Social Stratification

“There is a sense in which the whole of Marx’s writing boils down to several embarrassing questions: Why is it that the capitalist West has accumulated more resources than human history has ever witnessed, yet appears powerless to overcome poverty, starvation, exploitation, and inequality?

                -Terry Eagleton (The Chronicle Review, In Praise of Marx)

In class we began to look at different ways that people are divided or stratified. Social stratification is defined as: the division of large numbers of people into layers according to their relative power, property, and prestige; applies to both nations and to people within a nation, society or other group.

Some countries, like India, divide their individuals into different categories in a caste system. One is born into and cannot move up or down into their specific placement in society. The lowliest people in this system are considered “impure” and are known as the untouchables. Some activist untouchables are fighting for integrity and equality in a civil right movement.  Here’s a video showing their fight and struggles in 2007 and is still occurring now:

So Karl Marx taught socialism over capitalism. He spoke of the possibility of dramatic change. This change consisted of different ways of dealing with money and economics, not the human consciousness. He was very level-headed and intelligent, but his ideas got blown out of proportion by the Communist regimes of China and Russia.  “He did not believe that men and women could surpass the Archangel Gabriel in sanctity. Rather, he believed that the world could feasibly be made a considerably better place.”  Karl Marx was reasonable because he had seen what capitalism and socialism could do. He knew that there were plenty of resources to share in the world. In Praise of Marx mentions, “ All he meant was that there are more than enough resources on the planet to resolve most of our material problems, just as there was more than enough food in Britain in the 1840s to feed the famished Irish populations several times over.”

Karl Marx

But what can we do? How can we solve this issue of unfair stratification in society?  Marx was famous for not laying out any future plans. Karl Marx was one of the first men to speak of the system by which we live by. He sought out the contradictions, historical origins, and the potential demise. He was sure to predict that if dramatic change was not considered, capitalism will only lead to major problems. Prosperity of some leads to suffering of others. Nations gain power by conquering and striping others of their rights.

This idea can be applied to any other group or society as well. Competiveness and “being better than your neighbor” has been taught to children since they were born.  One must compete for the best position in house baseball, for the place in school play, and for admission into the best college. The current fight in India is just one real-life and extreme example of social stratification in action. We are constantly being measured based on what power, prestige, and property these roles give us. Capitalism feeds on the idea that humans superficially and consciously strive for greatness and look down upon those who choose not to or who do not have the resources to do so.

"Man, I feel like a woman"

I’m a woman. And let me tell you, I enjoy it thus far. 

Yes, men will always continue to rate us on a “Hot or Not” scale. They’ll continue giving us a 7 for “average looking” or 10 for “sultry and sexy”.  But that is mostly society and their hormones talking. There are men out there (more than we think!) who embrace the idea that women, some of them “feminists”, can be strong in the work field and be great conversationalists. Even though they like to see their girlfriend in a nice tight dress with her hair and makeup done up all fancy, they still can have faith in her independence and strength as a person. This is all women can ask for right? Ladies like to admire the sexy male models in Calvin Klein ads, as well. No shame in that.

“Though Feminism has tended to treat beauty as a symbol of oppression, what lurks not far beneath the surface is the reality of beauty as power.” BEAUTY AS POWER.

"makeup"

While reading this week’s honors article, I understood there are many types of “feminists”. The most extreme, and my least favorite variety consists of a group of ladies who think wearing makeup is a violation of their personal rights. They think a simple enhancer is made by men to make them look beautiful for men. The article says, “Much of the argument against the beauty culture is based on the assumption that the sole purpose for aspiring to beauty is to attract men, despite substantial documentation that cultivating one’s appearance has both economic and psychic benefits that may be unrelated to sexual allure.”  Everyone wants to feel good about themselves. They want to feel beautiful. So like I said before, beauty is power. And makeup is one way to do just that for women. No shame in that.

In this blog here, I will connect this article and ideas to my own life, instead of a current event. My mother has raised me to be proud of being a woman. She was never taught that as a young child. She was taught to be submissive. This is called gender socialization. Her father told her he would only pay for her education if she became a nurse or teacher. These are very stereotypical woman jobs, especially at that time. These expectations were part of her gender role. This is defined as “the behaviors and attitudes considered appropriate because one is male or female”.  My grandpa was a loving man, but he expected my grandma to take care of his every need. He expected the same of my mother. My mother does cook, clean, and take care of us four children. However, she has strength and respect for herself. She makes my dad buy the groceries and take care of us, as well. Marriage is a two way street, and I see this working beautifully (most of the time) in my everyday life. My mom teaches me to appreciate my feminine characteristics. She tells me to love being a woman. We may be more sensitive and gentle, but we also have the power to use this to our advantage.

In all, like the wise and beautiful Marilyn Monroe once said,

“I don't mind living in a man's world, as long as I can be a woman in it."



We Need Women&Men to make the World Go Round: Literally.

