The Real World SIXTH EDITION The Real World An Introduction to Sociology SIXTH EDITION Kerry Ferris | Jill Stein n W. W. NORTON NEW YORK • LONDON W. W. Norton & Company has been independent since its founding in 1923, when William Warder Norton and Mary D. Herter Norton first published lectures delivered at the People’s Institute, the adult education division of New York City’s Cooper Union. The firm soon expanded its program beyond the Institute, publishing books by celebrated academics from America and abroad. By midcentury, the two major pillars of Norton’s publishing program—trade books and college texts—were firmly established. In the 1950s, the Norton family transferred control of the company to its employees, and today—with a staff of four hundred and a comparable number of trade, college, and professional titles published each year—W. W. Norton & Company stands as the largest and oldest publishing house owned wholly by its employees. Copyright © 2018, 2016, 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008 by Kerry Ferris and Jill Stein All rights reserved Printed in Canada Editor: Sasha Levitt Project Editor: Diane Cipollone Editorial Assistants: Miranda Schonbrun, Erika Nakagawa Managing Editor, College: Marian Johnson Managing Editor, College Digital Media: Kim Yi Production Manager: Eric Pier-Hocking Media Editor: Eileen Connell Media Project Editor: Danielle Belfiore Media Editorial Assistant: Grace Tuttle Marketing Manager, Sociology: Julia Hall Design Director: Rubina Yeh Photo Editor: Ted Szczepanski Permissions Manager: Megan Schindel Permissions Clearer: Bethany Salminen Composition: Jouve Illustrations: Alex Eben Meyer Manufacturing: Transcontinental Permission to use copyrighted material begins on p. C-1. ISBN: 978-0-393-63930-8 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110-0017 wwnorton.com W. W. Norton & Company Ltd., 15 Carlisle Street, London W1D 3BS 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 0 About the Authors KERRY FERRIS is Associate Professor of Sociology at Northern Illinois University. She uses ethnographic methods and a symbolic interactionist approach to study celebrity as a system of social power. Her past studies have included analyses of fan-celebrity relations, celebrity sightings, celebrity stalking, red-carpet celebrity interviews, and the work lives of professional celebrity impersonators. Her current project examines small-market television newscasters in the American Midwest and their experiences of celebrity on a local level. Her work has been published in Symbolic Interaction, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, The Journal of Popular Culture, and Text & Performance Quarterly. She is the coauthor, with Scott R. Harris, of Stargazing: Celebrity, Fame, and Social Interaction. JILL STEIN is Professor of Sociology at Santa Barbara City College, which was recently named the top community college in the United States by the Aspen Institute. She teaches introduction to sociology in both face-to-face and online formats every semester. In addition, she is involved in many student-success initiatives at the local and state levels. Her research examines narrative processes in twelve-step programs, the role of popular culture in higher learning, and group culture among professional rock musicians. Her work has been published in Symbolic Interaction, Youth & Society, and TRAILS (Teaching Resources and Innovations Library). v Contents PREFACE xxiii CHANGES IN THE SIXTH EDITION xxix PART I: Thinking Sociologically and Doing Sociology 2 CHAPTER 1: Sociology and the Real World 6 How to Read This Chapter 9 Practical vs. Scientific Knowledge 9 What Is Sociology? 9 The Sociological Perspective 10 Beginner’s Mind 10 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Everyday Life: Doing Nothing 11 IN RELATIONSHIPS: It’s Official: Men Talk More Than Women 12 Culture Shock 12 The Sociological Imagination 13 Levels of Analysis: Micro- and Macrosociology 14 IN THE FUTURE: C. Wright Mills and the Sociological Imagination 15 Sociology’s Family Tree 16 Sociology’s Roots 16 Macrosociological Theory 19 Structural Functionalism 19 Conflict Theory 21 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: Eurocentrism and Sociological Theory 23 Weberian Theory 25 ON THE JOB: Famous Sociology Majors 26 Microsociological Theory 27 Symbolic Interactionism 28 vii DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Media and Pop Culture: Theories of Celebrity Gossip 31 New Theoretical Approaches 33 Postmodern Theory 33 Midrange Theory 34 Closing Comments 35 CHAPTER 2: Studying Social Life: Sociological Research Methods 38 How to Read This Chapter 41 An Overview of Research Methods 41 The Scientific Approach 41 Which Method to Use? 43 Ethnography/Participant Observation 45 Advantages and Disadvantages 47 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Everyday Life: Watching People Talk 47 Interviews 48 Advantages and Disadvantages 49 IN THE FUTURE: Action Research 50 Surveys 50 Advantages and Disadvantages 52 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Media and Pop Culture: Media Usage Patterns 53 Existing Sources 54 Advantages and Disadvantages 55 Experimental Methods 56 Advantages and Disadvantages 57 Social Network Analyis 57 IN RELATIONSHIPS: Social Networking Sites as Sources of Data 58 Advantages and Disadvantages 59 Issues in Sociological Research 59 Nonacademic Uses of Research Methods 59 Values, Objectivity, and Reactivity 60 ON THE JOB: Sociology, Market Research, and Design Strategy 61 Research Ethics 63 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: The Nuremberg Code and Research Ethics 64 Closing Comments 65 viii CONTENTS PART II: Framing Social Life 68 CHAPTER 3: Culture 72 How to Read This Chapter 75 What Is Culture? 75 How Has Culture Been Studied? 75 Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism 75 ON THE JOB: The Sharing Economy and Unlikely Cultural Ambassadors 77 Components of Culture 78 Material Culture 78 Symbolic Culture 79 Values, Norms, and Sanctions 81 IN RELATIONSHIPS: Individual Values vs. University Culture 82 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Everyday Life: Seeing Culture in a Subculture 84 Variations in Culture 85 Dominant Culture 85 Subcultures and Countercultures 85 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: Otaku Culture and the Globalization of Niche Interests 86 Culture Wars 87 Ideal vs. Real Culture 88 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Media and Pop Culture: How the Image Shapes the Need 89 Cultural Change 90 Technological Change 90 Cultural Diffusion and Cultural Leveling 90 Cultural Imperialism 91 American Culture in Perspective 91 IN THE FUTURE: Online Radicalization 92 Closing Comments 93 CONTENTS ix CHAPTER 4: Socialization, Interaction, and the Self 96 How to Read This Chapter 99 What Is Human Nature? 99 The Nature vs. Nurture Debate 99 The Process of Socialization 99 IN THE FUTURE: Genetics and Sociology 100 Social Isolation 100 Theories of the Self 102 Psychoanalytic Theory: Sigmund Freud 103 The Looking-Glass Self: Charles Cooley 104 Mind, Self, and Society: George Herbert Mead 105 Dramaturgy: Erving Goffman 106 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Everyday Life: Impression Management in Action 108 Agents of Socialization 109 The Family 109 Schools 110 Peers 110 The Media 111 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Media and Pop Culture: TV as an Agent of Socialization 112 Adult Socialization 113 IN RELATIONSHIPS: Sister Pauline Quinn and Training Dogs in Prison 114 Statuses and Roles 115 Multiple Roles and Role Conflict 115 Emotions and Personality 116 The Social Construction of Emotions 116 Interacting Online 116 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: Cross-Cultural Responses to Grief 117 ON THE JOB: The Wages of Emotion Work 118 Closing Comments 119 x CONTENTS CHAPTER 5: Separate and Together: Life in Groups 122 How to Read This Chapter 125 What Is a Group? 125 Primary and Secondary Groups 125 Social Networks 126 Separate from Groups: Anomie or Virtual Membership? 127 IN THE FUTURE: What Happens to Group Ties in a Virtual World? 128 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Media and Pop Culture: “Who’s in Your Feed?” 130 Group Dynamics 131 Dyads, Triads, and More 131 IN RELATIONSHIPS: Social Networking: You’re Not the Customer— You’re the Product 132 In-Groups and Out-Groups 132 Reference Groups 133 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Everyday Life: The Twenty Statements Test: Who Am I? 134 Group Cohesion 135 Social Influence (Peer Pressure) 136 Experiments in Conformity 137 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: Group vs. Individual Norms: Honor Killings 138 Working Together: Teams and Leadership 141 Teamwork 141 ON THE JOB: Teamwork and the Tour de France 142 Power, Authority, and Style 142 Bureaucracy 144 The McDonaldization of Society 145 Responding to Bureaucratic Constraints 146 Closing Comments 147 CHAPTER 6: Deviance 150 How to Read This Chapter 153 Defining Deviance 153 Deviance across Cultures 153 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: Body Modification 154 Theories of Deviance 155 Functionalism 155 CONTENTS xi Conflict Theory 156 Symbolic Interactionism 157 IN RELATIONSHIPS: Cyberbullying, Trolls, and Online Deviance 158 The Stigma of Deviance 161 Managing Deviant Identities 162 ON THE JOB: Is “Cash Register Honesty” Good Enough? 163 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Everyday Life: AA’s Pioneer Women 164 Studying Deviance 165 The Emotional Attraction of Deviance 165 The Study of Crime 165 Crime and Demographics 167 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Media and Pop Culture: Norm Breaking on Television 169 The Criminal Justice System 170 IN THE FUTURE: American vs. Scandinavian Prisons 171 Reconsidering Deviance? 172 Closing Comments 173 PART III: Understanding Inequality 176 CHAPTER 7: Social Class: The Structure of Inequality 180 How to Read This Chapter 184 Social Stratification and Social Inequality 184 Systems of Stratification 184 Slavery 184 Caste 185 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: Systems of Stratification around the World 186 Social Class 188 Social Classes in the United States 188 The Upper Class 188 The Upper-Middle Class 189 The Middle Class 189 xii CONTENTS The Working (Lower-Middle) Class 190 The Working Poor and Underclass 190 Problematic Categories 190 Theories of Social Class 191 Conflict Theory 191 Weberian Theory 191 Structural Functionalism 192 Postmodernism 193 Symbolic Interactionism 193 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Everyday Life: Everyday Class Consciousness 195 Socioeconomic Status and Life Chances 195 Family 195 IN RELATIONSHIPS: Socioeconomic Status and Mate Selection 196 Health 196 Education 197 Work and Income 198 Criminal Justice 199 Social Mobility 200 Poverty 201 Social Welfare and Welfare Reform 202 The “Culture of Poverty” and Its Critics 204 ON THE JOB: Get a Job! Minimum Wage or Living Wage? 205 The Invisibility of Poverty 206 Inequality and the Ideology of the American Dream 209 IN THE FUTURE: Why We Can’t Afford the Rich 210 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Media and Pop Culture: Advertising and the American Dream 212 Closing Comments 213 CHAPTER 8: Race and Ethnicity as Lived Experience 216 How to Read This Chapter 219 Defining Race and Ethnicity 219 “Ethnic Options”: Symbolic and Situational Ethnicity 221 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Everyday Life: Displaying Ethnicity 222 The U.S. Population by Race 223 What Is a Minority? 223 CONTENTS xiii Racism in Its Many Forms 224 Prejudice and Discrimination 224 White Nationalism 225 White Privilege and Color-Blind Racism 226 Microagressions 227 Cultural Appropriation 227 Reverse Racism 229 Antiracist Allies 229 IN THE FUTURE: Whose Lives Matter? 230 Theoretical Approaches to Understanding Race 230 Structural Functionalism 230 Conflict Theory 231 Symbolic Interactionism 232 IN RELATIONSHIPS: From the Lovings to Kimye: Interracial Dating and Marriage 234 Race, Ethnicity, and Life Chances 236 Family 236 Health 237 Education 238 Work and Income 238 ON THE JOB: Diversity Programs: Do They Work? 239 Criminal Justice 240 Intersectionality 241 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Media and Pop Culture: Does TV Reflect the Realities of Race? 241 Intergroup Relations: Conflict or Cooperation 243 Genocide 243 Population Transfer 243 Internal Colonialism and Segregation 244 Assimilation 244 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: “The Biggest Humanitarian and Refugee Crisis of Our Time” 245 Pluralism 246 Closing Comments 247 xiv CONTENTS CHAPTER 9: Constructing Gender and Sexuality 250 How to Read This Chapter 253 Sex and Gender 253 Sex 253 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: Different Societies, Different Genders 254 Gender 254 Sexuality and Sexual Orientation 256 “Queering the Binary” 257 Socialization: Sex, Gender, and Sexuality 257 Families 257 IN RELATIONSHIPS: Rape Culture and Campus Social Life 258 Schools 259 Peers 260 The Media 260 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Media and Pop Culture: The Fashion Police: Gender and the Rules of Beauty 261 Prejudice and Discrimination 262 Gendered Language and Microaggressions 264 Sociological Theories of Gender Inequality 264 Functionalism 264 Conflict Theory 265 Interactionism 265 Feminist Theory 266 Gender, Sexuality, and Life Chances 266 Families 267 Health 267 Education 268 ON THE JOB: Female Athletes and the Battle for Equal Pay 268 Work and Income 269 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Everyday Life: The Second Shift: Gender Norms and Household Labor 271 Criminal Justice 273 IN THE FUTURE: Human Trafficking 274 Intersectionality 275 Social Movements 276 Women’s Movements 276 Men’s Movements 277 LGBTQ Movements 277 Closing Comments 279 CONTENTS xv PART IV: Social Institutions and the Micro-Macro Link 282 CHAPTER 10: Social Institutions: Politics, Education, and Religion 286 How to Read This Chapter 289 What Is Politics? 289 Political Systems: Government 289 The American Political System 291 Who Rules America? 292 The Media and the Political Process 295 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Media and Pop Culture: Satirical News Shows 298 Patriotism and Protest 300 Politics: The Micro-Macro Link 302 What Is Education? 302 A Brief History of Modern Education 302 Education and the Reproduction of Society 303 Classic Studies of Education 305 IN THE FUTURE: A College Degree: What’s It Worth? 306 The Present and Future of Education 306 ON THE JOB: For-Profit Colleges: At What Cost? 310 Education: The Micro-Macro Link 312 What Is Religion? 313 Theoretical Approaches to Religion 313 Religion in America 315 Religious Trends 315 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: Thou Shalt Not Kill: Religion, Violence, and Terrorism 316 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Everyday Life: Measures of Religiosity 318 A Secular Society? 319 IN RELATIONSHIPS: Can a Relationship with God Improve Your GPA? 320 Religion: The Micro-Macro Link 321 Closing Comments 321 xvi CONTENTS CHAPTER 11: The Economy and Work 324 How to Read This Chapter 327 Historical and Economic Changes 327 The Agricultural Revolution 327 The Industrial Revolution 328 The Information Revolution 330 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Media and Pop Culture: The World of Work and Workers as Seen on TV 331 World Economic Systems 332 Capitalism 332 Socialism 333 The U.S. Economy 333 ON THE JOB: Internships: Free Menial Labor or a Leg Up? 334 The Nature of Work 335 Agricultural Work 335 Industrial Work 335 Postindustrial Work 336 Resistance Strategies: How Workers Cope 339 Individual Resistance: Handling Bureaucracy 339 Collective Resistance: Unions 340 IN RELATIONSHIPS: The Value of Break Time 342 The Conscience of Corporate America 343 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: World of Warcraft and “Gold Farming” in China 344 The Economics of Globalization 345 International Trade 346 Transnational Corporations 346 Global Sweatshop Labor 348 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Everyday Life: Are Your Clothes Part of the Global Commodity Chain? 349 Outsourcing 350 Different Ways of Working 351 Professional Socialization in Unusual Fields 351 IN THE FUTURE: Will Your Job Be “Uber-ized”? 352 The Contingent Workforce 354 The Third Sector and Volunteerism 355 Time for a Vacation? 356 Closing Comments 357 CONTENTS xvii CHAPTER 12: Life at Home: Families and Relationships 360 How to Read This Chapter 363 What Is the Family? 363 Sociological Perspectives on Families 363 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: Talking about Kin 364 Structural Functionalism 364 Conflict Theory 365 Symbolic Interactionism 365 Feminist and Queer Theory 366 Mate Selection 367 Relationship Trends 368 Unmarried Life 368 Single and Solo Parenting 369 Blended Families 370 Childfree Living 371 Breaking Up 371 ON THE JOB: When Building Families Is Part of Your Job 372 Custody, Visitation, and Child Support 373 The Work of Family 373 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Everyday Life: Comparative Mealtime 374 Gender, Sexuality, and Family Labor 375 Family and the Life Course 376 IN RELATIONSHIPS: From Boomerang Kids to the Sandwich Generation 377 Aging in the Family 378 Trouble in Families 378 Intimate Partner Violence 379 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Media and Pop Culture: Family Troubles in Film 380 Child and Elder Abuse 381 IN THE FUTURE: Trends in Baby Making: Back to the Future? 382 Postmodern Families: The New Normal 383 Closing Comments 383 xviii CONTENTS CHAPTER 13: Leisure and Media 386 How to Read This Chapter 389 A Sociology of Leisure 389 What Is Leisure? 389 Trends in Leisure 390 ON THE JOB: Professional Musicians: Playing Is Work 392 The Study of Media 393 The Media and Democracy 393 The Structure of Media Industries 394 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Media and Pop Culture: Blockbuster Hits and the Business of Movies 394 The Regulation of Media Content 398 Culture and Consumption of Media 399 High, Low, and Popular Culture 399 IN THE FUTURE: The Return of Free-Range Kids? 400 Media Effects and Audiences 401 Theories of Media Effects 402 Active Audiences: Minimal Effects Theories 402 Interpretive Strategies and Communities 403 Leisure and Relationships 405 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: The Other Football 406 Leisure and Community 407 Collectors and Hobbyists 408 Hangouts: The Third Place 409 IN RELATIONSHIPS: Fan–Celebrity Relations 410 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Everyday Life: Now Go Hang Out 410 Travel and Tourism 412 Closing Comments 413 CHAPTER 14: Health and Illness 416 How to Read This Chapter 419 The Sociology of Medicine, Health, and Illness 419 Defining Health and Illness 420 Types of Illnesses 420 Approaches to Medical Treatment 421 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Everyday Life: Student Health Issues Survey 421 CONTENTS xix The Process of Medicalization 423 The Social Construction of Mental Illness 423 IN THE FUTURE: Solving the Mystery of Autism 424 Epidemiology and Disease Patterns 425 Social Inequality, Health, and Illness 427 Intersections of Class 427 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: Zika Virus: Women and Children Last 428 Intersections of Race 429 Intersections of Gender 429 IN RELATIONSHIPS: Better Living through Chemistry 430 Inequality and the Problem of Food Deserts 430 Medicine as a Social Institution 432 Institutional Contexts 433 Doctor–Patient Relations 433 ON THE JOB: Cultural Competence in Health Professions 434 The Sick Role 436 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Media and Pop Culture: Medicine on Television 437 Issues in Medicine and Health Care 438 Health Care Reform in the United States 438 Complementary and Alternative Medicine 439 Medical Ethics 440 End of Life 441 Closing Comments 441 PART V: Envisioning the Future and Creating Social Change 444 CHAPTER 15: Populations, Cities, and the Environment 448 How to Read This Chapter 451 Population 451 Demography 451 IN THE FUTURE: Living to 150 453 Theories of Population Change 454 xx CONTENTS Cities 456 Trends in Urbanization 458 ON THE JOB: Agriculture: From the Country to the City 459 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Media and Pop Culture: Imagining the Cities of Tomorrow 460 Living in the City 462 IN RELATIONSHIPS: Encounters with Strangers 464 The Environment 465 Environmental Problems 466 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: Water, Water Everywhere but Not a Drop to Drink 470 Environmental Sociology 471 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Everyday Life: Student Attitudes on Environmentalism 472 Closing Comments 477 CHAPTER 16: Social Change 480 How to Read This Chapter 483 What Is Social Change? 483 ON THE JOB: Helping Professions: Agents of Social Change 484 Collective Behavior 485 Crowds 485 Mass Behavior 487 Social Movements 489 Promoting and Resisting Change 489 IN RELATIONSHIPS: Hashtag Activism: #Resist with #Indivisible 491 Theories of Social Movements 492 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Everyday Life: Activist Groups Get Organized 494 Stages in a Social Movement 495 Technology and Social Change 496 IN THE FUTURE: Utopia—or Doomsday? 497 DATA WORKSHOP: Analyzing Media and Pop Culture: The “Unplug” Experiment 498 Technology in the Global Village 499 CONTENTS xxi GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: Bhutan and Gross National Happiness 500 Living in a Postmodern World 502 Closing Comments 503 GLOSSARY G-1 REFERENCES R-1 CREDITS C-1 INDEX I-1 xxii CONTENTS Preface W elcome to the Sixth Edition of The Real World: An Introduction to Sociology. We hope you will appreciate what is new not only in the textbook’s fresh look and updated materials, but also what is new in the innovative ways it goes about teaching sociology. That’s exactly what we set out to do when we first embarked on the original project of writing this textbook, and it’s what we continue to do here in the Sixth Edition. At the beginning, we had had years of experience in college and university classrooms, teaching introductory sociology to thousands of students from all backgrounds and walks of life; we had discovered a lot about what works and what doesn’t when it comes to making sociology exciting and effective. As seasoned instructors, we had developed an approach to teaching and learning that reflected our passion for the subject and our concern with best practices in pedagogy. But we were having trouble finding a textbook that encompassed all the elements we had identified and that made such a difference in our own experience. We were tired of seeing the same old formulas found in almost every textbook. And we figured we were not alone. Other students and instructors were probably equally frustrated with repetitive formats, stodgy styles, and seemingly irrelevant or overly predictable materials. That is a great misfortune, for sociology, at its best, is a discipline that holds great value and is both intellectually stimulating and personally resonant. Although the impetus to write this textbook began as a way of answering our own needs, our goal became to create a textbook of even greater benefit to others who might also be looking for something new. We are gratified by the response The Real World has received from instructors and students alike, so we are preserving many of the features that have made the textbook a success. At the same time, we have done more than just simply revise the textbook. In this edition, you will find significant new content and added features that will further enhance the teaching and learning process, and keep us as close to the cutting edge as possible. Many of the original elements we developed for students and instructors appear again in these pages. As a foundation, we have maintained a writing style that we hope is accessible and interesting as well as scholarly. One of the core pedagogical strengths of this textbook is its focus on everyday life, the media, technology, and pop culture. We know that the combination of these themes is inherently appealing to students, and that it relates to their lives. And because both new generations and more experienced sociology instructors might also be looking for something different, another of this book’s strengths is an integrated emphasis on critical thinking and analytic skills. Rather than merely presenting or reviewing major concepts in sociology, which can often seem dry and remote, we seek to make the abstract more concrete through real-world examples and hands-on applications. In this text we take a fresh and accessible theoretical approach appropriate to our contemporary world. While we emphasize the interactionist perspective, we cover a range of theoretical thought, including postmodernism. We also build innovative methodological exercises into each chapter, giving students the opportunity to put into practice what they are learning. We present material that is familiar and relevant to students in a way that allows them to make profound analytic connections between their individual xxiii lives and the structure of their society. We provide instructors with ways to reenergize their teaching, and we give even general education students a reason to be fascinated by and engrossed in their sociology courses. We do this by staying in touch with our students and the rapidly changing real world, and by bringing our insight, experience, and intellectual rigor to bear on a new way of teaching introductory sociology. Whether you are a student or an instructor, you have probably seen a lot of textbooks. As authors, we have thought very carefully about how to write this textbook to make it more meaningful and effective for you. We think it is important to point out some newly added and unique features of this textbook and to tell you why they are included and what we hope you will get out of them. Part Introductions The sixteen chapters in this text are grouped into five parts, and each part opens with its own introductory essay. Each part introduction highlights a piece of original sociological research that encompasses the major themes that group the chapters together. The in-depth discussion of the featured book shows what the real work of academic sociologists consists of and reveals how sociological research frequently unites topics covered in separate chapters in introductory textbooks. Opening Vignettes Each chapter begins with an opening vignette that gives students an idea about the topics or themes they will encounter in the chapter. The vignettes are drawn from current events and everyday life, the media, arts, and popular culture. They are designed to grab your attention and stimulate your curiosity to learn more by reading the chapter that follows. particular real-world case study. This serves as a simple, practical model for students to then make their own applications and analyses. Bolded In-Text Terms As a student of sociology, you will be learning many new concepts and terms. Throughout each chapter, you will see a number of words or phrases in bold type. You may already recognize some of these from their more common vernacular use. But it is important to pay special attention to the way that they are used sociologically. For this reason you will find definitions in the margins of each page, where you can refer to them as you read. You should consider these bolded words and phrases your conceptual “tools” for doing sociology. As you progress through the chapters in this textbook, you will be collecting the contents of a toolkit that you can use to better understand yourself and the world around you. The bolded terms can also be found in the Glossary at the back of the book. Relevance Boxes In each chapter you will find Relevance Boxes with three different themes: On the Job, In Relationships, and In the Future. Relevance Boxes allow students to see the practical implications and personal value of sociology in their lives. On the Job explores the ways different people use sociological training or insights in a variety of work settings. In Relationships looks at how sociology can help us to better understand our friendships, intimate partnerships, and family relations. In the Future provides a glimpse into emerging trends in a rapidly changing society, and what students might expect to encounter on the horizon. We include these boxes to show how taking this course could bear fruit in your life (and in the lives of others) beyond just fulfilling your college requirements. How to Read This Chapter After the vignette, you will find a section that provides you with some goals and strategies that we believe will be useful in reading that particular chapter. We know from our experience in teaching introductory sociology that it is often worthwhile to let students know what to expect in advance so that they can better make their way through the material. Not all chapters require the same approach; we want to bring to your attention what we think is the best approach to each one, so you can keep that in mind while reading. Theory in Everyday Life Although we provide thorough coverage in Chapter 1, we find that students often benefit from additional help with understanding the mechanics of social theory and how to apply it to various real-world phenomena. These boxes in every chapter break down the major theoretical approaches and illustrate how each perspective might be used to analyze a xxiv PREFACE Data Workshops Data Workshops are designed to give students the opportunity to gain hands-on experience in the practice of sociology while they are learning. We think this is one of the most fun parts of being a sociologist. Each chapter features two Data Workshops, one on “Analyzing Everyday Life” and one on “Analyzing Media and Pop Culture.” Students will use one of the research methods covered in Chapter 2 to deal with actual data from the real world—whether it’s data they collect themselves or raw data provided from another source. The Data Workshops lead students through the process of analyzing data using the related conceptual tools they have just acquired in the chapter. For the Sixth Edition, we now offer online tutorials for eight of the in-text Data Workshops, which we hope will make these popular exercises easier to assign and grade. Each Data Workshop is also included in the Interactive Instructor’s Guide (IIG). Global Perspective Boxes Although this textbook focuses primarily on contemporary American society, we believe that in this time of increasing globalization, it is also important to look at other societies around the world. Each chapter includes a Global Perspective box that highlights some of the differences and similarities between the United States and other cultures. This feature will help students develop the ability to see comparative and analogous patterns across cultures, which is one of the key functions of a sociological perspective. Images and Graphics We think that it is crucial to include not only written information but also images and graphics in the textbook. This kind of presentation is increasingly common and students are likely to encounter complex information in graphical form in many of their textbooks. We want to help students gain in visual literacy as they are exposed to a variety of materials and learn in different ways. We also know that students share our interest in media, technology, and popular culture, and we want to show the connections between real life and sociological thinking. For these reasons, you will find many kinds of images and graphics in each chapter. These are not just decorations; they are an integral part of the text, so please study these as carefully as you would the rest of the printed page. Closing Comments Each chapter ends with closing comments that wrap up the discussion and give some final thoughts about the important themes that have been covered. This gives us a chance not so much to summarize or reiterate but to reflect, in a slightly different way, on what we have discussed, as well as to point to the future. We hope that the closing comments will give you something to think about, or even talk about with others, long after you’ve finished reading the chapter. End-of-Chapter Materials The end of each chapter contains additional materials that will enhance the learning process. “Everything You Need to Know About ” review apparatus at the end of each chapter includes checklists, review questions, prompts about the Everyday Sociology blog, and infographics. They are designed to be easy to read and understand quickly, condensing the most important information from the chapter into two pages. In our experience, the most important thing for students to take away from an introductory sociology class is a sociological perspective—not just a storehouse of facts, which will inevitably fade over time. Sociology promises a new way of looking at and thinking about the social world, which can serve students in good stead no matter what they find themselves doing in the future. We hope that this textbook delivers on that promise, making introductory sociology an intellectually stimulating and personally relevant enterprise for professors and students, in the classroom as well as outside it. Resources InQuizitive This adaptive learning tool personalizes quiz questions for each student in an engaging, gamelike environment to help them master the core sociological concepts presented in every chapter of The Real World. Used as a pre-lecture tool, InQuizitive helps students come to class better prepared to apply the sociological concepts from the reading. A new “How to Read Charts and Graphs” activity helps students improve their data literacy. The Real World Ebook Norton Ebooks give students and instructors an enhanced reading experience at a fraction of the cost of a print textbook. The ebook for The Real World can be viewed on—and synced among—all computers and mobile devices and allows students to take notes, bookmark, search, highlight, and even read offline. Instructors can add their own notes for students. Everyday Sociology Blog everydaysociologyblog.com Designed for a general audience, this exciting and unique online forum encourages visitors to actively explore sociology’s relevance to pop culture, media, and everyday life. Moderated by Karen Sternheimer (University of Southern California), the blog features postings on topical subjects, video interviews with well-known sociologists, as well as contributions from special guests during the academic year. Sociology in Practice DVDs This DVD series, including a new “Sociology in Practice: Thinking about Gender” DVD, contains more than fourteen hours of video clips drawn from documentaries by independent filmmakers. The clips are ideal for initiating classroom discussion and encouraging students to apply sociological concepts to popular and real-world issues. The clips are offered in streaming versions in the coursepack. Each streamed clip is accompanied by a quiz, exercise, or activity. Coursepack The coursepack for the Sixth Edition of The Real World offers a variety of activities and assessment and review materials for instructors who use Blackboard and other learning management systems: ✱ Multiple-choice chapter-review quizzes ✱ Key term flashcards and matching quizzes PREFACE xxv ✱ Streaming clips from the Sociology in Practice DVD series, including the new “Thinking about Gender” DVD ✱ Discussion questions and multiple-choice quizzes for select Sociology in Practice DVD clips ✱ Census activities (select chapters) Interactive Instructor’s Guide The easy-to-navigate Interactive Instructor’s Guide makes lecture development easy with an array of teaching resources that can be searched and browsed according to a number of criteria. Resources include chapter outlines, blog exercises, suggested readings, lecture ideas, and discussion questions. Test Bank The questions in The Real World Test Bank, 25 percent of which are new to the Sixth Edition, were written to conform to Bloom’s taxonomy. There are 60–70 multiple-choice and 10–15 essay questions per chapter. Available in PDF, ExamView, Word, BNK, and RTF formats. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the many people who helped make this textbook possible. To everyone at W. W. Norton, we believe you are absolutely the best publisher in the business and that we are fortunate to get to work with you. Thank you, Roby Harrington, for signing us. Our deep appreciation goes out to Steve Dunn for believing in us and playing such a critical role in shaping the original vision of this project. Thank you for showing us we could do this and for your substantial support throughout. We would like to acknowledge Melea Seward for her efforts during the early drafts of the book. Her innovative approach and enthusiasm were much appreciated. We owe much gratitude to Karl Bakeman for his tremendous talent, work, and dedication on our behalf. His vision and leadership has been an inspiration, and a central reason for the success of this book. We feel so lucky to be a part of your team. This edition marks the second with our gifted editor Sasha Levitt, who brought phenomenally great ideas, energy, and enthusiasm to the project as well as a special talent for corralling wayward authors. We appreciate how much you invested in joining us in this work. This edition is all the better because of your exceptional generosity, creativity, and determination. We have many others to thank as well. We are especially grateful to our project editor, Diane Cipollone; production manager, Eric Pier-Hocking; and editorial assistant, Erika Nakagawa, for managing the countless details involved in creating this book. Jane Miller and Ted Szczepanski showed wonderful creativity in the photo research that they did for The Real World. Media editor, Eileen Connell, associate media editor, Mary Williams, and media assistant, Grace Tuttle, developed xxvi PREFACE the best textbook-support materials in sociology. Design director, Hope Miller Goodell, illustrator, Alex Eben Meyer, and the designers at Faceout Studio deserve special thanks for creating the beautiful design and art for the book. And we are very appreciative of the exceptional Norton “travelers”; it is through their efforts that this book has gotten out into the world. In the course of our creating the Sixth Edition, many instructors offered advice and comments on particular chapters, or in some cases, large sections of the text. We are deeply indebted to them. Brooke Bain, California State University, Fullerton Chris Baker, Walters State Community College Leslie Baker-Kimmons, Chicago State University Marissa Bañuelos, California State University, Fullerton Thomas Barry, Central Oregon Community College Christopher Biga, University of Alabama at Birmingham Elson Boles, Saginaw Valley State University Mike Bossick, Central Piedmont Community College Sergio Bouda, California State University, Fullerton Jeneve Brooks, Troy University Nina Brown, Community College of Baltimore County Raven Bruno, Cape Fear Community College Favor Campbell, University of Texas at San Antonio Laura Colmenero-Chilberg, Black Hills State University Molly Cueto, Lone Star College–Kingwood Gayle D’Andrea, J Sargeant Reynolds Community College Sophia Demasi, Montgomery County Community College Gianna Durso-Finley, Mercer County Community College Marilyn Espitia, San Diego Miramar College Catherine Felton, Central Piedmont Community College Janie Filoteo, Lone Star College–Tomball John Gannon, College of Southern Nevada– Charleston Tiffany Gause, Saddleback College Patricia Gibbs, Foothill College Jan Gordon, Surry Community College Melissa Gosdin, Albany State University Edward Gott, Northeast Wisconsin Technical College Matt Gregory, University of Massachusetts–Boston Tara Hefferan, Central Michigan University Anthony Hickey, Western Carolina University David Hilton, Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College Jean Hoth, Rochester Community and Technical College Christopher Huggins, University of Kentucky Danielle James, Community College of Baltimore County Leigh Keever, Chattahoochee Technical College Kimberly Lancaster, Coastal Carolina Community College Thomas LaPorte, Chattahoochee Technical College Andrew Lash, Valencia College Jon Loessin, Wharton County Junior College Tim Lubben, Kennesaw State University Crystal Lupo, Auburn University Wilbrod Madzura, Normandale Community College Lori Maida, Westchester County Community College Kenneth Mentor, University of North Carolina–Pembroke Barret Michalec, University of Delaware Susan Miller, Palomar College Tina Mougouris, San Jacinto College– Central Ken Muir, Appalachian State University Layana Navarre-Jackson, University of Iowa Christina Partin, University of South Florida Michael Perez, California State University, Fullerton Marla A. Perry, Nashville State Community College Carla Pfeffer, University of South Carolina Andrew Pollard, Niagara County Community College Robert Pullen, Troy University Aaryn Purvis, Pearl River Community College Carter Rakovski, California State University, Fullerton Julie Reid, University of Southern Mississippi Tamatha Renae Esguerra, California State University, Fullerton Michael Rutz, John Tyler Community College Chad Sexton, Ocean County College Deirdre Slavik, Northwest Arkansas Community College Emery Smith, Umpqua Community College Mindy Stombler, Georgia State University Adrienne Trier-Bieniek, Valencia College Linda Vang, Fresno City College Nancy White, Coastal Carolina Community College James Williams, John Tyler Community College KC Williams, Coastal Carolina Community College Terri Winnick, Ohio State University–Mansfield Amy Wong, San Diego State University Robert Wood, South Plains College Jennifer Woodruff, Heartland Community College Susan Wurtzburg, University of Hawaii–Manoa Sharon Wiederstein, Blinn College Matt Wray, Temple University Anna Zajacova, Western University We would also like to thank the research assistants who worked with us on this project: Laurica Brown, Nathaniel Burke, Whitney Bush, Kate Grimaldi, Lauren Gunther, Mary Ingram, Ja’Nean Palacios, and Karl Thulin. Very special thanks to Neil Dryden, and also to Natasha Chen Christiansen, whose thoughtful contributions to multiple editions of the text have proven invaluable. We wish to especially thank Al Ferris for his wise and generous counsel in helping us to establish our corporate identity and at every juncture along the way. Thanks to Kevin Ebenhoch for his friendly and efficient services. We would like to thank our families and friends whose encouragement and support helped to sustain us through the length of this project and beyond. It is also with great pleasure that we thank our spouses Greg Wennerdahl and David Unger, respectively—you appeared in our lives just as we were completing the first edition, and your continued presence through this process has been a source of strength and joy. We are happy to have shared these many editions with you. To Marissa Unger, an impressive reader and writer herself, thanks for being such a positive model of your generation for us. And to our newest reader, Eliot Julian Ferris-Wennerdahl (E.J.): may you always approach life’s challenges with wonder, hope, and a sense of endless possibility. We are grateful to colleagues who have served as mentors in our intellectual development and as inspiration to a life of writing. And finally, we offer our thanks to all of the students we have had the privilege to work with over the years. Getting to share the sociological imagination with you makes it all worthwhile. Kerry Ferris Jill Stein PREFACE xxvii Changes in the Sixth Edition Part 1 (Thinking Sociologically and Doing Sociology): The Part 1 opener now introduces readers to Princeton sociologist Matthew Desmond, author of On the Fireline and the Pulitzer Prize–winning Evicted: Power and Profit in the American City. By tracing his path to sociology, the opener gives students the opportunity to see how this influential scholar’s background propelled him toward his profession. Chapter 1 (Sociology and the Real World): The chapter opens with a new discussion of the Discovery Channel’s reality show Naked and Afraid. Everyday actor and social analyst have been added as key terms. The In Relationships box on men talking more than women now includes a discussion of the recently coined phenomenon of “mansplaining” and associated research. Data from 2016 on the gender makeup of certain professions, including auto mechanics and secretaries, support the assertion that the U.S. labor market is still heavily gender segregated. Critical race theory has been added as a crucial branch of thought that actively studies institutional racism and the way race intersects with other identities. Data on the number of students who are awarded a BA degree in sociology have been updated. The “Analyzing Media and Pop Culture” Data Workshop has been thoroughly revised and now highlights the 2016 presidential campaign as an example of a situation where celebrity gossip and hard news converged. Chapter 2 (Studying Social Life: Sociological Research Methods): The discussion of autoethnography has been expanded. In the discussion of interview methods, the authors introduce readers to sociologist Tamara Mose’s 2016 interview study of NYC parents and how they use playdates to ensure that both parents and children socialize with people like themselves, reproducing inequalities of class and race. The discussion of the growing popularity of using the Internet, including SurveyMonkey, to conduct research has been expanded. In the section on existing sources, the authors now discuss how social historian Peter Stearns consulted childrearing manuals for his comparative historical study of the changing meanings of childhood during the 19th and 20th centuries. An entirely new section explores social network analysis (SNA) as an emerging research method that can be used to study disease transmission, information diffusion, and adolescent risk behaviors. A new On the Job box explores the career path of a recent sociology major who went on to work for market research firm Nielsen, highlighting the value of a sociological imagination. The section on research ethics now explores the controversy surrounding Alice Goffman’s 2014 ethnography On the Run. xxix Chapter 3 (Culture): A brand new chapter opener on bathroom bills and the fight for transgender rights introduces the concept of culture wars. The section on signs, gestures, and language now includes an expanded discussion of emojis. A new “Analyzing Everyday Life” Data Workshop, titled “Seeing Culture in Subculture,” invites students to use their sociological imaginations to observe a subcultural group to which they belong and examine both material and symbolic culture. The discussion of patriot groups has been updated with a new discussion of the 41-day armed occupation of Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016. Data on the number of anti-government patriot groups have been updated. The discussion of countercultural groups now includes a discussion of hacktivist groups such as Anonymous. The culture wars section has been updated with a discussion of the Alt-Right movement as well as former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s protest of racial inequality. The section on cultural diffusion now discusses Japan’s Metabo Law, which requires overweight people to attend dieting classes. A new In the Future box on online radicalization explores how terrorist organizations such as ISIS and domestic extremist groups use the Internet to attract followers. Chapter 4 (Socialization, Interaction, and the Self): The section on social isolation now tells the story of Christopher Knight—better known as the North Pond Hermit— and what happened to his sense of self after 27 years living in complete isolation. The discussion of family as an agent of socialization now references Ralph LaRossa’s research on fathers. The “Analyzing Media and Pop Culture” Data Workshop now includes shows that depict persons with disabilities and transgender characters. A new On the Job box on emotion work explores Louwanda Evans’s recent research on black pilots and black flight attendants and how they deal with racism on the job. The discussion of Sherry Turkle’s work has been updated to include her most recent book, Reclaiming Conversation (2015). Chapter 5 (Separate and Together: Life in Groups): The chapter- opening discussion of the FAMU hazing incident now includes the conclusion to the lawsuit. A new In the Future box considers the future of virtual reality technology and its possible effect on group ties. The discussion of the Internet’s role in developing or undermining human connection has been streamlined. In the Data Workshop, data on social media users and Facebook users have been updated to reflect their ever-increasing popularity. The section on reference groups now uses peer groups as its main example. The 2016 presidential election is used as an example of groupthink. The Global Perspective box (Group vs. Individual Norms) has been updated with additional statistics about honor killings and a new example: the 2016 murder of Pakistani social media star Qandeel Baloch in xxx CHANGES IN THE SIXTH EDITION an alleged honor killing. Jeff Bezos’s “two pizza rule” is mentioned in the discussion of social loafing. The section on leadership styles now considers gender stereotypes and Sheryl Sandberg’s recent efforts to encourage women to “lean in.” Chapter 6 (Deviance): The chapter opener on the changing ideas surrounding marijuana use has been reworked and updated in light of recent legislation legalizing the substance. In the section on theories of deviance, Travis Hirschi’s social control theory is now introduced and defined. In the section on conflict theory, Richard Quinney’s theory of capitalism and its role in encouraging deviance is explained. The 2008 recession is provided as a new example of how wealth and privilege protect the powerful from being defined as deviant or punished. NBC’s The Biggest Loser is now used to demonstrate primary and secondary deviance. The discussion of cyberbullying has become the basis for a new In Relationships box on online deviance. The “Analyzing Media and Pop Culture” Data Workshop has been updated with new TV shows and now asks students to consider what types of deviance are absent from TV. Data throughout “The Study of Crime” section, including the homicide rate and arrest rates by age, gender, and race, have been updated. Figure 6.2, on violent crime and property crime rates, has also been updated with 2015 data. Criminology and cybercrime have been added as key terms. The discussion of age and crime has been expanded. The discussion of race and crime now draws on Michelle Alexander’s work to show how race shapes one’s life chances even after serving time. A new section on hate crimes, with up-to-date statistics from the FBI, has been added. A new figure charts the incarceration rate in the United States from 1925 to 2015. A new section discusses the prison-industrial complex and prison privatization. In the end-of-chapter spread, the “Who Goes to Prison in the United States?” bar chart has been updated with 2015 data. The end-of-chapter spread now directs students to a recent Everyday Sociology blog post on what has been called the Ferguson effect. Chapter 7 (Social Classes: The Structure of Inequality): The chapter opener has been tweaked to clarify that the photos included show average families across the globe. New statistics from the Walkfree Foundation and the National Human Trafficking Hotline shed light on the scope of modern slavery in the United States and across the globe. A new section on Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow (2011) highlights discrimination based on criminal convictions. Data on the wealthiest Americans have been updated. The Kardashians are included as an example of individuals who converted their wealth into celebrity. A new study by Stanford economist Raj Chetty is included to highlight diminishing social mobility in the United States. The section on symbolic interactionism now discusses a study by Christine Mallinson and Becky Child that explores linguistic patterns among different groups of black Appalachian women. In the “Socioeconomic Status and Life Chances” section, data on average age at first marriage, health insurance coverage, median earnings, and educational attainment have all been updated. Figure 7.2 on college enrollment by income level has been updated. Data on TANF and SNAP recipients have been updated. Federal poverty line has been added as a key term, and the discussion of poverty has been updated with 2016 data, including Figures 7.4 and 7.5. Data related to federal spending have been updated in the text and in Figure 7.6. In light of the twentieth anniversary of welfare reform, a new discussion of Kathryn Edin and H. Luke Shaefer’s book, $2 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America (2016), examines the effect of welfare reform on families and individuals that used to rely on these safety net programs. More recent public opinion polls on welfare and poverty have been added. The On the Job box has been updated with more recent information on the “Fight for $15” movement, including companies that have raised their minimum wages. The “Culture of Poverty” section now highlights research by Thomas Piketty on the rise of “supermanagers” earning “supersalaries.” The discussion of political disenfranchisement has been updated with a discussion of the 2016 Olympics. The digital divide section has been updated with more recent data on Internet access by household income and educational attainment as well as a new study on the use of the Internet for job hunting. Data on homelessness in NYC have been updated. A new In the Future box draws on Professor Andrew Sayer’s new book, Why We Can’t Afford the Rich (2016), to illustrate why extreme wealth should be considered a serious social problem. This box also introduces the new key terms wealth gap and oligarchy. Data on credit card debt and student loan debt have been updated. New polls indicate Millennials’ views on the American Dream. Chapter 8 (Race and Ethnicity as Lived Experience): A brand new chapter opener uses recent tweets by comedian Chris Rock to introduce a discussion of racial profiling in traffic stops, or “driving while black.” The section on defining race now discusses the “one drop” rule. A new discussion of the Scotch-Irish people, including a reference to J.D. Vance and his blockbuster memoir Hillbilly Elegy, has been added to the section on ethnicity. A new section, titled “The U.S. Population by Race,” examines the changing racial landscape of the United States, with a focus on the rise in people who identify as belonging to more than one race. The data on minorities have been updated with more recent information and predictions, and Figure 8.1 has been updated with 2016 data and now includes percentages. New polls show Americans’ views on race relations. The discussion of institutional discrimination has been thoroughly rewritten and now centers on the recent DOJ investigation into the Ferguson Police Department. Ta-Nehisi Coates’s Between the World and Me (2015) is also featured. A new section explores the rise of white nationalist groups, highlighting the recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia, as well as research by Joe Feagin. A new discussion of racial microaggressions has been added, as well as a reference to 2016 blockbuster Get Out. The controversy regarding cultural appropriation in Hollywood has been updated with more contemporary film examples. The discussion of Rachel Dolezal now highlights Rogers Brubaker’s provocative new proposition about the permeability of race and gender, contrasting Caitlyn Jenner’s coming-out as transgender with Dolezal’s outing as white. The authors also point to Paris Jackson, and her racial self-identification, as an intriguing counterpoint. A new section introduces and defines the concept of reverse racism, highlighting a recent survey about discrimination against whites. Anti-racist allies are covered in a new section. A new In the Future box on the Black Lives Matter movement explores ways that students can fight systemic racism. Critical race theory is now introduced and defined within the section on conflict theories of race. The In Relationships box has been updated with more recent data on the prevalence of, and public opinion on, interracial marriage. Data throughout the “Race, Ethnicity, and Life Chances” section, including data on marriage rates and birth rates by race, have been updated. The discussion of health disparities has been expanded and now highlights new research by Case and Deaton on the rise in “deaths of despair” among white Americans without a college degree. Data on life expectancy and health insurance coverage have been updated. The discussion of education now includes new research by both Victor Rios, on the “school-to-prison” pipeline, and Claude Steele, on stereotype threat, as well as updated high school graduation rates. The “Work and Income” section has been updated with 2016 data on the racial and ethnic composition of the workforce and median household income by race, and now discusses an experimental study on the effect of racially identifiable names on hiring decisions. The On the Job box on diversity initiatives has been overhauled and now focuses on research by Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev. In the criminal justice section, data on the racial breakdown of the prison population, as well as murder rates by race and racially motivated hate crimes, have been updated and a new discussion on racial profiling in traffic stops has been added. A new Data Workshop, titled “Does TV Reflect the Realities of Race?” has students do a content analysis of a current TV show with minority characters, such as Black-ish, Fresh Off the Boat, and Master of None. A new Global Perspectives box on the Syrian Civil War focuses on the struggles faced by Syrian refugees settling in new communities. The end-of-chapter spread now directs students to a recent Everyday Sociology blog post on how Get Out reinterprets W.E.B. DuBois’s concept of double consciousness. CHANGES IN THE SIXTH EDITION xxxi Chapter 9 (Constructing Gender and Sexuality): The chapter opener on Caster Semenya has been updated to consider a recent IAAF ruling on testosterone levels in female athletes as well as Semenya’s participation in the Rio Olympics. The discussion of intersex people now highlights sociologist Georgiann Davis’s critique of the classification of intersex as a medical disorder. The Global Perspectives box now includes a discussion of bacha posh, girls in Afghanistan who are dressed up and treated like boys. The In Relationships box on rape culture has been thoroughly revised and now discusses the infamous Stanford Rape Case as well as recent research by Lisa Wade on hookup culture. The discussion of transgender representation on TV shows has been updated with new examples. In the section on prejudice and discrimination, a recent internal memo written by a male engineer at Google pointing to biological differences as partly to blame for the low representation of women in tech is highlighted. Misogyny has been added as a key term. Data on hate crimes motivated by anti–sexual orientation or anti–gender identity sentiment have been added. In the “Gender, Sexuality, and