Social Issues

Question 1

What is social stratification?

Answer 1

Social stratification:

The arrangement/organisation of people into different social groups

Question 2

What is social mobility?

Answer 2

Social mobility:

A measure of the chances of moving between positions in society, mainly the ability to move from a low social class position upwards

Question 3

How does functionalism view social class?

Answer 3

Functionalism and class:

• Functionalists believe all parts of society work together to help the overall function of society
• Functionalists see the class system as a necessary part of functioning society
• Believe that inequality occurs due to the reward system
• Higher rewards are offered for the most functionally important work. This work also requires more skill and ability.
• The differences in pay result in social inequality
• Functionalists explain that class inequality is fair because of the meritocratic system i.e. that an individuals class is based on their skill and ability to work, therefor mobility is possible

Question 4

How is functionalism good at explaining social class?

Answer 4

Functionalism and class strengths:

• Explains how class links to the social structure and how it helps to maintain society
• Provides an explanation for why different wages are awarded for different lines of work

Question 5

How could the functionalist view of class be criticised?

Answer 5

Functionalism and class weaknesses:

• Can’t explain why class causes conflict in society
• Can’t explain why intergenerational mobility problems persists. Problems with mobility are blamed on the individuals skills/abilities but the approach does not consider how wealthy families may be at an advantage in securing their children’s future through better education etc.
• Criticised for being contradictory e.g. how do you measure the importance of a job if all jobs are important and contribute to the function of society?

Question 6

How do Marxists view social class?

Answer 6

Marxism and class:

• Explains that capitalism is what causes inequality between the two main social classes (bourgeoisie and proletariat)
• An individuals relationship with the means of production determines their social class i.e. those who own the means of production end up as the ruling class and those who do not own any means of production are forced to sell their labour for money, thus end up as the subject class.
• Marx argues that the exploitation of the proletariat is what gives the bourgeoisie their wealth, creating a division of the classes and leading to concentration of money in the small upper class (true in Britain today)
• Economic class is thought to be the cause of intergenerational mobility because the upper classes have better access to the tools that increase mobility chances, giving them an advantage over the lower classes e.g. better education, private tutoring etc.

Question 7

How is Marxism good at explaining social class?

Answer 7

Marxism and class strengths:

• The theory explains why the wealth ends up concentrated within the minority of the population and this reflects Britains current economic state (the richest 1% own 20x more than the poorest 20%)
• Marxism is good at highlighting the advantages that the rich have over the poor in increasing chances of social mobility and thus is good at explaining why intergenerational mobility persists (as shown in Blanden’s “Up and Down the income ladder”)

Question 8

How could the Marxist explanation of class be criticised?

Answer 8

Marxism and social class weaknesses:

• Criticised for being too simplistic; being overly focussed on the economic impact on social class…
• e.g. cant explain how an individuals gender and ethnicity can influence their social position
• Marxism can’t explain the range of social classes that are present in today’s society and how they fit into the theory
• Doesn’t explain how some people do manage to become socially mobile

Question 9

How does Weberian theory explain social class?

Answer 9

Weber and class:

• Class, status and party (power) are the three factors that determine an individuals social class
• Like Marx suggests, Weber agrees that greater the economic class, the greater the individuals life and mobility chances
• Status is the honour attached to the individual/group. Can be influenced by race, occupation, gender etc. This can give people advantages/disadvantages in their position and mobility.
• Party is the power of the group. Separate from wealth but the two often link. This is the individuals ability to have an impact on the way that society is run. Elite groups may have more access to certain professions etc.

Question 10

How is Weberian theory good at explaining class?

Answer 10

Weber and class strengths:

• Weber is good at explaining the complex class system that exists in Britain today; unlike Marx, who suggests there are only two key classes
• Explains how a vast array of factors can determine an individuals ability to be socially mobile

Question 11

How could Weber’s explanation of class be criticised?