In class today we had an almost civilized chat about defining ourselves through the help of our gender. Our society views women as sensitive, submissive, caring, and beautiful.  We view men as strong, dominant, intelligent, and handsome. “Boys fix things” and “Girls need things fixed”. Yes, there is a dividing line...

But do all boys solely value women for their quiet approach on life, or do most enjoy the women who take the issues in life by the horn, who enjoy a good hearty laugh, and who have a clear- cut view on their own success in the world? Do all ladies need a man in their life to live? Or do they value men for their pleasant company alone?  I think society focuses on the negative connotations of men and women’s needs. I’m sure a perfectly educated man could learn to cook and clean for himself and a women could learn to pay the bills and rent. When people get so tied up in these ideas, they lose sight of the idea that we are all human beings of one species with mostly the same anatomy.

The large gender gap was created in the beginning of time, when men ruled and women were considered property. Look how far we’ve come! However, issues are still apparent. Women may have been able to vote for Obama this past election, but they still can’t earn equal pay while working at Wal-Mart. Something with this picture is wrong. Wal-Mart discriminates against women doing the exact same work as their male counterparts. They deprive them of proper pay and therefore, equality. This may be one the largest class-action employment lawsuit in U.S. history. And it is all revolved around gender discrimiation.. Here is an article concerning this issue. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-26/justice/walmart.suit_1_wal-mart-stores-appeals-court-class-action?_s=PM:CRIME. So even though feminists may seem like they are fighting for nothing, they most definitely are fighting for something. They’re NOT fighting against men, they are fighting for themselves, daughters, and grandaughters.

In the honors article, the author speaks of how society influences the way people view others and themselves by putting them in stereotypical boxes. She writes, “Durkheim observed that human beings experience society’s influence as a force outside of themselves that constrains their behavior, and this observation has become a pervasive assumption in sociological theorizing.” So society constrains human behavior. Can society put constraints on the scope of woman success, intellectualism, and ability to hold powerful positions? Yes. And society does just what the article explains. Women view themselves as sensitive and weak because society further illustrates these messages through the media and everyday interactions. Women are a great example of the “Looking-Glass Self” hypothesis formulazined by a man, Charles Horton Cooley.

Oh, the irony in the world.

Is there a true "self"?

Each person struggles with the question, “Who am I?” Is it even a question to be asked, or is there not even a true self? I am perplexed about the answer. Yes, we are different from everyone else. We are each unique. We each have different beliefs, values, and personalities. But this is obvious, it is a given. However, something not so obvious that I pondered this week is this: do we have a true “self? Or do we become our “self” by conforming and learning from the society around us like Charles Horton Cooley suggests in his “Looking-Glass Self” hypothesis. Do we change into the person we’ve always wanted to be because of external or internal pressures? I think sociology mainly blames everything on the external world. But don’t we have any personal control over our lives?

In the article, “Mirror Self-Recognition and the Looking-Glass Self” by Leigh S. Shaffer, the issue of defining one’s creation of “self” is insightfully discussed.  Shaffer writes, “For the new social sciences, the self was “not a unitary structure, appearing full-blown” (Sherif, 1968, p. 153), but rather a developmental product of each individual interacting with its social and physical environment. “ So according to this article one’s “self” is not a predetermined characteristic in human nature.  We are created over time. This point seems obvious. But what is profound is the idea that we have less control over who we become than the world around us does. It is hard for certain people to accept that they do not have complete control over the world around them, and in who they’re becoming. However, you have control over who you become to a certain extent. You have the power to set goals and to achieve them. But some events and upraising, you have no control over. These fateful experiences in the social and physical world are large contributions to the creation of one’s “self”. A few examples can be the type of socio-economic class one is born in, certain family deaths, gender, and other uncontrollable experiences. If you are looking at yourself in the mirror you will really find the experiences and judgments of others around you, along with how you’ve acted to moments in your life, staring back. This is known as the “Looking-Glass Self”.

Like the article said, “..the adaptive problem faced by early humans is the need for individuals to justify their conduct to others.” This whole idea really ties into the way our society tries to always impress. Humans must justify every action. It may have to do with our competitiveness and self-conscious nature.

One of the best ways to describe this issue is by looking at the way people use technology. I know for myself and my friends, we enjoy the social network, Facebook.  It is addicting and, for most, a tool to create the person people would be impressed by. We even watched a movie on the new generation controlled by technology.  It may be “Peter Mattington”’s Facebook page, but in reality he’s not letting the whole human population really look into his soul over the internet. Some people get so hung up on the idea that everything on Facebook is reality. If “Peter Mattington” got a comment from the gal he liked saying “You’re so handsomeJ” , he would believe he was handsome. He would walk with straighter posture and a larger ego, just because of one simple comment on the internet. The virtual world is becoming a defining tool of many individuals. So once again, because of human nature, we give people what they want to see. By posting certain pictures, comments, and statuses “Peter Mattington” is truly living up to the Cooley’s “Looking Glass Self” hypothesis.