Life Chances” section, data on differing marriage and divorce rates by sex, the gender gap in life expectancy, and educational attainment by sex have all been updated. A new school climate survey highlights rates of harassment of LGBT students. The In the Future box on human trafficking has been thoroughly revised to better reflect the current state of the issue, including current estimates on the prevalence of human trafficking. The discussion of work and income has been updated with 2016 data on labor force participation by sex and marital status, the gender wage gap, and the sex segregation of certain professions. The section on women in the military has been updated to reflect the fact that women are now eligible for combat roles. Data on female personnel and sexual assault in the military have been updated. A new On the Job box takes an in-depth look at the gender pay gap and its causes, highlighting the story of the U.S. women’s national ice hockey team. In the section on criminal justice, data on arrest rates by sex, homicide rates by sex, and hate crimes have been updated. Public opinion on gay marriage has been updated. In the end-of-chapter spread, data on female representation on corporate boards of directors have been updated. Chapter 10 (Social Institutions: Politics, Education, and Religion): The discussion of voting in the United States now includes coverage of the 2016 election, including voter participation rates by different demographic factors. In the section on interest groups, the percentage of incumbent representatives and senators reelected in 2016 has been added. A discussion of Super PAC spending in the 2016 election cycle has been added. The discussion of the media and the political process has been thoroughly revised in light of the election of Donald Trump, including new coverage of his campaign and xxxii CHANGES IN THE SIXTH EDITION how he was able to successfully court the media. The Data Workshop on satirical news shows has been updated with new shows such as Full Frontal with Samantha Bee. The section on social media has been revised to consider the role of social media in the 2016 presidential election, including the emergence of “fake news.” The topic of patriotism and protest now includes coverage of the 2017 Women’s March on Washington. In the section on education, data on high school graduation and dropout rates, median earnings by educational attainment, and unemployment rates by educational attainment have all been updated. The In the Future box on the value of a college degree has been updated with lifetime earnings by educational attainment data as well as a new discussion of earnings by college major. The discussion of charter schools has been updated with more recent data. Data on community college enrollment have been updated. The On the Job box on for-profit colleges has been updated to reflect recent action taken by Congress as well as more recent data on for-profit enrollment, fees, and loans. In the introductory section on theoretical approaches to religion, a new reference to Max Weber’s theory on the relationship between Protestant Christian values and capitalism has been added. The discussion of the rise of evangelicalism has been updated with more recent data. The discussion of the separation of church and state now references the 2015 controversy over displaying the Ten Commandments at the Oklahoma State Capitol. The “Voter Turnout by Educational Level” figure in the end-of-chapter spread now looks at the 2016 election. Chapter 11 (The Economy and Work): The section on industrial work highlights the recent drop in manufacturing jobs, due both to automation and offshoring. The discussion of telecommuting has been updated based on a recent Gallup report on the state of the American workplace. The discussion of resistance strategies now looks at the recent case of federal employees at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior, among other agencies, setting up rogue Twitter accounts in order to leak information to the public. A new In the Future box, titled “Will Your Job Be ‘ Uber-ized’?” charts the rise of the gig economy, highlighting its effect on those who still rely on traditional employment. Data on union membership and strikes have been updated. The discussion of corporate citizenship now references the “We Are Still In” letter created in the wake of President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord. The topic of international trade now mentions the Trans Pacific Partnership. Data on transnational corporations and the table ranking the world’s economies have been updated. Data on foreign employment by U.S. companies as well as IT export revenue to India have been updated. The discussion of the outsourcing of surrogacy has been updated in light of recent legislation. The “Professional Socialization in Unusual Fields” section now looks at Matthew Desmond’s study of wildland firefighters and how the men are socialized before they even apply for the job. The On the Job box on internships includes data from the class of 2016. Data on volunteering have been updated. A new section compares U.S. workers to workers from other developed countries, specifically highlighting how the United States stacks up when it comes to paid vacation time. The figures on “Who Works at Minimum Wage?” in the end-of-chapter spread have been updated with 2017 data. Chapter 12 (Life at Home: Families and Relationships): The section on mate selection now references a recent study on what Americans say they are most looking for in a mate, including a new figure with the survey results. The discussion of interracial marriage has been thoroughly updated and now looks at intermarriage rates by race as well as changes in public opinion. The “Relationship Trends” section includes a new figure that shows the breakdown of different types of households in 2016. The discussion of cohabitation has been expanded. Data on nonmarital childbearing, single-parent households, and remarriage have been updated. The discussion of child-free adults now includes research on the effect of children on parents’ happiness levels. A reconceived On the Job box now focuses on workers who help build families through foster care and adoption. The discussion of “breaking up” now looks at research into the tendency of divorce to run in families. The section on custody and child support has been updated with data from a 2016 U.S. Census Bureau report on custodial parents. Data in the “Aging in the Family” section, including life expectancy, elderly poverty, older adults living alone, and adults living in nursing homes, have all been updated. The “Trouble in Families” section now introduces the term intimate partner violence and includes data on prevalence and rates across different groups. The list of films included in the Data Workshop has been updated. The In the Future box now includes data on out-of-hospital births as well as research on the effect of doulas. Data on child and elder abuse have been updated. Chapter 13 (Leisure and Media): The chapter opener on Bollywood now includes a reference to 2016 Best Picture nominee La La Land. The “What Is Leisure?” section includes a new figure that breaks down leisure activities by age group. Data on employment in the leisure/hospitality sector as well as amount of money spent on entertainment in the United States have been updated. The discussion of the National Basketball League and the value of NBA teams has been updated with data released in 2017. The “Media and Democracy” section now includes a discussion of how social media have made it possible for politicians to bypass traditional media outlets, specifically Donald Trump’s use of Twitter. The discussion of mergers now references the 2017 merger of Verizon and Yahoo. Table 13.1 has been updated with 2016 revenue. A new section titled “Who Regulates the Internet?” discusses developments in the fight for net neutrality. The discussion of high and low culture now includes a reference to Lin-Manuel Miranda’s hip hop–inspired musical Hamilton. In the section on interpretive strategies, Beyoncé’s visual album, Lemonade, is presented as an example of a cultural product that can be read in a number of different ways. The discussion of textual poaching now considers how new technologies have made it even easier to engage with pop culture. The travel and tourism section now includes a discussion of America’s National Park System and has been updated with 2015 data. Chapter 14 (The Sociology of Medicine, Health, and Illness): A new chapter opener points to the recent water crisis in Flint, Michigan, as an example of how social status and environment can intersect with health and illness. The “Analyzing Everyday Life” Data Workshop includes results from a 2016 survey by the American College Health Association, including the percentage of students who experience more than average stress or tremendous stress. The In the Future box on autism spectrum disorder has been updated with more recent research on possible causes as well as developments in brain-imaging technology. Data on the HIV/AIDS epidemic have been updated. A new Global Perspectives box, titled “Zika Virus: Women and Children Last,” discusses the history of Zika as well as the recent outbreak of the virus and its disproportionate impact on women. The “Social Inequality, Health, and Illness” section has been expanded and now includes dedicated sections on health disparities based on class, race, and gender. The discussion of class-based disparities in health highlights a recent study by Raj Chetty on the gap in life expectancy between the richest 1 percent and the poorest 1 percent. This section also points to education as a key factor linking SES and disparate health outcomes. A new discussion of race-based disparities in health includes data on life expectancy by race/ethnicity as well as rates of hypertension and diabetes. The discussion of gender gaps in mental health has been expanded. The section on food deserts now mentions Michelle Obama and the Partnership for a Healthier America initiative that campaigned to eliminate food deserts. Data on spending on prescription drugs and drug marketing have been added in the In Relationships box on directto-consumer drug marketing. The section on medicine as a social institution now examines a recent study on the phenomenon of degree rationing. The discussion of doctorpatient interactions now features a 2016 study that found that elderly hospitalized patients treated by female doctors had better outcomes than those treated by male doctors. The list of shows about hospitals in the “Analyzing Media and Pop Culture” Data Workshop has been updated. The discussion of the Affordable Care Act has been updated to consider a 2017 public opinion poll as well as recent efforts CHANGES IN THE SIXTH EDITION xxxiii to repeal the legislation. Data on CAM usage and spending have been updated. The discussion of death with dignity laws points to the recent passage of California’s End of Life Option Act, highlighting those states that have passed death with dignity legislation. Chapter 15 (Populations, Cities, and the Environment): In the section on demography, data on global fertility rates, mortality rates, life expectancy, net migration rate have all been updated. Figure 15.1 has been updated with 2015 life expectancy data. The In the Future box includes more recent UN estimates on the number of centenarians. A new figure charting the demographic transition has been added to accompany the text discussion of this important theory. The On the Job box now includes a reference to South Los Angeles’s “Gangsta Gardener,” Ron Finlay. The “Trends in Urbanization” section now discusses the affordable housing crisis and Matthew Desmond’s ethnography on eviction. The list of suggested films in the “Analyzing Media and Pop Culture” Data Workshop has been updated. The discussion of pollution includes a reference to the recent Flint water crisis. Climate justice has been introduced as a new key term. The discussion of environmental justice explores the recent controversy over the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. xxxiv CHANGES IN THE SIXTH EDITION Chapter 16 (Social Change): A new chapter opener explores how the development of new technologies, including the Internet of Things, is driving both positive social change and creating new forms of risk. The discussion of the riots in Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray has been updated. The examples in the “Fads and Fashions” section have been swapped out and now include man buns, kale, and fidget spinners. The discussion of fashion trends now explores the phenomenon of fast-fashion brands such as Zara and Forever 21. The discussion of reactionary hate movements such as the Council of Conservative Citizens now highlights the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The section on theories of social movements has been reorganized, with separate sections on mass society theory and relative deprivation theory. A new discussion of gerrymandering has been added to the section on the history of voting rights in the United States. A new In Relationships box analyzes the era of hashtag activism through the example of the Indivisible movement. The discussion of technology and social change now references new gene-editing technology CRISPR. Data on the most popular TV shows have been updated, as well as the percentage of the global population with access to the Internet. A new In the Future box asks students to consider whether new technologies are leading us toward utopia or doomsday. The Real World SIXTH EDITION PART I Thinking Sociologically and Doing Sociology P epper went to Yale when the school had Victor was a gang member who dropped out just begun to admit female students, and of school when he was fourteen and learned some campus buildings didn’t even have wom- to steal cars, landing him in juvenile detention. en’s restrooms yet. She was soon document- If it had not been for the intervention of one ing the sexual revolution as it took shape on extraordinarily dedicated high school teacher campus. Her academic work spilled over into who held onto her high expectations for him, the popular media, when she began writing a Victor’s life story might not have turned out so sex advice column for Glamour magazine. Since well. He went on to earn a doctorate in ethnic then she has become a go-to authority on studies, examining the street life he had once everything sex, love, and relationships. known. Matthew worked as a wildland firefighter in the rugged backcountry of northern Arizona where he grew up, earning money in this dangerous profession to help put himself through college. Like many of his fellow firefighters, he came from a rural, working-class background where the practical skills he had acquired in his youth proved useful in the context of this risky, sometimes even deadly, job. He drew upon this experience when writing his first book, On the Fireline: Living and Dying with Wildland Firefighters. Matthew was likewise inspired by another event from his past—losing his childhood home to foreclosure. The anger and humiliation he felt at the time later drove him to study issues surrounding housing. When he was a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin, he moved into a trailer park in Milwaukee to better understand how evictions exacerbate poverty. What do these people have in common? They are all prominent American sociology professors. You may not have heard of them (yet), but they have each made an exceptional impact on their profession. Pepper Schwartz, a sociology professor at the University of Washington, is a leading researcher on sex and intimate relationships. Her work has resonated widely with the public; she is often cited in the press and makes frequent appearances across a variety of media outlets. Since 2014, she has appeared as a regular cast member on the reality TV show Married at First Sight. Victor Rios has become a sought-after author and speaker whose sometimes autobiographical research on race, law enforcement, and social control also led him to found a program for at-risk youth in Santa Barbara, where he is a professor at the University of California. Matthew Desmond is a sociology professor at Harvard University. Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City, his powerful firsthand account of deep poverty and homelessness in America, earned widespread acclaim, including a Pulitzer Prize. He also was recently awarded the prestigious MacArthur Fellowship, or “Genius Grant.” Each sociologist has a unique story about how he or she ended up in sociology and built a career in academia. It was Pepper Schwartz 4 PART I Victor Rios Matthew Desmond not obvious from the beginning that any of them would be academic superstars; they each faced a different set of obstacles to success but were somehow motivated to keep on. Perhaps it was because they had been deeply touched by something happening in the real world, something that was also relevant to their own lives. It inspired in them a passion for pursuing a question, an issue, or a cause that was meaningful to them. Each of them has made important connections between their personal lives and their professional careers. In turn, their work extends beyond academia, making a collective contribution to the lives of individuals and even to society as a whole. Their paths to sociology were very different, and they have each taught and researched different topics. Despite these differences, they share a way of looking at the world. Sociologists have a unique viewpoint called the “sociological perspective.” In fact, we hope that you will acquire your own version of the sociological perspective over the course of this term. Then you will share something in common with these and other sociology professors, including your own. Schwartz, Rios, and Desmond also hold in common their commitment to sociological theories and concepts. This means that their ideas—and the questions they ask and answer—are guided by the established traditions of sociological thought. They may build on those traditions or criticize them, but every sociologist engages in a theoretical dialogue that links centuries and generations. You will become part of this dialogue as you learn more about sociological theory. Finally, Schwartz, Rios, Desmond, and others like them conduct their research using specific sociological methods. Whether quantitative or qualitative, these means of gathering and analyzing data are distinctive to sociology, and every sociologist develops research projects using the methods best suited to the questions she wants to answer. Each sociologist’s personal journey affects his professional legacy, and knowing something about an author’s life helps students understand the author’s work. A person’s values, experiences, and family context all shape his interests and objectives—and this is as true of eminent sociologists as it will be for you. In this first part, we will introduce you to the discipline of sociology and its theoretical traditions (Chapter 1) and to the work of sociology and its research methodologies (Chapter 2). This section is your opportunity to get to know sociology—its perspectives, theories, and research practices. Perhaps someday your intellectual autobiography will be added to those of Schwartz, Rios, and Desmond—and your story will start by opening this book. PART I 5 CHAPTER 1 Sociology and the Real World he Gold & Silver Pawn Shop is a family-owned business located less than two miles off T the Las Vegas strip. Open twenty-four hours a day, it attracts a wide variety of customers who come to buy and sell an even wider array of items, both common and rare. Richard “The Old Man” Harrison and his son Rick opened the business together in 1989. Through their doors comes everything from antique coins to a Samurai sword, a Super Bowl ring, or a never-before-seen photo of Jimi Hendrix. The challenge is figuring out whether something’s authentic or fake and then negotiating what price to pay. Sometimes experts are called to weigh in on the value of an item. But the real fun is watching the Harrisons haggle with customers—and each other—over good deals and bad. 6 7 Each week, two contestants, one man and one woman, total strangers and completely naked, are dropped deep into the wilderness with almost no supplies to see if they can survive together for twenty-one days. In journeys across six continents, in such places as the Australian outback, the jungles of Belize, and the savannah of Namibia, these pairs of contestants are tested both physically and mentally, forced to discover what they’re truly made of. Will they “tap out” and ask to leave the competition early, or will they have the fortitude to prevail through whatever hardships their journey delivers? And perhaps most importantly, can these strangers forge a working partnership so essential to the act of survival, or will pride, fear, or some other human weakness undermine their success? Three sisters, whose names all start with the letter K, alternately squabble and cooperate with each other and members of their large blended family, including a brother, mother, stepparent, half sisters, stepbrothers, and assorted significant others. Their privileged lives are on continual display, and they have become famous mainly for being famous. Their family dramas, rife with both glamorous and embarrassing moments, are chronicled in excruciating detail. With her music mogul husband on her arm, Kim attends galas, fashion shows, and awards ceremonies with fellow members of the glitterati. Meanwhile, sisters Khloe and Kourtney jet set around the globe, opening up boutiques in cities like New York and Miami. The sisters shop constantly and take countless selfies while millions of fans follow them on Instagram. Is any of this real? Yes—kind of. It’s “reality television,” specifically History Channel’s Pawn Stars, Discovery’s Naked and Afraid, and E!’s Keeping Up with the Kardashians. And there’s a lot more where those came from. In the fall 2017 lineup, there were literally hundreds of reality shows on the major networks and cable stations, with an unknown number of programs undoubtedly in the works. Hell’s Kitchen, The Voice, Million Dollar Listing, The Bachelor, and Teen Mom were just a few of the more popular shows, as well as the show that started it all in 1992, MTV’s The Real World, which filmed its thirty-third season in 2017. Some of the shows claim to follow real people through their everyday lives or on the job, while others impose bizarre conditions on participants, subject them to stylized competitions and gross-out stunts, or make their dreams come true. Millions tune in every week to see real people eat bugs, get fired, suffer romantic rejection, reveal their poor parenting, get branded as fat or ugly, cry over their misfortunes, or get voted out of the house or off the island—mortifying themselves on camera for the possibility of success, money, or fame. Why are we so interested in these people? Because people are interesting! Because we are people, too. No matter how different we are from the folks on reality TV, we are part of the same society, and for that reason we are curious about how they live. We compare their lives with ours, wonder how common or unusual they or we are, and marvel that we are all part of the same, real world. We, too, may want to win competitions, date an attractive guy or girl, find a high-profile job, feel pretty or handsome, be part of an exclusive group, or have a lovely home and family. We may even want to be on a reality show ourselves. 8 CHAPTER 1 Sociology and the Real World HOW TO READ THIS CHAPTER You are embarking on a fascinating journey as you learn to see, think, and analyze yourself and the world around you from a sociological perspective. The tools presented here will help you build a foundation for new knowledge and insights into social life. We will also share the story of the historical and intellectual development of the discipline of sociology. We want to show you how the ideas that shape sociology are linked and introduce you to the interesting men and women who came up with those ideas. Too often, theorists seem to be talking heads, icons of social analysis who experience neither life-altering calamities nor shifting professional fortunes. We want to overcome that perception. We believe that our individual experiences and historical contexts shape our thoughts and the professional worlds we choose to join. This is as true for Karl Marx as it is for Kerry Ferris, as true for Jane Addams as it is for Jill Stein—it’s true for all of us; your own experiences and cultural and historical contexts will shape your ideas and work. In fact, someday, someone may write a chapter about you! As authors and teachers, we encourage you to develop some basic study techniques that will assist you in your success as a new student to sociology (and perhaps beyond). You may want to highlight portions of the text or take notes while you read. Mark passages you don’t understand, or keep a list of questions about any aspect of the chapter. Don’t hesitate to discuss those questions with your instructor or fellow students; those dialogues can be one of the most gratifying parts of the learning process. Finally, we recommend that you attend class regularly—whether you’re in a face-to-face classroom or online—as there is really no substitute for the shared experience of learning sociology with others. We are excited to join you on this journey of discovery. Though you may know a lot about social life already, we hope to introduce you to even more—about yourself and the world around you—and to provide valuable tools for the future. We wouldn’t want you to miss a thing. So here is where we start. Practical vs. Scientific Knowledge You already possess many of the skills of an astute analyst of social life, but you take your knowledge for granted because you gained it as an everyday actor. In this course, you will build a new identity: social analyst. These are two very different ways of experiencing the same social world. The everyday actor approaches his social world with what is referred to as “reciped,” or practical, knowledge (Schutz 1962), which allows him to get along in his everyday life. However, practical knowledge is not necessarily as coherent, clear, and consistent as it could be. For example, you EVERYDAY ACTOR someone who approaches the world by are probably very skilled at using using knowledge that is practical a smartphone. It brings you into or taken for granted daily contact with friends and family, puts you in touch with the SOCIAL ANALYST someone who approaches the world by using pizza delivery guy, and allows you reasoning and questions to gain to register for classes and find out deeper insights your grades at the end of the term. But you probably can’t explain SOCIOLOGY the systematic or scientific study of human how it works in a technical way; society and social behavior, you know only how it works for from large-scale institutions and you in a practical, everyday way. mass culture to small groups and This is the important feature of individual interactions the everyday actor’s knowledge: SOCIETY a group of people who It is practical, not scientific. shape their lives in aggregated To acquire knowledge about and patterned ways that the social world that is system- distinguish their group from atic, comprehensive, coherent, others clear, and consistent, you’ll need to take a different approach. The social analyst has to “place in question everything that seems unquestionable” to the everyday actor (Schutz 1962, p. 96). In other words, the social analyst takes the perspective of a stranger in the social world; she tries to verify what the everyday actor might just accept as truth. For instance, people tend to believe that women are more talkative than men. This might seem so evident, in fact, as not to be worth investigating. The social analyst, however, would investigate and deliver a more complex conclusion than you might think. There are strengths and weaknesses in both approaches: The analyst sees with clarity what the actor glosses over, but the actor understands implicitly what the analyst labors to grasp. Once you’ve learned more about the theories and methods that come next, you’ll be able to combine the virtues of both analyst and actor. The result will be a more profound and comprehensive understanding of the social world in which we all live. What Is Sociology? Even among those working in the field, there is some debate about defining sociology. A look at the term’s Latin and Greek roots, socius and logos, suggests that sociology means the study of society, which is a good place to start. A slightly more elaborate definition might be the systematic or scientific study of human society and social behavior. This could include almost any level within the structure of society, from large-scale institutions and mass culture to small groups and relationships between individuals. Another definition comes from Howard Becker (1986), who suggests that sociology can best be understood as the study of people “doing things together.” This version reminds us that neither society nor the individual exists in isolation What Is Sociology? 9 and that humans are essentially social beings. Not only is our survival contingent on the fact that we live in various groups (families, neighborhoods, dorms), but also our sense of self derives from our membership in society. In turn, the accumulated activities that people do together create the patterns and structures we call society. So sociologists want to understand how humans affect society, as well as how society affects humans. One way to better understand sociology is to contrast it with other social sciences, disciplines that examine the human or social world, much as the natural sciences examine the natural or physical world. These include anthropology, psychology, economics, political science, and sometimes history, geography, and communication studies. Each has its own particular focus on the social world. In some ways, sociology’s territory overlaps with other social sciences, even while maintaining its own approach. Like history, sociology compares the past and the present in order to understand both; unlike history, sociology is more likely to focus on contemporary society. Sociology is interested in societies at all levels of development, while anthropology is more likely to concentrate on traditional or SOCIAL SCIENCES the small, indigenous cultures. Socidisciplines that use the scientific ology looks at a range of social method to examine the social institutions, unlike economworld ics or political science, which SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE each focus on a single institua way of looking at the world tion. Like geography, sociology through a sociological lens considers the relationship of BEGINNER’S MIND approaching people to places, though geogthe world without preconceptions raphy is more concerned with in order to see things in a new way the places themselves. And like communication studies, sociology examines human communication—at both the social and the interpersonal levels, rather than one or the other. Finally, sociology looks at the individual in relationship to external social forces, whereas psychology specializes in internal states of mind. As you can begin to see, sociology covers a huge intellectual territory, making it exceptional among the social sciences in taking a comprehensive, integrative approach to understanding human life (Figure 1.1). The Sociological Perspective How do sociologists go about understanding human life in society? The first step is to develop what we call the sociological perspective, which is also referred to as taking a sociological approach or thinking sociologically. In any case, it means looking at the world in a unique way and seeing it in a whole new light. You may be naturally inclined to 10 CHAPTER 1 Sociology and the Real World Economics Psychology Political Science SOCIOLOGY Geography History Communication Studies Anthropology Figure 1.1 Sociology and the Social Sciences Sociology overlaps with other social sciences, but much of the territory it covers is unique. think sociologically, but, for many, the following practices are helpful. Beginner’s Mind One technique for gaining a sociological perspective comes from Bernard McGrane (1994), who promotes a shift in thinking borrowed from the Zen Buddhist tradition. McGrane suggests that we practice what is called beginner’s mind—the opposite of expert’s mind, which is so filled with facts, projections, assumptions, opinions, and explanations that it can’t learn anything new. If we would like to better understand the world around us, we must unlearn what we already know. Beginner’s mind approaches the world without knowing in advance what it will find; it is open and receptive to experience. Perhaps our greatest obstacle to making new discoveries is our habitual ways of thinking. “Discovery,” McGrane says, “is not the seeing of a new thing—but rather a new way of seeing things” (1994, p. 3). One way to achieve this kind of awareness is to practice being present in the moment. You might have tried this already if you’ve done any training in what is called “mindfulness.” The problem is we are all too often preoccupied with thoughts and feelings that prevent us from fully participating in reality. If we can find some inner stillness and stop our normal mental chatter, then McGrane says there is a possibility for true learning to occur. It is in this quiet space that a personal “paradigm shift” (a new model for understanding self and society) can take place. DATA WORKSHOP Analyzing Everyday Life Doing Nothing Bernard McGrane suggests that we actually “do” sociology, rather than just study it. His book The Un-TV and the 10 MPH Car (1994) features exercises designed to help students experience the mundane, routine, and everyday level of society in a new way. This Data Workshop is an adaptation of one of his experiments. You will be practicing beginner’s mind, one of the ways to gain a sociological perspective, or to think like a sociologist. Step 1: Conducting the Experiment This exercise requires that you stand in a relatively busy public space (a mall, street corner, park, or campus quad) and literally do nothing for ten minutes. That means just standing there and being unoccupied. Don’t wait for someone, take a break, sightsee, or otherwise engage in a normal kind of activity. Also don’t daydream or think about the past or the future; don’t entertain yourself with plans or internal dialogues. Don’t whistle, hum, fidget, look in your bag, play with your phone, take notes, or do anything else that might distract you from just being there and doing nothing. Do, however, observe the reactions of others to you, and pay attention to your own thoughts and feelings during these ten minutes. Step 2: Taking Notes about the Experience Immediately after conducting the experiment, write some informal notes about what happened or did not happen. These notes can be loosely structured (with sentence fragments or bullet points, if you wish), and they should be casual and written in the first person. Discuss the experience and its meaning to you in as much detail as possible. Include a description of other people’s reactions as well as your own thoughts and feelings before, during, and after the experiment. This exercise may seem deceptively simple at first, but the subtle change from “doing something” to “doing nothing” makes everything different. It helps turn the ordinary world into a strange place. It makes you more aware of your own sense of self (or lack thereof ) and how identity is constructed through interaction. You may find Doing Nothing How does standing in a crowded place and doing nothing change how you experience the ordinary world? it a challenge to put aside the mental and physical activities that you normally engage in to pass the time. And you may feel uncomfortable standing in a public place when other people can’t quite figure out who you are and what you’re doing. Finally, you will no longer be able to take for granted how the meaning of a situation is being defined or interpreted. Divested of your role as an everyday actor, you’ll learn how the most mundane activities (like just standing around) can become major objects of sociological inquiry. There are two options for completing this Data Workshop: PREP- PAIR- SHARE Complete the exercise and bring your written notes to class. Partner with another student and take turns presenting your findings. Discuss the ways in which your experiences were similar or different. What was it like to “do” sociology? Did you see things in a new way? What was the most interesting part about conducting the experiment? DO- IT-YOURSELF Complete the exercise and write a two- to three-page essay based on the main concepts and prompts from this Data Workshop. Describe your experience and the results of your research. How did the experiment help you learn to think more like a sociologist? You may want to include snippets of your informal written notes to illustrate your points. Attach the informal notes to your finished essay. The Sociological Perspective 11 IN RELATIONSHIPS It’s Official: Men Talk More Than Women T he practice of sociology may look pretty simple or natural at the outset. It doesn’t seem to require much special training to figure out other people and to know something about how the world works. All it takes is membership in society and some life experience to count yourself an expert on the topic. Look at how successful you are already, just to have arrived at the point of being a college student. So what more can sociology deliver? The practice of sociology may also seem to be about just a bunch of common sense. But this is true only part of the time. Some of what you learn may indeed seem familiar and may confirm some of the conclusions you’ve made about it. Drawing on the personal knowledge you have accumulated in life will be a valuable asset as a starting place, but it can also be a stumbling block to deeper understanding. There are times that the things that “everyone knows” turn out not to be true, or at least not as simple as we might have thought. Take, for instance, the widely held belief that women talk more than men. Experience seems to confirm that this is true, obviously! Women are chatty, and a lot of men, if not the strong silent type, definitely have trouble getting a word in edgewise. And women have a hard time getting men to talk when they want them to; sometimes, to get a man to tell you what he’s thinking, you have to drag it out of him. While you may recognize this description of the different genders, and may be able to relate with your own anecdote of such an encounter (or perhaps many such encounters), your casual assumptions about who talks more may need some revising. Numerous sociological studies that analyze conversational dynamics show that, despite stereotypes to the contrary, it’s actually men who are slightly more talkative (Leaper and Ayres 2007). How could that be? Well, it depends on the context. Men are more talkative with their wives and with strangers. Women are more talkative with their children and with college classmates. With close friends and families, men and women are equally talkative. Studies have also shown other, perhaps more easily predictable, gender differences. For example, men use speech that is more assertive (they want to persuade others), while women use speech that is more affiliative (they are more focused on connecting with others). Sociologists have long noted that men are also more dominant in conversations, cutting off and interrupting women more often (Anderson and Leaper 1998; Hancock and Rubin 2015; Kollock, Blumstein, and Schwartz 1985). “Mansplaining” is another way that men assert their dominance in conversations (Solnit 2008). The word is rather new, but the idea has been around for decades (Rothman 2012). Mansplaining is the tendency, especially for men, to explain things in a condescending or patronizing way, with the presumption that the one doing the explaining knows Culture Shock encounters with the local natives and their way of life can seem so strange to us that they produce a kind of disorientation and doubt about our ability to make sense of things. Putting all judgment aside for the moment, this state of mind can be very useful. For it is at this point, when we so completely lack an understanding of our surroundings, that we are truly able to perceive what is right in front of our eyes. As sociologists, we try to create this effect without necessarily displacing ourselves geographically: we become curious and eager visitors to our own lives. We often find that what is familiar to us, if viewed from an outsider’s perspective, is just as exotic as some foreign culture, only we’ve forgotten this is true because it’s our own and we know it so well. To better understand this state of mind, you might imagine what it would be like to return home after being shipwrecked and living alone on a desert island. Or, if you’ve traveled abroad or moved away to attend college, perhaps it’s something you’ve already experienced but didn’t know what to call. Peter Berger (1963) describes what kind of person becomes a sociologist: someone with a passionate interest in the world of human affairs, someone who is intense, curious, and daring in CULTURE SHOCK a sense of the pursuit of knowledge. “People disorientation that occurs when who like to avoid shocking disentering a radically new social coveries . . . should stay away or cultural environment from sociology,” he warns (p. 24). SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION The sociologist cares about the a quality of the mind that issues of ultimate importance allows us to understand the to humanity, as well as the most relationship between our individual circumstances and mundane occurrences of everylarger social forces day existence. Another way to gain a sociological perspective is to attempt to create in ourselves a sense of culture shock. Anthropologists use the term to describe the experience of visiting an “exotic” foreign culture. The first 12 CHAPTER 1 Sociology and the Real World more than the listener (even when this is clearly not the case). Men are more likely to “mansplain” in conversations with women, reinforcing gender stereotypes about who has more power and, in these cases, more knowledge. Perhaps because so many people have been on the receiving end of mansplaining, the word has gained acceptance into the current lexicon as well as the Oxford English Dictionary (Steinmetz 2014). It has become a useful label for a widely recognized behavior. Of course, it’s not only men who engage in mansplaining to women; sometimes men mansplain to other men, and sometimes women do it to men or to each other (McClintock 2016). These findings seem to defy what has been considered a biological fact, that the female brain is wired to be more verbal and, therefore, that women talk more. But because who talks more varies by situation, the evidence seems to point to language and conversational differences as influenced more by social than biological forces, including power dynamics. So despite how it might feel from your own personal experience, sociology has debunked some common myths about women and men, requiring us to rethink simplistic gender stereotypes. This is why doing sociology is in some regards a radical undertaking. It requires of us a willingness to suspend our own preconceptions, assumptions, and beliefs about the way things are. As sociologists, we need to learn to question The Sociological Imagination One of the classic statements about the sociological perspective comes from C. Wright Mills (1916–1962), who describes a quality of mind that all great social analysts seem to possess: the sociological imagination. By this, he means the ability to understand “the intersection between biography and history,” or the interplay of self and the world; this is sociology’s task and its “promise” (Mills 1959). We normally think of our own problems as being a private matter of character, chance, or circumstance, and we overlook the fact that these may be caused in part by, or at least occur within, a specific cultural and historical context. For example, if you can’t find a job, you may feel that it’s because you don’t have the right skills, educational background, or experience. But it may also be the result of problems in the larger economy such as outsourcing, downsizing, restrictive policies, changing technologies, or migration patterns. everything, especially our own taken-for-granted notions about others and ourselves. Once these notions have been set aside, even temporarily, we gain a fresh perspective with which to uncover and discover aspects of social life we hadn’t noticed before. We are then able to reinterpret our previous understanding of the world, perhaps challenging, or possibly confirming, what we thought we already knew. Kanye West takes the microphone away from Taylor Swift to give an impromptu speech at the MTV Video Music Awards. In other words, your individual unemployment may be part of a larger social and historical phenomenon. Most of the time, we use psychological rather than sociological arguments to explain the way things are. For instance, if someone is carrying a lot of credit card debt, psychological reasoning might focus on the person’s lack of self-control or inability to delay gratification. Sociological reasoning, however, might focus on the impact of cultural norms that promote a lifestyle beyond most people’s C. Wright Mills means, or on economic changes that require more Americans to rely on credit cards because their wages have not kept up with inflation. The sociological imagination searches for the link between micro and macro levels of analysis. We must look for how larger The Sociological Perspective 13 social forces, such as race, class, gender, religion, economics, or polanalysis that studies face-to-face itics, are involved in creating the and small-group interactions in context of a person’s life. Mills’s order to understand how they characterization of sociology as affect the larger patterns and the intersection between biograstructures of society phy and history reminds us that MACROSOCIOLOGY the level of the process works in both direcanalysis that studies large-scale tions: while larger social forces social structures in order to influence individual lives, individdetermine how they affect the lives of groups and individuals ual lives can affect society as well. One of the most important benefits of using the sociological imagination is access to a world beyond our own immediate sphere, where we can discover radically different ways of experiencing life and interpreting reality. It can help us appreciate alternative viewpoints and understand how they may have come about. This, in turn, helps us to better understand how we developed our own values, beliefs, and attitudes. Sociology asks us to see our familiar world in a new way, and doing so means we may need to abandon, or at least reevaluate, our opinions about that world and our place in it. It is tempting to believe that our opinions are widely held, that our worldview is the best or, at least, most common. Taking a sociological perspective forces us to see fallacies in our way of thinking. Because other individuals are different from us— belonging to different social groups, participating in different social institutions, living in different cities or countries, listening to different songs, watching different TV programs, engaging in different religious practices—they may look at the world very differently than we do. But a sociological perspective also allows us to see the other side of this equation: in cases where we assume that others are different from us, we may be surprised to find that their approach to their everyday world is quite similar to ours. MICROSOCIOLOGY the level of Levels of Analysis: Microand Macrosociology Consider a photographer with state-of-the-art equipment. She can view her subject through either a zoom lens or a wide-angle lens. Through the zoom lens, she sees intricate details about the subject’s appearance; through the wide-angle lens, she gets the “big picture” and a sense of the broader context in which the subject is located. Both views are valuable in understanding the subject, and both result in photographs of the same thing. Sociological perspectives are like the photographer’s lenses, giving us different ways of looking at a common subject (Newman 2000). Sociologists can take a microsociological (zoom lens) perspective, a macrosociological (wide-angle lens) perspective, or any number of perspectives located on the continuum between the two (Figure 1.2). 14 CHAPTER 1 Sociology and the Real World SOCIETY CULTURE SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS (Economics, Politics, Education, Religion) SOCIAL INEQUALITY (Class, Race, Gender) GROUPS ROLES SOCIALIZATION INTERACTION SELF Figure 1.2 The Macro-Micro Continuum Sociology covers a wide range of topics at different levels of analysis. Microsociology concentrates on the interactions between individuals and the ways in which those interactions construct the larger patterns, processes, and institutions of society. As the word indicates (“micro” means small), microsociology looks at the smallest building blocks of society in order to understand its large-scale structure. A classic example of research that takes a micro approach is Pam Fishman’s article “Interaction: The Work Women Do” (1978). Like many scholars who had observed the feminist movements of the 1960s and ’70s, Fishman was concerned with issues of power and domination in male-female relationships: Are men more powerful than women in our society? If so, how is this power created and maintained in everyday interactions? In her research, Fishman recorded and analyzed heterosexual couples’ everyday conversations in their homes. She found some real differences in the conversational strategies of men and women and some surprising results about who talked more. One such conversation took place in the kitchen, where a woman was having a difficult time getting her partner to join her in a discussion about the history of education. He frequently interrupted, changed the subject, failed to respond for long stretches, and even flipped on the garbage disposal while she was speaking. She persevered, trying to gain control of the conversation. Fishman recorded many more conversations between couples and identified a variety of patterns. One of her findings was that women ask nearly three times as many questions as men do. While other researchers have proposed that women’s psychological insecurities are the reason for this finding, Fishman noted that women are in fact following a firmly held rule of conversational structure: When the IN THE FUTURE C. Wright Mills and the Sociological Imagination he “sociological imagination” is a term that seemingly every sociology student encounters. It was first introduced by C. Wright Mills in his 1959 book by the same name, and over time it has become an enduring cornerstone of the discipline. It captures the spirit of inquiry, the quality of mind, and the guiding principles that all sociologists should embrace. Mills was sometimes critical of sociology as a discipline, so he offered himself as a “public intellectual,” one who could speak beyond the confines of academia and address some of the most pressing social issues of the time. Mills was convinced that sociology had something to offer everyone, not just academics. Mills highlighted the distinction between “personal troubles” and “public issues” as “an essential tool of the sociological imagination and a feature of all classic work in social science” (Mills 1959, p. 8). He explained that almost any feature of an individual’s daily life can be better understood if this distinction is applied to it. Unemployment, war, marriage, and housing are all experienced as personal troubles, but to be fully understood, they must also be seen as manifestations of long-standing institutions and larger social structures. As Mills pointed out, “In so far as an economy is so arranged that slumps occur, the problem of unemployment becomes incapable of personal solution” (Mills 1959, p. 10). This lesson was driven home again during the Great Recession, which began in 2007. A series of major banks had created securities that bundled a large number of mortgages made to so-called sub-prime borrowers. When many of these mortgages went into default, it led to an economic chain reaction that culminated in unemployment levels higher than any seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. For the many millions of people thrown out of work, unemployment was experienced as a personal trouble, but one that could be understood only as a public issue. In even more fundamental ways, Mills believed that people are shaped by the connections between “the patterns of their own lives and the course of world history” (Mills 1959, p. 4). These connections could influence the most personal features of someone’s life, shaping the very kind of people “they are becoming” (p. 4). In her book Unbearable Weight (1995), Susan Bordo describes how anorexia came to be recognized as a national mental health problem. In 1973, psychiatrists T speaker cannot guarantee that she or he will get a response, she or he is more likely to ask a question. Questions provoke answers, which makes them a useful conversational tool for those who may have less power in interpersonal relationships and in society at large. And women are more likely to be in this position than men. Thus, in her micro-level analysis still considered anorexia quite rare, so why is there so much awareness about eating disorders now? Anorexia and bulimia are experienced in intensely personal ways, and eating disorders are usually explained in purely psychological terms. But Bordo, thinking about them sociologically, argues that cultural factors help create eating disorders. Contemporary culture’s obsession with bodies that are “slim, tight, and young” (p. 140) shapes individual psychologies. Eating disorders, then, are symptoms of a troubled culture as well as a troubled individual. This is not to deny that personal and psychological factors aren’t important, but it is a reminder that social and cultural factors create the environment that makes it possible to experience problems like eating disorders in the first place. Today you may be a student in an introductory sociology class; this year, around 30,000 students will receive bachelor’s degrees in sociology (U.S. Department of Education 2017d). Whether or not you end up majoring in sociology, C. Wright Mills wanted everyone to develop and sharpen a sociological imagination. In fact, that is the goal we share in writing this textbook. How might the sociological imagination be useful to you in the future? Personal Troubles and Public Issues High foreclosure rates in the wake of the recession were both a personal trouble and a public issue. of conversation, Fishman was able to see how macro-level (“macro” means large) phenomena such as gender and power are manifested in everyday interactions. Macrosociology approaches the study of society from the opposite direction, by looking at large-scale social structure to determine how it affects the lives of groups Levels of Analysis: Micro- and Macrosociology 15 Levels of Analysis These two views of the New York Public Library represent different levels of analysis in sociology. Microsociology zooms in to focus on individuals, their interactions, and groups in order to understand their contribution to larger social structures. In contrast, macrosociology pulls back to examine large-scale social processes and their effects on individuals and groups. and individuals. If we want to stick to the topic of gender inequality, we can find plenty of examples of research projects that take a macro approach; many deal with the workplace. Despite the gains made in recent years, the U.S. labor market is still predominantly sex segregated—that is, men and women are concentrated in different occupations. In 2016, for example, 98.3 percent of auto mechanics were male, whereas 94.6 percent of secretaries and administrative assistants were female (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2017j). This feature of social structure, some argue, has a direct effect on the bottom line for individual workers, male and female. Our social institutions, from religion to the family and education, also play a part in sending women and men on different career trajectories, which often results in them earning differing paychecks. A related example comes from the work of Christine Williams. She found that while women in male-dominated fields experience limits on their advancement, dubbed the “glass ceiling” effect, men in female-dominated occupations experience unusually rapid rates of upward mobility—the “glass escalator” (Williams 1995). Here, then, we see a macro approach to the topic of gender and power: large-scale features of social structure (patterns of occupational sex segregation) create the constraints within which individuals and groups (women and men in the workplace) experience successes or failures in their everyday lives. As you can see, these two perspectives make different assumptions about how society works: the THEORIES abstract propositions micro perspective assumes that that explain the social world and society’s larger structures are make predictions about the future shaped through individual interPARADIGM a set of assumptions, actions, while the macro perspectheories, and perspectives that tive assumes that society’s larger makes up a way of understanding structures shape those individual social reality interactions. It is useful to think 16 CHAPTER 1 Sociology and the Real World of these perspectives as being on a continuum with each other; while some sociologists adhere to radically micro or exclusively macro perspectives, most are somewhere in between. The next part of this chapter explores some specific theoretical traditions within sociology and shows you where each falls along this continuum. Sociology’s Family Tree Great thinkers have been trying to understand the world and our place in it since the beginning of time. Some have done this by developing theories: abstract propositions about how things are as well as how they should be. Sometimes we also refer to theories as “approaches,” “schools of thought,” “paradigms,” or “perspectives.” Social theories, then, are guiding principles or abstract models that attempt to explain and predict the social world. As we embark on the discussion of theory, it may be useful to think of sociology as having a “family tree” made up of real people who were living in a particular time and place and who were related along various intertwining lines to other members of the same larger family tree. First, we will examine sociology’s early historical roots. Then, as we follow the growth of the discipline, we will identify its major branches and trace the relationships among their offshoots and the other “limbs” that make up the entire family tree. Finally, we will examine some of the newest theoretical approaches and members of the family tree (page 17), and consider the possible future of sociological theory. Sociology’s Roots The earliest Western social theorists focused on establishing society as an appropriate object of scientific scrutiny, which was itself a revolutionary concept. None of these early theorists were themselves sociologists (since the discipline didn’t yet exist) but rather people from a variety of backgrounds—philosophers, theologians, economists, historians, journalists—who were trying to look at society in a new way. In doing so, they laid the groundwork not only for the discipline as a whole but also for the different schools of thought that are still shaping sociology today. AUGUSTE COMTE (1798–1857) was the first to provide a program for the scientific study of society, or a “social physics,” as he labeled it. Comte, a French scientist, developed a theory of the progress of human thinking from its early theological and metaphysical stages toward a final “positive,” or scientific, stage. Positivism seeks to identify laws that describe the behavior of a particular reality, such as the laws of mathematics and physics, in which people gain knowledge of the world directly through their senses. Having grown up in the afterAuguste Comte math of the French Revolution and its lingering political instability, Comte felt that society needed positivist guidance toward both social progress and social order. After studying at an elite science and technology college, where he was introduced to the newly discovered scientific method, he began to imagine a way of applying the methodology to social affairs. His ideas, featured in Introduction to Positive Philosophy (1842), became the foundation of a scientific discipline that would describe the laws of social phenomena and help control social life; he called it “sociology.” Although Comte is remembered today mainly for coining the term, he played a significant role in the development of sociology as a discipline. His efforts to distinguish appropriate methods and topics for sociologists provided the kernel of a discipline. Other social thinkers advanced his work: Harriet Martineau and Herbert Spencer in England and Émile Durkheim in France. HARRIET MARTINEAU (1802–1876) was born in England to progressive parents who made sure their daughter was well educated. She became a journalist and political economist, proclaiming views that were radical for her time: endorsing labor unions, the abolition of slavery, and women’s suffrage. Though Martineau never married, she preferred to be addressed as “Mrs.”