final Flashcards
Why is the study of stratification important? Think about how stratification affects modern society. Incorporate the ideas of either Marx, Weber, or Durkheim into your answer.
Studying stratification is important because it brings the inequalities of our society into light by making people more aware of aspects of society that can lead to the structure of stratification, such as education, wealth, race, gender, etc. The more people that are aware of these issues, the more likely people are to want to bring about change. Marx would agree with that in that it exposes how the bourgeoisie keeps poor people on the bottom.
What is binary thinking about sex and gender? How do individuals who challenge these binaries (such as transgender or intersex people) help us understand that sex and gender are social, not natural, categories?
Binary thinking is when people assume that sex and gender are biological and the same, and that there are only 2 categories (male and female).
Trans and intersex people directly oppose this way of thinking, as it challenges the binary by saying “how can this way of thinking be correct if we have people born one male or female that identify as the opposite or people born outside of these categories altogether”
Transgender people can help us understand that the sex you’re born doesn’t have to correspond with your gender, and that there is no one way to be a man or a woman. Transgender people show us that gender isn’t a binary, but a spectrum. A person born with two X chromosomes doesn’t have to present as feminine, since the things we define as feminine are socially constructed anyway.
Intersex people have the same effect on sex. They prove that there isn’t just male and female, but that there’s an in-between. Should an intersex person present as a man or a woman? What pronouns should they use? If there are people who exist outside of the binary, maybe there isn’t a binary at all.
How does Talcott Parsons describe the role of men and women in his “sex role theory”? Explain how conflict theories can be seen as a critique of structural functionalism and describe some limitations of each approach.
Parsons theory states that men and women each have their own roles in order to help society function. Men are the breadwinners and workers, and women are the caretakers and housekeepers. Conflict theories about gender can be seen as a critique of theories like Parson’s that are based on structural functionalism *because they bring up the idea of power. They say that the reason why society is organized this way is because of the power involved, not because of any set roles. One limit of structural functionalism and Parsons theory is that it assumes that gender and sex are the same and binary. It also heavily relies on gender roles that aren’t scientifically backed up. A critique of conflict theories is that it doesn’t talk about the gender relations and how gender is different from sex. It doesn’t bring up WHY men have this power over women.
How has science been informed by culture (including racist and sexist) beliefs?
What we’re interested in as a culture influences what we want to study. Since the scientists themselves are part of that culture, their biases would influence their study.
During the time when gynecology was first being studied, there was a cultural belief that black people didn’t feel the same amount of pain that white people did, and that the lives of black people didn’t have the same value of those of white people. This lead to researchers testing early gynecological procedures on black women with NO ANESTHETIC OR PAIN RELIEF. These racist beliefs also influenced many other fields of medicine aside from gynecology. Science was also informed by sexist beliefs in the stanford prison experiment, where they were clearly aware of those gender roles when they made men do things that would be humiliating to their masculinity. If these societal gender roles about men didn’t exist, the researchers wouldn’t have studied them.
Thinking about the history of race, what do you predict for the future of “race” and “ethnicity” as social categories? Will they stay the same? Or will they change (and if so, how)? Think about the example of the US Census changes and/or the categories of Latino/Hispanic/Spanish?
I believe that what qualifies as “race” is likely to change in the future due to these categories being socially constructed. For one, I believe categories like “Asian” will be narrowed down much more, since the category is so broad. Along with this, the amount of mixed-race people is increasing in the US, and they will likely be the majority one day. If they’re the majority, I imagine there will probably be separate categories for people like that altogether, instead of just checking off two or more races that already exist. I also believe that what qualifies as “ethnicity” will also broaden, as the US becomes an increasingly more ethnically diverse country.
How does the underclass theory relate to the culture of poverty? How does William Julius Wilson’s argument provide a very different perspective?
Both theories state that poverty is caused by the people in poverty and that it’s a cycle. The culture of poverty suggests that poor people adopt certain behaviors in order to survive economically, and these values and behaviors are then passed down to their children. The underclass theory adds onto this by stating that poverty leads to people committing crimes and deviant behaviors, and that these behaviors are taught to their children. Wilson’s argument provides the perspective that maybe people in poverty aren’t perpetuating a cycle of poverty and crime, but that larger structural factors such as discrimination, differences in schools, and lack of jobs are the true cause of poverty.
What is the difference between absolute and relative poverty? What are some of the challenges involved in setting a poverty line and keeping this measure accurate?
Absolute Poverty is when a household’s income falls below the necessary level to purchase food to physically sustain its members.
Relative Poverty is when the determination of poverty based on a percentage of the median income in a given location
Most of the challenges involved with setting a poverty and keeping it’s measure accurate is the fact that with inflation and other factors, our economy is constantly changing. It’s much more difficult to support a family and make a living wage today than it was 50 years ago, and yet the poverty line hasn’t really changed. Systematically, too many things are determined by the current poverty line, such as food stamps, medicaid, education, etc. So changing it would mean having to overhaul the entire system.
How did the gendered division of labor rise after the Industrial Revolution? How was this change tied to kinship networks?
Before the industrial revolution, private and public spheres weren’t split since the entire family worked together. However, after the industrial revolution, this was split into work and home. Men left to go work in factories, and women were left to do all of the work done at home, including housework and raising children. These structural changes in society resulted in gender divisions of labor. These changes in society also lead to people being separated from their kinship networks, since people were moving to find more work. This led to women basically needing a husband to provide for her, furthering the gender division of labor.
