions – for both their accuracy and why would they be used in the first place.

The second dimension aspect of race is that it is relational – much like gender. That is, I identify myself as advanced and civilised by comparing myself to you. So, for example, we know that we are more advanced by comparing ourselves to others.


What is racism?


So then, what is racism and why is it important to understand it in our contemporary society? Racism is a form of discrimination based on the belief of race: the belief that one race is superior to another. We can see racism expressed overtly: through explicit thoughts, feelings, or acts, or covertly (unconsciously) through institutions that promote inequality between races.

That is, racism is an inherent belief in the superiority of one population (or ‘race’) over all others and leads to a belief that one group of people have the right to dominance. In reverse, this also means that one ‘racial group’ is believed to be inferior to others. This gives the dominant group the right to control other groups. We see this as a combination of power, prejudice and discrimination.

We see racism expressed in different ways:

• Institutional racism: this can be seen as racial discrimination by governments, corporations, or other large organisations that is inherent in their structures and stops people from entering or progressing.

For example, in Australia we celebrate Easter and do not put exams on Easter weekends. As a lecturer I try and avoid exams and assignments anything due around Ede.

Historically, however, no universities recognise holidays other than traditional Christian ones – though this is changing. You could argue that the fact that we are blind to a religious celebration that represents a large proportion of our population is institutionalised racism.

• Environmental racism: is racial discrimination in environmental policy-making and the targeting of certain communities for toxic waste disposal and placement of polluting industries. For example, if you do a search in NSW of the location of highly polluting industries, you are likely to find a strong correlation between their location and the proximity of indigenous communities.


Origins of racism


It is important for us to understand where this came from and what the results are, for these also link to modernity and the way our societies function today.
The first phase of racism was based on simple observations: when the English for example, went to Africa for the first time they observed that the local population would sleep during the day. Now it was 40 degrees so it makes sense to me that you would work in the morning and the afternoon, while sleeping during the day. Based on simple observation, a number of simple correlations were drawn: blacks sleep during the day so all blacks are lazy.

This development expanded with increases in science and scientific processes: remember how observation was an important element of science and the rise of modernity. So in many ways, such racism is a direct result of modernity. So some people argue that racism, as we know it, emerged only in modern times.

Other ‘scientific’ measure also emerged that supported such observations especially around cranial measures (the thicker the skull the ‘dumber the person’). Importantly however, what you will find is that all these scientific tests merely reiterated the existing social order.

This also gave rise to the justification of colonialism and the slave trade. That is, how do you justify invading the nation and taking the land of another group of people? Well, you can justify it on the grounds of superiority and inferiority: that is, as the civilised and superior European, there was an inherent right to take lands and also civilise the ‘savages’.

While justified by science, it was couched in terms that it was a burden for the white man to have to carry: that is, it is the white man’s burden to bring civilisation to those less fortunate – in this case ‘black’ and coloured people.


Biological determinism

Now all this gave rise to the concept of ‘biological determinism’: that is, all human nature is inherited and all human attributes are fixed. Further, this human behaviour is based on the way that people look (absurd I know). The belief then, is that human behaviour is therefore innate and cannot be changed or altered. In this way, the concept of biological determinism disregards or denies the effects of environmental variables.

Such a viewpoint leads logically to the idea that criminals cannot be reformed – they are, in effect, ‘born that way’.

Biological determinism taken to its logical conclusion divorces human action from human responsibility. This then places the blame (or the credit) for actions (both failures and successes) simply on someone’s genetics. Indeed, in this form biological determinism dismisses the idea of free will entirely.

Between 1930-1980 such a concept was directly challenged, and we see the development of alternative theories of race that dismisses the concept of ‘innate superiority’ and the influence of biology on behaviour and social status.

During this period we see the civil rights movement really take hold as well as the emergence of anti-racist science. By 1950, the link between biology and social characteristics is broadly accepted as a social myth. This was confirmed beyond doubt, when in 1962 Frank Livingstone analysed blood group variations, and he found no evidence of differences of any genetic traits amongst different social groups such as Caucasian and “Negroid” (the official term for ‘black’ people then). In fact, he found that all biological traits were independent of one another. Livingstone also found that a great deal of genetic traits were based on the ecological conditions – as people biologically adapted to their environments.


Why is this important?

To understand the importance of the concept race, there is a need to understand both the political implications of biological categorisation as well as the scientific biases in this social construction. Blakey (1999: 1) argues that races are merely the “convenient way” of lumping and splitting human groups into different divisions based on the combination of several traits. But the reality of these categories is that their creation is by scientists rather than nature. Using ‘averages’ and generic categories, Blakey argues, we get statistical representations of group’s biological characteristics that in reality, represent no one. It is here that the social construction of race occurs.

Think about this class: imagine I was told to describe the average student in my class. Let’s say I did: but how representative is this average of any one of you. When I sat in the lecture today, I would say the ‘average’ student is: about 21, female, Caucasian with light hair. But who does this average really represent? The answer is very few people if anyone! And more than that, there is no way you can guess what that person is like by just looking at them.

Despite this, race remains a concept that is seen to be very real, natural and fixed. Politically, it can be used to define and marginalise people. Over the last few years, we have seen broad groups of people categorised together and described in certain ways: this does not need to be overt – it can be subtle and the results are devastating. Worst still, it follows a long tradition of giving social characteristics to biological traits.

What it also does do is that it establishes socially constructed hierarchies within our society that can be used for political purposes.


Conclusion

So where does all this take us? If we think about the last couple of weeks, we see a link between biology and social behaviour. This was a link that was justified by science and resulted in the justification of slavery and colonialism.

That link has been proven to be false – a myth – but it persists in more subtle ways today. In many ways, it is harder to identify because it is subtle: rather than overt it is covert. It is hidden in language and as I mentioned a few weeks ago, in the images we see on television.

I once heard a US General in Iraq state that they only keep body counts of Coalition servicemen and women – not that of Iraqi civilians. In his language, it sounded like that the dead from the other side did not matter as much. I struggle to understand how the suffering of one group of people can be calculated to be below that of our own: the death of a 12 year old in an explosion – be it a war zone or not – must be unbearable for any family no matter the colour of their skin or religion they follow. To suggest other wise buys into centuries and myths and falsehoods that has got us into the mess we are currently in.


References:
Arvanitakis, J. (2009) Contemporary Society, OUP, Melbourne
Blakey ML (1999), ‘Scientific racism and the biological concept of race’, Literature and
Psychology, vol. 45, pp. 29–43.

Background Class and Class Relationships

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