—not because she wished for a husband (indeed, she strongly rejected marriage, seeing it as a tool for POSITIVISM the theory that the subjugation of women) but sense perceptions are the only because she recognized that the valid source of knowledge title conveyed respect and status 18 CHAPTER 1 Sociology and the Real World in her culture. She felt that respect was denied to her as a single woman. In 1835, “Mrs.” Martineau traveled to the United States to judge the new democracy on its own terms rather than by European standards. But she was disappointed: By condoning slavery and denying full citizenship rights to women and blacks, the American experiment was, Harriet Martineau in her eyes, flawed and hypocritical. She wrote two books describing her observations, Society in America (1837) and Retrospect of Western Travel (1838), both critical of American leadership and culture. By holding the United States to its own publicly stated democratic standards, rather than seeing the country from an ethnocentric British perspective, she was a precursor to the naturalistic sociologists who would establish the discipline in America. In 1853, Martineau made perhaps her most important contribution to sociology: she translated Comte’s Introduction to Positive Philosophy into English, thus making his ideas accessible in England and America. HERBERT SPENCER (1820–1903) was primarily responsible for the establishment of sociology in Britain and America. Although Spencer did not receive academic training, he grew up in a highly individualistic family and was encouraged to think and learn on his own. His interests leaned heavily toward physical science and, instead of attending college, Spencer chose to become a railway engineer. When railway work dried up, he turned to journalism and eventually worked for a major periodical in London. There he became acquainted with leading English academics Herbert Spencer and began to publish his own thoughts in book form. In 1862, Spencer drew up a list of what he called “first principles” (in a book by that name), and near the top of the list was the notion of evolution driven by natural selection. Charles Darwin is the best-known proponent of the theory, but the idea of evolution was in wide circulation before Darwin made it famous. Spencer proposed that societies, like biological organisms, evolve through time by adapting to changing conditions, with less successful adaptations falling by the wayside. He coined the phrase “survival of the fittest,” and his social philosophy is sometimes known as social Darwinism. In the late 1800s, Spencer’s work, including The Study of Sociology (1873) and The Principles of Sociology (1897), was virtually synonymous with sociology in the English-speaking world. The scope and volume of his writing served to announce sociology as a serious discipline and laid the groundwork for the next generation of theorists, whose observations of large-scale social change would bring a new viewpoint to social theory. Macrosociological Theory Theorists in late-nineteenth-century Europe were living during extraordinary times. They were attempting to explain social order, social change, and social inequality while the world around them changed as a result of the Industrial Revolution. At the same time, they were witnessing political upheaval and the birth of democracy brought about by the French and American Revolutions. These were changes on the grandest of scale in the macro order of society. Frequently referred to as classical sociology, the theories that arose during this period reflect the broad subject matter of a sweeping era. Structural Functionalism Structural functionalism, or functionalist theory, was the dominant theoretical perspective within sociology well into the mid-twentieth century. New (or neo-) functionalists continue to apply their own vision of the theory to study a wide variety of social phenomena today. FOUNDER AND KEY CONTRIBUTIONS Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) is the central figure in functionalist theory. He was born into a close-knit and deeply religious Jewish family who instilled in him a strong sense of morality (not just as an abstract concept but as a concrete influence on social relations) and a strong work ethic. After witnessing the ravages of the FrancoPrussian War (1870–1871), he hoped that applied science could stabilize and revitalize France in the aftermath of its devastating defeat. He did not believe that traditional, Émile Durkheim abstract moral philosophy was effective in increasing understanding and bringing about social change, so he turned instead to the concrete science of sociology as represented in Comte’s work. In his first major study, The Division of Labor in Society (1893), Durkheim stated that social bonds were present in all types of societies but that different types of societies created different types of bonds. He suggested that the mechanical solidarity experienced by people in a simple agricultural society bound them together on the basis of shared traditions, beliefs, and experiences. In industrial societies, where factory work was becoming increasingly specialized, organic solidarity prevailed: People’s bonds were based on the tasks they performed, interdependence, and individual rights. Both types of solidarity have interpersonal bonds—just with different qualities. Durkheim believed that SOCIAL DARWINISM the even the most individualisapplication of the theory of tic actions have sociological evolution and the notion of explanations and set out to “survival of the fittest” to the establish a scientific meth- study of society odology for studying these STRUCTURAL actions. He chose for his case FUNCTIONALISM a paradigm study the most individu- based on the assumption alistic of actions, suicide, that society is a unified whole and used statistical data that functions because of the to show that suicides were contributions of its separate related to social factors such structures as religious affiliation, mari- MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY tal status, and employment. the type of social bonds present Explaining a particular sui- in premodern, agrarian societies, cide by focusing exclusively in which shared traditions and on the victim’s psychological beliefs created a sense of social cohesion makeup neglected the impact of social bonds. According to ORGANIC SOLIDARITY the type Durkheim in his now-classic of social bonds present in modern study Suicide (1897), even societies, based on difference, interdependence, and individual the darkest depression has its rights roots in an individual’s connections to the social world, ANOMIE “normlessness”; term or rather his lack of connec- used to describe the alienation and loss of purpose that result tion. Durkheim theorized that from weaker social bonds and an suicide is one result of ano- increased pace of change mie, a sense of disconnection brought about by the changing SOLIDARITY the degree of integration or unity within a conditions of modern life. The particular society; the extent to more firmly anchored a per- which individuals feel connected son is to family, religion, and to other members of their group the workplace, the less anomie he is likely to experience. In his final major study, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912), Durkheim suggested that religion was a powerful source of social solidarity, or unity, because it reinforced collective bonds and shared moral values. He believed that society could be understood by examining the most basic forms of religion. Durkheim’s study of the indigenous peoples of Australia led him to a universal definition of religion: Though religious traditions might differ, any form of religion is unified in its definition of what is considered Macrosociological Theory 19 to be sacred and profane. Every person who follows a particular set of beliefs and practices will “unite into one single moral community” (Durkheim 1912/1995, p. 44). Durkheim also noted that rituals or ceremonies that brought people together into communities were created and practiced to enhance the feeling of emotional unity that reaffirmed solidarity and social order. When people gathered for religious events, their individual acts, taken together, created a feeling of being swept up in something larger than themselves. It made them feel as if they had entered a “special SACRED the holy, divine, or world inhabited by exceptionsupernatural ally intense forces that invade PROFANE the ordinary, mundane, and transform” them (Durkheim or everyday 1912/1995, p. 220). Durkheim COLLECTIVE EFFERVESCENCE referred to this as collective an intense energy in shared effervescence. This sense of events where people feel swept participants being transported up in something larger than by a shared wave of energy can themselves happen during a Catholic Mass, COLLECTIVE CONSCIENCE for instance, as much as it can by the shared morals and beliefs attending a live concert or sportthat are common to a group and ing event at a sold-out arena. that foster social solidarity A distinction between the EMPIRICAL based on scientific sacred and the profane, and the experimentation or observation creation of and participation in shared ritual activity, creates STRUCTURE a social institution that is relatively stable over time a collective conscience (or and that meets the needs of collective consciousness) that society by performing functions contains the morality, the cosnecessary to maintain social mology, and the beliefs “common order and stability to the group” (p. 379). The shared DYSFUNCTION a disturbance to beliefs and values that make up or undesirable consequence of the collective conscience of the some aspect of the social system group are what make social solidarity possible, but they must be frequently renewed through the ritual, by which a group “revitalizes the sense it has of itself and its unity” (p. 379). Durkheim believed that this process happens in all societies, whether united through a common religious tradition or through shared secular beliefs and practices. Durkheim’s attempt to establish sociology as an important, independent academic discipline was enormously successful. He not only made significant contributions to the existing literature but also demonstrated the effectiveness of using scientific, empirical methods to study “social reality,” essentially validating Comte’s proposal from half a century earlier. Durkheim became the first professor of social science in France, at the University of Bordeaux in 1887, and later won a similar appointment at the Sorbonne in Paris, the very heart of French academic life. Today, Durkheim’s eminence in the social sciences is as strong as ever, and his ideas are still applied and extended by contemporary theorists. 20 CHAPTER 1 Sociology and the Real World ORIGINAL PRINCIPLES The origins of structural functionalism can be traced back to the roots of sociology. Auguste Comte proposed that society itself could and should be studied. Herbert Spencer added the idea that societies are living organisms that grow and evolve, just like other species on the planet. As the discipline of biology might study the physical organism of the human body, the discipline of sociology could study social organisms in the world of human development. Durkheim integrated and advanced these insights into a comprehensive theory for understanding the nature of society. There are two main principles of functionalism. First, society is conceived as a stable, ordered system made up of interrelated parts, or structures. Second, each structure has a function that contributes to the continued stability or equilibrium of the unified whole. Structures are identified as social institutions such as the family, the educational system, politics, the economy, and religion. They meet society’s needs by performing different functions, and every function is necessary to maintain social order and stability. Any disorganization or dysfunction in a structure leads to change and a new equilibrium; if one structure is transformed, the others must also adjust. For example, if families fail to discipline children, then schools, churches, and the courts must pick up the slack. It may seem contradictory that a theory concerned with order and stability would emerge in a discipline that arose in a period of rapid social change. But it is important to remember that change had previously occurred much more slowly and that one response to rapid social change is to try to understand what had come before—stability, order, and equilibrium. OFFSHOOTS Structural functionalism was the dominant theoretical perspective in Europe for much of the early twentieth century. It was exported and updated by American functionalists, who increased its popularity and helped spread its reach well into the 1960s. For example, Talcott Parsons (1902–1979) elaborated on the theory and applied it to modern society, specifying some of the functions that social structures might fulfill in contemporary life. A healthy society must provide a means for people to adapt to their environment; for example, families, schools, and religious institutions work together to socialize children. A functional society includes opportunities for success—for example, promoting education to help its members pursue and realize their goals. For society to survive, there must be social cohesion; for example, shared religious Talcott Parsons and moral values. Another modern American functionalist, Robert Merton (1910–2003), delineated the theory even further, identifying manifest and latent functions for different social structures. Manifest functions are the obvious, intended functions of a social structure, while latent functions are the less obvious, perhaps unintended functions. For example, the manifest functions of education are to prepare future members of society by teaching them how to read and write and by instructing them Robert Merton on society’s system of norms, values, and laws. However, education has a latent function as well, which is to keep kids busy and out of trouble eight hours a day, five days a week, for twelve years (or longer). Do not doubt that this is also an important contribution to social order! Functionalism’s influence waned in the late twentieth century but did not die out. A “neo-functionalist” movement, begun in the 1980s and ’90s, attempted to reconstruct functionalist theories so that they remain relevant in a rapidly changing world. Theorists such as Neil Smelser and Jeffrey Alexander have attempted to modify functionalist theory to better incorporate problems such as racial and ethnic identity in a diverse society (Alexander 1988, 2012; Alexander and Smelser 1998; Smelser 1985). ADVANTAGES AND CRITIQUES One of the great advantages of functionalism is its inclusion of all social institutions. Functionalism attempts to provide a universal social theory, a way of explaining society in one comprehensive model. Part of functionalism’s appeal may also lie in its ability to bring order to a potentially disorderly world. Were it not for some of the volcanic social upheavals of recent history—the civil rights, antiwar, and women’s liberation movements are not easily explained using this model—functionalist theory might still reign supreme in American sociology. Functionalism, generally preoccupied with stability, takes the position that only dysfunction can create social change. This conservative bias is part of a larger problem with the theory: Functionalism provides little insight into social processes because its model of society is static rather than dynamic. Its focus on the macro level also means that functionalism has less interest in explaining independent human action; there is no apparent approach to the lives of individuals except as part of social institutions. Functionalism’s explanations of social inequality are especially unsatisfying: If poverty, racism, and sexism exist, they must serve a function for society; they must be necessary and inevitable. This view is problematic for many. Sociologist Herbert Gans, in a critical essay (1971), reviewed the functions of poverty for society. The poor, for example, do our “dirty work,” filling the menial, low-wage jobs that are necessary to keep society running smoothly but that others refuse to do. The poor provide a market for used and off-price goods and keep thrift stores and social welfare agencies in business. They have symbolic value as well, allowing those higher in the social hierarchy to feel compassion toward the “deserving” poor and to feel threatened by the “undeserving” poor, who are often seen as dangerous social deviants. Ultimately, the circular reasoning that characterizes functionalist thought turns out to be its biggest problem: the mere persistence of an institution should not be seen as an adequate explanation for its existence. MANIFEST FUNCTIONS the obvious, intended functions of a social structure for the social system LATENT FUNCTIONS the less obvious, perhaps unintended functions of a social structure CONFLICT THEORY a paradigm that sees social conflict as the basis of society and social change and that emphasizes a materialist view of society, a critical view of the status quo, and a dynamic model of historical change SOCIAL INEQUALITY the unequal distribution of wealth, power, or prestige among members of a society Conflict Theory Conflict theory is the second major school of thought in sociology. Like structural functionalism, it’s a macro-level approach to understanding social life that dates to midnineteenth-century Europe. As conflict theory developed, however, its emphasis on social inequality as the basic characteristic of society helped answer some of the critiques of structural functionalism. FOUNDER AND KEY CONTRIBUTIONS The work of Karl Marx (1818–1883), a German social philosopher, cultural commentator, and political activist, was the inspiration for conflict theory, so the terms “conflict theory” and “Marxism” are sometimes used interchangeably in the social sciences. Marx’s ideas have become better known to the world as the basis for communism, the political system adopted by numerous countries (such as China, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union) that have often been viewed as enemies of democracy and the United States. This association has led many to a narrow belief that Marx was nothing more than a misguided agitator who helped cause more than a century of political turmoil. It is important to separate Karl Marx Marx himself from the current, political application of communism and to consider the possibility that he might not have supported the ways political leaders used his ideas decades later. Sociologists Macrosociological Theory 21 have found that Marx’s theory continues to provide a powerful tool for understanding social phenomena. The idea that conflict between social groups is central to the workings of society and serves as the engine of social change is one of the most vital perspectives in sociology today. Marx grew up in a modernizing, industrializing yet politically and religiously conservative monarchy; this, plus the fact that his was a restless, argumentative personality, accounts in great part for his social theory. Marx studied law and philosophy in Bonn and Berlin, receiving a PhD in 1841. His personal ties with radicals effectively barred him from entering academia, so he turned to journalism, writing stories that often antagonized government censors and officials. For most of his life, Marx led an economically fragile existence. He managed to maintain a tenuous middle-class lifestyle, but only with financial support from his close friend and chief intellectual collaborator Friedrich Engels, who studied the conditions of the English working class. Marx’s own circumstances may MEANS OF PRODUCTION have sparked his interest in social anything that can create wealth: inequality, or the uneven and often money, property, factories, and other types of businesses, and unfair distribution of resources (in the infrastructure necessary to this case, wealth) in society, but he run them never experienced firsthand the particular burdens and difficulties PROLETARIAT workers; those who have no means of production of the working class. of their own and so are reduced The Industrial Revolution to selling their labor power in was a time of rapid social change, order to live when large numbers of people BOURGEOISIE owners; the class were moving from an agriculof modern capitalists who own tural life in rural areas to manuthe means of production and facturing jobs in urban areas. employ wage laborers Technological advances and a ALIENATION the sense of wage-based economy promised dissatisfaction the modern worker an age of prosperity and abunfeels as a result of producing dance, but they created new goods that are owned and kinds of poverty, crime, and discontrolled by someone else ease. Marx believed that most of those problems were a result of capitalism, the emerging economic system based on the private for-profit operation of industry. He proposed a radical alternative to the inherent inequalities of this system in the Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), perhaps his most famous book. In industrial society, the forces of capitalism were creating distinct social and economic classes, exacerbating the disparities between the wealthy and the poor. Marx felt that this would inevitably lead to class struggle between those who owned the means of production (anything that could create more wealth: money, property, factories, other types of businesses) and those who worked for them. He argued that the most important factor in social life was a person’s relationship to the means of production: in other words, whether someone was a worker, and thus a member of the proletariat, or an owner, and thus 22 CHAPTER 1 Sociology and the Real World a member of the bourgeoisie. Everything of value in society resulted from human labor, which was the proletariat’s most valuable asset. Yet they suffered from what Marx called alienation because they were unable to directly benefit from the fruits of their own labor. Workers were paid wages, but it was the factory owners who grew rich as a result of their toil. The powerful few in the bourgeoisie were not only wealthy but also enjoyed social privilege and power. They were able to protect their interests, preserve their positions, and pass along their advantages to their heirs. The proletariat were often so absorbed in making a living that they were less apt to protest the conditions that led to their oppression. But eventually, Marx believed, the oppression would become unbearable, and the proletariat would rise up against the bourgeoisie, abolishing capitalism for good. He envisioned in its place a classless society with no private ownership in which each person contributed to and benefited from the public good. Freed from oppressive conditions, individuals would then be able to pursue higher interests such as art and education and eventually live in a more egalitarian, utopian society. But in order to achieve such a state, the oppressed must first recognize how the current system worked against them. In 1849, Marx withdrew from political activity in order to concentrate on writing Das Kapital (edited by Engels and published in 1890). The multivolume work provided a thorough exposition of his program for social change, which later became the foundation of political systems such as communism and socialism. Marx intended it to be his main contribution to sociology, but developments in the social sciences have placed more emphasis on his earlier writings. Because Marx held such radical ideas, his ideas were not immediately embraced by sociologists in general. It was not until the 1960s when conflict theory became a dominant perspective that Marx was truly received as a giant of sociology. ORIGINAL PRINCIPLES Conflict theory proposes that conflict and tension are basic facts of social life and suggests that people have disagreements over goals and values and are involved in struggles over both resources and power. The theory thus focuses on the processes of dominance, competition, upheaval, and social change. Conflict theory takes a materialist view of society (focused on labor practices and economic reality) and extends it to other social inequalities. Marx maintained that economic productivity is related to other processes in society, including political and intellectual life. The wealthy and powerful bourgeoisie control major social institutions, reinforcing the class structure so that the state, education, religion, and even the family are organized to represent their interests. Conflict theory takes a critical stance toward existing social arrangements and attempts to expose their inner workings. GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE Eurocentrism and Sociological Theory ou might get the impression from this chapter that the major sociological theorists were all either European or American. In fact, some ideas central to sociological theory were proposed in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East centuries before Marx, Weber, and Durkheim were even born, but we give these Western thinkers all the credit. Why? Both the social world and social theory are often Eurocentric: They tend to privilege Europe and the West over other cultures. This means that hierarchies of global power, in which superpowers such as the United States and former colonial rulers such as Britain and France dominate, are replicated in academic disciplines like EUROCENTRIC the tendency sociology. Scholars who to favor European or Western histories, cultures, and values work against inequality over those of non-Western and exploitation should societies note this distressing irony. One influential non-Western thinker was Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406), an Arab Muslim philosopher and politician who lived in fourteenth-century North Africa. His coining of the term as sabiyah, or “social cohesion,” precedes Durkheim’s work on the same subject by more than 500 years, and his argument that larger social and historical forces shape individual lives predates Mills’s insight about sociology as “the intersection of biography and history” by almost 600 years! Yet Khaldun is rarely credited for proposing sociology as a discipline—ilm alumran, he called it, or “the science of civilization.” This honor is reserved for French scholar Auguste Comte, working centuries later in the West. Y Because the ideology, or belief system, that permeates society arises from the values of the ruling class, beliefs that seem to be widely held are actually a kind of justification that help rationalize and explain the status quo. Most people readily accept the prevailing ideology, despite its failure to represent the reality of their lives. Marx referred to this acceptance as false consciousness, a denial of the truth that allows for the perpetuation of the inequalities inherent in the class structure. For example, he is often quoted as saying, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” This is not a criticism of religion so much as a criticism of the use of religion to create false consciousness in the working class. Encouraged in their piety, the proletariat focus Also overlooked in conventional histories of sociology are Indian scholar Benoy Sarkar (1887–1949), Filipino activist and poet José Rizal (1861–1896), and Japanese folklorist Kunio Yanagita (1875–1962)—all of whom applied sociological insights to the problems of their nations. Sarkar explored India’s religious divisions, Rizal analyzed the Philippines’ fight for independence from Spain, and Yanagita used qualitative methods to explore Japan’s culture and its long-standing isolationism. They have received virtually no notice for their achievements outside their own countries (Alatas and Sinha 2001). Filipino sociologist Clarence Batan (2004) argues that Western theorists like Marx, Weber, and Durkheim may inspire nonWestern scholars but that their theories arose in response to specific social problems that were particular to Western societies. Non-Western societies face different issues, including the legacy of colonialism imposed by the Western countries from which those classical sociological theories sprang. Batan calls for sociologists in nonWestern countries to respond to the needs of their societies by developing new theoretical frameworks that take postcolonial realities into account. Batan himself, along with other contemporary non-Western sociologists, works toward this goal every day in his research and teaching. Shouldn’t your sociology Ibn Khaldun professors do the same? on the happiness promised in the afterlife rather than on deprivations suffered in this world. Indeed, heaven is seen as a reward for patiently suffering those deprivations. How IDEOLOGY a system of beliefs, does this serve the interests of attitudes, and values that directs a society and reproduces the the ruling class? By keeping the status quo of the bourgeoisie working class from demanding FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS a better conditions in this life. denial of the truth on the part of Conflict theory sees the the oppressed when they fail to transformation of society over recognize that the interests of the time as inevitable. Marx argued ruling class are embedded in the that the only way to change the dominant ideology status quo is for the masses to Macrosociological Theory 23 attain class consciousness, or revolutionary consciousness. This can happen only when people recognize how society works and challenge those in power. He believed that social change would occur when there was enough tension and conflict. Marx proposed a dialectical model of historical or social change, whereby two extreme positions would eventually necessitate some kind of compromise: the resulting “middle ground” would mean that society had actually moved forward. Any existing social arrangement, called the thesis, would inevitably generate its opposite, or antithesis, and the contradictions and conflicts between the CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS the two would lead to an altogether recognition of social inequality on new social arrangement, or the part of the oppressed, leading synthesis. to revolutionary action DIALECTICAL MODEL Karl Marx’s model of historical change, whereby two extreme positions come into conflict and create some new outcome OFFSHOOTS Marx’s work has been reinterpreted and applied in various ways, and conflict theory has evolved within the greater intellectual community. Despite THESIS the existing social Marx’s single-minded focus on arrangements in a dialectical economic exploitation and transmodel formation, his ideas have helped ANTITHESIS the opposition to inspire theorists interested in all the existing arrangements in a forms of power and inequality. dialectical model One of the most widely SYNTHESIS the new social adopted forms of modern Marxsystem created out of the conflict ism is called critical theory between thesis and antithesis in a (also sometimes referred to as dialectical model the Frankfurt School or neoCRITICAL THEORY a Marxism). From the 1930s to the contemporary form of conflict 1960s, critical theory was argutheory that criticizes many ably at the cutting edge of social different systems and ideologies theory. Critical theorists were of domination and oppression among the first to see the imporCRITICAL RACE THEORY the tance of mass communications study of the relationship among and popular culture as powerrace, racism, and power ful ideological tools in capitalist FEMINIST THEORY a theoretical societies. They coined the term approach that looks at gender “culture industries” to refer to inequities in society and the way these increasingly important that gender structures the social social institutions, which came world to dominate and permeate social life (Adorno and Horkheimer 1979). They also criticized the growing consumerism associated with the spread of capitalism, believing that it could ultimately lead to a decline in personal freedom and the decay of democracy (Marcuse 1964/1991). Critical theory influenced several generations of radical thinkers throughout Europe and the United States, inspiring the cultural studies movement and the postmodernists, who were considered the cutting edge of social theory in the 1980s and ’90s (Habermas 1984, 1987). 24 CHAPTER 1 Sociology and the Real World Other modern perspectives have taken conflict theory’s insights on economic inequality and adapted them to the study of contemporary inequalities of race, gender, and sexuality (Crenshaw et al. 1996; Matsuda et al. 1993). Beginning with the pioneering work of W.E.B. DuBois, sociology started to focus on inequalities of race and ethnicity, inspiring important studies about the causes and consequences of prejudice and discrimination and helping propel momentous social changes resulting from the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Critical race theory, which emerged out of legal scholarship in the 1970s and 1980s, is concerned with the relationship among race, racism, and power. This controversial theory argues that racism is deeply embedded in American institutions, including our laws. This institutional racism serves to both perpetuate white privilege and marginalize people of color. Adherents of critical race theory are dedicated to not just studying race—and how it intersects with other identities such as sex and class—but also in actively working to end racial oppression (Bonilla-Silva 2015; Delgado and Stefancic 2001, 2012). Feminist theory developed alongside the twentiethcentury women’s rights movement. By applying assumptions about gender inequality to various social institutions— the family, education, the economy, or the media—feminist theory allows for a new way of understanding those institutions and the changing role of gender in contemporary society. Theorists such as Judith Butler (1999), bell hooks (2003), and Catharine MacKinnon (2005) link gender with inequality in other social hierarchies—race and ethnicity, class, and sexual orientation—and argue that gender and power are inextricably intertwined in our society. The gay and lesbian rights movement that gained momentum in the 1970s and ’80s inspired a new set of theoretical and conceptual tools for social scientists: queer theory. Queer theory proposes that categories of sexuality—homo, hetero, bi, trans—should be viewed as “social constructs” (Seidman 2003). It asserts that no sexual category is fundamentally bell hooks Feminist theorists such as bell hooks consider the intersection of gender and race. deviant or normal; we create such definitions, so we can change them as well. Indeed, some theorists, such as Marjorie Garber (1997), argue that strict categories themselves are no longer relevant and that more fluid notions of identity should replace conventional dichotomies such as gay/straight. ADVANTAGES AND CRITIQUES One of Karl Marx’s great contributions to the social sciences is the principle of praxis, or practical action: intellectuals should act on what they believe. Marx wished not only to describe the world but also to change it. Indeed, Marxist ideas have been important in achieving change through many twentieth-century social movements, including civil rights, antiwar, women’s rights, gay rights, animal rights, environmentalism, and multiculturalism. If these groups had not protested the status quo, we might never have addressed some of the century’s social problems. Conflict theory is useful in understanding not only macro-level social issues (such as systematic discrimination against minority groups) but also micro-level personal interactions (such as those between bosses and employees). Conflict theory stands in sharp contrast to structural functionalism. Conflict theory argues that a social arrangement’s existence does not mean that it’s beneficial; it may merely represent the interests of those in power. The theory challenges the status quo and emphasizes the need for social upheaval. In focusing on tension and conflict, however, conflict theory can often ignore those parts of society that are truly orderly, stable, and enduring. Although society certainly has its share of disagreements, there are also shared values and common beliefs that hold it together. Conflict theory can be criticized for overlooking these less controversial dimensions of social reality. Weberian Theory Max Weber (1864–1920) was another important European macrosociological theorist during the Industrial Revolution. His work forms another large branch of sociology’s family tree, and his ideas continue to inspire in their current application, yet he is not always included among the three major branches of the discipline. Weberian theory is not a minor branch of sociology, nor is it considered merely an offshoot of one or the other major branches of the tree. It draws from a background shared by the other macro theorists but forms its own independent limb. Weber grew up in the German city of Berlin. His father was a successful entrepreneur and member of a traditional and authoritarian aristocracy. Both his parents Max Weber were Protestants and descendants of victims of religious persecution. Weber, though not religious himself, exhibited the relentless work ethic held in high regard by devout Protestants. Although he was sickly and withdrawn as a young man, work served as a way for him to rebel against his father and the leisure classes in general. He studied law and history and worked as a lawyer while establishing his credentials for a university teaching position. While pursuing his studies, Weber remained at home and financially dependent on his father, a situation he came to resent. Eventually he broke away, marrying his second cousin in 1893 and beginning a career teaching economics at the University of Freiburg and later the University of Heidelberg. Weber rapidly established himself as a QUEER THEORY social theory about gender and sexual identity; prominent member of the Geremphasizes the importance of man intellectual scene. He might difference and rejects ideas of have continued in this manner had innate identities or restrictive it not been for a disastrous visit categories from his parents in 1897, during PRAXIS the application of theory which Weber fought bitterly with to practical action in an effort to his father and threw him out of improve aspects of society the house. When his father died RATIONALIZATION the a month later, Weber suffered a application of economic logic to nervous breakdown that left him human activity; the use of formal unable to work for several years. rules and regulations in order The strain of these events and to maximize efficiency without years of incessant labor had appar- consideration of subjective or ently caught up with him. He even- individual concerns tually recovered and resumed his BUREAUCRACIES secondary intense scholarship, but the break- groups designed to perform down left Weber disillusioned tasks efficiently, characterized by specialization, technical with the strict academic regimen. Weber subsequently expressed competence, hierarchy, written a pessimistic view of social rules, impersonality, and formal written communication forces, such as the work ethic, that shaped modern life. Like IRON CAGE Max Weber’s other social theorists of his time, pessimistic description of modern Weber was interested in the shift life, in which we are caught in bureaucratic structures that from a more traditional society to control our lives through rigid a modern industrial one. Perhaps rules and rationalization his most overriding concern was with the process of rationalization, or the application of economic logic to all spheres of human activity. In Economy and Society (1921), Weber proposed that modern industrialized societies were characterized by efficient, goal-oriented, rule-governed bureaucracies. He believed that individual behavior was increasingly driven by such bureaucratic goals, which had become more important motivational factors than traditions, values, or emotions. Weber’s classic sociological discussion of the origins of the capitalist system, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904), concluded with the image of people trapped by their industrious way of life in what he called an iron cage Macrosociological Theory 25 ON THE JOB Famous Sociology Majors ociology continues to be a popular major at colleges and universities in the United States and in countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. According to the Department of Education (2017d), over a half million bachelor of arts degrees in sociology were awarded in the United States between 1990 and 2015. Clearly, there are many reasons students are enthusiastic about the subject. What may be less clear is how to turn this passion into a paycheck. Students considering majoring in the subject often ask, “What can I do with a degree in sociology?” Their parents may be asking the same question. Students interested in academic careers can pursue graduate degrees and become professors and researchers— real practicing sociologists. But the vast majority of sociology majors will not necessarily become sociologists with a capital S. Their studies have prepared them to be valuable, accomplished participants in a variety of fields, including law S Saul Bellow Michelle Obama of bureaucratic rules. He believed that contemporary life was rationalization of modern society filled with disenchantment VERSTEHEN “empathic (similar to Durkheim’s concept understanding”; Weber’s term to of anomie and Marx’s concept describe good social research, of alienation) as the inevitable which tries to understand the result of the dehumanizing feameanings that individuals attach tures of the bureaucracies that to various aspects of social reality dominated the modern social landscape. Weber’s insights into the nature of society continue to inspire sociologists today. For instance, George Ritzer (1996, 2013) has applied Weber’s theories of bureaucracy DISENCHANTMENT the 26 CHAPTER 1 Sociology and the Real World and government, business administration, social welfare, public health, education, counseling and human resources, advertising and marketing, public relations and the media, and nonprofit organizations. A major in sociology, in other words, can lead almost anywhere. And while the roster of former sociology majors contains names both well known and unsung, from President Ronald Reagan and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. to the public defender giving legal aid to low-income clients and the health-care professional bringing wellness programs into large corporations, we will focus here on three important Americans you may not have associated with sociology. The first individual may be the least likely to be identified as a sociology major, since his career was centered in the arts. Saul Bellow (1915–2005) was one of the most acclaimed American novelists of the twentieth century; his books include Seize the Day, Herzog, and Humboldt’s Gift. He won numerous literary awards, including the National Book Award (three times), the Pulitzer Prize, and the Nobel Prize for Literature. He was also a successful playwright and journalist and taught at several universities. Bellow was born in Montreal to Jewish parents, Russian émigrés who later settled in the slums of Chicago while he was still a child. He began his undergraduate studies in English at the University of Chicago but left within two years after being told Kal Penn and rationalization to the fast-food industry and has warned about “McDonaldization” creeping into other aspects of contemporary life, such as education and law enforcement. More recently, Ritzer has applied Weberian theory to the forces of globalization, demonstrating how the principles of McDonaldization have been exported and adopted across the globe (Ritzer and Rand 2007). The key concepts we have touched on here will be expanded as we apply Weberian theory to a variety of topics in upcoming chapters of the text. In addition to making some of the most important contributions to theory within the discipline, Weber was also influential in improving research methods by suggesting that researchers avoid imposing their own by the department chair that no Jew could really grasp English literature. He then enrolled at Northwestern University, graduating in 1937 with honors in sociology. Literary critics have noted that Bellow’s background in sociology, as well as his own personal history, may have influenced both the style and subject of his work. Many of the great themes of American social life appear in his novels: culture, power, wealth and poverty, war, religion, urban life, gender relations, and, above all, the social contract that keeps us together in the face of forces that threaten to tear us apart. Our next profile is of Michelle Robinson Obama (b. 1964), the first African American First Lady of the United States. Michelle Obama has become one of the most recognizable and widely admired sociology majors in the world, using her role as First Lady to fight childhood obesity, help working mothers and military families, and encourage public service. Born and raised in working-class Chicago, she can trace her ancestry to slaves on both sides of her family tree. Her father worked for the city’s water department but saw both of his children graduate from Princeton University and go on to successful professional careers. After obtaining her BA in sociology—her senior thesis dealt with alienation experienced by African American students in an Ivy League institution—she earned her law degree at Harvard, worked at a prestigious law firm in Chicago, and then served in the mayor’s office. In addition to law and politics, her choice of majors was a critical stepping-stone on her way to success. Our last sociology major is Kalpen Modi (b. 1977), who served as an associate director with the White House Office of Public Engagement (OPE) in 2009. In this role, he acted as a liaison to young Americans, the arts, and Asian American and Pacific Islander communities. He also served on the President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities. This may come as a surprise to those who know him as the actor Kal Penn, most famous for his role as the wisecracking, easygoing stoner Kumar in the Harold and Kumar film series or as Kevin on How I Met Your Mother. As an actor, Penn has been critical of the racial and ethnic stereotypes often associated with playing a person of South Asian descent. At one point, he nearly turned down a recurring role as a terrorist on the TV drama 24 because he didn’t want to reinforce the negative “connection between media images and people’s thought processes” (Yuan 2007). While it might be easy to make similar claims against Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, one of his co-stars defended the film by arguing that it “approached the level of sociology, albeit scatological, sexually obsessed sociology,” as “it probed questions of ethnic identity, conformism and family expectations versus personal satisfaction” (Garvin 2008, p. M1). Penn continues to juggle politics with acting, reflecting a deep commitment to sociological ideals and a desire to use his influence to help build more positive media portrayals of minorities. In 2016, Penn joined the cast of TV drama Designated Survivor in the role of White House press secretary. Regardless of whether you go any further in this discipline—or if you end up working in politics, the arts, or public service—the most important thing to take away from an introductory sociology class is a sociological perspective. Sociology promises a new way of looking at, thinking about, and taking action in the world around us, which will serve you well no matter where you find yourself in the future. opinions on their scientific analysis; we’ll examine these ideas more closely in Chapter 2. Weber’s work served as a bridge between early social theory, which focused primarily on the macro level of society, and subsequent theories that focused more intently on the micro level. He was interested in how individual motivation led to certain social actions and how those actions helped shape society as a whole. Unlike Marx and Durkheim, Weber was cautious about attributing any reality to social institutions or forces independent of individual action and meaningful thought. He invoked the German term verstehen (“empathic understanding”) to describe how a social scientist should study human action: that is, with a kind of scientific empathy for actors’ experiences, intentions, and actions. In this way, Weber helped lay the groundwork for the third grand theory in sociology. Microsociological Theory As the twentieth century dawned and the careers of the macro theorists such as Durkheim, Marx, and Weber matured, political, cultural, and academic power began to shift from Europe. As manifested by the waves of emigrants leaving the Old World for the New World, America was seen as the land of opportunity, both material and intellectual. So it was in the Microsociological Theory 27 twentieth century, and increasingly in the United States, that the discipline of sociology continued to develop and the ideas of its third major school of thought began to coalesce. Symbolic Interactionism Sociology’s third grand theory, symbolic interactionism (or interactionist theory), proved its greatest influence through much of the 1900s. It is America’s unique contribution to the discipline and an answer to many of the criticisms of other paradigms. Symbolic interactionism helps us explain both our individual personalities and the ways in which we are all linked together; it allows us to understand the processes by which social order and social change are constructed. As a theoretical perspective, it is vital, versatile, and still evolving. FOUNDER AND KEY CONTRIBUTIONS Symbolic interactionism is derived largely from the teachings of George Herbert Mead (1863–1931). But there were many others involved in the development of this particular school of thought, and it is worthwhile to examine the social context in which they lived and worked. At the start of the twentieth century, sociology was still something of an import from the European intellectual scene, and American practitioners had just begun developing their own ideas regarding the nature and workings of society. The University of Chicago of the 1920s George Herbert Mead provided a stimulating intellectual setting for a handful of academics who built on SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM each other’s work and advanced a paradigm that sees interaction what became known as the first and meaning as central to society and assumes that meanings are new major branch within the not inherent but are created discipline. Since there were so through interaction few social theorists in the country, the head of the department, CHICAGO SCHOOL a type of sociology practiced at the Albion Small, a philosopher by University of Chicago in the training, recruited professors 1920s and 1930s that centered from various eastern colleges on urban settings and field who had often studied other disresearch methods ciplines such as theology and psyPRAGMATISM a perspective chology. The fledgling sociology that assumes organisms department grew to include such (including humans) make practical influential members as Robert adaptations to their environments; Park, W. I. Thomas, Charles Horhumans do this through cognition, ton Cooley, and later George Herinterpretation, and interaction bert Mead and Herbert Blumer. 