Does the education system give everyone the chance to succeed in the US? Using a theory or research finding from class, support this assertion and then challenge it.
No, I don’t believe the education system gives everyone the same chance to succeed in the US. I mainly believe this because of the wealth inequalities in America, and how children born from wealthier families have access to better education. Rios would argue that the criminalization of our schools- especially those with lower income minority students- is one of the main reasons why the school system is unequal. Some schools genuinely treat children like criminals by checking their backpacks for weapons and having actual police officers monitor the halls. If we are treating our students as criminals that won’t succeed, labeling theory suggests that they’ll end up believing these labels, meaning they won’t give school the same effort as another child who was believed in.
However, a counter argument might suggest that since we live in a society that allows for upward mobility between classes. Since , all students get the same chance to succeed. everyone is forced to go to school, this means everyone is given the same opportunity to move up in the world.
How does family background—for example, cultural, economic, or social capital—affect educational achievement?
Family background almost serves as the foundation for educational achievement- especially when it comes to social class. When students from low income families lag behind, they have little resources available to help them succeed. In contrast, if a student from a wealthier family is lagging behind, their parents can afford extra tutoring. Same thing goes for SAT preparation, if the school doesn’t provide adequate preparation, the students who have parents that can afford outside SAT prep have a huge advantage. Parental involvement has been shown to improve student’s educational outcomes. However, parents from lower income families often have to work longer hours just to make ends meet, meaning they don’t have the time or money to be as involved as parents in better economic situations.
Technological innovations are changing the nature of jobs, how might this trend impact the growth in income inequality in the US? Globally?
In more recent years, technological innovations are replacing many jobs that don’t require a degree, such as factory work. This means that the demands for higher education continue to increase, despite college not being affordable to the majority of the US population. This leaves lower income families stuck, as they can’t afford the degrees needed to obtain jobs that would give them a living wage, further contributing to income inequality in America.
This trend originated from globalization, when there was a rise in the trades of goods and services across nations. This led to a divide in the work in the US, as work was divided into high-skilled and low-skilled jobs. This trend of globalization has an enormous impact on global wealth inequalities. Since Europe was one of the first nations to technologically advance, this gave them the power to explore, conquer, and extract resources from nations across the globe. This advantage of developing first led to most of the wealth being ruled by Western Powers, leaving other countries to deal with the global wealth inequalities.
What is capitalism? Is capitalism beneficial for society? Use one of the theories used in class to support your answer.
Capitalism is the economic system used by the U.S. and many other countries. It’s based on private ownership of the means of production and its profit. Due to the major wealth inequalities and crumbling economy currently happening in the U.S, I do not believe Capitalism is beneficial for our society. For-profit healthcare is one example of capitalism failing as a system in the U.S. specifically. Many families cannot afford healthcare, leading to millions of preventable deaths. If our healthcare system wasn’t capitalistic, this wouldn’t be an issue. Marx argued that capitalism was fundamentally flawed and doomed to fail. He believed that Capitalism alienated people from the product, the process, other people, and oneself. People are alienated from the process of production in the sense that labor is essentially forced due to economic needs. Pre-capitalism, a shoe maker could take a day off if he were sick. However, now a factory worker just needs to suck it up and work in order to make a living. He argued that due to this alienation, capitalism is determined to fail.
Explain how Karl Marx and Max Weber differ in the way they link religion and the economy. According to Weber, what do Calvinism and predestination have to do with the emergence of capitalism? How has this theory been challenged?
Marx believed that religion was a clever means of stratification. It kept the poor in their place without questioning the power relationship between them and the bourgeoisie. Religion promised people happiness in the afterlife, keeping them in their oppressive factory jobs. All the while, the already rich would profit off of the exploitation of their workers. Basically, religion keeps people content with the economy despite the poor wages.
Weber believed that the capitalist system stemmed from Protestant ideology being successful in life meant that one would be successful in the afterlife. This led to people hoarding wealth, in a similar way that capitalists do today. Calvinistic beliefs held that each person had a calling and that working day-to-day fulfilled one’s duty to God. This eventually led to capitalism, as capitalism works best when labor is underpaid and workers are being exploited.
Some people challenged this theory, claiming that you don’t need Calvinism or Protenism to get to capitalism. There are capitalistic societies that have never been protestant, meaning it can’t be the only cause of capitalism.
Why it is more sociologically significant to study the power of religion and how it is linked to other parts of society than which religion is “right” or why people believe? Support your answer.
As sociologists, we are supposed to be unbiased in topics that regard cultural opinions. We can’t place value on things like religion and claim that one is better than another as that would be culturally insensitive and not based on science. Everyone has their own beliefs, and one religion isn’t better than any other. However, we can study the power of religion, as that is far more objective. Religion has major ties to the values a society holds, and these values can help us understand why things are the way they are. For example, a society with very Christian beliefs may be more inclined to pass anti-abortion laws. To an outsider, this may be seen as understandably barbaric. But by understanding the religious roots that a society has, we can understand why these laws would be passed.
What is a paradigm? How do paradigms affect the way scientists do research?
A paradigm is a model or framework in which scientists operate. It effects how scientists do research, since science is based on what has come before in those frameworks. We might come up with different ways to frame certain studies or update previous findings, but most if not all of science is built on what we researched in the past. For example, a biologist might be doing research on cells. This research is based on preexisting knowledge of cells, as even the fact that cells exist had to be discovered within that paradigm.