Answer 11

Weber and class weaknesses:

• Can be criticised for not putting enough emphasis on economic impact on class, which has lead to the powerful and separate ruling class

Question 12

Name and date two key studies that support conflict theories view on class

Answer 12

Conflict theories and class:

• Jo Blanden et al (2008)
  “Up and Down the Generational Income Ladder”
• Goldthorpe et al (1972)
  “Oxford Mobility Study”

Question 13

Date and describe Jo Blanden et al’s “Up and Down the Generational Income Ladder”

Answer 13

Blanden et al (2008)
“Up and Down the Generational Income Ladder”

Aim: Examine the issue of intergenerational mobility in Britain by looking at income rather than occupation

Background:
Research done in 1970 found that for children born into poor households intergenerational mobility was worse than it had been twelve years earlier in 1958

Method:

• Blanden et al focussed on recent cohorts, in attempt to find out if social mobility chances had improved since 1970 (by focussing on 1985 and 2000 cohorts)
• Divided population into quartiles based on earnings
• Made assumptions about the earnings of current cohorts as they have not yet entered the workplace
• Educational achievement of children was taken as a predictor of their adult income

Findings:

• The previous study found that the greater the income of the parents the greater the mobility chances of the child and social mobility was in decline
• The 2008 study found that mobility chances were no longer declining however had not improved either; simply plateaued
• The study also found that class background remains crucial to a child’s chances of social mobility

Question 14

Evaluate Jo Blanden et al’s “Up and Down the Generational Income Ladder” (2008)

Answer 14

Blanden et al (2008) evaluation:

Strengths

• Very up to date
• Uses historical data as a comparison to generate a solid overview of mobility patterns over time
• One of the first mobility studies to examine recent age cohorts

Weaknesses

• Can be criticised for using a small sample for the research into 2000 cohort (sample was only 5,500 participants) this makes the results less representative
• Results for the 2000 cohort are only an estimate as this cohort has not yet begun work so cannot accurately predict mobility

Question 15

Date and describe Goldthorpe et al’s study of social mobility.

Answer 15

Goldthorpe et al (1972) “Oxford Mobility Study”:

Aim: To examine weather social mobility patterns had changed since the (1954) Glass study

Background:

• Glass found that although individuals (men only study) did move up and down the social hierarchy, mobility was short-range and only within certain types of work
• Little progression from manual to professional type work
• Sons generally took on similar work to their fathers

Method:

• 10,000 men 20-64 years old
• Used structured interviews
• Formulated his own class scale to which he allocated the men, based on their market situation and work situation
• These classes were simplified into three main categories: service class, intermediate class and working class

Findings:

• Absolute mobility (overall mobility) rate was high
• This was because the war had lead to an increase in the number of service class jobs available
• Relative mobility (Individual mobility chances) showed little change
• Found that the middle class were 1/2 as likely to move to the top class than the top class were, and the lower class had 1/2 as likely to move to the top class than the middle class

Conclusion:

• That the class system in Britain remained rigid, with the class of parents affecting mobility chances of the child
• Most mobility was short-range
• Absolute mobility was high
• Relative mobility was low
• The odds were still generally in favour of the higher classes

Question 16

Evaluate Goldthorpe et al’s “Oxford Mobility Study” (1972)

Answer 16

Goldthorpe (1972) evaluation:

Strengths

• Large number of participants (10,000) gives results good reliability
• Recent research confirms Goldthorpe’s findings that class affects the chances of mobility

Weaknesses
- The study only used male participants making the study less ecologically valid in todays society as the role of women in work has significantly increases since Goldthorpe’s study

Question 17

What percentage of children are in private vs state education?

Answer 17

Approximately 90% of children are educated in state schools.

Only 7% are educated in private schools.

Question 18

How do functionalists view differential achievement?

Answer 18

Functionalism and differential achievement:

• View education as a “proving ground” for ability
• Believe that education socialises students into future roles by identifying the talents and abilities of individuals
• Believe that all individuals have an equal chance of success in the meritocratic system; thus those who are talented and work hard acquire the greatest rewards

Question 19

Evaluate the functionalist view of differential achievement

Answer 19

Functionalism and achievement:

Strengths
- Explains how education serves a functional purpose to the social system as a whole

• Explains how education helps with socialisation and role allocation in a meritocratic manner

Weaknesses
- Can be criticised for taking the view that everyone competes on equal terms..