28 CHAPTER 1 Sociology and the Real World This group, the theories they developed together, and the way they went about studying the social world are frequently referred to (either individually or collectively) as the Chicago School of sociology. Chicago was in many ways a frontier city in the early twentieth century. Rapidly transformed by industrialization, immigration, and ethnic diversity, Chicago became a unique laboratory in which to practice a new type of sociology that differed both theoretically and methodologically from the European models. Instead of doing comparative and historical work like the macro theorists before them, the members of the Chicago School went out into the city to conduct interviews and collect observational data. Their studies were particularly inspired by Max Weber’s concept of verstehen as the proper attitude to adopt in the field. Their focus was on the micro level of everyday interactions (such as race relations in urban neighborhoods) as the building blocks of larger social phenomena (such as racial inequality). The new school of thought was strongly influenced by a philosophical perspective called pragmatism, developed largely by William James and John Dewey, which was gaining acceptance among American social theorists in the early 1900s. James was a Harvard professor whose interests spanned art, medicine, law, education, theology, philosophy, and psychology; he also traveled extensively and was acquainted with some of the most important scholars of the time. To James, pragmatism meant seeking the truth of an idea by evaluating its usefulness in everyday life; in other words, if it works, it’s true! He thought that living in the world involved making practical adaptations to whatever we encountered; if those adaptations made our lives run more smoothly, then the ideas behind them must be both useful and true. James’s ideas inspired educational psychologist and philosopher John Dewey, who also grappled with pragmatism’s main questions: How do we adapt to our environments? How do we acquire the knowledge that allows us to act in our everyday lives? Unlike the social Darwinists, pragmatists implied that the process of adaptation is essentially immediate and that it involves conscious thought. George Herbert Mead would be the one who eventually pulled these ideas (and others, too) together into a theory meant to address questions about the relationship between thought and action, the individual and society. Mead came from a progressive family and grew up in the Midwest and Northeast during the late 1800s, where his father, a professor of theology at Oberlin College, died when George was a teenager, and his widowed mother eventually became president of Mount Holyoke College. Mead attended college at Oberlin and Harvard and did his graduate studies in psychology at the universities of Leipzig and Berlin in Germany. Before he became a full-time professor of psychology at the University of Michigan and later the University of Chicago, Mead waited tables and did railroad surveying and construction work. He was also a tutor to William James’s family in Cambridge, Massachusetts; since his later theories were influenced by James, we can only wonder exactly who was tutoring whom in this arrangement! Mead’s background and training uniquely positioned him to bridge the gap between sociology and psychology and to address the links between the individual and society. Mead proposed that both human development and the meanings we assign to everyday objects and events are fundamentally social processes; they require the interaction of multiple individuals. And what is crucial to the development of self and society is language, the means by which we communicate with one another. For Mead, there is no mind without language, and language itself is a product of social interactions (1934, pp. 191–192). According to Mead, the most important human behaviors consist of linguistic “gestures,” such as words and facial expressions. People develop the ability to engage in conversation using these gestures; further, both society and individual selves are constructed through this kind of symbolic communication. Mead argued that we use language to “name ourselves, think about ourselves, talk to ourselves, and feel proud or ashamed of ourselves” and that “we can act toward ourselves in all the ways we can act toward others” (Hewitt 2000, p. 10). He was curious about how the mind develops but did not believe that it develops separately from its social environment. For Mead, then, society and self are created through communicative acts such as speech and gestures; the individual personality is shaped by society, and vice versa. Herbert Blumer (1900–1987), a graduate student and later a professor at the University of Chicago, was closely associated with Mead and was largely credited with continuing Mead’s life’s work. While completing his master’s degree, Blumer played football for the University of Missouri Tigers, and during the 1920s and 1930s he maintained dual careers as a sociology professor and a professional football player for the former Chicago Cardinals. On Mondays, he would often come to class wrapped in bandages after a tough Sunday game. What he did off the gridiron, however, was of critical importance to the discipline. Blumer appealed for researchers to get “down and dirty” with the dynamics of social life. He also published a clear and compelling series of works based on Mead’s fundamental ideas. After Mead’s death in 1931, Blumer gave Mead’s theory the name it now goes by: symbolic interactionism. Thus, Mead and Blumer became the somewhat unwitting founders of a much larger theoretical perspective. Blumer’s long career at the University of Chicago and later at the University of California, Berkeley, ensured the training of many future scholars and secured the inclusion of symbolic interactionism as one of the major schools of Herbert Blumer thought within the discipline. Despite its geographical location in a city full of real-world inequality (or perhaps because of it), the Chicago School of sociology had very few women or people of color among its membership. Take W.E.B. DuBois and Jane Addams, for example: These two scholars were neither students nor faculty members at the University of Chicago, W.E.B. DuBois although both are often associated with Chicago School perspectives, values, and methods. Both led the way for other minorities and women to become influential scholars in the discipline of sociology. William Edward Burghardt (W.E.B.) DuBois (1868–1963) was a notable pioneer in the study of race relations as a professor of sociology at Atlanta University and one of the most influential African American leaders of his time. After becoming the first African American to earn a PhD from Harvard University, DuBois did groundbreaking research on the history of the slave trade, post–Civil War Reconstruction, the problems of urban ghetto life, and the nature of black American society. DuBois was so brilliant and prolific that it is often said that all subsequent studies of race and racial inequality in America depend to some degree on his work. Throughout his life, DuBois was involved in various forms of social activism. He was an indispensable forerunner in the civil rights movement; among his many civic and political achievements, DuBois was a founding member, in 1909, of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), an organization committed to the cause of ending racism and injustice. Because of his anti-racist, anti-poverty, and anti-war activism, DuBois was targeted by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and Senator Joseph McCarthy as a communist. However, he did not become a member of the Communist Party until he was ninety-three years old, and then only did so as a form of political protest against the persecution of its members by the U.S. government. Eventually, DuBois became disillusioned by the persistent injustices of American society and emigrated to Ghana, where he died at ninety-five, one year before the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law. Jane Addams (1860–1935) was another pioneer in the field of sociology whose numerous accomplishments range from the halls of academia to the forefront of social activism. Though she never officially joined the faculty because she feared it would curtail her Jane Addams political activism, Addams Microsociological Theory 29 did teach extension courses at the University of Chicago and was among a handful of women teaching in American universities at the time. Though not a mother herself, Addams believed that women have a special kind of responsibility toward solving social problems because they are trained to care for others. She was one of the first proponents of applied sociology—addressing the most pressing problems of her day through hands-on work with the people and places that were the subject of her research. This practical approach is perhaps best demonstrated by Hull House, the Chicago community center she established in 1889 to offer shelter, medical care, legal advice, training, and education to new immigrants, single mothers, and the poor. As a result of her commitment to delivering support and services where they were most needed, Addams is often considered the founder of what is now a separate field outside the discipline: social work. Addams also helped found two important organizations that continue to fight for freedom and equality today: the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and, along with W.E.B. DuBois, the NAACP. She served as the president of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and in 1931 became the first American woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. ORIGINAL PRINCIPLES For symbolic interactionists, society is produced and reproduced through our interactions with each other by means of language and our interpretations of that language. Symbolic interactionism sees face-to-face interaction as the building block of everything else in society, because it is through interaction that we create a meaningful social reality. Here are the three basic tenets of symbolic interactionism, as laid out by Blumer (1969, p. 2). First, we act toward things on the basis of their meanings. For example, a tree can provide a shady place to rest, or it can be an obstacle to building a road or home; each of these meanings suggests a different set of actions. This is as true for physical objects like trees as it is for people (like mothers or cops), institutions (church or school), beliefs (honesty or equality), DRAMATURGY an approach pioneered by Erving Goffman or any social activity. Second, in which social life is analyzed meanings are not inherent; rather, in terms of its similarities to they are negotiated through theatrical performance interaction with others. That is, ETHNOMETHODOLOGY the whether the tree is an obstacle or study of “folk methods” and an oasis is not an intrinsic quality background knowledge that of the tree itself but rather somesustain a shared sense of reality thing that people must figure out in everyday interactions among themselves. The same tree CONVERSATION ANALYSIS a can mean one thing to one person sociological approach that looks and something else to another. at how we create meaning in And third, meanings can change naturally occurring conversation, or be modified through interacoften by taping conversations and tion. For example, the contractor examining their transcripts who sees the tree as an obstacle 30 CHAPTER 1 Sociology and the Real World might be persuaded to spare it by the neighbor who appreciates its shade. Now the tree means the same thing to both of them: it is something to protect and build around rather than to condemn and bulldoze. Symbolic interactionism proposes that social facts exist only because we create and re-create them through our interactions; this gives the theory wide explanatory power and a versatility that allows it to address any sociological issue. Although symbolic interactionism is focused on how self and society develop through interaction with others, it is useful in explaining and analyzing a wide variety of specific social issues, from inequalities of race and gender to the group dynamics of families or co-workers. OFFSHOOTS Symbolic interactionism opened the door for innovative sociologists who focused on social acts (such as face-to-face interaction) rather than social facts (such as vast bureaucratic institutions). They were able to extend the field in a variety of ways, allowing new perspectives to come under the umbrella of symbolic interactionism. Erving Goffman (1922–1982) furthered symbolic interactionist conceptions of the self in a seemingly radical way, indicating that the self is essentially “on loan” to us from society; it is created through interaction with others and hence ever changing within various social contexts. For example, you may want to make a different kind of impression on a first date than you do on a job interview or when you face an opponent in a game of poker. Goffman used the theatrical Erving Goffman metaphor of dramaturgy to describe the ways in which we engage in a strategic presentation of ourselves to others. In this way, he elaborated on Mead’s ideas in a specific fashion, utilizing a wide range of data to help support his arguments. Harold Garfinkel, the founder of ethnomethodology (the study of “folk methods,” or everyday analysis of interaction), maintains that as members of society we must acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to act practically in our everyday lives (Garfinkel 1967). He argues that much of this knowledge remains in the background, “seen but unnoticed,” and that we assume that others have the same knowledge we do when we interact with them. These assumptions allow us to make meaning out of even seemingly troublesome or ambiguous events; but such shared understandings can also be quite precarious, and there is a good deal of work required to sustain them, even as we are unaware that we are doing so. Conversation analysis, pioneered by sociologists at the University of California, Los Angeles, is also related to symbolic interactionism. It is based on the ethnomethodological idea that as everyday actors we are constantly analyzing and giving meaning to our social world (Clayman 2002; Heritage and Clayman 2010; Schegloff 1986, 1999, 2007). Conversation analysts are convinced that the best place to look for the social processes of meaning-production is in naturally occurring conversation and that the best way to get at the meanings an everyday actor gives to the things others say and do is to look closely at how he responds. Conversation analysts therefore use highly technical methods to scrutinize each conversational turn closely, operating on the assumption that any larger social phenomenon is constructed step-by-step through interaction. ADVANTAGES AND CRITIQUES As society changes, so must the discipline that studies it, and symbolic interactionism has invigorated sociology in ways that are linked to the past and looking toward the future. The founding of symbolic interactionism provided a new and different way of looking at the world. It is “the only perspective that assumes an active, expressive model of the human actor and that treats the individual and the social at the same level of analysis” (O’Brien and Kollock 1997, p. 39). Therein lies much of its power and its appeal. As a new school of thought focusing on the micro level of society, symbolic interactionism was not always met with immediate approval by the academy. Over time, symbolic interactionism has been integrated relatively seamlessly into sociology, and its fundamental precepts have become widely accepted. During the second half of the twentieth century, the scope of symbolic interactionism widened, its topics multiplied, and its theoretical linkages became more varied. In fact, there was some concern that symbolic interactionism was expanding so much that it risked erupting into something else entirely (Fine 1993). One of symbolic interactionism’s most enduring contributions is in the area of research methods. Practices such as ethnography and conversation analysis are data rich, technically complex, and empirically well grounded (Katz 1997; Schegloff 1999), giving us new insights into perennial questions about social life. As a relative newcomer to the field of social theory, symbolic interactionism was dubbed “the loyal opposition” (Mullins 1973) by those who saw it solely as a reaction or as merely a supplement to the more dominant macrosociological theories that preceded it. Gary Fine sums up the critiques in this way: Symbolic interactionism is “apolitical (and hence, supportive of the status quo), unscientific (hence, little more than tenured journalism), hostile to the classical questions of macrosociology (hence, limited to social psychology), and astructural (hence, fundamentally nonsociological)” (1993, p. 65). Critiques argue that the scope of symbolic interactionism is limited, that it cannot address the most important sociological issues, and that its authority is restricted to the study of face-to-face interaction. Each of these critiques has been answered over the years. Ultimately, some critics have seen the usefulness of an interactionist perspective and have even begun incorporating it into more macro work. Even in the hotly contested micro-versus-macro debate, a kind of détente has been established, recognizing that all levels of analysis are necessary for sociological understanding and that interactionist theories and methods are critical for a full picture of social life. DATA WORKSHOP Analyzing Media and Pop Culture Theories of Celebrity Gossip TMZ, which debuted in 2005, has become one of the most popular celebrity gossip sites in the world. It is consistently among the top 100 websites (of any kind) in the United States, with upward of 25 million unique visitors a month. TMZ provides users with up-to-the-minute pop culture news, publishing hundreds of posts each day that expose the real and rumored doings of celebrities. It has become the go-to site any time a celebrity gets arrested, dies, goes to rehab, cheats, or behaves badly in some other way. TMZ is part of a new breed of celebrity gossip outlets, including PerezHilton, ONTD, Gawker, RadarOnline, Dlisted, and PopSugar, that have radically transformed the way that celebrities and other public figures are covered in the media. They’re providing more coverage than ever and at greater speed. Stories that used to take at least a week to appear in pre-digital-era print magazines such as People or Us can now be posted online nearly instantaneously. That sometimes puts gossip sites on the forefront of breaking news. For instance, TMZ was the first outlet to report the news of Michael Jackson’s death in 2009, beating the traditional mainstream media by one hour. It’s not just the volume or speed of delivery that’s different; celebrity gossip sites are changing the substance of the coverage as well. Print magazines or mainstream television programs such as Entertainment Tonight or E! News used to provide mostly flattering coverage of celebrities. They were unwilling to report too many negative stories because they relied on the goodwill of celebrities to gain access into their lives. This tends to remain the rule in entertainment news, where there is still no Microsociological Theory 31 shortage of promotional puff pieces and lightweight fare without much bite. But more recently, gossip sites such as TMZ and others have been taking a harsher, more critical stance toward their subjects. They’ve also started engaging in investigative journalism practices, something that was formerly reserved for the mainstream news media. And they’re covering a wider range of “celebrities” that regularly includes professional athletes as well as business executives and even political figures. This has resulted in some major national news stories being generated first by gossip sites, with the traditional media picking up the story soon after. For example, it was TMZ that first released the footage of former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice punching his then-fiancée Janay Palmer in an Atlantic City hotel elevator. Within hours of TMZ posting the disturbing footage, the Ravens had terminated Rice’s contract. The worlds of celebrity gossip and hard news converged again during the 2016 presidential campaign. A month before the election, the Washington Post released a video from 2005 in which Donald Trump made vulgar remarks about women to Billy Bush, who was then the host of Access Hollywood. The two men were talking on an Access Hollywood bus when Trump’s lewd comments about groping women were caught on a hot microphone. The tape created an uproar, and Trump issued a video apology. What had started as celebrity news from a celebrity show was picked up by every leading mainstream media outlet. Whatever your opinion of tabloid news, and many people regard it as just mean, stupid, or shallow, you don’t have to enjoy celebrity gossip to see its sociological relevance. For this Data Workshop, we’d like you to immerse yourself in the celebrity gossip site of your choice. Pick three stories to work with. Scrutinize the pictures, read the headlines and text carefully, and review the reader comments. Then consider how you might answer the following questions according to each of sociology’s three major schools of thought: 1. Structural Functionalism What is the function (or functions) of celebrity gossip for society? What purpose(s) does it serve, and how does it help society maintain stability and order? Discuss how notions of the sacred and profane are characterized. Are there manifest and latent functions of celebrity gossip? And are there any dysfunctions in it? 2. Conflict Theory What forms of inequality are revealed in celebrity gossip? In particular, what does it have to say about class, race, 32 CHAPTER 1 Sociology and the Real World Celebrity Gossip and Society Founded in 2005, TMZ is a leading purveyor of celebrity and entertainment news. gender, sexuality, or other inequalities? Whose interests are being served and who gets exploited? Who suffers and who benefits from celebrity gossip? 3. Symbolic Interactionism What does celebrity gossip mean to society as a whole? What does it mean to individual members of society? Can gossip have different meanings for different individuals or groups of individuals? How do those meanings get constructed in interaction? And how does celebrity gossip shape and influence our everyday lives? There are two options for completing this Data Workshop: P R E P- PA I R- S H A R E Print out your three stories and bring them to class. Consider how each of the three sets of questions might be applied. Jot down your thoughts and make note of particular images and text. Get together in groups of two or three, and talk about your findings. How does each sociological theory fit with your examples? What new insights were provided by each perspective? DO- IT-YOURSELF Select the material you will analyze, and answer each of the three sets of questions in a three-page essay. Discuss the main principles of the three theoretical perspectives and explain how each can be applied. You will want to include specific examples from your chosen stories to illustrate your points. Did the theories overlap at all, or did they contradict each other? Was there any one theory you felt did a better or worse job of explaining celebrity gossip? Attach the stories to your paper. New Theoretical Approaches Because the three major schools of thought and their offshoots all have weaknesses as well as strengths, they will probably never fully explain the totality of social phenomena, even when taken together. And because society itself is always changing, there are always new phenomena to explain. So new perspectives will, and indeed must, continue to arise. In this section, we will consider two more contemporary approaches: postmodernism and midrange theory. Both grew out of the deep groundwork established by the other major schools of thought within sociology, as well as by looking beyond the confines of the discipline for inspiration. Each is a response to conditions both in the fast-changing social world around us and within the ongoing intellectual dialogues taking place among those continuing to study our times and ourselves. Postmodern Theory In the late twentieth century, some social thinkers looked at the proliferation of theories and data and began to question whether we could ever know society or ourselves with any certainty. What is truth, and who has the right to claim it? Or, for that matter, what is reality, and how can it be known? In an era of increasing doubt and cynicism, has meaning become meaningless? Postmodernism, a theory that encompasses a wide range of areas—from art and architecture, music and film, to communications and technology—addresses these and other questions. The postmodern perspective developed primarily out of the French intellectual scene in the second half of the twentieth century and is still associated with three of its most important proponents. It’s probably worth noting that postmodernists themselves don’t really like that label, but nonetheless Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), Jean Baudrillard (1929–2007), and Michel Foucault (1926–1984) are the major figures most often included in the group. In order to understand postmodernism, we first need to juxtapose it with modernism, the movement against which it reacted. Modernism is both a historical period and an ideological stance that began POSTMODERNISM a paradigm with the eighteenth-century that suggests that social reality is Enlightenment, or Age of Rea- diverse, pluralistic, and constantly son. Modernist thought values in flux scientific knowledge, a linear (or MODERNISM a paradigm that timeline-like) view of history, places trust in the power of and a belief in the universality science and technology to create of human nature. In postmod- progress, solve problems, and ernism, on the other hand, there improve life are no absolutes—no claims to DECONSTRUCTION a type truth, reason, right, order, or sta- of critical postmodern analysis bility. Everything is therefore that involves taking apart or relative—fragmented, tempo- disassembling old ways of rary, and contingent. Postmod- thinking ernists believe that certainty is illusory and prefer to play with the possibilities created by fluidity, complexity, multidimensionality, and even nonsense. They propose that there are no universal human truths from which we can interpret the meaning of existence. On one hand, postmodernism can be celebrated as a liberating influence that rescues us from the stifling effects of rationality and tradition. On the other hand, it can be condemned as a detrimental influence that imprisons us in a world of relativity, nihilism, and chaos. Postmodernists are also critical of what they call “grand narratives,” overarching stories and theories that justify dominant beliefs and give a (false) sense of order and coherence to the world. Postmodernists are interested in deconstruction, or taking apart and examining these stories and theories. For example, they claim that “factual” accounts of history are no more accurate than those that might be found in fiction. They prefer the notion of mini-narratives, or small-scale stories, that describe individual or group practices rather than narratives that attempt to be universal or global. These mininarratives can then be combined in a variety of ways, creating a collage of meaning. One way of understanding what postmodernism looks like is to examine how it has crept into our popular culture. Hiphop is an example of a postmodern art form. It is a hybrid that borrows from other established genres, from rhythm and blues to rock and reggae. Hip-hop also takes samples from existing songs, mixes these with new musical tracks, and overlays it Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Jean Baudrillard New Theoretical Approaches 33 Table 1.1 Theory in Everyday Life Perspective Approach to Society Case Study: College Admissions in the United States Structural Functionalism Assumes that society is a unified whole that functions because of the contributions of its separate structures. Those who are admitted are worthy and well qualified, while those who are not admitted do not deserve to be. There are other places in society for them besides the university. Sees social conflict as the basis of society and social change and emphasizes a materialist view of society, a critical view of the status quo, and a dynamic model of historical change. Admissions decisions may be made on the basis of criteria other than grades and scores. For example, some applicants may get in because their fathers are major university donors, while others may get in because of their talents in sports or music. Some may be denied admission based on criteria like race, gender, or sexuality. Asserts that interaction and meaning are central to society and assumes that meanings are not inherent but are created through interaction. University admissions processes are all about selfpresentation and meaning-making in interaction. How does an applicant present himself or herself to impress the admissions committee? How does the admissions committee develop an understanding of the kind of applicant it’s looking for? How do applicants interpret their acceptances and rejections? Suggests that social reality is diverse, pluralistic, and constantly in flux. An acceptance doesn’t mean you’re smart, and a rejection doesn’t mean you’re stupid; be careful of any “facts” you may be presented with, as they are illusory and contingent. Conflict Theory Symbolic Interactionism Postmodernism all with rap lyrics, resulting in a unique new sound. Mash-ups are another postmodern twist in music. Take, for instance, the Grey Album by DJ Danger Mouse, which uses tracks from the Beatles’ classic White Album and combines them with Jay-Z’s Black Album to create something wholly new yet borrowed. Many resist the postmodern position against essential meaning or truth; the rise in religious fundamentalism may be a reaction to the postmodern view, an expression of the desire to return to absolute truths and steadfast traditions. Sociologists are quick to criticize postmodernism for discarding the scientific method and the knowledge they believe it has generated. Social leaders with a conservative agenda have been MIDRANGE THEORY an suspicious of the postmodern approach that integrates impulse to dismiss moral stanempiricism and grand theory dards. While it is clear that many people criticize postmodernism, a much larger number are probably oblivious to it, which in itself may be more damning than any other response. Although it is not a widely practiced perspective, postmodernism has nevertheless gained supporters. Those who challenge the status quo, whether in the arts, politics, or the academy, find attractive postmodernism’s ability to embrace a multiplicity of powerful and promising alternatives. At the very least, postmodernism allows us to question scientific ideals about clarity and coherence, revealing inherent shortcomings and weaknesses in our current arguments and providing 34 CHAPTER 1 Sociology and the Real World a way toward a deeper, more nuanced understanding of social life. As one of the most contemporary of the theoretical perspectives, postmodernism corresponds to the Information Age and feels natural and intuitive for many students whose lives are immersed in this world. By focusing on individuals and small-scale activities in which change happens on a local, limited basis, postmodernism offers an alternative to such cultural trends as consumerism and globalization. However unwelcome the theory might be to some critics, it is likely that the postmodern shifts we have seen in society (in music and films, for example) will continue. Midrange Theory The second new theoretical approach is midrange theory. It shares some views with postmodernism, especially in its preference for mini-narratives over sweeping statements or “grand theories” made by the classical social theorists— a period dominated by what Robert Merton calls “total sociological systems” (1996, p. 46), which provided an overarching, comprehensive explanation of society as a whole. Merton feared that an uncritical reverence for classical theory and an excessive attachment to tradition could impede the flow of new ideas and was just as likely to hold sociology back as to advance it. Because classical theories sought to develop large-scale theoretical systems that applied to the most macro level of society, they were often extremely difficult to test or research in any practical way. As one critic lamented, too “many sociological products can—effectively and unfortunately—be considered both bad science and bad literature” (Boudon 1991, p. 522). To counter this tendency, Merton proposed that sociologists focus more on “theories of the middle range.” Midrange (or middle range) theory is not a theory of something in particular, but rather a style of theorizing. It is an attempt not so much to make the elusive macro-micro link, but to strike a balance somewhere between those polarities, shifting both the sights and the process of doing sociology. Work in this vein concentrates on incorporating research questions and empirical data into smaller-scale theories that eventually build into a more comprehensive body of sociological theory. Midrange theories are those “that lie between the minor but necessary working hypotheses that evolve in abundance during day-to-day research and the all-inclusive systematic efforts to develop a unified theory that will explain” the whole social world (Merton 1996, p. 41). Since the 1990s and 2000s, a host of sociologists have taken up the call to midrange theory, from Sharon Hays’s study of the contradictions within modern motherhood (1996), to Dalton Conley’s work on racial identity (2000) and his examination of what constitutes leisure in the digital age (2009), to Peter Bearman’s work on public health issues such as the rise of “vaccine refusers” (2010). Midrange theory connects specific research projects that generate empirical data with largerscale theories about social structure. It aims to build knowledge cumulatively while offering a way to make sociology more effective as a science rather than just a way of thinking. With more sociologists appreciating such a stance, midrange theory is helping to push the discipline forward into the sociology of the future. society. As Bernard McGrane says, “Sociology is both dangerous and liberating” (1994, p. 10), as much because of what we can learn about ourselves as because of what we can learn about the world around us. As a discipline, sociology possesses some of the qualities of the society it seeks to understand: it is broad, complex, and ever changing. This can make mastering sociology a rather unwieldy business, as much for the students and teachers who grapple with it in the classroom as for the experts out working in the field. We want you to become familiar with the members of sociology’s family tree from its varied historical roots to the tips of its offshoots that might one day become important future branches. Because we have no single acknowledged universal sociological theory that satisfactorily explains all social phenomena (despite claims otherwise by some theorists), new theories can be developed all the time. Social theory tries to explain what is happening in, to, and around us. For any and every possible new, different, or important phenomenon—from the most mundane personal experience to questions of ultimate global significance—sociologists will attempt to explain it, understand it, analyze it, and predict its future. By looking at the development of the discipline, we are reminded that the contemporary grows out of the classical, and that older theories inspire and provoke newer ones. Theorists past and present remain engaged in a continual and evolving dialogue through their ideas and their work, and until such time as society is completely explained, the branches of sociology’s family tree will continue to grow in remarkable ways. CLOSING COMMENTS We hope that this chapter has given you a thorough and compelling introduction to the study of sociology and that perhaps you, too, will find it an appealing pursuit. Many of you will have already started a sociological journey, although likely a casual or personal one . . . until now. The popularity of reality TV speaks to our fascination with the everyday lives of other people, whether Hoarders or Shark Tank or The Real Housewives of ________ (fill in the blank). As students of sociology, we are interested in everyday life because we are excited to understand more about how its patterns and processes create our larger social reality. As we become better social analysts, using strategies to set aside any blinding preconceptions or distracting conclusions, we can become better acquainted with some of the fundamental tools that can turn our natural curiosity into scientific inquiry. A sociological perspective allows us to grasp the connection between our individual experiences and the forces and structures of Closing Comments 35 Everything You Need to Know about Sociology “ “ Sociology is the systematic or scientific study of human society and social behavior, from large-scale institutions and mass culture to small groups and individual interactions. 36 THEORIES OF SOCIOLOGY ✱ Structural functionalism: The assumption that society is a unified whole that functions because of the contributions of its separate structures. ✱ Conflict theory: The belief that social conflict is the basis of society and social change that emphasizes a materialist view of society, a critical view of the status quo, and a dynamic model of historical change. ✱ Weberian theory: The application of economic logic to human activity that uses formal rules and regulations in order to maximize efficiency without consideration of subjective or individual concerns. ✱ Symbolic interactionism: An approach that sees interaction and meaning as central to society and assumes that meanings are not inherent but are created through interaction. ✱ Postmodern theory: An approach that suggests that social reality is diverse, pluralistic, and constantly in flux. ✱ Midrange theory: An approach that integrates empiricism and grand theory. REVIEW 1. What does it mean to possess a sociological imagination? Think of your favorite food. What historical events had to happen and what institutions have to function in order for this food to be available? What sort of meanings does it have? 2. How does the level of analysis you adopt affect your assumptions about how society works? Could Pam Fishman have done her research on gender and power in conversations from a macro perspective? Perhaps with a survey? Could Christine Williams have done her research on gender and power in occupations from a micro perspective? Perhaps with interviews? How might this change their conclusions? 3. Symbolic interactionism argues that meanings are not inherent in things themselves but are socially derived and negotiated through interaction with others. Think of some recent fashion trend. Can you describe this trend in terms of what it means to those who embrace it? What sorts of interactions produce and maintain this meaning? Key Works in Sociology 1837 Harriet Martineau, Society in America 1838 Auguste Comte, Cours de Philosophie Positive 1848 Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto 1867 Karl Marx, Das Kapital 1893 Émile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society 1897 Émile Durkheim, Suicide 1902 Charles Horton Cooley, Human Nature and the Social Order 1903 W. E. B. DuBois, The Souls of Black Folk 1904 Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism 1912 Émile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life 1921 Max Weber, Economy and Society 1934 George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self, and Society 1937 Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action 1949 Robert Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure 1956 C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite 1959 C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination 1959 Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life 1966 Peter Berger & Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality 1981 bell hooks, Ain’t I a Woman? 1984 Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction 1989 Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State EXPLORE The Rationality of Irrationality George Ritzer applied Max Weber’s theories of bureaucracy and rationality to the fast-food industry. Visit the Everyday Sociology blog to learn how Weber’s theories adapt to everyday life. http://wwnPag.es/trw401 37 CHAPTER 2 Studying Social Life: Sociological Research Methods umorist Dave Barry, the Pulitzer Prize–winning columnist and author, has written many H entertaining articles as a reporter and social commentator. Some of his thoughts on college, however, seem particularly appropriate for this chapter. In one of his most pop- ular essays, Barry advises students not to choose a major that involves “known facts” and “right answers” but rather a subject in which “nobody really understands what anybody else is talking about, and which involves virtually no actual facts” (Barry 1987, p. 203). For example, sociology: 38 39 For sheer lack of intelligibility, sociology is far and away the number-one subject. I sat through hundreds of hours of sociology courses, and read gobs of sociology writing, and I never once heard or read a coherent statement. This is because sociologists want to be considered scientists, so they spend most of their time translating simple, obvious observations into scientificsounding code. If you plan to major in sociology, you’ll have to learn to do the same thing. For example, suppose you have observed that children cry when they fall down. You should write: “Methodological observation of the sociometrical behavior tendencies of prematurated isolates indicates that a causal relationship exists between groundward tropism and lachrimatory, or ‘crying’ behavior forms.” If you can keep this up for fifty or sixty pages, you will get a large government grant. Although Barry exaggerates a bit, if there weren’t some truth to what he is saying, his joke would be meaningless. While sociologists draw much of their inspiration from the natural (or “hard”) sciences (such as chemistry and biology) and try to study society in a scientific way, many people still think of sociology as “unscientific” or a “soft” science. In response, some sociologists may try too hard to sound scientific and incorporate complicated terminology in their writing. It is possible, of course, to conduct research and write about it in a clear, straightforward, and even elegant way, as the best sociologists have demonstrated. Contrary to Barry’s humorous claims, sociology can be both scientific and comprehensible. So let’s turn now to a discussion of how sociologists conduct their research, which includes the methods of gathering information and conveying that information to others. For the record, Dave Barry went to Haverford College near Philadelphia, where he majored in English. 40 CHAPTER 2 Studying Social Life: Sociological Research Methods HOW TO READ THIS CHAPTER In Chapter 1 we introduced you to a set of tools that will help you develop a sociological imagination and apply particular theoretical perspectives to the social world. In this chapter you will acquire methodological tools that will help you to further understand social life. The tools will also help you in the Data Workshops throughout the book, which are designed to give you the experience of conducting the same type of research that professional sociologists do. For this reason, we recommend that you look at this chapter as a sort of “ howto” guide: Read through all the “directions” first, recognizing that you will soon be putting these methods into practice. Then remember that you have this chapter as a resource for future reference. These methods are your tools for real-world research—it’s important that you understand them, but even more important that you get a chance to use them. An Overview of Research Methods While theories make hypothetical claims, methods produce data that will support, disprove, or modify those claims. Sociologists who do quantitative research work with numerical data; that is, they translate the social world into numbers that can then be manipulated mathematically. Any type of social statistic is an example of quantitative data: You may have read in the newspaper, for instance, that in 2015 some 34 percent of male drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes had a blood alcohol content at or above 0.08 percent, compared with 21 percent of female drivers (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 2016). Quantitative methodologies distill large amounts of information into numbers that are more easily communicated to others, often in the form of rates and percentages or charts and graphs. Sociologists who do qualitative research work with nonnumerical data such as texts, written field notes, interview transcripts, videos, or photographs. Rather than condensing lived experience into numbers, qualitative researchers try to describe the cases they study in great detail. They may engage in participant observation, in which they enter the social world they wish to study, or they may do in-depth interviews; analyze transcripts of conversations; glean data from historical books, letters, or diaries; and even use social networking sites or text messages as sources of data for their investigations. Sociologist Gary Fine, for example, has observed a variety of different social worlds, including those of professional restaurant chefs (1996), members of high school debate teams (2001), and meteorologists who predict the weather (2010). Fine was able to discover important sociological insights through immersion in each of the social worlds he studied. Sociological Methods Take Many Forms Sociologists use both quantitative methods, such as surveys, and qualitative methods, such as participant observation, to study the social world. Qualitative researchers like Fine find patterns in their data by using interpretive rather than statistical analysis. The Scientific Approach The scientific method is the standard procedure for acquiring and verifying empirical (concrete, scientific) knowledge. The scientific method provides researchers with a series of basic steps to follow; over the years, sociologists have updated and modified this model so that it better fits the study of human behaviors. While not every sociologist adheres to each of the steps in order, the scientific method provides a general plan for conducting research in a systematic way (see Figure 2.1). QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH research that translates the social world into numbers that can be treated mathematically; this type of research often tries to find cause-and-effect relationships QUALITATIVE RESEARCH research that works with nonnumerical data such as texts, field notes, interview transcripts, photographs, and tape recordings; this type of research more often tries to understand how people make sense of their world SCIENTIFIC METHOD a procedure for acquiring knowledge that emphasizes collecting concrete data through observation and experimentation LITERATURE REVIEW a thorough search through previously published studies relevant to a particular topic 1. In the first step, the researcher identifies a problem or asks a general question, like “Does violent TV lead to violent behavior?” and begins to think about a specific research plan designed to answer that question. 2. Before proceeding, however, a researcher usually does a literature review to become thoroughly familiar with all other research done previously on a given topic. Doing so will prevent a researcher from duplicating work that has already been done and may also provide the background upon which to conduct new research. An Overview of Research Methods 41 1. Identify a problem or ask a question 2. Conduct a literature review 7. Disseminate findings 3. Form a hypothesis; give operational definitions to variables 6. Analyze data Figure 2.1 Steps of the Scientific Method While 5. Collect data 4. Choose a research design or method 3. Next, the researcher forms a hypothesis, a theoretical statement that she thinks will explain the relationship between two phenomena, which are known as variables. In the hypothesis “Watching violence on TV causes children to act violently in real life,” the two variables are “watching violence on TV” and “acting violently.” In short, the researcher is saying one variable has a causal connecHYPOTHESIS a theoretical tion to the other. The researcher statement explaining the can use the hypothesis to predict relationship between two or possible outcomes: “If watching more phenomena violence on TV causes children VARIABLES two or more to act violently in real life, then phenomena that a researcher exposing five-year-olds to violent believes are related; these will be TV shows will make them more examined in the experiment likely to hit the inflatable clown OPERATIONAL DEFINITION doll placed in the room with them.” a clear and precise definition The researcher must clearly give of a variable that facilitates its an operational definition to the measurement variables so that she can observe and measure them accurately. For example, there is a wide range of violence on television and in real life. Does “violence” include words as well as actions, a slap as well as murder? 4. In this step, the researcher chooses a research design or method to use to conduct her study. A classic example is to perform an experiment meant to isolate variables in 42 CHAPTER 2 not all sociologists follow these seven steps in lock-step order, the scientific method provides a general overview of the research process. order to best examine their relationship to one another. Sociologists use a range of methods and sometimes combine one or more methods. These will be discussed in greater depth later in the chapter. 5. The researcher then collects the data. In this case, the researcher would conduct the experiment by first exposing kids to TV violence, then observing their behavior toward the clown doll. Data might be collected by using video equipment as well as by taking notes. 6. Next, the researcher must analyze the data, evaluating the accuracy or inaccuracy of the hypothesis in predicting the outcome. In the real-life experiment on which this example is based, the children were more likely to hit the clown doll themselves if they saw the TV actors being rewarded for their violent behavior; if the actors were punished for their behavior, the children were less likely to hit the doll (Bandura 1965). 7. Finally, the researcher then disseminates the findings of the experiment in the scientific community (often through presentations at professional meetings, through publications, or in the classroom) as well as among the general public, thus completing the last step in the research process. One limit of the scientific method is that it can’t always distinguish between correlation and causation. If two Studying Social Life: Sociological Research Methods Nicolaus Copernicus proposed that the earth revolved around the sun (Armitage 1951). Using mathematical methods, Copernicus arrived at a new theory, heliocentrism, in which the earth rotates around the sun and on its own axis—thereby accounting for the twenty-four-hour days as well as the four seasons of the year. This caused what Kuhn called a paradigm shift, a major break from the assumptions made by the previous model. Paradigm shifts occur when new data force new ways of looking at the world. And methods are what generate data. Which Method to Use? Violence on Television In his famous 1965 study, Albert Bandura supported his hypothesis that watching violence on TV causes children to act violently in real life by observing children who, after watching a video of an adult beating a doll, then behaved similarly toward the doll. variables change in conjunction with each other, or if a change in one seems to lead to a change in the other, they are correlated. Even if they are correlated, though, the change in one variable may not be caused by the change in the other variable. Instead, there may be some intervening variable that causes the changes in both. The classic example is the correlation between ice cream sales and rates of violent crime. As ice cream sales increase, so do rates of violent crime like murder and rape. Does ice cream consumption cause people to act violently? Or do violent actions cause people to buy ice cream? Turns out, it’s neither—this is what is known as a spurious correlation. Both ice cream sales and violent crime rates are influenced by a third variable: weather. As the temperature climbs, so do people’s rates of ice cream purchase and the likelihood that they’ll be involved in a violent crime (probably because they are outside for more hours of the day and hence available to each other in a way that makes violent crime possible). Knowing that correlation does not equal causation is important, as it can help us all be more critical consumers of scientific findings. We are constantly gathering data in order to understand what is true. Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, in fact, argued that truth is relative and dependent on the paradigm through which one sees the world (1962/1970). Paradigms are broad theoretical models about how things work in the social and natural worlds. For example, humans believed for centuries that the universe revolved around the earth. It’s easy to understand why. The available data, after all, seemed to support such a theory: we don’t feel the earth moving beneath us, and it appears from our vantage point that the stars, sun, and moon rise and set on our horizon. This earthcentered, or geocentric, view of the universe was the basis for all scientific theory until 1543, when the Polish astronomer Since each sociological method has specific benefits and limitations, each is more appropriate for certain types of research. Thus, when a researcher begins a project, one of her most important decisions is which methods to use. Suppose, for example, a sociologist CORRELATION a relationship is interested in studying Wood- between variables in which they change together and may or may stock, one of the major musical not be causal and cultural milestones of the 1960s. Although there are many CAUSATION a relationship ways to approach this event, our between variables in which a change in one directly produces a sociologist wants to study the change in the other attendees’ experiences. What was it really like to be at Wood- INTERVENING VARIABLE stock? What did it mean to those a third variable, sometimes overlooked, that explains the who were there? What are their relationship between two other interpretations of this iconic variables moment in hippie culture? During the event itself, the SPURIOUS CORRELATION the appearance of causation ideal method for studying the fesproduced by an intervening tivalgoers at Woodstock might variable have been to assemble a team of researchers trained in par- PARADIGM SHIFT a major change in basic assumptions of a ticipant observation; that is, they particular scientific discipline would actually be in the thick of things, observing and participating at the same time. They could gather firsthand data on the music, clothes, dancing, drugs, “free love,” and so forth. However, the opportunity to be a participant observer of that particular cultural phenomenon has long since passed. What are some other options? Interviews are a possibility. The researcher could ask Woodstock attendees to recount their experiences. But how would she recruit them? Woodstock-goers live all over the world now, and it might be difficult (and expensive) to track down enough of them to make an interview study feasible. Another problem with interviewing this group: The threeday event happened more than forty years ago. How would the passage of time affect their memories? How much detail could they actually remember about the experience after so long? How about a survey? The researcher could certainly send a questionnaire through the mail or administer it online, and An Overview of Research Methods 43 What Was It Really Like at Woodstock? You could use many different methodologies to investigate this question, including interviews, surveys, existing sources, or experiments. this method would be much less expensive than face-to-face interviews. But here she runs into the same problem as with an interview study: How does she find all these folks? A standard tactic for recruiting survey participants involves placing an ad in a local newspaper. But an ad in the New York Times, for example, or even a community website like Craigslist would draw only a limited number of Woodstock alumni. Also, some attendees might want to put that part of their lives behind them; others who receive the questionnaire in the mail might send it straight into the trash. Finally, the researcher might encounter the problem of impostors—people who say they were at Woodstock but were really nowhere near it. What about using existing sources? Plenty has been written about Woodstock over the years. Many firsthand accounts have been published, and there is an abundance of film and photography as well. Our researcher could use these materials to analyze the concert from the perspectives of the participants. These accounts would necessarily be selective, focusing only on particular aspects of the Woodstock experience. Is it possible to conduct an experiment that replicates the original Woodstock? Some would say that Woodstock 1999 was such an experiment and that it failed miserably, with fires, violence, arrests, and acres of mud. However, systematic 44 CHAPTER 2 scientific experiments are different from blatant attempts to cash in on the Woodstock mystique. While the unique conditions of the 1969 gathering cannot be re-created in a lab setting, it is possible to identify some of the defining features of the Woodstock experience and to explore those experimentally. Over a three-day period, tens of thousands of strangers came together in a mass gathering, mostly devoid of any official presence (no cops, fences, roads, ticket booths, or portapotties) and had an almost entirely peaceful experience. How did this happen? Altruism, cooperation, and trust between strangers are some of the measurable group qualities that seem to have been present. An experimenter might be able to create laboratory environments in which subjects participate in activities that highlight one or more of these qualities— even without the mud, music, and drugs that were part of the original Woodstock experience. No matter what methodological choice our researcher makes, she will sacrifice some types of information in order to acquire others, and she will trade in one set of advantages and disadvantages for another. Her choices will be guided not only by what she wants to accomplish sociologically but also by the methods she is a competent practitioner of, the time in which she wants to complete the project, the resources available from Studying Social Life: Sociological Research Methods any funding agencies, and her access to cooperative, qualified people, both as respondents and as research assistants. The rest of this chapter will discuss six methods in detail: ethnography/participant observation, interviews, surveys, existing sources, experiments, and social network analysis. We will see how various sociologists have used these methods to conduct research on the general topic of “family dynamics.” Ethnography/Participant Observation Ethnography is one of the most commonly used research methods in the social sciences. Also referred to as ethnographic research, it is a qualitative method that allows for the study of a wide variety of people and places. A key feature of this method is fieldwork; research takes place in naturally occurring social environments out in the real world, where the researcher can study firsthand the day-to-day lives of the people there. Ethnographic research is conducted through participant observation, so the terms are often used interchangeably. With this method the researcher must become a participant in the group or setting being studied as well as an observer of it. This method often entails deep immersion into a field site, sometimes lasting over a period of months or even years, so that the researcher can develop a member’s eye view and come to know the social world from the inside out. Ethnography, which literally means “writing [from the Greek graphos] culture [ethnos],” is also the term used for the product of participant observation research; it is a written report of the results of the study, often presented in book form. The first order of business in participant observation research is to gain entry or access to the chosen field site or setting. Certain groups may be more or less difficult to approach, as you can imagine, and there may be some places where no outsider is allowed to go. Still, sociologists have been able to study an astounding number of different and varied social worlds. Once access has been negotiated, it is also important for researchers to establish good rapport with their subjects. Researchers may differ in their levels of involvement with a group or in their closeness to certain members. But it is often the case that trust and acceptance are necessary before research can begin in earnest. Data are collected primarily through writing detailed field notes every day to document what happened. Some researchers may also take photos or videos in the course of their fieldwork, but honing their own observational skills is most critical. Field notes describe the scene or setting, as well as the activities and interactions of the researcher and the group members, in as much detail as possible; they become the basis of the data analysis the researcher does later on. Some researchers do a form of participant observation called autoethnography where they produce richly detailed accounts of their own thoughts, feelings, and experiences in the field as a focal point of their study (Ellis 1997). Autoethnographers theorize a link between personal and cultural experiences, and their writings are meant to evoke responses in the readers. Both personal and analytical, autoethnography is one of the newer qualitative methods employed by sociologists (Ellis, Adams, and Bochner 2010). Researchers sometimes take brief, sketchy notes in the field, writing key words or short quotations in small notebooks, on cocktail napkins, or in text messages. These jottings ETHNOGRAPHY a naturalistic can help jog their memories when method based on studying people they sit down to write at the end in their own environment in order of the day and elaborate on the to understand the meanings they details. Sometimes, however, it is attribute to their activities; also not possible to write while in the the written work that results from field and researchers must rely on the study “head notes,” that is, on memory PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION a methodology associated alone. Anthropologist Clifford Geertz with ethnography whereby the (1973), well known for his work researcher both observes and becomes a member in a social on Indonesian culture and setting society, coined the term thick description to convey the quali- ACCESS the process by which ties of well-written field notes. an ethnographer gains entry to a field setting It takes more than mere photographic detail to make field notes RAPPORT a positive relationship “thick”; sensitivity to the context often characterized by mutual and to interactional details such trust or sympathy as facial expressions and tone of FIELD NOTES detailed notes voice enriches what might other- taken by an ethnographer wise be just a list of events. Thick describing her activities and description involves exploring all interactions, which later become the basis of the analysis the possible meanings of a phenomenon (for example, a blinking AUTOETHNOGRAPHY a form eye) within a particular cultural of participant observation where setting. A good ethnography is the feelings and actions of the researcher become a focal point not only systematic and holistic, of the ethnographic study but it should also allow the reader to understand what the world is THICK DESCRIPTION the presentation of detailed data like from another’s perspective. on interactions and meaning One example of participant within a cultural context, from the observation research is Kathryn perspective of its members Edin and Maria Kefalas’s study of poor moms, in their ethnography Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood before Marriage (2005). Edin and Kefalas wanted to examine a group that faces harsh judgments from the mainstream: urban single moms. For years, policymakers and mainstream Americans have focused on single motherhood as the source of a variety of social problems. Edin and Kefalas wanted to see the issue from the perspective and lives of the women being stigmatized in order to uncover the realities of single motherhood. Their goal was to give poor single mothers the ability to personally Ethnography/Participant Observation 45 answer the question that wealthier Americans ask of them: Why and activities of the researcher don’t they get married? And influence what is going on in the why have babies if they have to field setting struggle so hard to support them? GROUNDED THEORY an Edin moved her entire family to inductive method of generating East Camden, New Jersey, where theory from data by creating they lived for two and a half years categories in which to place data while she did her research. In and then looking for relationships order to become more integrated among categories into the community, she joined REPLICABILITY research that the local church, volunteered at can be repeated and, thus, later after-school and summer proverified by other researchers grams, ate at local restaurants, VALIDITY the accuracy of a shopped at local stores, taught question or measurement tool; Sunday school, and went to comthe degree to which a researcher munity events. Kefalas volunis measuring what he thinks he teered at the local GED tutoring is measuring program for teen mothers. REPRESENTATIVENESS the Edin and Kefalas were able degree to which a particular to study 162 black, white, and studied group is similar to, or Puerto Rican mothers with an represents, any part of the average age of twenty-five. All of larger society the women were single parents BIAS an opinion held by the who earned less than $16,000 researcher that might affect the a year. What Edin and Kefalas research or analysis discovered was that motherhood, from the perspective of many of the women they met, was a stabilizing agent in their lives. Rather than disrupting their path to success, many of the REFLEXIVITY how the identity Richard Mitchell’s Dancing at Armageddon In order to learn about militant groups’ ideologies, Richard Mitchell had to conceal his identity and use covert methods. 46 CHAPTER 2 moms viewed their babies as the only positive factor in their lives. Numerous stories detailed the troubled directions in which the women’s lives were heading before they had their children. The conclusions Edin and Kefalas were able to draw from their ethnographic research were contrary to widespread opinion about the consequences of single motherhood for many women in poverty: the (perceived) low cost of early child-rearing and the high value and worth of mothering are enough to combat the difficulties of single motherhood. Ethnographic researchers must pay attention to how their own social statuses—including gender, age, race, and parenthood—shape the kind of access they can have and, hence, the kind of knowledge they can obtain as part of their research. The fact that Edin and Kefalas were women and mothers themselves played a role in their ability to create rapport and gain access as they lived and worked in East Camden. Participant observers must also consider that their own presence probably affects the interactions and relationships in the group they are observing, an idea known as reflexivity. A researcher’s personal feelings about the members of a group also come into play. Ethnographers may feel respect, contempt, curiosity, boredom, and other emotions during their time in the field, and these feelings may influence their observations. It is true that other kinds of researchers also have to take their feelings into account. But because ethnographers have such close personal ties to the people they study, the issue of reflexivity is especially important to them. Like Edin and Kefalas, most ethnographers are “overt” about their research roles; that is, they are open about their sociological intentions. Overt research is generally preferred, because it eliminates the potential ethical problems of deception. Sometimes, however, circumstances dictate that researchers take a “covert” role and observe members without letting them know that they are doing research. One researcher who kept his identity secret is Richard Mitchell, who studied militant survivalist groups for many years (2001). In order to be a participant observer in such groups, Mitchell sometimes had to present himself as an eager apostle, a true believer in the survivalists’ paranoid, racist ideologies. Often this meant being surrounded by men who were heavily armed and deeply suspicious of outsiders (Mitchell and Charmaz 1996). However, he also felt that the value of the research was worth the risk, that it was more important than his own personal peril and the ethical objections of those who disapprove of covert research because it provided insight into a secretive group whose actions could pose a danger to the larger society. Ethnographers look for patterns and themes that are revealed in their field notes. In other words, they use an inductive approach: they start by immersing themselves in their field notes and fitting the data into categories, such as “episodes of conflict” or “common vocabulary shared by members.” Identifying relationships among these categories then allows ethnographers to build theoretical propositions, a form of analysis known as grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Studying Social Life: Sociological Research Methods Advantages and Disadvantages DATA WORKSHOP ADVANTAGES 1. Ethnographic research excels at telling richly detailed stories that contribute to our understanding of social life. It offers a means of studying groups whose stories might not otherwise be told (Katz 1997). These include deviant groups such as fight clubs (Jackson-Jacobs 2004) as well as exceptional groups such as elite college athletes (Adler and Adler 1991). 2. Ethnographic research can challenge our taken-forgranted notions about groups we thought we knew. For instance, from Edin and Kefalas’s work on single mothers, we learn that these women are not the irresponsible, unstable individuals we may have thought they were. They desire and seek out the best for their children, just like mothers in other groups and communities. 3. The detailed nature of ethnographic research can help reshape the stereotypes we hold about others and on which social policy is often based. A study like that of Edin and Kefalas can have policy consequences because it sheds light on the motivations and needs of single urban mothers, as well as giving us a clear picture of the resources available to them. 4. Much of the pioneering methodological innovation of the last half-century has come from ethnography, especially on the issue of reflexivity and researcher roles in the field. DISADVANTAGES 1. Ethnographic research suffers from a lack of replicability, the ability of another researcher to repeat or replicate the study. Repeating a study in order to test the validity of its results is an important element of the scientific method, but because of the unique combinations of people, timing, setting, and researcher role, no one can ever undertake the same study twice. 2. A major critique has to do with an ethnographic study’s degree of representativeness—whether a particular study can apply to anything larger. What is the value of studying relatively small groups of people if one cannot then say that these groups represent parts of the society at large? Though Edin and Kefalas’s work focused on East Camden, their conclusions are supposed to apply to single mothers in any number of other cities as well. 3. Participant observers must also be wary of personal bias. There is always a possibility that prejudice or favor can slip into the research process. Not all researchers are transparent about their own agendas. We need to keep in mind how a researcher’s own values and opinions might affect his research and analysis. Analyzing Everyday Life Watching People Talk Participant observation research requires a keen eye and ear, and field notes must faithfully capture the details of what is seen and heard. While writing field notes may sound fairly easy (don’t we all know how to describe the things we’ve observed?), it’s actually one of the most grueling forms of data collection in the social sciences. Why? Because thick description is a much more demanding task than the casual description you’re used to providing in everyday conversation. It requires a rigorous consciousness of what is going on around you while it is happening and a strenuous effort to recall those goings-on after leaving the field and returning to your computer to type them up. This Data Workshop gives you an opportunity to practice doing ethnographic research (make sure you have read and reviewed that section of the chapter). Specifically, it is an exercise in writing field notes using what Clifford Geertz calls thick description. To make things a little easier, you’ll focus on listening first and then on watching. The verbal and the visual are separated so that you can concentrate on one kind of description at a time. In your future ethnographic work, you’ll be writing field notes that describe both verbal and nonverbal behavior at once. ✱ Field Observations: First, for five to ten minutes, lis- ten to (eavesdrop on) a conversation whose participants you can’t see. They might be sitting behind you on a bus or at a nearby table in a restaurant—you’re close enough to hear them but positioned so that you can’t see them. Then, for five to ten minutes, observe a conversation you can’t hear—one taking place, for example, on the other side of the campus quad. Even though you can’t hear what’s being said, you can see the interaction as it takes place. ✱ Written Descriptions: Write an extremely detailed description of each conversation. Describe the participants and the setting, and include your ideas about what you think is going on and what you think you know about the participants. Try to describe everything you heard or saw to support any conclusions you draw. For each of the five- to ten-minute observation periods, you should aim to take two or more double-spaced pages of field notes. Ethnography/Participant Observation 47 There are two options for completing this Data Workshop: PREP- PAIR- SHARE Choose a partner and exchange your field notes. As you read through your partner’s descriptions, mark with an asterisk (*) the passages where you can see and hear clearly the things your partner describes. Circle the passages that contain evaluative words (like “angry” or “sweet”) or summaries of action or conversation rather than detailed description (like “They argued about who would pay the bill”). And place a question mark next to the passages where you are left feeling like you would like to know more. Your partner will do this with your descriptions as well, and you can discuss your responses to each other’s work. Finally, as a class, use your discussions to develop a group consensus about what constitutes good descriptive detail. This is the kind of detail ethnographers strive to produce in their field notes every day. DO- IT-YOURSELF Write a two- to three-page essay discussing your fieldwork experience. What was it like to do participant observation research? Did you find listening or watching more or less difficult, and why? How did your data differ with each of the observations? Provide examples of thick description from your field notes, and make sure to attach your field notes to your paper. Interviews You’ve probably seen countless interviewers, microphone in hand, clamoring to ask their questions at the crime scene, after the big game, or on the red carpet. Sociologists also use interviews—face-to-face, information-seeking conversations—to gather qualitative data directly from research subjects, or respondents. When sociologists conduct interviews, they try to do so systematically and with a more scientific approach than is used for the kind of interviews you INTERVIEWS person-to-person might typically see on TV or conversations for the purpose of read in the news. Sometimes, gathering information by means of questions posed to respondents interviews are the only method used in a research project, but RESPONDENT a participant in a sociologists may also combine study from whom the researcher interviews with other methods, seeks to gather information such as participant observation TARGET POPULATION the or analysis of existing sources. entire group about which a Closely related to interviews are researcher would like to be surveys, which we will consider able to generalize in the next section. Both methSAMPLE the members of the ods are concerned with asking target population who will actually people questions, usually very be studied specific groups of people as well 48 CHAPTER 2 as particular kinds of questions. Interviews, however, are always conducted by the researcher, whereas surveys may be taken independently by the respondent. When using interviews to collect data about a particular question or project, sociologists must first identify a target population, or group that is the focus of their study. If it is a large group, for instance, all parents with children under eighteen years of age, it might be impossible to study each and every one of them. Researchers, then, must select a sample, or a smaller group that is representative of the larger group. The sample will be used to make generalizations that can apply to the larger target population. The number of possible respondents in a sample depends on the type of study, the nature of the questions, and the amount of time and staff available. In most research studies, interviews can be administered to only a limited number of people, so the scope of such projects is usually smaller than for other methods, such as surveys. While most interviews are conducted one on one, some researchers will organize a focus group, in which a number of participants (perhaps five to ten) will be interviewed at the same time, also allowing for group members to interact with each other. This may be one means of increasing the sample size of a study. Researchers must get informed consent from those who will be participating in the study; in other words, respondents must know what they are getting into and explicitly agree to participate. This is particularly important because most interviews are audio or video recorded. Sociologist Tamara Mose used interviews in her recent study of how parents and children benefit from playdates. Her curiosity about the ritual of the playdate arose as she raised her own children in a diverse and gentrifying neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York. In her 2016 book, The Playdate: Parents, Children and the New Expectations of Play, Mose looks at how parents arrange private play opportunities, ostensibly for their children, but also for their own professional and personal benefit. As she conducted and analyzed her interviews, Mose noticed that playdates often ensure that both parents and children socialize with people much like themselves. Even the type of snacks provided at playdates makes a difference. One health-conscious mom grumbled that another child’s parents had served Domino’s pizza and was contemplating switching schools so that he would no longer be exposed to such undesirable refreshments—or the families who serve them (Mose 2016, pp. 133–134). By excluding others who are different, less affluent, or even just “out of the zone” (New York City slang for kids from a different school district), playdates reproduce inequalities of class and race as well as enhance family privilege. Arlie Hochschild used interviews to conduct her landmark study on parents in two-career families, The Second Shift (Hochschild and Machung 1989). In this book, Hochschild looks at how couples handle the pressures of working at a job and then coming home to what she calls “the second Studying Social Life: Sociological Research Methods Turning Play into Work Tamara Mose conducted interviews with parents of young children in New York City for her study of playdates and how these organized meetings reproduce inequalities based on race and class. shift”—doing housework and taking care of children. Hochschild, who was herself in a two-career family, wanted to find out how couples were dealing with changing family roles in light of the fact that more women had entered the workforce. Were women able to juggle all their responsibilities, and to what extent were men helping their wives in running the household? Hochschild and her assistants interviewed fifty couples in two-career marriages and fortyfive other people who were also a part of the respondents’ domestic arrangements, such as babysitters, day-care providers, and teachers. From this sample of households that Hochschild studied, we can now extrapolate to a much larger population; her findings should also be applicable to similar couples elsewhere. When conducting an interview, how do you know what to ask? Composing good questions is one of the most difficult parts of interviewing. Most interviewers use many different questions, covering a range of issues related to the project. Questions may be closed- or open-ended. A closed-ended question imposes a limit on the possible response: for example, “Are you for or against couples living together before they are married?” An open-ended question, on the other hand, allows for a wide variety of responses: “What do you think about couples living together before they are married?” Researchers must be careful to avoid biased or leading questions, those that predispose a respondent to answer in a certain way. Overly complex questions are a problem, as are double-barreled questions, those that involve too many issues at one time. It is also important to be aware of any ambiguous or inflammatory language that might confuse or spark an emotional reaction on the part of the respondent. Asking a single parent how difficult her life is will elicit data about the difficulties, but not about the joys, of parenthood. More neutral language, such as “Tell me about the pluses and minuses of single parenthood,” is preferable. In some studies, researchers will solicit the entire life history of a respondent, a chronological account of the story of his life from childhood to the present or of some portion of it. Once the interviews have been conducted, they are usually transcribed so that researchers can analyze them in textual form; they can sort through the material looking for patterns of similarities and differences among the answers. Some researchers may use computer applications designed to help analyze such data; others do it “by hand.” For her analysis, Hochschild categorized the types of household chores done by men and women and quantified the amount of time spent daily and weekly on those chores. She then categorized couples as “traditional,” “transitional,” or “egalitarian,” depending on how they divided up household labor. Advantages and Disadvantages ADVANTAGES 1. Interviews allow respondents to speak in their own words; they can reveal their own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, internal states that would not necessarily be accessible by any other means. In so many other instances, it is the researcher who tells the story. A book like The Second Shift, which features direct quotations from interview transcripts, provides the reader with an authentic and intimate portrait of the lives of married couples. Hochschild was able to get at the different subjective experiences of the women and men in her study and to see how each of them perceived the reality of his or her situation. 2. Interviews may help the researcher dispel certain preconceptions and discover issues that might have otherwise been overlooked. For example, before Hochschild began her project, FOCUS GROUP a process for interviewing a number of participants together that also allows for interaction among group members INFORMED CONSENT a safeguard through which the researcher makes sure that respondents are freely participating and understand the nature of the research CLOSED-ENDED QUESTION a question asked of a respondent that imposes a limit on the possible responses OPEN-ENDED QUESTION a question asked of a respondent that allows the answer to take whatever form the respondent chooses LEADING QUESTIONS questions that predispose a respondent to answer in a certain way DOUBLE-BARRELED QUESTIONS questions that attempt to get at multiple issues at once, and so tend to receive incomplete or confusing answers LIFE HISTORY an approach to interviewing that asks for a chronological account of the respondent’s entire life or some portion of it Interviews 49 IN THE FUTURE Action Research n addition to the other methods discussed in this chapter, action research is a growing trend in social science methodology. Action research combines social science research with community problem solving and social change, in a way that calls into question some of sociology’s closely held beliefs about ethics, bias, and the role of the researcher. While action research is not exactly new, it has been gaining popularity recently, across the social sciences as well as in practice-oriented disciplines such as nursing, pubACTION RESEARCH lic health, education, urban a type of research aimed planning, and management. at creating social change, Pioneers in action research in which the researcher tended to come from the works closely with members of a community areas of inequality studies who participate in the such as feminist research, research process and critical race studies, and povcollaborate toward the erty and community developgoal of social change ment research, and there is a clear historical link to the ethnographers of the Chicago School, with their community and reform-oriented approaches (Emerson 2002; Marullo 1999). Action researchers are more likely than traditional researchers to be invested in social change and community improvement goals. They see their research skills as problem-solving tools, and they view those whom others might call “research subjects” as active, collaborative, equal participants in the project. In other words, action researchers do research with people, not on people, and see their work as part of a “scholarship of engagement” (Rajaram 2007, p. 139), rather than one of erudite distance. An award-winning example of action research is the work of Chicago’s Community Organizing and Family Issues group (COFI). Its project “Why Isn’t Johnny in Preschool?” sought to answer this question, particularly among families in low-income, racially diverse neighborhoods, where kids are less likely to be enrolled in early childhood education programs. They sent community members, trained in sociological interview methods, out into their neighborhoods to talk with more than 5,000 other parents about the barriers to preschool enrollment. Their findings included family concerns about cost, transportation, and confusing paperwork and bureaucracies, among other obstacles. These findings were used to design outreach and public awareness campaigns that promoted the importance of preschool attendance and provided information packets that helped families find solutions to some of the problems identified in the research. Preschool attendance increased in the targeted neighborhoods as a result (COFI 2009), and COFI received the Leo P. Chall Award for its work “successfully link[ing] research with social action, thereby strengthening many other studies had already been conducted on families with two working parents, but few seemed to examine in depth the real-life dilemma of the two-career family that Hochschild herself was experiencing. 2. Another problem is representativeness: whether the conclusions of interview research can be applied to larger groups. Because face-to-face interviewing is time consuming, interviews are rarely used with large numbers of people. Can findings from a small sample be generalized to a larger population? In regard to Hochschild’s research, can we say that interviews with fifty couples, although carefully selected by the researcher, give a true picture of the lives of all two-career families? Hochschild answered this question by comparing selected information about her couples with data from a huge national survey. I DISADVANTAGES 1. Interview respondents are not always forthcoming or truthful. They may be selective about what they say in order to present themselves in the most favorable light. Sometimes they are difficult to talk to, and at other times they may try too hard to be helpful. Although an adept interviewer will be able to encourage meaningful responses, she can never take at face value what any respondent might say. To counteract this problem, Hochschild observed a few of the families she had interviewed. She saw that what these couples said about themselves in interviews was sometimes at odds with how they acted at home. 50 CHAPTER 2 Surveys How many times have you filled out a survey? Probably more times than you realize. If you responded to the last U.S. government census, if you have ever been solicited by a polling agency to give your opinion about a public issue, or if you have ever been asked Studying Social Life: Sociological Research Methods community organizations and influencing public policy” (Sociological Initiatives Foundation 2010). As citizens become research collaborators and sociologists become research activists, there will inevitably be some tension between research goals and practical goals. Head Start A teacher works with the children of migrant and seasonal workers in Illinois. Addressing real-world problems means that methodologies must be tailored to the constraints of the actual situation, rather than adhere to the ideal-type models required by the discipline. All participants must be allowed to be part of the decision-making process, and all must be provided equal access to information, data, and findings (which even the most open-minded traditional researchers may balk at). Ethical considerations differ from those of traditional research as well: action research is designed to bring about change and is “aligned with values” (Riel 2010), so claims of objectivity are out of the question. These differences make action research controversial among more traditional social scientists, but this method is gaining popularity among students. Action research provides both graduate and undergraduate students with the opportunity to be of service in their communities, while also fulfilling academic requirements, and many students prefer this active approach to social change over a research project that takes place entirely in a library or lab. More high schools and colleges are making community service projects part of their graduation requirements, and even more will likely do so in the near future. Action research itself is fundamentally future oriented due to its focus on social change and community improvement, and it provides a way to make a positive impact while also advancing social science research. Does it get any better than that? to evaluate your college classes and instructors at the end of a semester, you were part of somebody’s survey research. Surveys are questionnaires that are administered to a sample of respondents selected from a target population. One of the earliest sociologists to use informal surveys was Karl Marx. In the 1880s, Marx sent questionnaires to more than 25,000 French workers in an effort to determine the extent to which they were exploited by employers. Although we don’t know how many surveys were returned to him or what the individual responses were, the project clearly influenced his writing, which focused heavily on workers’ rights. Today, many universities have research centers devoted to conducting survey research. One such center is the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University in New Jersey, where sociologists have been engaged in ongoing studies of the health of marriage and family in America, issuing a series of reports on what they call “The State of Our Unions” over the past several years. Researchers have surveyed young adults in their twenties about a range of topics, including their attitudes toward dating, cohabitation, marriage, and parenthood. Survey research tends to be macro and quantitative in nature: it looks at large-scale social patterns and employs statistics and other mathematical means of analysis. Social scien- SURVEYS research method tists who use surveys must follow based on questionnaires that specific procedures in order to are administered to a sample produce valid results. They need of respondents selected from a a good questionnaire and wise target population sample selection. Most surveys LIKERT SCALE a way of are composed of closed-ended formatting a survey questionnaire questions, or those for which all so that the respondent can possible answers are provided. choose an answer along a Answers may be as simple as a continuum “yes” or “no” or more complex. A common type of questionnaire is based on the Likert scale, a format in which respondents can choose along a continuum— from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” for example. Surveys 51 Some questionnaires also offer such options as “don’t know” or “doesn’t apply.” Surveys may include open-ended questions, or those to which the respondents provide their own answers. These are often formatted as write-in questions and can provide researchers with more qualitative data. Both questions and possible (given) answers on a survey must be written in such a way as to avoid confusion or ambiguity. While this is also true for interviews, it is even more important for surveys because the researcher is not generally present to clarify any misunderstandings. Common pitfalls are leading questions; negative questions, which ask respondents what they NEGATIVE QUESTIONS survey don’t think instead of what they questions that ask respondents do; and double-barreled queswhat they don’t think instead of tions. Bias can also be a problem if what they do think questions or answers are worded PILOT STUDY a small-scale in a slanted fashion. study carried out to test the The format of a questionnaire feasibility of conducting a study is also important. Something as on a larger scale simple as the order in which the PROBABILITY SAMPLING any items are presented can influsampling procedure that uses ence responses. Mentioning an randomization issue like divorce or infidelity SIMPLE RANDOM SAMPLE in earlier questions can mean a particular type of probability that respondents are thinking sample in which every member about it when they answer later of the population has an equal questions, and as a result, their chance of being selected answers might be different than REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE they would otherwise have been. a sample taken so that findings Questionnaires should be clear from members of the sample and easy to follow. Once a quesgroup can be generalized to the larger population; also referred to tionnaire is constructed, it is a as a stratified sample good idea to have a small group pretest it to ensure it is clear and RESPONSE RATE the number or comprehensible. A preliminary percentage of surveys completed by respondents and returned to small-scale pilot study can help researchers to work out any issues with the survey design before adminisRELIABILITY the consistency of tering it to a larger group. a question or measurement tool; the degree to which the same Another important element questions will produce similar in survey research is sampling answers techniques. As with interviews, the researcher must identify the specific target population she wishes to study: for example, “all married couples with children living at home” or “all young adults between the ages of twenty and twenty-nine.” By using correct sampling techniques, researchers can survey a smaller number of respondents and then make accurate inferences about the larger population. In quantitative research, social scientists use probability sampling, in which random chance is used to select participants. Researchers might generate a simple random sample, where each member of the larger target population has an equal chance of being included in the sample based on random selection. In other cases, a more advanced type of 52 CHAPTER 2 sampling is used. For example, in the National Marriage Project study, researchers surveyed a statistically representative sample of 1,003 young adults. Here they would have used more sophisticated manipulating or weighting techniques, ensuring that the proportion of certain variables such as race, class, gender, or age in the sample group is accurately representative of the larger population. In order for a survey to be considered valid, there must be a sufficiently high response rate. It is sometimes difficult to get enough individuals to participate in a survey. Even if only half of a sample group actually returned the completed surveys, that would be considered a very good result. General claims can be made about a larger population from a survey with a response rate of only 20 to 30 percent. Once the surveys are returned, the researchers begin the process of tabulating and analyzing the data. Responses are usually coded or turned into numerical figures so that they can be more easily analyzed on a computer. Researchers often want to understand the relationship between certain variables; for instance, what is the effect of infidelity on divorce? There are many computer applications, such as SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), that can help researchers perform complicated calculations and reach conclusions about relationships. This is where advanced statistical skills become an important part of social analysis. An increasing number of researchers use the Internet rather than conduct survey research in person or by mail (Best and Krueger 2004; Sue and Ritter 2007). The Internet has opened up new possibilities for reaching respondents as more and more people have Internet access. While online surveys promise a certain amount of ease and cost-effectiveness, they also present researchers with significant challenges, especially in terms of scientific sampling. For example, Survey Monkey provides free online survey capabilities to just about anyone. While the software does offer some assistance in writing good questions, calculating randomness, and doing representative sampling, users who are not trained social scientists will likely not make use of these features. This creates a conundrum: Survey Monkey and other online survey tools can make survey methods more accessible to users, but it is still the users themselves—not the software—who have to make sure the survey is reliable, valid, and representative. As more researchers use online methods, the perception of them as unconventional or out of the mainstream is fading (Roberts et al., 2016). Advantages and Disadvantages ADVANTAGES 1. Survey research is one of the best methods for gathering original data on a population that is too large to study by other means, such as by direct observation or interviews. Surveys can be widely distributed, reaching a Studying Social Life: Sociological Research Methods large number of people. Researchers can then generalize their findings to an even larger population. 2. Survey research is also relatively quick and economical and can provide a vast amount of data. Online surveys now promise a way to gain access to even greater numbers of people at even lower cost. 3. In general, survey research is comparatively strong on reliability. This means that we can be sure that the same kind of data are collected each time the same question is asked. 4. In survey research, there is less concern about interviewer or observer bias entering into the research process. Respondents may feel more comfortable giving candid answers to sensitive questions because they answer the questions in private and are usually assured of the anonymity of their responses. DISADVANTAGES 1. Survey research generally lacks qualitative data that might better capture the social reality the researcher wishes to examine. Because most survey questions don’t allow the respondent to qualify his answer, they don’t allow for a full range of expression and may not accurately reflect the true meaning of the respondent’s thoughts. For example, asking a respondent to choose one reason from a list of reasons for divorce might not provide a full explanation for the failure of that person’s marriage. The reasons may have been both financial and emotional, but the survey may not provide the respondent with the ability to convey this answer. Adding writein questions is one way to minimize this disadvantage. 2. In general, since not all respondents are honest in selfreports, survey research is comparatively weak on validity. For example, a respondent may be ashamed about his divorce and may not want to reveal the true reasons behind it to a stranger on a questionnaire. 3. Often there are problems with the sampling process, especially when respondents self-select to participate, that make generalizability more difficult. Gathering data online only exacerbates this problem. For instance, if a survey seeking to know the incidence of domestic violence in the population is administered only to the members of a domestic violence support group, then the incidence of domestic violence will be 100 percent—misrepresenting the true rate of incidence in the larger population. 4. It’s possible that survey research will be used to make a claim or support a point of view rather than for pure scientific discovery; for example, a manufacturer of SUVs may report that 90 percent of all American families surveyed wish they had a larger car. We will consider this limitation later, in the section on nonacademic uses of research methods. DATA WORKSHOP Analyzing Media and Pop Culture Media Usage Patterns Recent studies have shown that the average American spends around eleven hours a day using some type of electronic media— computers, tablets, TV, radio, smartphones, and so on (Nielsen 2014). That’s almost half a day, or nearly two-thirds of our waking hours. For many people this means that they rarely unplug. But there is more to the picture than just the total number of hours Americans spend using media. What other kinds of questions might we be interested in asking about this increasingly important aspect of our lives? For example, we might ask people what kind of media they are using. How much time is spent with each of these, as well as when and where? How much money do individuals spend on media-related equipment or activities? How much do people multitask, using more than one device at a time? Do different groups prefer different types of media? How do factors like age, education, gender, or income influence media usage? What else do people do while using media—do they work, eat, clean, talk, drive, exercise, study, or even sleep? Now come up with more of your own questions! In this Data Workshop, you will be conducting your own survey research about media usage in everyday life. Consult the relevant section of this chapter for a review of this method. Your task is twofold. First, you will get some practice designing a study and constructing and administering a survey questionnaire. Second, you will get the chance to do a preliminary analysis of the data you collect and possibly discover something for yourself about the patterns of media usage among those who participate in your pilot study. Because of the variety of ways of doing such a project, you should choose how you would like to customize your research. Since this is only a preliminary effort at survey research, the project will have to be somewhat limited. Nonetheless, try to follow these basic steps in order to make your research process as scientific as possible: 1. Decide what aspects of media usage you want to study. 2. Select a sample from the target population you wish to study (student athletes, seniors, people with a college degree, and so on). Surveys 53 3. Write and format your survey questionnaire. 4. Administer the questionnaire to the individuals in your sample. 5. Analyze the data collected in the survey, and present your findings. There are two options for completing this Data Workshop: PRE P- PA IR- SH A RE Working in small groups of three to four students, begin designing a survey project by discussing Steps 1 and 2. Then collaborate on Step 3. If time allows, play the role of a pilot group and test the questionnaire by filling out the survey as outlined in Step 4. Then consider Step 5, looking for any patterns that may have emerged from the data. Finally, discuss as a group what needs to be changed or what else needs to be accomplished to complete an actual survey. DO - IT-YOU RSE L F Design your own survey research project, completing all of the preceding steps. Choose at least five to eight people to be included in your sample. After administering the questionnaire, write a three- to four-page essay discussing the research process and your preliminary findings. What was the most challenging part of doing survey research? What insights did you gain about media usage from the participants in your study? What would you change if you intended to do a larger study in the future? Remember to attach the survey questionnaire to your paper. Existing Sources Nearly all sociologists use existing sources when they approach a particular research question. As the term implies, an almost unlimited amount of data already exists out there in the EXISTING SOURCES materials that have been produced for some world that can be useful to sociother reason but that can be used ologists for their studies. With as data for social research other methods, researchers have to generate their own data firstUNOBTRUSIVE MEASURES research methods that rely on hand from field notes, interviews, existing sources and where the or surveys. With existing (or secresearcher does not intrude upon ondary) sources, researchers or disturb the social setting or may discover a treasure trove of its subjects data in unexpected places or hidCOMPARATIVE HISTORICAL den in plain view, ready for the RESEARCH research that taking. This material can include uses existing sources to study everything from archival or hisrelationships among elements torical records such as marriage of society in various regions licenses or building permits to and time periods various forms of media such as 54 CHAPTER 2 books, magazines, TV shows, or websites. While all these materials may have been created for another purpose, they can constitute valuable data to be used in social research. Existing sources are considered unobtrusive measures because they don’t require that the researcher intrude upon or disturb the people in a social context or setting they are studying. Sociologists take different approaches to working with existing sources. For instance, social demographers study the size, composition, growth, and distribution of human populations. The statistical information used in such research is generally produced by other social scientists or by government agencies such as public health departments. In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau makes a massive amount of its data freely available to the public on its website, census.gov. Other sociologists do what could be called “social archaeology.” They dig through and examine the social environment in order to understand the people in it. For instance, the average American throws away over two pounds of garbage a day. What might we learn by looking through someone’s trash? Some sociologists do comparative historical research, which seeks to understand relationships between elements of society in various regions and time periods. These researchers go back in time and analyze cultural artifacts such as literature, paintings, newspapers, and photographs (Bauer and Gaskell 2000). As an example, social historian Peter Stearns (2004) consulted various existing sources for his book Anxious Parents: A History of Modern Childrearing in America to investigate the changing meanings of childhood during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and how these changing views influenced the way Americans parent their children. He examined childrearing manuals that were popular at the time, as well as newspapers and journals. These documents showed that, while children were once viewed as self-sufficient mini-adults whose labor both within and outside the home was necessary to keep families afloat, prevailing social norms began to change in the late 1800s. The world was changing rapidly: Industrial expansion, rapid population growth, urbanization, and technological advances in sanitation, transportation, and communication bewildered parents and led to a wave of advice-giving from “experts.” In the face of unsettling social change, children were seen as particularly vulnerable. Parents felt an urgent obligation to protect them from strong emotions like fear, loneliness, or grief; from afflictions like polio, tooth decay, poor posture, and “crib death” (SIDS); from kidnappers, murderers, sexual predators, and schoolyard bullies; from poisoned Halloween candy, boredom, loss of innocence, and errant dodgeballs. Being held responsible for their children’s protection from these endless sources of harm, many parents experienced a sense of guilt and anxiety that increased steadily over the course of the twentieth century. Stearns charted these changes using existing sources and found Studying Social Life: Sociological Research Methods college-educated women over CONTENT ANALYSIS a method the age of forty had less than in which researchers identify a 3 percent chance of getting and study specific variables or married. After reviewing new themes that appear in a text, census data, Newsweek had to image, or media message revise that number to more than 40 percent (McGinn 2006). You can count this book’s two authors as among those women who would marry in their forties. Advantages and Disadvantages ADVANTAGES Helicopter Parents Peter Stearns used existing sources such as childrearing manuals for his study of the changing meanings of childhood. them ominous. Indeed, his work may have predicted the advent of today’s “helicopter parent.” Content analysis is another widely used approach to working with existing sources. Researchers look for recurrent themes or count the number of times that specific variables— such as particular words or visual elements—appear in a text, image, or media message. They then analyze the variables and relationships among them. For example, content analysis has repeatedly shown that the roles women play on television are typically of lower status than are the roles of men and continue to reinforce traditional gender stereotypes. Women are more likely than men to be portrayed as nonprofessionals— housewives and mothers—and are more likely to be sexualized and shown in provocative clothing, whereas men usually hold professional statuses in addition to being portrayed as husbands and fathers (Collins 2011). Despite some recent improvements in the depiction of women in the media, this pattern has persisted. If we look at some of the top-rated network sitcoms of 2016, which included The Big Bang Theory, Modern Family, Two Broke Girls, and Mom, we see that the majority of men were highly accomplished professionals while the women were unemployed or struggling. This contradicts the reality of unemployment in the United States; in 2016, 4.9 percent of men in the workforce were unemployed compared to 4.8 percent of women (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2017m). After obtaining their data, researchers must decide which analytic tools will be best suited to their research questions. The analysis of existing sources can be qualitative or quantitative in nature. Sometimes new data sets can challenge old findings. For instance, in 2006, Newsweek magazine revisited a controversial article written twenty years earlier, “The Marriage Crunch,” which reported that 1. Researchers are able to work with information they could not possibly obtain on their own. The U.S. Census Bureau, for example, collects information about the entire national population (family size, education, income, occupational status, and residential patterns), something an individual researcher has neither the time nor funds to do. In addition, the analysis of existing data can be a convenient way for sociologists to pool their resources; one researcher can take data collected by another and use it for his own project, thereby increasing what can be learned from the same set of data. 2. Using sources such as newspapers, political speeches, and cultural artifacts, sociologists are able to learn about many social worlds, in different time periods, that they would never be able to enter themselves; for example, preserved letters and diaries from the early 1800s have allowed researchers to analyze the experiences of wives and mothers on the American frontier (Peavy and Smith 1998). 3. Researchers can use the same data to replicate projects that have been conducted before, which is a good way to test findings for reliability or to see changes across time. DISADVANTAGES 1. Researchers drawing on existing sources often seek to answer questions that the original authors did not have in mind. If you were interested in the sex lives of those frontier women in the early 1800s, for example, you would be unlikely to find any clear references in their letters or diaries. 2. Similarly, content analysis, although it can describe the messages inherent in the media, does not illuminate how such messages are interpreted. So we can say that women’s roles on television have lower status than men’s, but additional research would be required to identify the effects of these images on viewers. Existing Sources 55 Experimental Methods Unlike participant observation, interviews, surveys, or existing sources, experiments actually closely resemble the scientific method with which we began this chapter. You might associate experiments with laboratory scientists in white coats, but experimenEXPERIMENTS formal tests of tal research methods are also specific variables and effects, used by social scientists, some performed in a setting where all of whom are interested in such aspects of the situation can be controlled issues as group power dynamics, racial discrimination, and genEXPERIMENTAL GROUP der socialization. Experiments the members of a test group take place not only in laboratory who receive the experimental treatment settings but also in corporate boardrooms and even on street CONTROL GROUP the members corners. of a test group who are allowed to When sociologists conduct continue without intervention so that they can be compared with experiments, they start with the experimental group two basic goals. First, they strive to develop precise tools INDEPENDENT VARIABLE the with which to observe, record, factor that is predicted to cause change and measure their data. Second, they attempt to control for DEPENDENT VARIABLE the all possible variables except the factor that is changed (or not) by one under investigation: They the independent variable regulate everything except the variable they’re interested in so that they can draw clearer conclusions about what caused that variable to change (if it did). For instance, a classic social experiment might be set up like this: A researcher who is interested in divorce wants to investigate whether marriage counseling actually helps couples stay together. He would recruit couples for the experiment and then randomly assign them to two different groups, making sure that members of each group were similar in terms of age, income, education, and religion as well as length of time married. One group, the experimental group, would receive marriage counseling, while the other, the control group, would not. In this experiment, marriage counseling is the independent variable; it is the factor that is predicted to cause change in the experimental group. The dependent variable (or factor that is changed by the independent variable) is the likelihood of staying married or getting divorced. In such an experiment, the researcher could compare the two groups and then make conclusions about whether receiving marriage counseling leads to more couples staying married, leads to more couples getting divorced, or has no impact at all. Another area in which sociological experiments have been conducted is gender-role socialization in families. Research has shown that a child’s earliest exposure to what it means to be a boy or girl comes from parents and other caregivers. Boy and girl infants are treated differently by adults—from the way they’re dressed to the toys they’re given to play with—and are expected to act differently (Thorne 1993). In one experiment, adult subjects were asked to play with a small baby, who was dressed in either pink or blue. The subjects assumed the gender of the infant by the color of its clothes and acted accordingly. When they thought it was a boy (in blue), they handled the baby less gently and talked in a louder voice, saying things like, “Aren’t you a big, strong boy?” When they thought it was a girl (in pink), they held the baby closer to themselves and spoke more softly: “What a sweet little girl!” In both cases, it was actually the same baby; only the color of the clothing was changed. From this experiment, we can see how gender influences the way that we perceive and interact with others from a very early age. Sociologists may also use quasi-experimental methods when they study ethnic and gender discrimination in Gender Role Socialization Starts in Infancy In Barrie Thorne’s experiment, she asked adults to play with babies dressed in either blue or pink. Thorne found that people treated the baby differently depending on whether they thought it was a girl or a boy. 56 CHAPTER 2 Studying Social Life: Sociological Research Methods housing, employment, or policing (Brief et al. 1995; Charles 2001; McIntyre, Moberg, and Posner 1980). In such studies, individuals who were similar in all respects except for ethnicity or gender were asked to interview for the same jobs, apply for the same mortgage loans, or engage in some other activity. As in the pink-and-blue baby experiment, people who had exactly the same qualifications were treated differently based on their race and gender, with whites and men given better jobs or mortgage rates, and women and minorities given inferior jobs or rates, or none at all. Through such studies, researchers are able to observe behaviors that may indicate discrimination or unequal treatment. On the whole, data analysis for experimental sociology tends to be quantitative rather than qualitative because the main goal of an experiment is to isolate a variable and explore the degree to which that variable affects a particular social situation (Smith 1990). The quantitative techniques for analyzing data range from straightforward statistical analyses to complex mathematical modeling. Advantages and Disadvantages ADVANTAGES 1. Experiments give sociologists a way to manipulate and control the social environment they seek to understand. Experiments can be designed so that there is a minimal amount of outside interference. A researcher can construct a model of the social situation she is interested in and watch as it unfolds before her, without any of the unpredictable intrusions of the real world. Researchers can also select participants who have exactly the characteristics they want to explore, such as the babies and adults in the gender-role socialization experiment. controlled setting. Laboratories are by design artificial environments. We take a leap in claiming that the same results found in the lab will also occur in the real world. 2. Achieving distance from the messy realities of the social world is also the major weakness with sociological experiments. Although experiments can be useful for the development of theory and for explaining the impact of isolated variables, they are generally not very effective for describing more complex processes and interactions. By definition, experiments seek to eliminate elements that will have an unforeseen effect, and that’s just not the way the real world works. Social Network Analysis Starting in the early twentieth century, social scientists began to explore how people are connected to one another and how these connections influence their behavior, put them at risk for disease, and even predict mental health. Social network analysis (SNA) is a tool for measuring and visualizing the structure of social relationships between two or more people. Using a questionnaire, researchers ask respondents to name who within a given community they look to for information, advice, support, and so on. These data are then used to study disease transmission, information diffusion, adolescent risk behaviors, corporate behavior, and many other topics (Kadushin 2012). For example, Figure 2.2 is a network diagram of friendships among twelve-year-old students in one sixth-grade classroom. Each colored dot is a girl (red) or boy (blue) in the class. As you can see, the girls are almost exclusively friends with other girls, as are boys with other boys. Looking at the 2. Experimental methods are the best method for establishing causality—whether a change in the independent variable causes a change in the dependent variable. This ability to assess causality makes experiments particularly effective at detecting bias and discrimination, such as discrimination against mothers in the workplace, known as the “motherhood penalty” (Correll, Benard, and Paik 2007). 