• Doesn’t consider how merit can be influenced by factors other than skill and ability e.g. class, ethnicity and gender

Question 20

How do Marxists view differential achievement?

Answer 20

Marxism and differential achievement:

• Believe that education further strengthens and reproduces existing class inequalities
• Instils ideas which justify the different positions in society using a hidden curriculum
• Hidden curriculum introduces ideas such as conformity, obedience acceptance of authority and repetition of tasks for rewards in public schooling
• Hidden curriculum introduces ideas such as leadership skills and self discipline in private schools
• Marxists argue that economic class of parents has a large impact on the quality of education children receive
• Earlham Sociology Pages supports the theory, finding that some working class children are at an educational disadvantage as their more likely to be under-nourishment, sickness and absence. Furthermore they may end up having to look after siblings if parents cannot afford to take time off work

Question 21

Evaluate the Marxist view of differential achievement

Answer 21

Marxism and achievement:

Strengths
- Good at highlighting how inequality in education leads to further inequality in the workplace because of class background

• A lot of evidence supports the view that economic class impacts academic achievement

Weaknesses 
- Can be criticised for overemphasising the impact that the upper class have on the education system. How much impact do they really have on the curriculum?

• Some subject that are taught in public schools counteract this theory e.g. sociology. If the Marxist theory were true educational institutions would not teach these subjects as they would make people more aware of the inequalities they face

Question 22

How do symbolic interactionists view differential achievement?

Answer 22

SI and differentia achievement:

• Focusses on how interaction between individuals in the classroom leads to differential achievement e.g. the labelling of pupils
• Believe that the labelling and positive/negative feedback pupils receive can influence their view of their own abilities and thus change their academic achievement

Question 23

Evaluate the symbolic interactionist view of differential achievement

Answer 23

SI and achievement:

Strengths
- Good at recognising how social labels for gender, ethnicity, class etc. can lead to differential achievement in education 

Weaknesses
- Can be criticised for being weak in offering solutions to the inequality they recognise

• Can be hard to generalise findings as they are usually done on a small scale;
• There is not always a way of knowing how people interpret meanings (and sometimes it can be subconscious) making it hard to get hard evidence to support the theory

Question 24

How do feminists view differential achievement?

Answer 24

Feminism and differential achievement:

• Focus on the difference in achievement between genders
• Believe that all inequality in society is linked to the conflict between men and women and this is also true in education
• Argue that education reinforces the patriarchal nature of society using the hidden curriculum
• The hidden curriculum encourages boys and girls towards the “gendered subjects” (Becky Francis) i.e. boys towards mathematical subjects like the sciences and girls towards literate subjects like English
• Girls have surpassed boys grades in school but boys receive more attention in the classroom, thus the importance is placed on the males and girls are left to themselves
• Kat Banyard’s study found that girls still face inequality in education, and despite the increase in female grades, they still face significant sexist bullying, which is partly blamed on the normalisation of pornography

Question 25

Evaluate the feminist approach to differential achievement

Answer 25

Feminism and achievement:

Strengths
- Good at highlighting the gender inequalities that have existed in education in the past and present

• Feminists approach to studying education has helped to rectify the system in many ways, although feminists may argue inequalities still remain
• Good at examining the impact of “gendered subjects” and the way this issue persists

Weaknesses
- Criticised for overemphasising the importance of gender and ignoring other factors that may affect achievement e.g. class

Question 26

Name and describe a study that supports the feminist view of differential achievement

Answer 26

Becky Francis (2000) “Boys, Girls and Achievement”

Findings:

• Big improvements had been made to female achievement in education
• This was partly due to the increased range of subjects available to girls
• Gendered subjects remain a problem
• Girls are less likely to choose prestigious subjects like sciences, technology and engineering despite the governments efforts to make them available
• Boys still dominate the classroom receiving more attention from teachers

Question 27

Evaluate Becky Francis’s (2000) study

Answer 27

Becky Francis “Boys, Girls and Achievement” (2000)

Strengths

• Relatively up to date
• Uses observations and interviews giving a good all around view of behaviour
• Acknowledges the improvements that have been made to gender inequalities in education

Weaknesses
- Small sample size was used; only 3 London secondary schools, making it hard to generalise the results