3. Much like physics experiments, highly controlled sociological experiments can theoretically be repeated—they have replicability—so that findings can be tested more than once. An experiment such as the pink-and-blue baby study could easily be performed again and again to gauge historical and cultural changes in gender socialization. DISADVANTAGES 1. Experiments are applicable only to certain types of research that can be constructed and measured in a Figure 2.2 Network Diagram of Friendships among Students in One Sixth-Grade Class SOURCE: Valente 2015. Social Network Analysis 57 IN RELATIONSHIPS Social Networking Sites as Sources of Data hile sociologists interested in studying interpersonal relationships use a wide variety of archival materials, the Internet has created whole new ways of conducting research. Letters, journals, and diaries have always been a rich source of data but have usually been available only many years after they were written. In contrast, social networking sites like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook create a treasure trove of data that can be accessed unobtrusively in real time. Given that Facebook is one of the most visited sites on the Internet and full of sociologically fascinating phenomena, it’s not surprising to find that numerous researchers are using Facebook as a source of data to study such issues as relationships, identity, self-esteem, and popularity. One of the earliest and most ambitious projects using social networking sites was conducted by Nicholas Christakis and Jason Kaufman of Harvard and Andreas Wimmer of UCLA. Their data consisted of all the publicly available Facebook profiles of an entire class at an anonymous East Coast university from their freshman to senior years. The researchers were interested in examining the relationship “between patterns of social affiliation and aesthetic proclivities” (Kaufman 2008). In other words, they were looking at the relationship between the number and type of friends someone had and the kind of books, music, and movies the person liked. The researchers found that online social networks looked a lot like social networks established through traditional, real-life, face-to-face contact. People’s networks on Facebook tended to exhibit “homophily”; that is, people tend to be Facebook friends with other people like them, especially in terms of race and gender. In some ways, this isn’t surprising. Increasingly, an individual’s online profile is an extension of her everyday life. What might be more surprising, however, is the way in which social networks can spread influence. Researchers now have the data to show how such seemingly individual things as a person’s taste in clothes, level of happiness, and even body size are influenced by social networks (Christakis and Fowler 2009). For researchers, Facebook is W cluster of girls, you see a few girls with a lot of arrows pointing to them. These are the people who nominated them as friends. The more arrows pointing in, the more popular— or “central”—that person is within the network. Another important position within this network is those students who link the boys and girls to one another. These “bridges” enable information to flow between the groups (also called 58 CHAPTER 2 Mining Social Media As more people of varying ages, races, and backgrounds use social media, researchers can analyze these networks as a major part of real life. especially exciting because it offers a data set rich enough to test ideas that up to now have only been theorized about. As Christakis points out, concepts about how social networks function were “first described by Simmel 100 years ago. . . . He just theorize[d] about it 100 years ago, but he didn’t have the data. Now we can engage that data” (Rosenbloom 2007). But social networking sites do more than just provide researchers with new data to answer old questions; they also connect friends and family in new ways. Young people use the “relationship status” feature of Facebook as the new standard for evaluating dating; they aren’t really a couple until they change their status to “in a relationship.” And Facebook has also changed the ways that families interact. The extended family, which is often now separated geographically, is more easily reunited online. Facebook was originally created for college students, but it now attracts their parents, and even their grandparents, all logging on to stay in touch. And be aware that with our interconnected web of relationships, if your friend’s friend’s friend on Facebook has quit smoking or gained weight, it can influence the likelihood that you will do the same. “cliques”). It is worth noting only girls nominated boys as friends; no boys nominated girls as friends (as shown by the directionality of the arrows). Thus, we can say that these ties lack reciprocity, meaning the arrows, or connections, flow only in one direction. Finally, every member of this network is connected in about three steps or has an average of three degrees of separation from every other member. Researchers Studying Social Life: Sociological Research Methods use these types of data to understand substance abuse, bullying and victimization, and delinquency and to design interventions to address adolescent issues. With the advent of social media, especially Facebook in the early 2000s, “social network” became a household phrase. While many people today mistakenly think that SNA began with the study of online social networks, it well predates the Internet. Some of the earliest work in the area of SNA began with sociologist Georg Simmel, who studied social ties between members of a community and how the size of a group affects the relationships between its members, or actors. In the late 1960s, Stanley Milgram’s work on the “small world” phenomenon brought publicity to the field with his studies showing that everyone is connected by an average of five and a half to six steps to everyone else in the world (Travers and Milgram 1969). This phenomenon was later coined the “six degrees of separation.” The advent of computer programs for analyzing networks helped create a large, diverse field that incorporates scientists from varying fields, including sociology, anthropology, political science, medicine, physics, and computer science. Social network programs have now been created to study large-scale networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and LinkedIn. Today, social network researchers can study Twitter feeds and other social media sites to discover patterns of communication between and among terrorist groups in order to disrupt their activities (Everton 2012). Studies of social media are also being conducted to better understand the flow of information, the nature of political discourse, and types of civic engagement. One such study looked at how organizers of the Occupy Wall Street movement used Twitter to organize and spread the movement (Tremayne 2014). Advantages and Disadvantages ADVANTAGES 1. Social network analysis can trace the route of just about anything—an idea, disease, rumor, or trend—as it moves through a social group, community, or society. This makes SNA a useful method for epidemiologists (scientists who study diseases within populations), political sociologists, and market researchers. 2. Social network analysis contributes to the production of “big data”—data sets so large that typical computer and storage programs cannot handle them—which has become increasingly popular in both the academic and the business worlds. Big data enables corporations to identify major trends quickly, target audiences effectively, and make predictions. Big data also creates new fields of research for social scientists (Lazar et al. 2009). DISADVANTAGES 1. Social network analysis, because it is fundamentally quantitative, can gloss over important details and diversity in the experiences of social actors. 2. Big data is expensive to collect and analyze, and large social network data sets often come from sources that have been assembled for other purposes (such as advertising) or that pose a threat to privacy. Big data is often criticized as nontheoretical “data dumps.” If you look at a network with thousands or millions of links, you’re likely to discover some sort of finding. The question becomes one of asking if such a finding would hold up in a smaller, more connected, interpersonal network. Issues in Sociological Research As sociologists, we don’t conduct our research in a cultural vacuum. In our professional as well as personal lives, all our actions have consequences, and we must be aware of how the things we do affect others. For this reason, any introduction to sociological methods is incomplete without a discussion of three topics: the nonacademic uses of sociological research; values, objectivity, and reactivity in the research process; and the importance of ethics in conducting social research. Nonacademic Uses of Research Methods The research methods discussed in this chapter are frequently applied outside the field of sociology. The U.S. Census Bureau, for example, has been taking a survey of the total population once every ten years since 1790. The census attempts to reach every person residing in the country and makes reports available on a wide range of social, demographic, and economic features. Many government decisions, from where to build a new school or hospital to where to install a new stoplight, are made using demographic data from the census and other major surveys. Sociological research methods are also used by private organizations, such as political campaign offices and news agencies. You are probably familiar with polls (another form of survey research) conducted by organizations like Gallup, Zogby, and Roper. And you have certainly seen the results of election polls, which indicate the candidates or issues voters are likely to support. Polls, however, do not just reflect public opinion; they can also be used to shape it. Not all of them are conducted under strict scientific protocols. Whenever you hear poll results, try to learn who commissioned the poll and determine whether they are promoting (or opposing) any particular agenda. Issues in Sociological Research 59 Businesses and corporations have turned to sociologiideal whereby researchers identify cal research in order to better facts without allowing their own understand the human dynamics personal beliefs or biases to within their companies. Some interfere ethnographers, for instance, have BASIC RESEARCH the search studied organizational culture for knowledge without an agenda and reported their findings to or practical goal in mind executives. Edgar Schein (1997, APPLIED RESEARCH the search 2010) is often referred to as an for knowledge that can be used to industrial ethnographer because create social change he conducts fieldwork in business settings in order to help management identify and deal with dilemmas in the workplace, such as how to motivate workers. Many of the experimental “games” developed by sociological researchers can be put to use in the business world to build teams, train employees, or even conduct job interviews. During a corporate retreat, for example, employees might be asked to participate in an obstacle or ropes course, in which they have to work together in order to succeed. By observing the strategies participants use, an employer might learn how task-oriented networks are formed, how leaders are chosen, or how cooperation emerges under pressure. Similarly, experimental games that require subjects to budget imaginary money or communicate an idea in a round of charades may offer insight into how social groups operate or may identify the most effective communicators from a pool of applicants. Market research is perhaps the most common of all nonacademic uses of sociological methods. In order to be successful, most companies will engage in some sort of study of the marketplace, either through their own internal sales and marketing departments or by hiring an outside consultant. The efforts of all these companies to understand the buying public have created a multibillion-dollar marketing and advertising industry. If you’ve ever clicked “yes” on a pop-up dialog box from a website, allowed “cookies” onto your browser, or cast a vote for your favorite contestants on Dancing with the Stars, then someone has gathered data about your tastes and habits. It is important to note, however, that not all market studies, in fact probably very few, meet the rigorous standards that are otherwise applied to “scientific” research. Remember, too, that the bottom line for any company that uses market research is the desire to sell you their products or services. Just how well do these marketers know you already? VALUE-FREE SOCIOLOGY an Values, Objectivity, and Reactivity It’s important to recognize that scientific research is done by human beings, not robots. Humans have flaws, prejudices, and blind spots, and all these things can affect the way they conduct research. 60 CHAPTER 2 VALUES Like biological or physical scientists, most sociologists believe that they should not allow their personal beliefs to influence their research. The classic sociological statement on neutrality comes from Max Weber (1925/1946), who, in his essay “Science as a Vocation,” coined the phrase value-free sociology to convey the idea that in doing research sociologists need to separate facts from their own individual values. Although most sociologists agree with this ideal, some challenge the notion of value-free sociology. For instance, some Marxist researchers believe it is appropriate to combine social research and social action or praxis. For them, the study of society is intimately linked to a commitment to actively solve social problems. Likewise, action research seeks not only to understand but also to change the social world. On the other hand, some symbolic interactionists, like David Matza (1969), believe that the very intention of changing the world prohibits a researcher from truly understanding that world. The question of whether sociologists should engage only in basic research, which is justified as the search for knowledge for its own sake, or rather engage in applied research, which requires putting into action what is learned, continues to be debated within the discipline. Despite the safeguards built into research methodologies, there are still opportunities for bias, or personal preferences, to subtly influence how the work is done. Bias can infiltrate every part of the research process—from identifying a project to selecting a sample, from the wording of questions to the analysis and write-up of the data. Earl Babbie (2002) claims that research biases have come into play in the area of U.S. racial relations, and he documents several historical cases to illustrate the point. In 1896, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of “separate but equal” as a means of “guaranteeing equal protection” for African Americans while still allowing racial segregation. Although no research was directly cited, it is widely believed that the ruling was influenced by the work of William Graham Sumner, a leading social scientist at the time. Sumner believed that the customs of a society were relatively impervious to outside influence and that therefore the legal system should not be used to enforce social change. The saying “You can’t legislate morality” is a reflection of such thinking. So instead of allowing blacks the same rights and access to resources, the Court continued to uphold segregation. The doctrine of “separate but equal” persisted until it was finally overturned in 1954 in the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, which outlawed racial segregation in schools. This time, the Supreme Court justices based their unanimous decision on several other, more contemporary sociological and psychological studies (Blaunstein and Zangrando 1970). Apparently, the Court was now of the belief that morality could be legislated. A decade later, controversy erupted again when in 1966 a noted sociologist, James Coleman, published his Studying Social Life: Sociological Research Methods ON THE JOB Sociology, Market Research, and Design Strategy fter college graduation, Whitney Bush moved to Chicago because some of her best friends already lived there. It was a personal decision—she didn’t have a job waiting for her, and she hadn’t thought much about where to look for one. She had double-majored in sociology and math because she enjoyed both and did well in them. She headed for the Windy City, married her college sweetheart, and set about looking for a way to pay the rent. After submitting applications for a number of entry-level positions, she was called for an interview at the Nielsen Company, a leader in the commercial study of consumer behavior (what is often called “market research”). She got the job: “Working in market research was a way for me to combine my favorite part of math (statistics—the discipline of looking for meaningful patterns) with my sociology-informed curiosity about what people think, feel, and do in their everyday lives. I began learning to tell stories from data.” And those stories were used by Nielsen’s clients to get consumers to watch and buy products, from television shows to floor wax. Bush quickly moved from her data-analyst role into positions that involved mentoring, managing, and training personnel at Nielsen offices all over the world. As she traveled and sometimes stayed for extended periods of time in places like Mumbai, India, she found her sociology education helpful in other ways, too, and enjoyed learning about and adapting to new cultures as part of her work. But then Bush’s personal life took an unexpected turn. Getting divorced while still in her twenties was a source of uncertainty and anxiety, but it was also an opportunity to think deliberately about what she wanted to do with her future. Bush decided to go back to school, moving across the country to enter a San Francisco–based MBA program in a field of study that hadn’t even existed when she was in college. Design strategy is a discipline that combines qualitative research, design-driven innovation, and entrepreneurial business skills to help firms make novel and profitable decisions. Despite A findings about a national study on race and education. Coleman claimed that the academic performance of African American students attending integrated schools was no better than that of those attending segregated schools; that such things as libraries, laboratories, or expenditures per student had less influence on academic performance than neighborhoods or family. While some criticized Coleman on methodological grounds, others were more concerned that his findings might be used to support a return to segregation. being an emergent field and, as such, a bit of a risk, “it was a nobrainer for me,” Whitney said. She has since earned her MBA and returned to the world of market research, this time with a new angle: “It feels like a big lean [back] into sociology, both from the perspective of designing research as social interactions (e.g., group activities, in-context observation, etc.), as well as using sociological lenses to understand what people say and do (e.g., real vs. projected self—thanks, Erving Goffman!) and then to take strategic action.” As Whitney carves out her new niche in an emergent area of work, she recognizes the ways in which her sociology degree prepared her for this unique career trajectory: “[It] cultivated in me an ability to observe, to ask why things are the way that they are, and to generate alternatives to the status quo—in my personal life as well as in my career.” Leaning into Sociology Whitney Bush’s sociology degree—and well developed sociological imagination—set her up to succeed in market research. This has not happened, but neither has complete integration. We still need to work toward creating an educational system that serves all students well, and social research will continue to be part of that process. Most social scientists, and the American public in general, support civil rights and racial equality. These beliefs inspire research at the same time that research inspires continued social change. Even though we aim for value-free sociology, there are some topics on which it is hard to remain neutral. Issues in Sociological Research 61 likely to go undiagnosed, which meant that women were more likely than men to die from heart attacks. Why? Because medical research on heart attacks used mostly male subjects and so had not discovered that women’s symptoms are different from men’s (Rabin 2008). It is easy now, through hindsight, to see that our “knowledge” was severely distorted. We must, therefore, be willing to recognize that what currently passes for fact may some day be challenged. Another obstacle to achieving objectivity is our subjective nature as human beings. Our own experience of the world and, therefore, our sense of reality are inevitably personal and idiosyncratic. Although we recognize our innate subjectivity, we still long for and actively pursue what we call absolute truth. But some social scientists question this ideal; they propose that subjectivity is not only unavoidable but also may be preferable when it comes to the study of human beings. This is especially true of sociologists who do autoethnography, in which they themselves—and their own thoughts, feelings, and experiences—are the focus of their study (Ellis 1997). Furthermore, some postmodern thinkers have gone so far as to reject the notion that there is any objective reality out there in the first place. Their arguments parallel certain trends in the physical sciences as well, where developments such as chaos theory and fuzzy logic suggest the need to reconsider the assumption of an orderly universe. Little Rock Nine Students try to prevent Elizabeth Eckford from getting to Little Rock’s Central High School after a federal court ordered the school to desegregate. OBJECTIVITY The notion of objectivity, or impartiality, plays a fundamental role in scientific practice. As far back as Auguste Comte, sociologists have maintained that they could study society rationally and objectively. If a researcher is rational and objective, then he should be able to observe reality, distinguish actual facts from mental concepts, and separate truth from feeling or opinion. This ideal may be desirable and reasonable, but can “facts” really speak for themselves? And if so, can we discover those facts without somehow involving ourselves in them? Some “facts” that sociologists once took to be objective reality have since been invalidated. Racist, sexist, and ethnocentric OBJECTIVITY impartiality; the perspectives long dominated the ability to allow the facts to speak field and passed for “truth.” For for themselves many years, scientific reality REACTIVITY the tendency of consisted only of the experience people and events to react to the of white European males, and process of being studied the realities of women, ethnic HAWTHORNE EFFECT a specific minorities, and others outside example of reactivity, in which the the mainstream were categoridesired effect is the result not of cally ignored or dismissed. the independent variable but of For example, until recently, the research itself heart problems in women were 62 CHAPTER 2 REACTIVITY In addition to maintaining their objectivity, social scientists must be concerned with reactivity, the ways that people and events respond to being studied. One classic example of reactivity comes from studies that were conducted from 1927 to 1932 at the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric in Chicago. Elton Mayo (1949), a Harvard business school professor, sought to examine the effect of varying work conditions on motivation and productivity in the factory. When he changed certain conditions—such as lighting levels, rest breaks, and even rates of pay—he found that each change resulted in a rise in productivity both in the individual worker and in the group. What was more surprising, however, was that returning to the original conditions also resulted in a rise in productivity. Mayo concluded, then, that the variables he had manipulated were not the causes of productivity; rather, it was the effect of being studied, or what is now referred to as the Hawthorne effect. In other words, the workers had responded to the researchers’ interest in their performance, and it was this attention that had caused the improvement. Researchers must always be aware that their subjects, whether in an experiment or in a natural observation, are active and intelligent participants. The subjects may be able to sense what the researchers are trying to understand or prove and in effect “give them what they want” by responding to even the unspoken goals of the research. Our presence as researchers always has some effect on those we study, whether noticeable to us or not. Studying Social Life: Sociological Research Methods Research Ethics Doing research that involves other human beings means that we must address moral issues (questions about right and wrong conduct) as we make decisions that will affect them. For this reason, various academic disciplines have developed ethical guidelines—professional standards for honest and honorable dealings with others—meant to help direct the decision making of such researchers. When we use other people as means to an end, we must protect them as ends in themselves. It’s easy to understand the risks of participating in, say, a pharmaceutical drug trial or a study of the effects of radiation treatment on certain types of cancers. The risks of participating in social research are different and more subtle. It is often the case, for example, that social researchers don’t fully explain the details of their research project to the participating subjects. Sometimes this is necessary; survey respondents, for example, must be able to answer questions without interference from the researcher. Also, ethnographic field-workers operate on various levels of secrecy or deception; even when an ethnographer has openly declared herself a researcher, it is often impossible for her to remind every person she speaks with that she is a scientific observer as well as a participant. And if she engages in “covert” research and deliberately presents an inauthentic self to the group, that makes all her interactions inauthentic as well. This can affect the field-worker’s ability to discover the members’ real, grounded meanings. What, then, has she really been able to learn about the setting and its members? Codes of ethics in the social sciences do not provide strict rules for researchers to abide by in these cases; rather, they set out principles to guide the researcher’s decision making. Secrecy and deceit are thus never strictly prohibited; instead, researchers are cautioned to acquire the informed consent of their subjects and to conduct themselves in a way that protects the subjects from harm. What other kinds of harm can come to participants? They’re not likely to get diseases, and there is usually little physical risk in sitting down to complete a survey questionnaire! But harm can result, mostly as a result of the breaching of confidentiality. Research subjects are entitled to “rights of biographical anonymity”: Researchers are required to protect their privacy. This protection is essential to gathering valid data, especially when dealing with controversial topics or vulnerable populations. Respondents must be guaranteed that no one will be able to identify them from reading the research findings. But while most researchers take steps to disguise the identities of individuals and locations, it is sometimes difficult to keep others from uncovering them. For example, in two classic sociological studies the pseudonym “Middletown” was used to evoke the notion of an “average” American city and to conceal that city’s real name and location (Lynd and Lynd 1929/1959, 1937). In spite of this intention, it was long ago revealed to be Muncie, Indiana—and since the town featured in the Middletown studies was widely viewed as an example of the shallowness and triviality of modern American culture, this was not such a good thing for Muncie’s reputation! Sometimes worse than having others recognize a place or person is having subjects themselves find out what was written about them. Carolyn Ellis (1995, 2007) had an unsettling experience when she returned to the small mid-Atlantic fishing village in which she had spent years living and doing fieldwork. In the time she had been gone, she had published a book about the village, and excerpts DECEPTION the extent to which the participants in a research had made their way back to the project are unaware of the project villagers, who were upset with the or its goals way that Ellis had depicted them. These villagers, who had consid- CONFIDENTIALITY the assurance that no one other ered Ellis to be their friend, felt than the researcher will know deeply betrayed; they felt that she the identity of a respondent had abused their hospitality and misrepresented them as uncouth, uneducated hicks. Despite her protests that she was simply doing her job as a sociologist, many villagers refused to speak with her again, and she was shut out of a social world of which she had once been an integral part. More recently, Alice Goffman (yes, daughter of Erving) incited a heated debate on research ethics with her controversial ethnography on the troubled lives of a group of young black men in Philadelphia, whom she spent six years getting to know. On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City was published to great acclaim, catapulting the young scholar into the spotlight—and inciting a serious backlash. While the book reignited age-old questions about the politics “Middletown” Although Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd used the pseudonym “Middletown” in their classic studies of stagnation and change in modern American culture, it was long ago revealed that Middletown is actually Muncie, Indiana. Issues in Sociological Research 63 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE The Nuremberg Code and Research Ethics he origins of contemporary research ethics can be traced back to the Nuremberg military tribunals of the late 1940s, in which a group of Nazi doctors were tried for the horrific “experiments” they had performed during World War II. These experiments involved the torture and death of thousands of concentration camp inmates. Of the twentythree Nazi doctors tried at Nuremberg, sixteen were convicted of war crimes. Besides a kind of justice for the deaths of so many, the other enduring result of the trials was the Nuremberg Code, a set of moral and ethical guidelines for performing research on human beings. According to these guidelines, developed by two doctors, Andrew Ivy and Leo Alexander, scientists must accept certain responsibilities: to perform only research that can “yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods”; to protect their human subjects from “all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury”; and to perform research only on subjects who give their informed, noncoerced consent. In the United States, there was strong support for the Nuremberg Code. But at the same time that the code was being developed, the U.S. government was involved in its own medical atrocity, though it would not be revealed to the public until decades later: the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. In 1932, the U.S. Public Health Service began a forty-year-long study of “untreated syphilis in the male negro”: 399 African American men from Tuskegee, an impoverished region of Alabama, T who were infected with syphilis were left untreated so that doctors could observe the natural progression of the disease. The symptoms include painful sores, hair loss, sterility, blindness, paralysis, and insanity and almost always lead to death. The disease can be transmitted by men to their sexual partners, and infected women can pass it on to their infants. By 1947, penicillin was widely accepted as the preferred treatment for syphilis, but government doctors decided to leave the Tuskegee men untreated to avoid interfering with the study’s results. While these doctors had not intentionally inflicted the disease on the subjects, neither had they offered a cure when it became available. The full story of the Tuskegee experiment was not revealed until 1972, and it was not until 1997 that President Bill Clinton issued an official apology from the U.S. government to the victims and their families. Clearly, Americans were as guilty of violating moral and ethical codes as Germans had been at a similar time in history. What is important to take away from this lesson is the need for all scientific research to adhere to ethical standards—this includes the social as well as medical sciences. In either case, researchers must consider the potential harm that they can cause to human subjects. You may not think of sociologists as dealing with life-and-death issues; yet, as researchers, we often find ourselves in positions where certain kinds of studies cannot be undertaken because of concerns for the wellbeing of the potential subjects. The Nuremberg Code In the wake of the Nuremberg Military Tribunals after World War II, science organizations adopted a set of guidelines to regulate researchers’ ethical conduct. Whether in biology, psychiatry, or sociology, researchers must consider the potential harm they can cause to research participants. 64 CHAPTER 2 Studying Social Life: Sociological Research Methods of representation, or who can speak for whom (can a privileged white woman with expensive degrees really speak for these marginalized minority men?), it was an anonymous sixty-page critique that put Goffman in the hot seat. The unsigned letter, which was sent out to scholars all across the country, included a long list of alleged inconsistencies that called into question the truthfulness of her account of events. Goffman explained that many of the inconsistencies were the result of her efforts to protect the anonymity of her sources, as required by the American Sociological Association (ASA) Code of Ethics. One particularly problematic passage, according to her critics, constitutes not only an ethical violation but also a prosecutable felony. In the wake of the murder of one of their friends, “Mike” searches for the shooter, often with Goffman as chauffeur: One night Mike thought he saw a 4th Street guy walk into a Chinese restaurant. He tucked his gun in his jeans, got out of the car, and hid in the adjacent alleyway. I waited in the car with the engine running, ready to speed off as soon as Mike ran back and got inside. But when the man came out with his food, Mike seemed to think this wasn’t the man he’d thought it was. He walked back to the car and we drove on. (Goffman 2014, p. 262) Not only were some of her fellow social scientists disturbed by this admission, legal experts were too. Northwestern University law professor Steven Lubet wrote in a review article: “Taking Goffman’s narrative at face value, one would have to conclude that her actions—driving around with an armed man, looking for somebody to kill—constituted conspiracy to commit murder under Pennsylvania law” (Lubet 2015). As we noted earlier, ethical violations are not the same as criminal violations, and in this case, the alleged criminal violation is a serious one. Goffman has not been and likely will not be charged with any crime, at least in part because the statute of limitations has expired. But her case reminds us that even sociologists can sometimes find themselves on the wrong side of the law. In order to encourage the protection of research subjects, each academic discipline has adopted its own code of ethics to provide guidelines for researchers. The ASA Code of Ethics, for example, sets out recommendations for how to avoid bias, adhere to professional standards, and protect respondents from harm. In addition, universities where research is conducted CODE OF ETHICS ethical have a body known as an instiguidelines for researchers to tutional review board, or IRB, consult as they design a project a group of scholars who meet regularly to review the research INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD a group of scholars within proposals of their colleagues. If a university who meet regularly to an IRB has reservations about review and approve the research the safety of the participants in proposals of their colleagues and a given research project, it may make recommendations for how require changes to the proto- to protect human subjects col or may even stop the project from going forward. In extreme cases, funding may be revoked if the participants are being put at undue risk; entire university power structures have been undermined as a result of pervasive research ethics problems. The power invested in IRBs is seen as controversial by some. The boards are often made up entirely of scholars in medicine, biology, chemistry, and physics; social scientists have questioned these scholars’ ability to make judgments about social research. Because IRBs have the power to shut down research projects, perhaps they should be discipline-specific, with biologists judging biologists, psychologists judging psychologists, and sociologists judging sociologists. CLOSING COMMENTS In this chapter, you have learned the different methods used by sociologists to investigate the social world. Each method has its strengths and limitations, and each can be fruitfully applied to a variety of research questions. In fact, this is exactly what you will be doing. Each chapter from this point on will feature two Data Workshops in which you will be asked to apply one of the methods from this chapter to an actual sociological research project. You will get a chance to practice doing the work of sociological research by actually gathering and analyzing your own data. You may find yourself referring back to this chapter to remind yourself of the specific mechanics of one or another of the research methods. This is exactly what you should be doing; it’s okay if two months from now you don’t remember all the details. Just because you’re moving on to Chapter 3, don’t forget that Chapter 2 can continue to be useful to you throughout the term—and maybe even beyond that. Closing Comments 65 Everything You Need to Know about Sociological Research Methods “ Research methods are strategies that produce data to support, disprove, or modify theoretical claims. REVIEW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 1. Identify a problem or ask a question 2. Conduct a literature review 3. Form a hypothesis; give operational definitions to variables “ 4. Choose research design or method 5. Collect data 6. Analyze data 7. Disseminate findings 66 1. Try to write a survey or interview question that asks about a respondent’s political affiliation without being biased or using language that might spark an emotional response. 2. Imagine that your teacher asks you to do a simple random sample of your class. How would you select your sample so that you could be sure each member had an equal chance of being included? 3. Researchers are now using social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter to gather a wide variety of data. If researchers read your profile (or those of your friends or family), do you think they would have a valid understanding of who you (or they) are? Is there a weakness of research that relies on existing sources? Main Sociological Research Methods Method Advantages Disadvantages Ethnography Study groups that are often overlooked by other methods Lack of replicability Lack of representativeness Challenge our taken-for-granted notions about groups we thought we knew Respondents are not always forthcoming or truthful A Random Invitation: The American Community Survey Reshape the stereotypes we hold about others Interviews Allow respondents to speak in their own words Not all respondents are honest in self-reports The ACS is a survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau each year to learn more about the American population. The survey not only provides data on population changes but also provides annual data on marital status, housing, education, and income. Visit the Everyday Sociology blog to find out if the American Community Survey really paints an accurate picture of the American population. Problems with the sampling process can make generalizability difficult http://wwnPag.es/trw402 Lack of representativeness Dispel certain preconceptions Discover issues that might have otherwise been overlooked Surveys Gather original data on a population that is too large to study by other means Relatively quick and economical and can provide a vast amount of data Comparatively strong on reliability EXPLORE Lacks qualitative data that might better capture the social reality Less concern about research bias Existing Sources Work with information researchers could not possibly obtain for themselves Answers to questions that the original authors did not have in mind are not available Does not illuminate how original sources were interpreted Experiments Manipulate and control the social environment researchers to minimize outside interference Applicable only to certain types of research that can be constructed and measured in a controlled setting High replicability Not very effective for describing more complex processes and interactions 67 PART II Framing Social Life ow does culture shape our social worlds? you will encounter many works by sociologists How are our personal identities produced that illustrate the links between the individual by our cultural contexts and social interactions? and society. Leila Rupp and Verta Taylor’s book How does participation in group life shape both Drag Queens at the 801 Cabaret (2003) is perfect individual experience and social structure? How for highlighting these themes. H are what is normal and what is deviant defined, Drag Queens at the 801 Cabaret is an eth- and what are the consequences for people nographic portrait of a Key West, Florida, drag who are labeled accordingly? Part II of this text club, where gay male performers don sexy addresses these questions in the next four chap- dresses, lavish wigs, and theatrical makeup and ters on culture (Chapter 3), the self and interac- sing and dance for a diverse audience: tourists tion (Chapter 4), groups (Chapter 5), and deviance and locals, men and women, gays and straights. (Chapter 6). The ability to examine, describe, Rupp and Taylor get to know the “801 girls” and analyze, and explain the points of intersection their friends, family, and audience members, and between the individual world and the social world the authors even try out their own sort of drag. is sociology’s special contribution to the larger (That’s right—women dressed as men dressed scholarly endeavor. Within the next four chapters, as women!) Rupp and Taylor recognize that the particular culture of the 801 Cabaret is nestled within multiple contemporary American subcultures. For example, Key West is an island subculture that offers a year-round, touristy, carnivalesque atmosphere as part of its charm. It “remains a flamboyant mix of cultures. . . . [I]t shelters not only vibrant Cuban and Bahamian enclaves, but also artistic, hippie, and gay communities. . . . The city [says journalist Charles Kuralt] is ‘full of dreamers, drifters, and dropouts, spongers and idlers and barflies, writers and fishermen, islanders from the Caribbean and gays from the big cities, painters and pensioners, treasure hunters, real estate speculators, smugglers, runaways, old Conchs and young lovers . . . all elaborately tolerant of one another’” (Rupp and Taylor 2003, pp. 50–51). For the 801 girls, this means that the subcultures associated with both gay masculinity and drag performance are supported and sustained on the island in ways they might not be on the mainland. Because of the island’s unique mix of subcultures, one of the performers asserts that “Key West is the true home of accepted diversity” (p. 55). In Key West’s culture, many kinds of people feel free to be themselves. But what does that really mean? For the drag queens at the 801 Cabaret, their performances are about putting on a different identity than the one they present in their everyday lives. These are men with flashy female alteregos: Kevin becomes “Kylie”; Roger becomes “Inga”; Dean becomes “Milla.” And their process of becoming is elaborate and grueling: 70 PART II Sociologists Verta Taylor and Leila Rupp The authors getting into drag themselves. Some of the girls shave all over their bodies, some their faces, chests, legs, and arms, some just their faces. . . . They powder their faces, necks, and chests, using a thick base to hide their beards. . . . Eyeliner, eye shadow, mascara, false eyelashes, lip liner, and lipstick are painstakingly applied. (pp. 12–13) So far, this doesn’t sound all that different than the rituals many women perform every morning in front of the mirror. After the makeup, however, things get a little more intricate, as the “girls” tuck their penises and testicles between their legs, using a gaff [a special panty], or several, to make sure everything stays out of sight . . . panty hose, sometimes several layers . . . corsets and waist cinchers . . . they all, of course, wear bras . . . [filled with] water balloons (the tied end makes an amazingly realistic nipple), half a Nerf football, lentil beans in a pair of nylons, foam or silicone prostheses. (pp. 20–21) All this work to look like women—and that’s not taking into account the exhausting work of acting the part, onstage and off. While drag queens do not seek to convince their audiences that they are “real” women, they do move, speak, sing, and dance in stereotypically feminine style as part of their performances. And that’s the insight that drag queens provide about our own identities: it’s all performance! Our male and female selves are the products of interactional accomplishments, and “real” women do many of the same things that drag queens do in order to express femininity. Because the drag queens perform different identities onstage and off, the 801 Cabaret calls into question some of our most important and taken-for-granted boundaries between social groups: males and females, and gays and straights. In fact, drag queens are living examples of the intersections between these groups. One of the performers says: Last night—though this happens almost every night— [this woman] goes, “I’m straight, I’m a woman, I’m not a lesbian, but you’re so beautiful, I find you so attractive” . . . [and] a straight guy, has been straight for like fifty years or something like that . . . goes, “You know, I’ve been straight all my life, and I know you’re a man, but you’re so beautiful. . . . I can’t keep my eyes off you.” (p. 201) Performing Gender Drag queens and “real” women perform femininity in similar ways. is a form of social protest—against a society in which gender and sexual orientation are crammed into limiting, twocategory systems; in which identities are seen as immutable; and in which certain forms of cultural expression are marginalized. Their analysis of the social world of one Key West drag club offers sociological insights into the lives of the individual performers who work against social stigma and limitations to provide new ways of looking at culture, self, and society. Drag queens and drag shows allow others to cross between groups, to see what life might be like in a world in which gender boundaries are fluid and homosexuality is normal: As one of the few ways that straight people encounter gay culture—where, in fact, straight people live for an hour or two in an environment where gay is normal and straight is other—drag shows . . . play an important role for the gay/lesbian movement. Precisely because drag shows are entertaining, they attract people who might never otherwise be exposed to gay politics. As one female audience member put it, they “take something difficult and make it light.” (pp. 207–208) Finally, drag shows also challenge our notions about what is normal and what is deviant; performers embrace what would otherwise be considered a stigmatized identity and turn it into something to be proud of. Drag queens can be seen as voluntary outsiders, unconcerned about fitting into mainstream society. Rupp and Taylor make the argument that drag Drag Queens on Stage How do drag queens use entertainment and performance to undermine gender stereotypes? PART II 71 CHAPTER 3 Culture or most of us, deciding which public bathroom to use is something we do without much F deliberation. In fact, the norm of sex-segregated bathrooms is so pervasive it appears natural or logical. But we can actually learn a great deal about culture from restrooms. For example, the fact that women’s restrooms often have baby-changing stations while men’s restrooms do not demonstrates cultural values about who is expected to be responsible for child care. Similarly, anxieties over who can use which bathroom tell us something else about our culture. For example, many mothers may allow their young sons to use the women’s public restroom. Other women using the restroom don’t usually see this as a problem. We’re less comfortable, however, with fathers bringing their daughters into men’s public restrooms. And once children are old enough to use the restroom on their own, there is an expectation that their sex will dictate the one they should use. Thus, if an adult man were found using the women’s restroom, he would likely face some social, and possibly legal, sanctions for violating that protocol. What does our reaction to such scenarios reveal about our beliefs and assumptions? The United States is currently embroiled in cultural and legal debates over transgender persons and whether they should be allowed to use the bathroom aligned with their gender identity. 72 In 2016, North Carolina lawmakers passed HB2, the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, which requires residents to use the restroom that matches their sex assigned at birth or face legal sanctions. This “bathroom bill“ was described by proponents as “commonsense” legislation that protects people who feel their privacy may be violated if a person of the opposite sex uses their restroom. Opponents, by contrast, have described it as “the most anti-LGBT legislation in the United States”—essentially discrimination condoned and reinforced by law. Opponents believe these bathroom bills have the potential to inspire future laws that permit discrimination based on one’s gender identity. These battles over bathroom bills are an example of a “culture war,” a term used to describe the clashes that occur as a result of conflicting viewpoints (Bloom 1987; Garber 1998). Trans activists have been on the front line of this culture war, using social media to protest what they perceive as discriminatory laws with hashtags such as #Occupotty and #WeJustNeedToPee. There have also been responses at the level of government, including a recent change to the White House floor plan: the designation of its first gender-neutral restroom. Under the Obama administration, the Education Department and the Justice Department issued guidelines to public schools, saying they must permit trans students to use the bathrooms aligned with their gender identity. The letter also urged schools to allow students to dress for prom and graduation in the way they feel most comfortable. The administration based these guidelines on Title IX, a federal law that prohibits discrimination based on a student’s sex, arguing that this includes a person’s gender identity. Soon after President Trump took office in 2017, however, he revoked the guidelines, allowing schools to create their own policies for transgender students. Restroom restriction laws are based on the essentialist premise that gender emerges naturally from one’s sex assigned at birth—either male or female. This binary approach to sex and gender has long been used to organize social life. It goes along with another assumption about gender—the perception that men represent more of a threat to others, with women often the target of such threats. This assumption provides a key insight into why lawmakers have attempted to ban trans people from using the restroom aligned with their gender identity. They argue that trans people using the “wrong” bathroom present a risk to vulnerable people: namely, women and children. As sociologists, we must ask what these arguments communicate about the values and norms of a society and investigate the veracity of these claims. Recent studies show that transgender people are more likely to be victimized (Herman 2013). Despite the lack of evidence for the main argument of bathroom restriction laws, many people still support them, demonstrating our culture’s deeply held ideas about sex and gender. For the moment, the gender-neutral restroom in the White House remains. But the culture wars are far from over. 74 CHAPTER 3 Culture HOW TO READ THIS CHAPTER Culture is one of the fundamental elements of social life and thus a very important topic in sociology. Many of the concepts presented here will come up again in almost every subsequent chapter. You will need to keep these concepts in mind as you learn about other substantive areas. You will also want to think about how culture is relevant to the things you already know from your own life experience. Try to come up with some of your own examples as you read along. The subject of culture is inherently interesting to most people. But although culture is familiar to all of us, you should be seeing it in a new and different way by the time you finish this chapter. What Is Culture? Culture encompasses practically all of human civilization and touches on almost every aspect of social life. It is so much a part of the world around us that we may not recognize the extent to which it shapes and defines who we are. In the broadest sense, we can say that culture is the entire way of life of a group of people. It can include everything from language and gestures to style of dress and standards of beauty, from customs and rituals to tools and artifacts, from music and child-rearing practices to the proper way for customers to line up in a grocery store. It forms basic beliefs and assumptions about the world and the way things work, and it defines the moral parameters of what is right and wrong, good and bad. Although culture varies from group to group, all societies develop some form of culture. It is the human equivalent of instinct in animals: although we humans do have some basic instincts, culture actually accounts for our great success as a species. We are totally dependent on it to deal with the demands of life in society. As culture develops, it is shared among members of a group, handed down from generation to generation, and passed along from one group or individual to another. Although culture may seem to us to be “second nature,” it is actually learned rather than innate. Because we learn it so slowly and incrementally, we are often unaware of the process. For instance, few of us would be conscious of having learned all the slang words we currently use or the distance we typically maintain from others while talking with them. We may not remember exactly when we first felt patriotic or how we formed our opinions about people in the upper class. We all carry culture inside ourselves; it becomes ingrained and internalized into our way of thinking and acting. Culture guides the way we make sense of the world around us and the way we make decisions about what to do and how to do it. We can talk about the culture of a given country, state, or community, of people belonging to an ethnic or religious group, or of those working in the same profession. We can even say that sports enthusiasts, schoolmates, or a clique of friends all share in a common culture. We’ll discuss some of these cultural variations later in the chapter. How Has Culture Been Studied? People study culture in a variety of ways. Theologians and philosophers, for example, might debate the morals and values of an ideal culture. Art, literature, and film scholars focus on certain aspects of culture—novels, films, paintings, plays—as expressive, symbolic activities. Cultural anthropologists often investigate societies outside the United States, traveling around the world engaging in empirical fieldwork, while archaeologists study the cultures of the past, digging for artifacts that document the historical realities of peoples long dead. In contrast, sociologists usually focus on culture closer to home, often in the same societies to which they belong. At the same time, however, sociologists may also engage in the process of “othering” by studying the unusual, extraordinary, or CULTURE the entire way of life deviant in cultural groups. In so of a group of people (including doing, they may fail to consider both material and symbolic some aspects of the culture that elements) that acts as a lens is right in front of them. This is through which one views the where the sociology of everyday world and that is passed from one generation to the next life offers certain benefits. By studying the mundane as well as the exceptional, we can learn about culture in all of its interesting permutations. We can learn not only about the differences between cultural groups—“us” and “them”—but also about the similarities. Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism Culture acts as a lens through which we view the world. That lens, however, can either elucidate or obscure what we are looking at. Often, we can’t clearly see our own culture, precisely because we are so familiar with it. Yet, when exposed to another culture, through travel, television, or other means, we can readily see what is different or seemingly “exotic.” Rarely does our perspective allow us to recognize the strangeness in our own culture. One of the best examples of the challenges in observing culture is presented in a famous article by Horace Miner titled “Body Ritual among the Nacirema” (1956). The article focuses on the beliefs and practices of this North American people concerning the care of their bodies. Miner observes that their fundamental belief appears to be that the human body is ugly What Is Culture? 75 and is susceptible to decay and disease and that the only way to counter these conditions is to engage in elaborate ceremonies and rituals. All members of the Nacirema culture conform to a greater or lesser degree to these practices and then pass them along to their children. One passage describes the household shrine where many of the body rituals take place: While each family has at least one shrine, the rituals associated with it are not family ceremonies but are private and secret. . . . The focal point of the shrine is a box or chest which is built into a wall. In this chest are kept the many charms and magical potions without which no native believes he could live. . . . Beneath the charm-box is a small font. Each day every member of the family, in succession, enters the shrine room, bows his head before the charm-box, mingles different sorts of holy water in the font, and proceeds with a brief rite of ablution. (p. 504) The Nacirema regularly visit medicine men, “holy-mouth men,” and other specialized practitioners from whom they procure magical potions: The Nacirema have an almost pathological horror of and fascination with the mouth, the condition of which is believed to have a supernatural influence on all social relationships. Were it not for the rituals of the mouth, they believe that their teeth would fall out, their gums bleed, their jaws shrink, their friends desert them, and their lovers reject them. The daily body ritual performed by everyone includes a mouth-rite. It was reported to me that the ritual consists of inserting a small bundle of hog hairs into the mouth, along with certain magical powders, and then moving the bundle in a highly formalized series of gestures. Do the Nacirema seem like a strange group of people, or are they somehow familiar? Miner writes as though he were an anthropologist studying some exotic tribe of primitive people. In actuality, the passages above describe the bathroom and personal health-care habits of the average American. (Note that “Nacirema” is “American” spelled backward.) He doesn’t embellish or make up anything; he merely approaches the topic ETHNOCENTRISM the principle of using one’s own culture as as if he knows nothing about its a means or standard by which meaning. So the “charm-box” to evaluate another group or is a medicine cabinet, the “holy individual, leading to the view that water” font is a sink, the medicultures other than one’s own are cine men and “holy-mouth men” abnormal or inferior are doctors and dentists, and the CULTURAL RELATIVISM the exotic “mouth-rite” is the practice principle of understanding other of brushing teeth. cultures on their own terms, One of the reasons that Minrather than judging or evaluating er’s article has become so popular according to one’s own culture is that it demonstrates how easy 76 CHAPTER 3 Culture “Body Ritual among the Nacirema” Horace Miner reminds us how easy it is to overlook aspects of our own culture, precisely because they seem so normal to us. it is to fail to see our own culture, precisely because we take it for granted. The article reminds students who are becoming social analysts how useful culture shock is in helping to see even what is most familiar as bizarre or strange. Throughout this chapter, keep in mind that your powers of observation must be applied to looking at both “them” and “us.” Another, related problem arises when trying to understand cultures other than our own. Generally, we think of our own culture as being the “normal” one, a belief known as ethnocentrism. We don’t realize that culture is something learned and that there is nothing inherently better about ours. Ethnocentrism means that we use our own culture as a kind of measuring stick with which to judge other individuals or societies; anyone outside our group seems “off-center” or abnormal. While ethnocentrism may give us a sense of pride in our own group, it can also prevent us from seeing and understanding others. In some cases, ethnocentrism can be a source of prejudice and hostility. As sociologists, we want to have as clear a view of any society as possible; this requires that we suspend, at least temporarily, our ethnocentrism. There are several ways to do this. In Chapter 1, we learned about the beginner’s mind, culture shock, and the sociological imagination—all ways to see the world anew. We can add to that list cultural relativism, ON THE JOB The Sharing Economy and Unlikely Cultural Ambassadors n 1949 Bob Luitweiler founded Servas International “to build understanding, tolerance, and world peace.” Instead of trying to change the behavior of world leaders, or the way that governments worked, Luitweiler’s goal was to convince ordinary people to do one simple thing: visit each other. Servas International was the first modern hospitality exchange program. People all over the world signed up to be “hosts,” volunteering to open their homes, free of charge, to travelers from all over the globe. During these relatively short visits, hosts would “share with travelers their daily lives, their concerns about social and economic issues, and their commitment to promoting peace through friendship and cultural exchange.” The hope was that both the hosts and the guests would be able to learn more about the other’s culture. Almost seventy years later, however, it was the emergence of the “sharing economy” that really allowed hospitality exchange to take off. The sharing economy, sometimes called the “peer to peer” economy, refers to a new business model made possible by the spread of the Internet and mobile devices. It was always possible to try to rent out a spare bedroom, car, or power tool lying around in the garage, but for almost everyone it was far more trouble than it was worth. The Internet changed all that by allowing far more information to be collected and shared, solving the trust problem that kept networks like Servas small and relatively exclusive. Following the model pioneered by companies like eBay, sharing economy websites allow users to rate each other and thereby build a reputation for trustworthiness: I Reputation is a requirement of the sharing economy. For Airbnb hosts and Uber and Lyft drivers, positive ratings are paramount to their success. It might seem crazy to stay at a stranger’s house, but on Airbnb host reviews facilitate trust among strangers. (Schlegel 2014) The results of these technological innovations have been staggering. Airbnb, founded in 2008 to allow people to rent which means seeing each different culture as simply that— different. Not better or worse, not right or wrong, but on its own terms. Doing so helps us place different values, beliefs, norms, and practices within their own cultural context. By practicing cultural relativism, or being culturally sensitive, out their homes and apartments on a short-term basis, now boasts that it has had more than 160 million guests book a stay through its website, which lists rentals in 191 countries and more than 65,000 cities. While Airbnb likes to brag that its rental listings include more than 1,400 castles, their rivals at Couchsurfing.com have taken a different approach to the sharing economy. Their website tells the story of how their CEO surfed a Dumpster that a University of Texas professor had “converted and refinished as part of a sustainable micro-housing project.” Rather than letting people rent out their living spaces, Couchsurfing allows travelers to connect with people who are willing to let them crash on the “couch” for free. The Couchsurfing mission statement emphasizes the way this mode of travel can promote social change: “We envision a world made better by travel and travel made richer by connection,” and hope that when couchsurfers “share their lives with” their hosts, the resulting friendships will help generate “cultural exchange and mutual respect.” Though the organization has had a somewhat tumultuous history, it claims 7 million members in more than 100,000 cities worldwide. However much Airbnb and Couchsurfing differ in their business models, both agree that one of the advantages of traveling this way is that it can turn everyday people into unlikely but effective cultural ambassadors. A search of Airbnb’s website shows scores of people describing themselves as the “unofficial ambassador” for their communities. When people “list their couch” on Couchsurfing’s website, they’re inviting strangers into their homes and taking on the role of tour guide as well as host. You can even simply set your couch’s status to “Not Right Now (but I can hang out)” if you aren’t able to host guests but still “want to be available as a city resource for travelers.” Although some remain cynical about the motives of traveling couchsurfers, seeing them as more interested in traveling cheaply than in creating connections, it’s hard to deny that cultural exchange is really happening thanks to these and other similar organizations. we begin to see others more clearly and without judgment and, therefore, to appreciate their way of life. We can discover viewpoints and interpretations of reality different from our own. Cultural relativism becomes all the more important in our increasingly diverse society. What Is Culture? 77 Material Culture and the Architecture of Santa Barbara Local leaders have preserved the city’s history and resisted the pressures of encroaching urban development by insisting on maintaining the look of “old California.” Components of Culture Since culture is such a broad concept, it is more easily grasped if we break it down into its constituent parts. Sociologists conceive of culture as consisting of two major categories: material culture and symbolic culture. Material Culture Material culture is any physical object to which we give social meaning: art and artifacts, tools and utensils, machines and weapons, clothing and furniture, buildings and toys—the list is immense. Any physical thing that people create, use, or appreciate might be considered material culture. Examining material culture can tell us a great deal about a particular group or society. Just look around you, whether in your dorm room, a library, a coffeehouse, or a park—there should be many items that you can identify as belonging to material culture. Start with your own clothes and accessories and then extend your observations to your surroundings— the room, building, landscaping, street, neighborhood, community, and further outward. For instance, the designer label on a woman’s purse might convey that she follows the curMATERIAL CULTURE the rent fashion trends, or the athobjects associated with a letic logo on a man’s T-shirt cultural group, such as tools, might tell us that he is into machines, utensils, buildings, skateboarding. Likewise, the and artwork; any physical object carpeting, light fixtures, furnito which we give social meaning ture, and artwork in a building 78 CHAPTER 3 Culture can tell us something about the people who live or work there. And the sports arenas, modes of transportation, historical monuments, and city dumps reveal the characteristics of a community. Perhaps the proliferation of drive-thru fast-food restaurants in practically every corner of the United States says something about American tastes and lifestyle: we spend more time on the road, cook fewer meals at home, and prefer the ease and predictability of knowing what we’ll get each time we pull up to our favorite chain. If you were visiting another country, you might see some very different items of material culture. Studying the significance of material culture is like going on an archaeological dig, but learning about the present rather than the distant past. Let’s take as an example a sociological “dig” in Santa Barbara, California, where one of the authors of this book lives. Local leaders there have been active in preserving the image of the city, particularly in its downtown historical area. The original mission, presidio (military post), courthouse, and other landmarks built by early Spanish settlers are all still intact. Although the town has grown up around these buildings, zoning regulations require that new construction fit with the distinctive Mediterranean architecture of the “red tile roof” district. The size and design are restricted, as are the use of signs, lighting, paint, and landscaping. Thus, the newly built grocery store with its textured stucco walls, tile murals, and arched porticos may be difficult to distinguish from the century- old post office a few blocks away. By studying its material culture, we can see how Santa Barbara manages to preserve its history and heritage and successfully resist the pressures of encroaching urban development. The distinctive “old California” look and feel of the city is perhaps its greatest charm, something that appeals to locals and a steady flock of tourists alike. Symbolic Culture Nonmaterial or symbolic culture reflects the ideas and beliefs of a group of people. It can be something as specific as a certain rule or custom, such as driving on the right side of the road in the United States and on the left side in the United Kingdom. It can also be a broad social system, such as democracy, or a large-scale social pattern, such as marriage. Because symbolic culture is so important to social life, let’s look further at some of its main components. COMMUNICATION: SIGNS, GESTURES, AND LANGUAGE One of the most important functions of symbolic culture is to allow us to communicate—through signs, gestures, and language. These form the basis of social interaction and are the foundation of culture. Signs (or symbols) such as traffic signals, price tags, notes on sheet music, or product logos have all been designed to meaningfully represent someSYMBOLIC CULTURE the thing else. They all convey inforideas associated with a cultural mation. Numbers and letters are group, including ways of thinking the most common signs, but you (beliefs, values, and assumptions) are probably familiar with lots and ways of behaving (norms, of other graphic symbols indi- interactions, and communication) cating, for instance, which is the SIGNS symbols that stand for or men’s or women’s restroom or convey an idea whether it’s unisex, where the elevator is going, how to pause the video you’re watching, or in which lane you should be driving. While we can easily take for granted the meaning of most symbols, others we may have to learn when we first encounter them. Some symbols may be nearly universal, while others may be particular to a given culture. It may take some interpretive work to understand what a sign means if you are unfamiliar with the context in which it is displayed. Take emojis, for instance, those cute (or devious) little expressions that we can add to our text messages and social media posts. Originally developed in Japan, where the word emoji means “pictograph,” these symbols have become Gestures and Body Language If you travel to a foreign culture, pay special attention to how others interpret your body language. Common friendly gestures in one culture can be offensive or confusing in another. Components of Culture 79 ubiquitous around the world. Over one thousand emojis are people use their bodies to now recognized as part of the communicate without words; Unicode Standard for computactions that have symbolic ing, and more are being added meaning every year. Recently, the human LANGUAGE a system of emojis (or emoticons) were modicommunication using vocal fied so that you could choose sounds, gestures, or written among a range of skin tones symbols; the basis of symbolic culture and the primary means and hair colors in an attempt to through which we communicate better represent our diversity. with one another and perpetuate Although widely used, not every our culture emoji is understood in the same SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS way by all people. The sleepy face the idea that language structures emoji is one of the most confusthought and that ways of looking ing; because it has a water drop at the world are embedded in between the eyes and mouth, language most people think it’s crying, but in fact that’s not a tear but rather a droplet of drool, which is supposed to indicate sleeping. Gestures are signs made with the body—clapping, nodding, smiling, or any number of facial expressions. Sometimes, these acts are referred to as “body language” or “nonverbal communication,” since they don’t require any words. Gestures can be as subtle as a knowing glance or as obvious as a raised fist. Most of the time, we can assume that other people will get what we are trying to say with our gestures. But, while gestures might seem natural and universal, just a matter of common sense, few of them besides those that represent basic emotions are innate; most have to be learned. For instance, the “thumbs up” sign, which is associated with praise or approval in the United States, might be interpreted as an obscene or insulting gesture in parts of Asia or South America. Every culture has its own way of expressing praise and insulting others. So before leaving for a country whose culture is unfamiliar, it might be worth finding out whether shaking hands and waving goodbye are appropriate ways to communicate. Language, probably the most significant component of culture, is what has allowed us to fully develop and express ourselves as human beings, and it is what distinguishes us from all other species on the planet. Although language varies from culture to culture, it is a human universal and present in all societies. It is one of the most complex, fluid, and creative symbol systems: letters or pictograms are combined to form words, and words combined to form sentences, in an almost infinite number of possible ways. Language is the basis of symbolic culture and the primary means through which we communicate with one another. It allows us to convey complicated abstract concepts and to pass along a culture from one generation to the next. Language helps us to conceive of the past and to plan for the future; to categorize the people, places, and things GESTURES the ways in which 80 CHAPTER 3 Culture around us; and to share our perspectives on reality. In this way, the cumulative experience of a group of people— their culture—can be contained in and presented through language. Language is so important that many have argued that it shapes not only our communication but our perception—the way that we see things—as well. In the 1930s, anthropologists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf conducted research on the impact of language on the mind. In working with the Hopi tribe in the American Southwest, the anthropologists claimed to have discovered that the Hopi had no words to distinguish the past, present, or future and that, therefore, they did not “see” or experience time in the same way as those whose language provided such words. The result of this research was the development of what is known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (sometimes referred to as the principle of linguistic relativity). Their hypothesis broke from traditional understandings about language by asserting that language actually structures thought, that perception not only suggests the need for words with which to express what is perceived but also that the words themselves help create those same perceptions (Sapir 1949; Whorf 1956). The studies by Sapir and Whorf were not published until the 1950s, when they were met with competing linguistic theories. In particular, the idea that Eskimos (or Inuits, as they are now called) had many more words for snow than people of Western cultures was sharply challenged, as was the notion that the Hopi had no words for future or past tense (Martin 1986; Pullum 1991). Although there is still some disagreement about how strongly language influences thought (Edgerton 1992), the ideas behind the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis continue to influence numerous social thinkers. Language does play a significant role in how people construct a sense of reality and how they categorize the people, places, and things around them. For instance, the work of sociologist Eviatar Zerubavel (2003) looks at how different groups (such as Jews and Arabs, or Serbs and Croats) use language to construct an understanding of their heritage— through what he calls “social memory.” In a country like the United States, where there are approximately 43 million foreign-born people who speak well over 100 different languages, there are bound to be differences in perceptual realities as a result (Lopez and Radford 2017). Does the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis hold true for your world? Let’s take an example closer to home. Perhaps you have seen the 2004 movie Mean Girls, loosely based on a pop sociology book by Rosalind Wiseman, Queen Bees and Wannabes, about the culture of high school girls (2002). Both book and film present a social map of the cafeteria and school grounds, identifying where different groups of students— the “jocks,” “cheerleaders,” “goths,” “preppies,” “skaters,” “nerds,” “ hacky-sack kids,” “easy girls,” and “partiers”—hang much more important than it is now. In today’s economy, workers realize that they may be “downsized” in times of financial trouble or that they may change careers over the course of their lifetime and hence feel less obligation to an employer. Mean Girls and the Cafeteria Classification System A scene from the film Mean Girls illustrates the different classification schemes that are used to identify and categorize the world around us. out. The book also includes the “populars” (referred to in the movie as the “plastics”) and the popular “wannabes.” You were probably aware of similar categories for distinguishing groups at your school. Do such classification systems influence the way you see other people? Do they lead you to identify people by type and place them into those categories? If no such labels existed (or if your school had different labels), would you still perceive your former classmates the same way? Probably not. These kinds of questions highlight how important language is to the meanings we give to our everyday world. Values, Norms, and Sanctions Values and norms are symbolic culture in thought and action. When we know the values of a particular group and see how individuals are controlled by its social norms, then we can appreciate their beliefs and ideals and find the evidence of these throughout their everyday lives. VALUES Values are the set of shared beliefs that a group of people considers to be worthwhile or desirable in life— what is good or bad, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly. They articulate the essence of everything that a cultural group cherishes in its society. For instance, most Americans value the equality and individual freedoms of democracy. Structural functionalists, such as Durkheim, stress the strength of shared values and their role in regulating the behavior of society’s members. However, there is not always widespread agreement about which values should represent a society, and values may change or new values may emerge over time. For example, workers’ loyalty to their company was once NORMS Norms are the rules and guidelines regarding what kinds of behavior are acceptable; they develop directly out of a culture’s value system. Whether legal regulations or just social expectations, norms are largely agreed upon by most members of a group. Some norms are formal, which means they are officially codified and explicitly stated. These include laws such as those making it illegal to speed in a school zone or drink before you turn twenty-one. Other formal norms include the rules for playing basketball or the requirements for membership in your college’s honor society, the rights secured by the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and the behavioral prescriptions conveyed in the Ten Commandments. Despite the relative authority of formal norms, they are not always followed. Other norms are informal, meaning that they are implicit and unspoken. For instance, when we wait in line to buy tickVALUES ideas about what is right ets for a movie, we expect that or wrong, good or bad, desirable no one will cut in front of us. or worthy in a particular group; Informal norms are so much a they express what the group part of our assumptions about cherishes and honors life that they are embedded in NORMS rules or guidelines our consciousness; they cover regarding what kinds of behavior almost every aspect of our social are acceptable and appropriate lives, from what we say and do within a particular culture; these to even how we think and feel. typically emanate from the Though we might have difficulty group’s values listing all the norms that are a LAWS types of norms that are part of everyday life, most of us formally codified to provide an have learned them quite well. explicit statement about what is They are simply “the way things permissible or forbidden, legal or are done.” Often, it is only when illegal in a given society norms are violated (as when FOLKWAYS loosely enforced someone cuts in line) that we norms involving common customs, practices, or procedures that recognize they exist. Norms can be broken down ensure smooth social interaction and acceptance further into three types. Folkways are the ordinary conventions of everyday life about what is acceptable or proper and are not always strictly enforced. Folkways are the customary ways that people do things, and they ensure smooth and orderly social interactions. Examples are standards of dress and rules of etiquette: in most places, wearing flip-flops with a business suit and eating with your fingers from the buffet line is just not done! When people do not conform to folkways, they are thought of as peculiar or eccentric but not necessarily dangerous. Components of Culture 81 IN RELATIONSHIPS Individual Values vs. University Culture et’s talk about sex on campus. Both Dr. Ferris’s and Dr. Stein’s schools (public, statefunded institutions) provide on-campus sexual health services for students, including a wide range of contraceptive choices, STI (sexually transmitted infection) testing and treatment, and pregnancy testing. Does your college health services center offer these services, too? Many colleges and universities do not offer students the full range of sexual health-care services, and some offer none at all. For example, Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington, offers no contraceptive benefits to students but does cover STIs. While only a small percentage of Catholic universities in the United States have offered any kind of contraception to students, there has been some pushback at campuses such as Fordham, especially since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which mandated coverage (Catholics for a Free Choice 2002; Edwards-Levy 2012). It’s harder to generalize about non- Catholic religious schools—some do, some don’t. Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City and Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, for example, do offer contraception to students, while Liberty University in Virginia and Eastern Nazarene College in Massachusetts don’t appear to offer any birth control services. Schools without religious affiliations are more likely to offer contraceptive services if they have a student health center, but these are not found on all campuses. Universities have their own cultures that include traditions, customs, beliefs, and values, just like any other cultural group. Some universities borrow their cultural values from the larger organizations (such as religious groups) that sponsor them; even unaffiliated universities have statements of their institutional values on their websites. What does it mean for you that your college may be guided by a set of institutional policies that prohibits dispensing contraception to students? It means that some of your most personal, private, individual choices have already been made L Mores are norms that carry a greater moral significance and are more closely related to the core values of a cultural group. Unlike folkways, mores are norms to which practically everyone is expected to conform. Breaches are treated seriously and in some cases can bring severe repercussions. Such mores as the prohibition of theft, rape, and murder are also formalized, 82 CHAPTER 3 Culture for you (or at least made more complicated for you) by your school. It’s possible that your individual values coincide with your college’s culture when it comes to such issues. But if your university’s institutional values and your individual values are different, you may find yourself in a situation where the university has some unanticipated control over your everyday life and personal relationships. Schools can mandate who your dorm roommate can be (and whether you can room with someone you know, or someone of the same or opposite sex); they can make and enforce rules about your academic and athletic activities; they can decide what kind of medical care you can get on campus. They can even influence your sex life. University Culture Like other cultural groups, universities have traditions, customs, beliefs, and values that can affect students’ everyday lives. so that there is not only public condemnation for such acts but also strict laws against them. Taboos, actually a type of mores, are the most powerful of all norms. We sometimes use the word in a casual way to indicate, say, a forbidden subject. But as a sociological term it holds even greater meaning. Taboos are extremely serious. Sociologists say that our sense of what is taboo is so deeply ingrained that the very thought of committing a taboo act, such as cannibalism or incest, evokes strong feelings of disgust or horror. Norms are specific to a culture, time period, and situation. What are folkways to one group might be mores to another. For instance, public nudity is acceptable in many cultures, whereas it is not only frowned upon in American culture but also illegal in most instances. At the same time, Americans do permit nudity in such situations as strip clubs and nudist resorts, allowing for a kind of moral holiday from the strictures of imposed norms. At certain times, such as Mardi Gras and spring break, mild norm violations are tolerated. Certain places may also lend themselves to the suspension of norms—think Las Vegas (and the slogan “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas”). Similarly, what would be considered murder on the city streets might be regarded as valor on the battlefield. And we are probably all aware of how the folkways around proper etiquette and attire can vary greatly from one generation to the next; fifty years ago, girls were just starting to wear jeans to school, for example. Now they come to school in all sorts of casual attire, including pajama bottoms and slippers. SANCTIONS Sanctions are a means of enforcing norms. They include rewards for conformity and punishments for violations. Positive sanctions express approval and may come in the form of a handshake, a smile, praise, or perhaps an award. Negative sanctions express disapproval and may come in the form of a frown, harsh words, or perhaps a fine or incarceration. From a functionalist perspective, we can see how sanctions help to establish social control, ensuring that people behave to some degree in acceptable ways and thus promoting social cohesion. There are many forms of authority in our culture— from the government and police to school administrators, work supervisors, and even parents. Each has a certain amount of power that they can exercise to get others to follow their rules. So when someone is caught violating a norm, there is usually some prescribed sanction that will then be administered, serving as a deterrent to that behavior. But equally important in maintaining social order is the process of socialization MORES norms that carry great by which people internalize moral significance, are closely norms. For instance, in 1983, related to the core values of a the U.S. Department of Trans- cultural group, and often involve severe repercussions for violators portation pioneered the slogan “Friends don’t let friends drive TABOO a norm ingrained so drunk”; a few years later, the deeply that even thinking about term “designated driver” was violating it evokes strong feelings of disgust, horror, or revulsion introduced into the popular lexicon. Over the years, these slogans MORAL HOLIDAY a specified have helped change the way we time period during which some think about our personal respon- norm violations are allowed sibility for others, with nearly SANCTIONS positive or negative 80 percent of Americans now reactions to the ways that people claiming that they have taken follow or disobey norms, including action to prevent someone from rewards for conformity and punishments for violations driving while intoxicated. What began as an external statement SOCIAL CONTROL the formal of social mores quickly became and informal mechanisms used our own personal sense of moral- to elicit conformity to values and norms and thus promote social ity. We are often unaware of the cohesion extent to which our own conscience keeps us from violating social norms in the first place. If we have internalized norms, then outside sanctions are no longer needed to make us do the right thing. Social control, then, frequently looks like selfcontrol and is taught through the socialization process by family, peers, the media, and religious organizations, among others. Norms Are Specific to a Situation, Culture, and Time Period For example, Mardi Gras and spring break are often considered “moral holidays,” times when mild norm violations are tolerated. Components of Culture 83 DATA WORKSHOP Analyzing Everyday Life Seeing Culture in a Subculture When it comes to culture, we are like fish in water. Because we’re so deeply immersed in it, we may not really see it. When culture becomes something we take for granted, we lose sight of what’s distinctive or different about it. One of the best ways to “see” culture is to approach it as an outsider, or as someone who is learning about it for the first time. Even if it’s a culture to which you’ve belonged your entire life, you can always act as if you are a new member trying to understand your group. In any event, to better appreciate culture you’ll need to suspend your ethnocentrism and practice cultural relativism. In this Data Workshop, you will be examining a subcultural group to which you belong. As someone living in a diverse, modern society, you are likely to belong to many subcultural groups. You’ll be doing some participant observation research in a social setting (and taking field notes), focusing on various components of material and symbolic culture that help to define your group. At the same time you’ll be reflecting on your own membership in the group, and writing a short ethnography about it. Refer to the section in Chapter 2 on participant observation/ethnographic research methods for a review before conducting your study. Step 1: Choosing Your Cultural Group Begin by choosing a subculture to examine. There are numerous possibilities. You could choose an ethnic group (such as Latino or African American), a nationality (such as Mexican or Swedish), a religion (such as Catholic or Mormon), an occupation (such as a server or parking valet), a sports team or club (such as intramural Ultimate Frisbee or student government), or an interest or hobby (such as video gaming or crafting). With so many from which to choose, the most important thing is to select one that gives you plenty of material to work with and is easy to observe. Provide a brief description of the subcultural group and its members. Step 2: Observing Group Culture Find a place where you can observe members of your subculture in some naturally occurring social setting. Depending on which subculture you choose, you might visit a church, park, or gym, a retail store or restaurant, 84 CHAPTER 3 Culture Culture on Campus College campuses are home to myriad subcultures, including “Quidditch” players and members of the Muslim Students Association. the student center on campus, or a large family gathering. Spend at least 30 minutes in the setting, considering both the material and symbolic culture embodied in your field site. Jot down notes with some specific details about what you see, both in the physical environment and in social interactions among members of the group. Step 3: Identifying Cultural Components Read through your field notes and reflect on your experience. Then consider the following questions: ✱ What aspects of material culture did you notice in the setting? This can include the physical surroundings, architecture, furniture, equipment, clothing, artwork, food, or other objects. Can you explain the meaning, function, or purpose of particular items of material culture? ✱ What did you notice about language in the setting? Are there any particular words, terms, mottos, or sayings that are commonly used among members? What are their meanings? What else did you notice about talk and interaction in the setting? Were there any signs or other written materials associated with the setting? ✱ What aspects of symbolic culture are part of this sub- culture? Describe values that members of the group uphold, listing at least three values that are key to the group’s culture. What are the group’s ideas, beliefs, or attitudes? Does the group have a mission or goal? ✱ What kinds of social norms guide the behavior of individuals, and how are these norms related to group values? What are the folkways of the group? How do these folkways shape what members do or say? What are some of the rules governing members? Why are they important? ✱ What did you observe in the setting that seemed especially familiar or unfamiliar to you? Was there anything that surprised you? What insights were you able to gain by suspending ethnocentrism and practicing cultural relativism? What did you learn about yourself as a member of the subculture after conducting this study? There are two options for completing this Data Workshop: PREP- PAIR- SHARE Do the fieldwork outlined in Steps 1 and 2, and bring your field notes with you to class for reference. In groups of two or three, discuss your experiences and exchange answers to the questions in Step 3. Take this opportunity to learn more about different subcultural groups. DO- IT-YOURSELF Write a three- to four-page essay analyzing your field experiences and taking into consideration the questions in Step 3. Make sure to refer to your field notes in the essay and include them as an attachment to your paper. Variations in Culture We know there are differences between cultures, but there can also be variations within cultures. For instance, sociologists who have tried to identify the core values that make up American society (Bellah et al. 1985; Williams 1965) have found that while there do seem to be certain beliefs that most Americans share, such as freedom and democracy, there are also inconsistencies between such beliefs as individualism (in which we do what is best for ourselves) and humanitarianism (in which we do what is best for others), and between equality and group superiority. New values such as self-fulfillment and environmentalism could also be added to the list, having gained popularity in recent years. It is even difficult to speak of an “American culture.” “Cultural diversity” and “multiculturalism” have both become buzzwords in the past few decades, precisely because people are aware of the increasing variety of cultural groups within American society. Multiculturalism generally describes a policy that involves honoring the diverse racial, ethnic, national, and linguistic backgrounds of various individuals and groups. In the following chapters, we will explore some of these differences in greater depth. Dominant Culture Although “culture” is a term we usually apply to an entire group of people, what we find in reality is that there are often many subgroups within a larger culture, each with its own particular makeup. These subgroups, however, are not all equal. Some, by virtue of size, wealth, or historical happen- MULTICULTURALISM a policy stance, are able to lay claim to that values diverse racial, ethnic, greater power and influence in national, and linguistic backgrounds society than others. The values, and so encourages the retention norms, and practices of the most of cultural differences within the powerful groups are referred to larger society as the mainstream or dominant DOMINANT CULTURE the culture, while others are seen as values, norms, and practices of “alternative” or minority views. the group within society that is The power of the dominant cul- most powerful (in terms of wealth, prestige, status, influence, etc.) ture may mean that other ways of seeing and doing things are rel- HEGEMONY term developed by egated to second-class status—in Antonio Gramsci to describe the this way, dominant culture can cultural aspects of social control, whereby the ideas of the dominant produce cultural hegemony, or group are accepted by all dominance (Gramsci 1985, 1988). Let’s take popular music as an example. Commercial radio stations often have very limited playlists. No matter what the genre (country, pop, hip-hop, metal), the songs played are determined by station and record company business interests, not your artistic preferences. Truly new artists and alternative sounds are more likely to be heard on public, college, or satellite radio stations or online. Even music streaming services like Pandora or Spotify must deliver audiences to advertisers, which may make it harder to resist the pressure to “mainstream.” The dominant status of commercial radio (even online) and the corporate interests of the music industry dictate that musicians outside the mainstream will never be as big as Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber. Subcultures and Countercultures If sociologists focus only on the dominant culture in American society, we risk overlooking the inequalities that structure our society—as well as the influences that even small Variations in Culture 85 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE Otaku Culture and the Globalization of Niche Interests f you are not an otaku, you probably don’t know what otaku is. If you are an otaku, you may not want others to know what otaku is, since otaku culture has often been misunderstood by those on the outside. So, what is otaku? Otaku is a Japanese word used to describe devoted fans, usually of manga, anime, or video games. Otaku are extremely knowledgeable about whatever it is they are fans of—and while that kind of obsessive interest is sometimes looked down upon by others, otaku themselves see this intense knowledge as a badge of honor. They view themselves as dedicated rather than obsessed, connoisseurs rather than fanatics, and superior to other hobbyists who aren’t as erudite about the object of their enthusiasm. In fact, otaku may now be certified as experts in Japan bytaking a rigorous, nationally recognized exam (McNicol 2006). Organizing and displaying their belongings is a central part of otaku culture—many otaku have special rooms in their homes for their museum-like collections of action figures, paintings, or comic books. Photographs of otaku in their “otaku spaces” (Galbraith 2012) illuminate the connection among fantasy worlds, material commodities, and virtual communities that otaku culture uniquely embodies. Once confined entirely to Japan (and to small neighborhood clubs even there), the Internet has made otaku culture accessible to people all over the world. Indeed, fans of just about everything now depend on social media to connect them with one another and to allow them to share their fascinations with others who appreciate what it means to be truly dedicated. Otaku who in the past might have been viewed with suspicion because of their intense involvement in what others considered a fringe pastime can now validate their commitments by interacting with others who share their interests, whether they are down the street or a world away. Closely related to its reliance on social media, otaku culture is also characterized by its global reach. Indeed, what is distinctive about otaku culture is the uncommon direction in which it has traveled. Instead of the United States or another Western culture spreading eastward, otaku culture is an example of the East influencing the West: otaku represents the globalization and transnationalization of what had previously been Japan-specific. As science fiction writer William Gibson (2001) says, “There is something post-national about it, extra-geographic,” meaning that in otaku culture, citizenship matters less than shared interests, nationality less than knowledge, and location less than expertise. Your identity is defined by what you’re into, by where your passions lie, and by what “geeks you out.” Whether or not your passion is for manga, anime, or video games, if you’re an obsessive fan of some other genre of entertainment, and you’re deeply involved in its culture of fandom, then perhaps you can also appreciate what it means to be an otaku. I East to West The Internet helped spread otaku culture from Japan to the rest of the world. cultural groups outside the mainstream can exert. The United States is filled with thousands of different cultural groups, any of which could be called a subculture—a culture within a culture. A subculture is a particular social group that has a distinctive way of life, including its own 86 CHAPTER 3 Culture set of values and norms, practices, and beliefs, but that exists harmoniously within the larger mainstream culture. A subculture can be based on ethnicity, age, interests, or anything else that draws individuals together. Any of the following groups could be considered subcultures within American society: Korean Americans, senior citizens, snowboarders, White Sox fans, greyhound owners, firefighters, Trekkers. A counterculture, another kind of subgroup, differs from a subculture in that its norms and values are often incompatible with or in direct opposition to the mainstream (Zellner 1995). Some countercultures are political or activist groups attempting to bring about social change; others resist mainstream values by living outside society or practicing an alternative lifestyle. In the 1960s, hippies, antiwar protesters, feminists, and others on the so-called political left were collectively known as “the counterculture.” But radicals come in many stripes. Any group that opposes the dominant culture— whether they are eco-terrorists, computer hackers, or modernday polygamists—can be considered a counterculture. In the mid-1990s, American countercultures of the far right gained prominence in the wake of two high-profile events. The FBI’s 1993 siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, which resulted in eighty-two deaths, became a source of inspiration for other groups that promote armed resistance to government forces. Two years later, in April 1995, a man with ties to “militia” or “patriot” groups, Timothy McVeigh, detonated a bomb in the Alfred R. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. Members of the “militia movement,” who trace their heritage to the Minutemen of the American Revolution (an elite fighting force, the first to arrive at a battle), see themselves as the last line of defense for the liberties outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, they believe that the federal government has become the enemy of those liberties. They hold that gun control, environmental protection laws, and other legislation violate individual and states’ rights. In 1996, a year after the Oklahoma City bombing, the Southern Poverty Law Center counted a record 858 active groups in the United States belonging to the “militia movement.” More recently, they have tracked a resurgence in militia groups since the 2008 election of Barack Obama. In 2015, the number of anti-government “patriot” groups hit a new high of 998 (Southern Poverty Law Center 2016). The first days of 2016 brought another highly publicized event, a fortyone-day armed occupation of Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge by a group of ranchers demanding that the government return the land to local control. Before the standoff ended in mid-February 2016, one of the ranchers was shot to death during a pursuit by FBI and state troopers. At the end of the siege, the occupiers were arrested and charges were filed against them. Ultimately, seven of the ranchers, including the leaders of the group, brothers Ammon and Ryan Bundy, were acquitted of federal conspiracy and weapons charges. The verdict came as a surprise to many, and some critics fear that it will embolden other groups. According to the FBI, such “sovereign citizens,” as they are sometimes called, are among the greatest threat to law enforcement in the United States (Dickson 2014; Kurzman and Schanzer 2015). Hacker Subculture Rami Malek plays a member of fictional hacktivist group fsociety on the popular TV show Mr. Robot. Hackers, like members of Anonymous, are a current example of a countercultural group. Anonymous, an international group of cyber activists—or “hacktivists”—who carry out their attacks online, is another example of a countercultural group. While loosely organized, members of Anonymous are united in their opposition to censorship or governmental or institutional control of the Internet. As such, their targets have included large corporations and major financial institutions such as Nissan, Visa, PayPal, Bank of America, and the New York Stock Exchange. Members of Anonymous have also sought to undermine the operations of terrorist organizations such as ISIS. Their tactics often involve disrupting or disabling SUBCULTURE a group within the computer networks or society that is differentiated social media accounts of their by its distinctive values, norms, and lifestyle adversaries or leaking damaging classified or sensitive information. COUNTERCULTURE a group At the same time, Anonymous has within society that openly rejects also lent its computer skills to or actively opposes society’s values and norms social movements such as Black Lives Matter to help advance their cause. Want to learn more about the hacker subculture? According to a member of Anonymous, USA Network’s breakout hit Mr. Robot about a fictional hacktivist collective called fsociety, is “the most accurate portrayal of security and hacking culture ever to grace the screen” (Wortham 2015). Culture Wars Although a countercultural group can pose a threat to the larger society, conflict does not always come from the extreme margins of society; it can also emerge from within Variations in Culture 87 Culture Wars Today a culture war is waging over transgender rights. Many states have introduced bathroom bills, legislation that requires people to use the bathroom that corresponds to their assigned sex. As a 49ers player, Colin Kaepernick protested racial inequality and oppression by kneeling during the National Anthem, inspiring his teammates to do the same. the mainstream. Culture in any diverse society is characterized mainstream society over the by points of tension and divivalues and norms that should sion. There is not always unibe upheld form agreement about which IDEAL CULTURE the norms, values and norms ought to be values, and patterns of behavior upheld, leading to culture wars that members of a society believe like the one currently unfolding should be observed in principle over transgender rights. These REAL CULTURE the norms, clashes are frequently played out values, and patterns of behavior in the media and online, where that actually exist within a society social commentators, political (which may or may not correspond pundits, and bloggers debate the to the society’s ideals) issues. Culture wars are mainly waged over values and morality and the solutions to social problems, with liberals and conservatives fighting to define culture in the United States (Hunter 1991, 2006). Culture wars often play out on the political stage. To some degree, the rise of the ultraconservative Tea Party movement in the last decade was a response to a host of contentious social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Republican-based Tea Partyers favor small government and have called for drastic cuts in taxes and social welfare funding, among other things. The Alt-Right, another conservative spin-off, has gained power more recently, while Trumpism has highlighted deep political and cultural divisions among Americans. Popular culture is another site of frequent debate in the culture wars. One area of concern is the contents of entertainment media, especially when it contains graphic material such as violence, drug use, or sexuality. Celebrities and sports figures who serve as role models may also stir controversy. During the 2016–2017 NFL season, Colin Kaepernick, quarterback for CULTURE WARS clashes within 88 CHAPTER 3 Culture the San Francisco 49ers, caused an uproar when he protested racial oppression and inequality in the United States by kneeling during the National Anthem. Other NFL players followed suit. And at the end of the season, after their team clinched the Super Bowl, a number of players on the New England Patriots declined their invitation to the White House to meet with President Trump (Mather 2017). We could add many more examples to the list of battleground issues, including family values, LGBTQ rights, immigration, bio-medical ethics, gun violence, and school prayer. Culture wars are bound to continue as we confront the difficult realities that are a part of living in a multicultural, democratic society. Ideal vs. Real Culture Some norms and values are more aspired to than actually practiced. It is useful to draw a distinction between ideal culture, the norms and values that members of a society believe should be observed in principle, and real culture, the patterns of behavior that actually exist. Whether it is an organization that falls short of its own mission statement or a person who says one thing and does another (a self-described vegetarian, for example, who sometimes enjoys a Big Mac), what people believe in and what they do may be two different things. An enduring example of the difference between ideal and real cultures is the United States itself. For a nation that has enshrined in its founding documents the notion that “all men are created equal,” it continues to have trouble realizing full equality for all its citizens. From slavery to Western expansion, from the oppression of women and discrimination against ethnic minorities to the battle for transgender rights, we are still a nation that believes in equality but doesn’t always deliver it. DATA WORKSHOP Analyzing Media and Pop Culture How the Image Shapes the Need Yet another photo of Kim Kardashian in sky-high Louboutins is splashed across the tabloids. This time she’s at a service station, pumping her own gas into a white-hot Ferrari 458 Italia. Most of us cannot afford such status symbols, but it doesn’t stop us from wondering what it would be like to wear designer shoes or drive an exotic sports car. In fact, advertisers want to sell us just those kind of fantasies, effectively cashing in on two of our most basic human needs in contemporary society—clothing and transportation. For most people, clothes and cars have become something of a necessity of modern life, even if we don’t actually need these things to survive. For many reasons we need to get dressed and we need to get around somehow, but our desire for clothing and transportation is not determined by instinct alone. So how does culture, in particular through the media, influence the ways in which we satisfy those needs? For this Data Workshop, you will be using existing sources—specifically, popular magazines in print or online—to discover how culture gives meaning to items considered necessary for modern living. You will be doing content analysis to arrive at your conclusions. Refer back to Chapter 2 for a review of this research method. Pick your necessity—clothes or cars. Now go to your local bookstore or newsstand, or go online, and identify a magazine dedicated to that necessity. For example, you could choose a magazine such as InStyle, Essence, or Vogue for women’s clothing, or GQ, Details, or Esquire for men’s clothing. For cars, you could choose Car and Driver, Road and Track, or Motor Trend. Immerse yourself in the content of the magazine, looking over the headlines, articles, photo spreads, and advertisements. Then consider the following questions. Support your answers with data in the form of clippings, photocopies, or screenshots of images and text taken from the print magazines or their websites. ✱ How is the modern necessity of [clothing or cars] presented in the magazine? Can you find any themes, patterns, or topics that seem predominant in the magazine? ✱ Describe one example of material culture (physical objects) and one example of symbolic culture (language, norms) that best represent the magazine’s approach to [clothing or cars]. ✱ What values or beliefs about [clothing or cars] are reflected in the magazine? What kind of messages are embedded in the images and text in articles and advertisements? ✱ How does the magazine suggest that we satisfy our needs for [clothing or cars]? How much of the magazine’s content is about satisfying just the bare minimum of our need for [clothing or cars]? ✱ Who is the magazine’s intended audience? How are you addressed as the reader? How does the magazine affect you and your desires for [clothing or cars]? Do you find yourself wanting the [clothing or cars] pictured? ✱ Who benefits when you act on your desires by pur- chasing the products featured in the magazine? ✱ Finally, which force is more important in shap- ing human behavior when it comes to modern necessities—instinct or culture? There are two options for completing this Data Workshop: PRE P- PA IR- SH A RE Collect your data from the magazine and jot down some preliminary notes based on your answers to the questions provided. Bring your examples to class and present them to a partner who has chosen the same topic (cars or clothing). Compare and contrast your answers and develop them further together. Popular Magazines What kinds of lifestyles are these magazines trying to sell to consumers? DO - IT-YOU RSE L F Write a three- to four-page essay based on your answers to the questions provided. In addition, discuss your experience of doing content analysis of existing sources for research. Provide your examples of data (in print or digital format) as an attachment to the paper. Variations in Culture 89 Cultural Change Cultures usually change slowly and incrementally, although change can also happen in rapid and dramatic ways. We saw rapid change as a result of the social movements of the 1960s, and we may be seeing it again, albeit for different reasons, as we move through the early decades of the 2000s. Change is usually thought of as “progress”—we move from what seem to be outmoded ways of doing things to more innovative practices. Earlier in the chapter, we saw how variations in culture, whether they resulted from multiculturalism, countercultures, or culture wars, could all lead to growth and change in the larger society. Now we look at several other important processes that can also contribute to cultural change. Technological Change One of the most significant influences on any society is its material culture. And most changes in material culture tend to be technological. We usually equate technology with “ hi-tech” electronic or digital devices. But technology can be anything from a hammer to the space shuttle, from graffiti to a search engine algorithm to hypertext markup language (HTML), as well as the “know how” it takes to use it. New technology often provides the basis and structure through which culture is disseminated to members of a social group. For instance, we are currently living in the Digital Age or Information Age, a revolutionary time in history spurred by the invention of the computer microchip. This technology has TECHNOLOGY material artifacts and the knowledge and already produced radical changes techniques required to use them in society, much as the steam engine did during the Industrial CULTURAL DIFFUSION the Revolution of the eighteenth and dissemination of material and symbolic culture (tools and nineteenth centuries. technology, beliefs and behavior) One of the most prominent feafrom one group to another tures of this Information Age is the spread of mass and social media. It was not until the 1950s that television became a regular part of daily life in the United States and only in the 1990s that the Internet became commonplace. Cell phones morphed into smartphones in the 2000s, while tablet devices and cloud computing allowed for storing and streaming content in the 2010s. Most of us now would have trouble remembering life before these technological advancements; that’s how much we rely on them and take them for granted. This digital revolution is shaping our culture—and the rest of the world—at an increasingly rapid pace. own tools, beliefs, and practices, exposure to another culture may mean that certain aspects of it will then be appropriated. For example, as McDonald’s-style restaurants set up shop in cultures where fast food had previously been unknown, it wasn’t only hamburgers that got relocated—other aspects of fast-food culture came along as well. Eric Schlosser (2002) began seeing the effects of a Western diet on the Japanese during the 1980s, when they doubled their consumption of fast-food meals—and their rates of obesity. Their risks of heart disease and stroke also increased. Although Japan has some of the lowest obesity rates in the world, there was enough concern about it that a law was passed in 2008 requiring people between the ages of forty-five and seventyfour to have their waistlines measured once a year. Those falling outside the acceptable range are encouraged to seek medical attention (Marsh 2016). The “Metabo Law” addresses other diet-related problems, such as high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels, and has been widely promoted in the country. While it is difficult to prove how much fast food is to blame for worsening health conditions in Japan, it is clear that a single cultural product cannot be exported without carrying a raft of cultural consequences with it. Cultural diffusion usually occurs in the direction from more developed to less developed nations. In particular, “Western” culture has spread rapidly to the rest of the world—driven by capitalism and globalization and aided by new forms of transportation and communication that allow for ever faster exchanges. Cultural leveling occurs when cultures that were once distinct become increasingly similar to one another. If you travel, you may have already seen this phenomenon in towns across the United States and countries around the world. The Walmarts on the interstates, for instance, have driven independent mom-and-pop stores from Main Streets all over Cultural Diffusion and Cultural Leveling Cultural change can also occur when different groups share their material and nonmaterial culture with each other, a process called cultural diffusion. Since each culture has its 90 CHAPTER 3 Culture Do You Want Fries with That? As American fast-food restaurants have popped up in Japan, the country’s rates of obesity and heart disease have increased. the country. Many people bemoan this development and the consequent loss of uniqueness and diversity it represents. As cultures begin to blend, new mixes emerge. This can result in an interesting hybrid—for example, of East and West—but it can also mean a blander, more diluted culture of sameness. While Western culture is a dominant force in this process, cultural diffusion and cultural leveling do not have to occur in a one-way direction. Other societies have also had an influence on culture in the United States. For instance, Japanese anime was for many years a fringe interest in the United States, usually associated with computer geeks and other outsiders; now Disney has teamed up with Hayao Miyazaki, Japan’s leading anime filmmaker, to sell his movies (such as Spirited Away, Howl’s Moving Castle, and Ponyo) to a mainstream American audience. Still, the United States, the dominant producer of global media, remains the primary exporter of cultural content throughout the world. Cultural Imperialism Other countries around the world are becoming inundated with America’s TV programs, movies, music, satellite radio, newspapers, magazines, and web content. You can watch MTV in India and Game of Thrones in Uzbekistan, surf the Internet in Vietnam, or listen to Rihanna in Morocco. Many view this increased access to information and entertainment as good news for the spread of freedom and democracy. But the media are necessarily a reflection of the culture in which they are produced. So not only are we selling entertainment, but also we are implicitly promoting certain Western ideas. And it can become a problem when the images and ideas found in the media conflict with the traditional norms and values of other countries. The proliferation of Western media amounts to what some social critics call cultural imperialism (Schiller 1995). These critics conceive of media as a kind of invading force that enters a country and takes it over—much like an army, but with film, television, music, soft drinks, and running shoes instead of guns. Historically, imperialism involved the conquering of other nations by monarchies for their own glory and enrichment. The British Empire, for example, was once able to use its military might to occupy and control a third of the world’s total land area. But now it is possible to cross a border and to occupy a territory culturally, without setting foot on foreign soil. Because they command so many economic resources, Western media companies are powerful enough to create a form of cultural domination wherever their products go. Of the countries that consider the messages in Western media dangerous, some forbid or restrict the flow of information, others impose various kinds of censorship, and still others try to promote their own cultural productions. Iran, for example, officially censors all non-Islamic media content on television, radio, film, and the Internet (though Lady Gaga Lands in Dubai Some social critics maintain that the spread of Western media, such as pop music by Lady Gaga, amounts to cultural imperialism. many Iranians use hidden satellite dishes to plug into illegal Western programming). In the long run, it may be very difficult to prevent cultural imperialism from spreading. American Culture in Perspective Because American culture is highly visible worldwide, the country’s moral and political values have equally high visibility. That means when reruns of Friends or Grey’s Anatomy air in places like Egypt or Malaysia or Lebanon, American values on the topics of sex, gender, work, and family are being transmitted as well. When such military ventures as Operation Enduring Freedom (in Afghanistan) or Operation Iraqi Freedom are undertaken, part of their mission involves exporting the political values associated with democracy, capitalism, and even Christianity. Well, you may say, Friends is funny, and Grey’s is a great way to kill time, and democracy is a good thing—so what’s the problem CULTURAL LEVELING the process by which cultures that here? were once unique and distinct In some parts of the world, the become increasingly similar premise of these shows would be unthinkable in real life: in many CULTURAL IMPERIALISM the imposition of one culture’s beliefs traditional cultures, both women and practices on another culture and men live with their parents through media and consumer until they marry, sometimes products rather than by military to partners chosen for them by force their families. A show in which American Culture in Perspective 91 IN THE FUTURE Online Radicalization nline recruitment: Colleges use it to attract students. Employers use it to attract applicants. The armed services use it to attract trainees. Nonprofits use it to attract volunteers. Charities use it to attract donors. And extremist groups use it to attract followers. Terrorist organizations, such as ISIS or the Islamic State, have found a powerful new tool in the Internet to spread their ideological message and recruit new members to their cause. Social media in particular has allowed such groups to reach people in Western nations, including the United States. Until very recently, a new recruit would have to actually travel to a hotbed of terrorist activity such as Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria in order to join in with militants using extreme violence in pursuit of their goals. Now, that same person can become radicalized more quickly than ever before, and all without leaving the country. Terrorist organizations take advantage of computer whizzes in their ranks and English-speaking militants who are familiar with Western culture to produce and distribute materials that appeal to vulnerable young men cruising the Internet. Twitter and YouTube have proved to be active platforms for American ISIS sympathizers to pick up terrorist propaganda. This has inspired some to become lone wolf, homegrown, or self-radicalized terrorists such as those who carried out the 2013 bombing in Boston, the 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, and the 2016 massacre in Orlando. Of course, social media user policies explicitly prohibit content that supports or promotes violent or illegal activities, but it still gets through. Twitter has suspended more than 635,000 accounts linked to the Islamic State since 2015, and Facebook and YouTube regularly take down material linked to militant groups. More recently, these social media companies (along with Microsoft) teamed up to develop and share a new program that can more quickly identify and remove the most egregious content, such as recruitment videos and beheadings (Hennigan 2017). But they haven’t been able to prevent foreign operatives from finding new recruits online, who then move their conversations to encrypted messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Telegram, where they can avoid detection. State intelligence agencies and law enforcement around the world have been largely ineffective in curtailing this communication pipeline. They struggle to identify, understand, and intervene in a process that is difficult to trace and that often happens anonymously over the Internet. While military actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere have substantially O 92 CHAPTER 3 Culture Far-Right Radicalization Far-right groups use Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, among other tools, to radicalize young men who feel alienated by the mainstream culture. The Internet has made these men—who refer to themselves as “NEETS,” or “not in education, employment, or training”—more reachable than ever. reduced the territory that ISIS can claim as their Islamic caliphate (or base), the group has been able to survive, and expand, online. While Islamic extremist groups have been the focus of much attention regarding their online recruitment tactics, they are not the only ones who use them. Domestic extremist groups such as white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups also use the same strategies and tools. In August 2017, members of far-right groups descended on Charlottesville, Virginia, for a Unite the Right rally that erupted in violence when James Alex Fields Jr. drove his car through a group of counterprotesters, killing one woman and injuring nineteen others. He was said to be inspired by reading the notorious neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer, the same one Dylann Roof visited before his murderous rampage on a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015. The web-hosting company Go Daddy moved swiftly after Charlottesville to take down the Daily Stormer, and it has been rejected by every other domain registrar in the United States and abroad. This shutout has likely sent the site to relocate on the dark web, which can only be accessed by heavily encrypted software that protects a user’s identity (Gaffey 2017). But this doesn’t mean that its extremist ideas—or those espoused by other hate groups—have completely disappeared. It would seem certain that we are going to grapple with issues of free speech and online terrorist recruitment for some time to come. Table 3.1 Theory in Everyday Life Perspective Approach to Culture Case Study: Religion Structural Functionalism Values and norms are widely shared and agreed upon; they contribute to social stability by reinforcing common bonds and constraining individual behavior. Religion is an important social institution that functions as the basis for the morals and ethics that followers embrace and that are applied to both society and the individual, thus promoting social order. Values and norms are part of the dominant culture and tend to represent and protect the interests of the most powerful groups in society. Religion serves to control the masses by creating rules for behavior; sanctions against violators may not be equally or fairly applied. Culture wars reflect tensions among groups over which values and norms will dominate. Values and norms are social constructions that may vary over time and in different contexts; meaning is created, maintained, and changed through ongoing social interaction. Religion consists of beliefs and rituals that are part of the interaction among followers. Reciting the Lord’s Prayer, bowing toward Mecca, and keeping a kosher home are meaningful displays of different religious values and norms. Leaders may play a role in creating social change. Conflict Theory Symbolic Interactionism young men and women live on their own, with almost no family involvement, dating and sleeping with people to whom they are not married, presents values that are distasteful in these cultures. American values, or at least the perceptions of them shaped by Hollywood and pop-culture exports, can breed negative feelings toward the United States. The value placed on individualism, sexual freedom, and material satisfaction in American life can antagonize cultures that place a higher value on familial involvement and moral and social restraint and may result in anti-American sentiment. Politics can generate the same anti-American feelings. For example, the United States has recently been involved in attempts to stem the development of nuclear weapons in developing countries like Iran and Pakistan while still maintaining its own nuclear arsenal at home. Other nations may question why American politicians think they should be able to withhold from other countries privileges the United States itself enjoys, such as developing a nuclear weapons program. Much of the resentment against the United States abroad emerges as a result of this type of phenomenon— America’s perceived failure to live up to its own political values and ideals or to apply them fairly to others. Putting American culture in perspective means recognizing that because it is pervasive, it may also be viewed with suspicion and even contempt when the values it expresses clash with those of other cultures. But the nature of antiAmericanism is complex—it’s not merely a failure by other nations to understand “good” television shows or accept “superior” political systems. There are meaningful cultural differences between Americans and others, and we should keep those differences in mind as we read about or travel to other cultures. Indeed, there are cultural differences of similar magnitude within the United States as well. The question of the meaning of American culture in a larger global context is a complicated one. CLOSING COMMENTS In this chapter, we have seen how seemingly simple elements of material culture (cars and comic books) and symbolic culture (norms and values) create complex links between the individual and society, as well as between different societies around the globe. American culture in particular, sociologists often argue, is hegemonic (dominant), in that certain interests (such as creating a global market for American products) prevail, while others (such as encouraging local development and self-determination) are subordinated. Within the United States, this can mean that the cultural norms, values, beliefs, and practices of certain subcultures— such as minority ethnic or religious groups—are devalued. Elsewhere, it can mean that the United States is accused of cultural imperialism by nations whose values and practices are different from its own. Whose cultural values and practices are “better” or “right”? The sociological perspective avoids these evaluative terms when examining culture, choosing instead to take a relativistic approach. In other words, different cultures should (in most cases) be evaluated not according to outside standards but according to their own sets of values and norms. But we should always recognize that this commitment to cultural relativism is a value in itself—which makes cultural relativism neither right nor wrong but rather a proper subject for intellectual examination. Closing Comments 93 Everything You Need to Know about Culture “ Culture is the entire way of life of a group of people, including both material and symbolic elements, that acts as a lens through which one views the world and is passed from one generation to the next. “ 94 COMPONENTS OF CULTURE ✱ Material culture: Any physical object to which we give social meaning. ✱ Signs: Symbols that stand for or convey ideas. ✱ Gestures: The ways people use their bodies to communicate without words. ✱ Language: A system of communication using vocal sounds, gestures, or written symbols; the primary means through which we communicate with each other and perpetuate our culture. ✱ Values: Shared beliefs that a group of people consider to be worthwhile or desirable; they articulate everything that a cultural group cherishes and honors. ✱ Norms: Rules or guidelines regarding what kinds of behavior are acceptable and appropriate. ✱ Sanctions: Positive or negative reactions to the ways people follow or disobey norms. REVIEW 1. List five pieces of material culture you have with you right now, and explain what these pieces indicate about the tastes, habits, and lifestyles supported by your cultural group. 2. When was the last time you violated a folkway? How were you sanctioned? What sorts of sanctions do we impose on those who go against our accepted mores? 3. Make a list of ways in which the media—including advertisements— reach you each day. How many of these media messages represent mainstream Western ideals? What kinds of media messages do not conform to these norms? Seeing Red What does the color red mean in different cultures? Marriage Success Passion 3,5 4,5,9 1,2,3,4,6 Strength 2 EXPLORE Power 6 Love Happiness 5 Repels Evil 2 Good Luck 5,6,8 1,6 Erotic 1,3 Courage Excitement 1 Anger 1,2,6,8 1,6 Breaching Age Norms on Television Norm breaching tells us a lot about the unwritten rules of social life. When everyday norms are violated, people often get very uncomfortable. Visit the Everyday Sociology blog to find out what a hidden camera show can tell us about how society deals with people who break norms. http://wwnPag.es/trw403 Danger 1,9 Energy 3 Heat N u m be r Key 1,3,6,7 Radicalism Beauty 6 1 - Western/American 2 - Japanese 3 - Hindu 4 - Native American 5 - Chinese Desire 1 1,6 6 - Eastern European 7 - Muslim 8 - African 9 - South American SOURCE: McCandless 2009. 95 CHAPTER 4 Socialization, Interaction, and the Self W hat do you look like? Well, it really depends on the situation. Sometimes, we don’t have complete control over how we present ourselves. If you work at a place with a dress code or uniform, you don’t get to choose what you wear. If you are visiting your grandparents, you might dress more conservatively than you would if you were going to a party with your friends. Other times, how you look is a reflection of what you are doing. If you are lounging around your house reading, you will look drastically different than you would for a job interview. These are all facets of who you are, grounded in the real activities of your 96 97 everyday life—school, work, hobbies, relationships. Online, though, reality doesn’t have to limit you to such mundane identities. Online, you can look however you want. We are constantly asked to attach our image to various platforms. If you take a look at your driver’s license, passport, or student ID card, you probably have a picture that you had no control over (and may even hide from other people). If your best friend inputted a picture of you on her phone so that she can see who is texting or calling her, she may have chosen a picture that you don’t find particularly flattering. However, if you are involved in social media such as Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, you can carefully craft your image by controlling what you wear, who you are with, the angle you are viewed from, what your hair looks like, and what expression is on your face—all through your profile picture. More often than not, the pictures used on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are “selfies” taken with cell phones. Through technology, we are able to capture our identity without the photographer as intermediary. For some, the ability to photograph ourselves allows for a freedom of expression that wouldn’t exist if we were being observed by another person. And the selfies we choose to represent ourselves can reveal more than just what we look like. Look at your own profile picture. Are you pictured with another person (that’s an “ussie”)? Are you doing an activity? Do you have a prop? Are you smiling? Are you frowning? Are you making a silly face? Do you look like you do in everyday life, or are you dressed up for an event? Are you in costume? Are you photographed from above or below? What’s the background? Is your profile picture even a photograph of yourself? Is it instead your kid, your kitty, or the camellias in your front yard? Choosing a profile picture is one of many ways we express ourselves in social interaction. Because our online identities are often removed from the context of our everyday lives, we can express anything we want about who we are (or think we are, or wish to be). 98 CHAPTER 4 Socialization, Interaction, and the Self HOW TO READ THIS CHAPTER In this chapter, you will learn how the self is connected to all social phenomena (such as gender, race, and the media) and how interaction constructs them all. You will be acquiring some new analytic tools, including the concepts of socialization and impression management, which will be referenced again in the chapters to come. In addition, you will be introduced to a new way of looking at the self—indeed, a new way of looking at your self—that emphasizes the role of the social in creating the individual. And you will be reminded of the reverse: as your society makes you who you are, you have a role (in fact, many roles) to play in shaping your society. What Is Human Nature? “That’s just human nature” is a phrase often used to explain everything from violence and jealousy to love and altruism. But what is human nature, really? What is the thing about us that is unique and irreducible, that we all have in common and that separates us from other creatures? From a sociologist’s perspective, culture and society are what make us human. These things that we have created also make us who we are. We have to learn the meanings we give to food, housing, sex, and everything else, and society is the teacher. You would be a very different person if you had been born in fourteenth-century Japan, in an Aztec peasant family, or in the Norwegian royal court. You would have learned a different language, a different set of everyday skills, and a different set of meanings about how the world works. Also, your sense of who you are would be radically different in each case because of the particular social structures and interactions you would encounter. If you were a member of an Aztec peasant family, for example, you would expect to be married to someone of your parents’ choosing in your early teens (McCaa 1994). Girls were considered old maids if they were still single at age fifteen and might have ended up as prostitutes or concubines if they did not find a husband by this tender age. The Nature vs. Nurture Debate If it is culture and society that make us human, what role does our genetic makeup play? Aren’t we born with certain instincts? These are questions posed in what is often called the nature vs. nurture debate. Those taking the nature side—often sociobiologists, some psychologists, and others in the natural sciences—argue that behavioral traits can be explained by genetics. Those taking the nurture side— sociologists and others in the social sciences—argue that human behavior is learned and shaped through social interaction. Which of these arguments is right? Both are right. You don’t have to look far to see that genetics, or nature, plays a role in who we are. For example, research shows that high levels of testosterone contribute to stereotypically masculine traits such as aggressiveness and competitiveness. However, it is also true that facing a competitive challenge (such as a baseball game) causes testosterone levels to rise. So is it the hormone that makes us competitive, or is it competition that stimulates hormone production? An additional example involves a study of moral and social development in people with brain injuries. Steven W. Anderson and colleagues (1999) studied patients whose prefrontal cortex had been damaged. Those who had received the injury as infants struggled with moral and social reasoning, finding it difficult or impossible to puzzle out questions like “Is it acceptable for a man to steal the drug needed to save his wife’s life if he can’t afford to pay for it?” People who received the same injury as adults, however, were able to deal with such issues. Anderson and his research team hypothesized that there is a crucial period in brain development when people acquire the capacity for moral reasoning. In other words, nature provides a biological window through which social and moral development occurs. The point is, there is a complex NATURE VS. NURTURE relationship between nature and DEBATE the ongoing discussion nurture. Neither one alone is suf- of the respective roles of genetics ficient to explain what makes us and socialization in determining human. Certainly, heredity gives individual behaviors and traits us a basic potential, but it is pri- SOCIALIZATION the process marily our social environment of learning and internalizing the that determines whether we will values, beliefs, and norms of our realize or fall short of that poten- social group, by which we become tial. We are subject to social influ- functioning members of society ences from the moment we are born (and even before), and these influences only increase over the years. In part because the influence of social contact happens so gradually and to some extent unconsciously, we don’t really notice what or how we are learning. The Process of Socialization We often speak of “socializing” with our friends, yet the idea of “socializing” is only part of what sociologists mean by socialization. Socialization is a twofold process. It includes the process by which a society, culture, or group teaches individuals to become functioning members, and the process by which individuals learn and internalize the values and norms of the group. Socialization thus works on both an individual and a social level: we learn our society’s way of life and make it our own. Socialization accomplishes two main goals. First, it teaches members the skills necessary to satisfy basic human needs and to defend themselves against danger, thus ensuring that society itself will continue to exist. Second, socialization The Process of Socialization 99 IN THE FUTURE Genetics and Sociology S ociologists have long been interested in resolving the nature vs. nurture debate and just how much each side contributes to human behavior, or even determines it. In the 1990s, dramatic new possibilities for gathering scientific data were made available as a result of discoveries in the emerging field of genetics. In 2003, the Human Genome Project was completed, which identified all the genes constituting human DNA. At the same time that geneticists had hoped that knowledge of the genes would reveal all the answers to human behavior, they were finding that the social environment could actually change genes. Thus geneticists became interested in some of the same questions that a small but influential offshoot of sociologists had also been studying. Sociobiology became a controversial topic within sociology in 1975 with the publication of Edward O. Wilson’s Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Many sociologists criticized the book, seeing it as an example of genetic determinSOCIOBIOLOGY a branch ism, as Wilson came down of science that uses biological and evolutionary squarely on the nature side explanations for social of the debate when he probehavior posed that genes play a far greater role in human behavior than social or cultural factors. Wilson continued to develop these ideas in his 1978 work On Human Nature, in which he argued “that the evidence is strong that a substantial fraction of human behavioral variation is based on genetic difference” (p. 43). Other sociologists who followed Wilson’s argument that genes play a larger role in human behavior caused further controversy as they stood in opposition to long-held and widely embraced sociological models of the self. In 1994, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray published The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, in which they argued, among other things, that there are measurable differences in intelligence between races. In 2005, Larry Summers, then president of Harvard University, gave a speech in which he suggested that one of the reasons there were so few women teaching science and engineering at elite universities was because of genetic differences between the sexes. Despite widespread criticism, psychologist Steven Pinker publicly defended Summers’s remarks. Pinker argued that if there was greater innate variability in men’s mathematical abilities, then “there would be a slightly higher proportion of men at the high end of the scale,” which would lead to an overrepresentation of men in elite positions (Pinker 2005). These debates made any discussion of genes and behavior frustrating. For example, there was an enormous amount of evidence that intelligence was not simply inheritable and that it certainly didn’t vary by race. Likewise, the “evidence” that Pinker cited, showing that men and women have natural differences in their mathematical ability, is suspect. While studies in the United States and some other countries show men with a greater variability in mathematical ability, studies in Lithuania, Germany, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Denmark teaches individuals the norms, values, and beliefs associated with their culture and provides ways to ensure that members adhere to their shared way of life. although local authorities conducted numerous searches, he managed to elude capture until he was finally arrested, at the age of forty-seven, in the spring of 2013. In an interview with a journalist, Knight reflected on the power of social isolation on one’s identity: Social Isolation We can appreciate how important socialization is when we see what happens to people who are deprived of social contact. For twenty-seven years, Christopher Knight—better known as the North Pond hermit—lived undetected in the woods of rural Maine. Sometime in the mid-1980s, at the age of twenty, Knight left civilization and eventually established a campsite on private land some distance from the cabins ringing North Pond. And there he stayed, in complete isolation. During that time, he spoke to only one person (an accidental encounter) and made no purchases of any kind. It is estimated that Knight committed more than 1,000 burglaries over the years, and 100 CHAPTER 4 Socialization, Interaction, and the Self I did examine myself. Solitude did increase my perception. But here’s the tricky thing—when I applied my increased perception to myself, I lost my identity. With no audience, no one to perform for, I was just there. There was no need to define myself; I became irrelevant. The moon was the minute hand, the seasons the hour hand. I didn’t even have a name. I never felt lonely. To put it romantically: I was completely free” (Finkel 2014). Perhaps even more demonstrative of the importance of socialization are cases of feral children. When infants are failed to produce the same results (Feingold 1992). Another study found that the gender gap in math scores disappears in countries that promote gender equality (Guiso et al., 2008). For sociologists, this suggested that something much more complicated was going on. Despite these challenges, Pinker seemed to feed a popular desire to find genes that “controlled” behaviors. From the “gay” gene to the “promiscuity” gene, the mass media rushed to report, often in oversimplified ways, new research on the relationship between genetics and behavior. A new generation of sociologists is trying to unite genetics and sociology in more interesting ways, beyond a simple opposition between nature and nurture. The term “sociobiology” is even falling out of favor, as researchers have taken to calling their work “genetically informed sociology” (Guo, Tong, and Cai 2008) or even “social genomics” (Conley and Fletcher 2017) instead. These trailblazers caution us to remember that genetics are conditioned by social experience and that there may be no simple cause-and-effect equation between genes and behavior. With the human genome containing 25,000 individual genes, it should not be surprising that behaviors do not spring from a single gene. Instead, “genes ‘hunt in packs,’ meaning that behaviors likely reflect networks of genes that work together” (Shanahan, Bauldry, and Freeman 2010, p. 36). Moreover, these genes do not work independently of social or cultural factors; rather, they work with them. Today there is increasing evidence “pointing to the importance of social factors in regulating genetic action” (Shanahan, Bauldry, and Freeman 2010, p. 37). In other words, our social and environmental context can significantly alter the way a gene expresses itself. And, indeed, with our increasingly sophisticated understanding of how biology and environment interact, some sociologists (like Conley and Fletcher) have declared that the nature vs. nurture war is over. born, they exhibit almost none of the learned behaviors that characterize human beings. Even their instincts for food or shelter or self-preservation are barely recognizable and almost impossible for them to act on alone. Babies do have innate capacities but can fully develop as human beings only through contact with others. There are several startling cases that demonstrate this (Newton 2004). Perhaps you have heard myths about children who have grown up in the wild. Supposedly, there are real cases of children being raised by wolves, as well as works of fiction such as Tarzan of the Apes and The Jungle Book. Such stories present images of primitive humans who have survived outside of society and who are both heathen and uncivilized yet pure and uncorrupt, who lack in social graces but possess the keenest of instincts. Legend has it that as far back as the thirteenth century, experiments were conducted by German emperor Frederick II to see whether humans could return to their natural and perfect state as depicted in the biblical Garden of Eden. Without human contact, the children who were used in these cruel experiments did not reveal any divine truths to the experimenters—they simply perished (Van Cleve 1972). Scientific ethics would never allow such experiments today, but we are still fascinated with the phenomenon of isolated children. While we can tell fictional versions of these FERAL CHILDREN in myths and stories (such as in the 2015 film rare real-world cases, children Room), there are unfortunately who have had little human some real-life instances involv- contact and may have lived in ing children who have lived in social isolation from a young age extreme social isolation. Though rare, these cases give social scientists the chance to study the effects of social isolation and to better understand the relationship between human development and socialization (Davis 1940; Davis and Moore 1947). Nature vs. Nurture What parts of your life are affected by your genes? by your society? The Process of Socialization 101 Mowgli, the “Man Cub” Fictional accounts of feral children such as Mowgli, the hero of the animated Disney film The Jungle Book, are quite different from real socially isolated children who struggle to learn language and interact with others. One well-known modern case involves a child named Genie (a pseudonym), who was discovered by child welfare services in 1970 (Rymer 1994). At the time she was thirteen years old and had been living with her family in Arcadia, California, where she had been severely neglected and abused. The authorities were shocked to find that the young girl had not developed like a normal child. Since infancy, Genie’s father had kept her locked in a small room, where she was often tied to a potty chair or crib, and she was deprived of practically all human interaction. She had not been exposed to language much and therefore had not learned to speak. Because her movements had been restricted and she was also malnourished, Genie lacked in physical development. She was SELF the individual’s conscious, afraid of strangers and devoid reflexive experience of a personal of any social skills. She exhibidentity separate and distinct ited some animal-like qualities; from others she clawed and sniffed and spat frequently. Genie was taken into custody and placed in the care of a team of scientists who were given an unprecedented opportunity to both study and treat her case. Would it be possible to reverse the effects of extreme social isolation? Could Genie learn language? Could she be socialized and learn to interact with others? Or would it be too late for her to develop normally? The team commenced at once to study the process of socialization and language acquisition, exposing Genie to caring people and a whole new world. At first she made rapid progress with both sign language and nonverbal communication. She was also learning to vocalize, quickly 102 CHAPTER 4 Socialization, Interaction, and the Self adding new words to her vocabulary. She was gaining some social skills and forming relationships with the researchers, all of which made them optimistic about Genie’s prognosis for recovery. The team began to splinter as they disagreed about Genie’s care. Funding to support further research was ultimately withdrawn, and all testing and scientific observation ended. Genie was placed in a series of foster homes, where she suffered further abuse and lost much of her capacity for speech. Genie’s case was effectively closed in 1978, and we know little about her current status. There is still debate over the ethics of such research on humans. Unfortunately, Genie was not the last child to be raised in social isolation. Real-life cases occasionally emerge, such as the 2008 case of Elizabeth Fritzl in Austria, who was held captive for twenty-four years in her father’s basement, along with four of her children. Each case confirms that the effects of extreme social isolation are devastating and tragic. It is only through contact with others that people develop the qualities we consider natural and normal in a human being. The socialization process begins in infancy and is especially productive once a child begins to understand and use language (Ochs 1986). But socialization is not complete at that point. It is a lifelong process that continues to shape us through experiences such as school, work, marriage, and parenthood, as we will see in the next few sections. Theories of the Self Having a sense of one’s self is perhaps the most fundamental of all human experiences. When seventeenth-century philosopher René Descartes exclaimed, “I think, therefore I am,” he was expressing this basic fact—that we possess a consciousness about ourselves. More recently, some have examined whether higher mammals or primates might also have this same self-consciousness; while that has yet to be determined, we do know that consciousness is at the core of humanness. The self is our experience of a distinct, real, personal identity that is separate and different from all other people. We can be “proud of ourselves,” “lose control of ourselves,” or want to “change ourselves,” suggesting that we have the ability to think about ourselves as if we were more than one being and to see ourselves from the vantage point of an observer. Our thoughts and feelings emanate both from and toward ourselves; this is, in effect, how we come to “know” ourselves. But just where does this sense of a self come from? How do we arrive at self-knowledge? When sociologists address these questions, they look at both the individual and society to find the answer. They believe that the self is created and modified through social interaction over the course of a lifetime. But while sociologists agree that the self is largely a social product there are still a number of theories about how the self develops, as we will see. Psychoanalytic Theory: Sigmund Freud The psychoanalytic perspective on the self, which is usually associated with Sigmund Freud, emphasizes childhood and sexual development as indelible influences on an individual’s identity, and in turn how society is upheld through the transformation of human instincts. While Freud’s ideas have generated a great deal of controversy, they remain compelling for sociologists. Perhaps Freud’s greatest contribution to understanding the self is his idea of the unconscious mind, as featured in The Interpretation of Dreams (1900/1955). Freud believed that the conscious level of awareness is but the tip of the iceberg and that just below the surface is a far greater area of the mind, the subconscious and the unconscious. He proposed that this unconscious energy is the source of conscious Dreams and the Subconscious In his book The Interpretation of Dreams, psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud outlined three psychological systems—the id, the ego, and the superego— that regulate subconscious drives and help keep an individual mentally balanced. thoughts and behavior. For example, the unconscious urge to slay one’s rivals may manifest itself in a conscious decision to work harder at the office in order to outshine a competitive co-worker. According to Freud, the mind consists of three interrelated systems: the id, the ego, and the superego. The id, which is composed of biological drives, is the source of instinctive, psychic energy. Its main goal is to achieve pleasure and to avoid pain in all situations, which makes the id a selfish and unrealistic part of the mind. For example, despite all your hard work, sometimes that competitive co-worker is the one who gets the raise—not exactly what the pleasure-seeking, power-hungry id desired. The ego, by contrast, is the part that deals with the real world. It operates on the basis of reason and helps to mediate and integrate the demands of both the id and the superego. So the ego is the part of the self that says, “Okay, this time the other guy won, but if I keep trying, I’m bound to get that raise ID, EGO, and SUPEREGO according to Freud, the three eventually.” interrelated parts that make The superego is composed up the mind: the id consists of of two components: the con- basic inborn drives that are the science and the ego-ideal. The source of instinctive psychic conscience serves to keep us energy; the ego is the realistic from engaging in socially unde- aspect of the mind that balances sirable behavior, and the ego- the forces of the id and the ideal upholds our vision of who superego; the superego has two components (the conscience and we believe we should ideally the ego-ideal) and represents the be. The superego develops as internalized demands of society a result of parental guidance, particularly in the form of the PSYCHOSEXUAL STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT four distinct rewards and punishments we stages of the development of the receive as children. It inhibits self between birth and adulthood, the urges of the id and encour- according to Freud; personality ages the ego to find morally quirks are a result of being acceptable forms of behavior. fixated, or stuck, at any stage So the superego helps suppress the urge to kill your competitor and keeps you working toward getting that raise in socially acceptable ways. Each of these systems serves a different mental or emotional function, yet they all work together to keep the individual in a more or less healthy state of balance. Freud (1905) also proposed that between infancy and adulthood, the personality passes through four distinct psychosexual stages of development. Each stage is associated with a different erogenous zone. Freud’s theory emerged from his therapy work with adult patients who were asked to try to recall earlier periods from their lives. According to the theory, a child passes through the first three stages of development between the ages of one and five. Most people have little or no memory whatsoever of this period. Yet, according to psychoanalytic theory, it sets the stage for the rest of one’s adult life. The last stage of development begins around the age of Theories of the Self 103 twelve, but few people successfully complete this final transinotion that the self develops tion to maturity. In some cases, through our perception of others’ the transitions through the first evaluations and appraisals of us three stages are not completely successful either, so that people may find themselves stuck, or “fixated,” at an earlier stage. Perhaps you’ve known someone who is considered to have an “oral fixation”—this person, thought to be partially stuck in the first stage of development, might smoke, overeat, or be verbally aggressive. Someone who is “anal retentive”—a neatnik, tightwad, or control freak—is thought to be partially stuck in the second stage. These kinds of personality traits, rooted in early childhood (according to Freud), appear as “ hang-ups” in the adult. Another of Freud’s important contributions to sociology is found in his later work Civilization and Its Discontents (1930/2010). In it he extended his thesis to show how the psychological makeup of the individual helps to create social order, or civilization, while at the same time being constrained by society’s structures and demands, causing the person to become discontent. Again Freud focused on the subconscious drives or instincts of the individual. He referred to two main impulses: “Eros,” the libido or life instinct, and “Thanatos,” which is aggression or the death instinct. To live successfully in human community, we must find socially acceptable ways of channeling these instincts. We cannot simply act out on our sexual or aggressive impulses without harming ourselves and others and threatening the larger collective. The raw and primitive drives of the individual must be managed somehow. When instincts are repressed or turned inward, they become the conscience and a source of guilt and neuroses. When instincts are sublimated or turned outward, they are positively transformed. There are many constructive ways of expressing sexual energy, redirecting it toward creative pursuits that produce the great works of culture, commerce, or science. Likewise, aggressive instincts can find appropriate outlets in competitive sports, politics, and other competitions, or can be felt vicariously through forms of entertainment like video games or amusement park rides. To live in a civilized society means agreeing to norms and sanctions that infringe on personal freedom but serve to protect the well-being of the group. Civilization demands that we give up some satisfaction of acting on instinct to gain the lesser happiness but greater security of living within the bounds of society. Other sociologists have extended Freud’s work, focusing especially on gender identity—seeing oneself as feminine or masculine. Nancy Chodorow, a feminist and psychoanalytic sociologist, has written widely on human behavior and internal psychic structures and how patterns of gendered parenting and early childhood development can lead to the reproduction of traditional gender roles in society (1978, 1994). LOOKING-GLASS SELF the 104 CHAPTER 4 Socialization, Interaction, and the Self The Looking-Glass Self: Charles Cooley Around the same time Freud was developing his theories (early 1900s), other social theorists interested in the self were working on the other side of the Atlantic. Charles Cooley, an early member of the Chicago School of sociology, devised a simple but elegant way to conceptualize how individuals gain a sense of self. His idea is captured in the following short poem, which summarizes a profound and complex process. Each to each a looking-glass, Reflects the other that doth pass. Cooley (1909) referred to this concept as the looking-glass self. He believed that we all act like mirrors to each other, reflecting back to one another an image of ourselves. We do this in three steps (Yeung and Martin 2003). 1. We imagine how we look to others—not just in a physical sense, but in how we present ourselves. For example, we may imagine that others find us friendly, funny, or hardworking. The idea we have of ourselves is particularly important in regard to significant others. Whether they are parents, bosses, friends, or partners, we care about how we look to these people. 2. We imagine other people’s judgment of us. We try to picture others’ reactions and to interpret what they must be feeling. What is their opinion of me? Do they think I am smart enough? Lazy? Boring? Too tall? 3. We experience some kind of feeling about ourselves based on our perception of other people’s judgments. If we imagine, for instance, that they think of us as competent, we may feel pride; conversely, if we think they consider us inadequate, we may feel shame or embarrassment. The important point here is that we respond to the judgments that we believe others make about us, without really knowing for sure what they think. And we’re not always right. We may draw wildly unrealistic conclusions. But according to Cooley, it is these perceptions, not reality, that determine the feelings we ultimately have about ourselves. The social looking glass—the way we see ourselves reflected back from others—together with the feelings we develop as a result of what we imagine they see in us, forms our concept of self. For Cooley, there could be no sense of self without society, for there is no individual self without a corresponding “other” to provide us with our looking-glass self-image. The suggestion that we are dependent on what others think of us—or rather what we think they think—for our own self-concept might seem appalling: Are we really that hung up on what other people think? But while some of us may be influenced to a greater or lesser degree, all of us come to know ourselves through relationships, either real or imagined, with others. Mind, Self, and Society: George Herbert Mead Another member of the Chicago School, George Herbert Mead, expanded on Cooley’s ideas about the development of the self and laid the essential groundwork that became the theory of symbolic interactionism. Mead also believed that the self is created through social interaction. He believed that this process starts in childhood—that children begin to develop a sense of self at about the same time that they began to learn language. The acquisition of language skills coincides with the growth of mental capacities, including the ability to think of ourselves as separate and distinct and to see ourselves in relationship to others (Mead 1934). The Particular Other According to Mead, children begin to develop a sense of self by imitating others and playing roles. According to Mead, the development of the self unfolds in several stages as we move through childhood. First is the preparatory stage. Children under the age of three lack a completely developed sense of self, and so they have difficulty distinguishing themselves from others. Such children begin the development process by simply imitating or mimicking others around them (making faces, playing patty-cake) without fully understanding the meaning of their behavior. After age three, children enter the play stage of development when they start to pretend or play at being “mommy,” “firefighter,” “princess,” or “doctor.” This is referred to as taking the role of the particular or significant other. As children learn the PREPARATORY STAGE the behavior associated with being first stage in Mead’s theory of a mother or doctor, they inter- the development of self wherein nalize the expectations of those children mimic or imitate others particular others and begin to PLAY STAGE the second stage in gain new perspectives in addi- Mead’s theory of the development tion to their own. Such play also of self wherein children pretend serves the purpose of anticipa- to play the role of the particular tory socialization for the real-life or significant other roles a child might play in the PARTICULAR OR SIGNIFICANT future. OTHER the perspectives and In the final or game stage expectations of a particular role of development, children’s self- that a child learns and internalizes awareness increases through a GAME STAGE the third stage in process Mead described using Mead’s theory of the development the example of games. By the of self wherein children play early school years, children begin organized games and take on the to take part in organized games. perspective of the generalized Each child must follow the rules other of the game, which means that GENERALIZED OTHER the he or she must simultaneously perspectives and expectations of take into account the roles of a network of others (or of society all the other players. Mead calls in general) that a child learns and then takes into account when this overview the perspective of shaping his or her own behavior the generalized other. Thus, children begin to understand DUAL NATURE OF THE SELF the set of standards common to a the idea that we experience the self as both subject and object, social group—their playmates— the “I” and the “me” and to see themselves from others’ viewpoints. By taking the perspective of the generalized other, children are able to see themselves as objects. They gradually learn to internalize the expectations of the generalized other for themselves and to evaluate their own behavior. This is the beginning of understanding the attitudes and expectations of society as a whole. Mead also recognized the dialectical or dual nature of the self—that is, the self as both subject and object. What we refer to as “I” is the subject component—the experience of a spontaneous, active, and creative part of ourselves, somewhat less socialized. What we refer to as “me” is the object component—the experience of a norm-abiding, conforming Theories of the Self 105 part of ourselves, more socialized and therefore reliant on others. The two components are inseparable and are united to form a single self in each of us. It is this process of recognizing the dual nature of the self, taking the role of the parTHOMAS THEOREM classic ticular other, and seeing the formulation of the way individuals perspective of the generalized determine reality, whereby other that Mead suggests leads “if people define situations as real, they are real in their to the development of the self. consequences” DEFINITION OF THE SITUATION an agreement with others about “what is going on” in a given circumstance; this consensus allows us to coordinate our actions with others and realize goals Dramaturgy: Erving Goffman Erving Goffman is another among the group of symbolic interactionists who saw microEXPRESSIONS OF BEHAVIOR small actions such as an eye roll level, face-to-face interaction or head nod that serve as an as the building block of every interactional tool to help project other aspect of society. Goffour definition of the situation man believed that all meaning, to others as well as our individual selves, EXPRESSIONS GIVEN is constructed through interacexpressions that are intentional tion. Many of his key ideas are and usually verbal, such as expressed in The Presentation utterances of Self in Everyday Life (1956). To understand Goffman’s work, we first need to briefly consider another of the early Chicago School sociologists, W. I. Thomas. What is now called the Thomas theorem states that “if people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences” (Thomas and Thomas 1928, p. 572). In other words, because we encounter ambiguous situations every day, many meanings are possible. The way we define each situation, then, becomes its reality. For example, suppose you’re walking down the street and you witness a woman slapping a man in public. What are the possible meanings of that situation? It could be a fight; it could be a joke or a friendly greeting, depending on how hard the slap is; it could be that he has just passed out and she is hoping to revive him; or the participants could be actors shooting a scene from a film. Each of these definitions leads to a different set of potential consequences—you might intervene, call the police, stand by and laugh, ignore them, summon paramedics, or ask for an autograph, depending on which meaning you act upon. Each definition of the situation lends itself to a different approach, and the consequences are real. Goffman looked at how we define situations interactionally— not just cognitively within our own heads but also in interaction with others. Think about it: How do you get your definition of the situation across to others? If you think a classroom lecture is boring, you may look over at your best friend and roll your eyes . . . she nods, indicating that she knows what you mean. The eye roll and the nod are expressions of behavior, tools we use to project our definitions of the situation to others. What Goffman calls expressions given are typically verbal and intended—most of our speech falls into this category. Almost all of what we say, we mean to say, at least at that moment. Only in situations of extreme emotional response— such as fear, pain, or ecstasy—might we make unintended Table 4.1 Theory in Everyday Life Perspective Approach to Self and Interaction Case Study: Identity in Childhood Psychoanalysis Freud’s theory of the unconscious mind as composed of an interrelated system (id, ego, superego) that underlies human behavior; personality develops through psychosexual stages. Parents instill a conscience (superego) in children through rules that govern their instinctual behavior (id) until children mature and are self-governing (ego). Looking- Glass Self Cooley’s theory of the self concept as derived from how we imagine others see us, and the feelings about our selves based on the perceived judgments of others. Parents and significant others serve as a reflection to children, who develop a sense of self based on their appraisals, real or imagined. Mind, Self, and Society Mead’s theory of the self that develops through three stages (preparatory, play, and game); in role taking the particular or generalized other, we learn to see ourselves as others do. Children gain a sense of self through imitation, play, and games, in which they learn various roles and take on the perspectives of others. Goffman’s theory of the presentation of self; we are like actors on a stage whose performance strategies aid in impression management. Children learn the arts of impression management and may present a different self to their parents than to other children or to teachers. Dramaturgy 106 CHAPTER 4 Socialization, Interaction, and the Self utterances. Expressions given off, like the eye roll and the nod, are typically nonverbal but observable in various ways and may be intended or unintended. Things like facial expressions, mannerisms, body language, and styles of dress are important indicators to others about the definition of the situation. IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT Reading meaning in others’ expressions of behavior requires a bit of caution. We know that people may deliberately say things to hide what they really feel, so we tend to think we get more real insight from expressions given off because we believe them to be unintended. But expressions given off can be manipulated as well. In a sense, Goffman was saying that it’s not just what you say but also how you say it that creates meaning. And he was a cynic, although he believed that everyday actors can be sincere. Goffman saw social life as a sort of con game, in which we work at controlling the impressions others have of us. He called this process impression management. Like actors on a stage, we play our parts and use all our communicative resources (verbal and nonverbal) to present a particular impression to others. We say and do what we think is necessary to communicate who we are and what we think, and we refrain from saying and doing things that might damage the impression we want others to have of us. It is this focus on the performance strategies of impression management that has led scholars to refer to Goffman’s central ideas as dramaturgy—and the theatrical allusion is entirely intended. As in the theater, we use certain tools to aid in our impression management. The front, for example, is the setting that helps establish a particular meaning (like a classroom for teaching or a bar for drinking). The specific social setting, or region (which includes the location, scenery, décor, and props), provides more elements that help establish the boundaries of the interactional context. You might carry a The Selfie as Impression Management According to Goffman, we control the impressions others have of us through the process of impression management. How many times do you have to take and retake a selfie to get it just right? briefcase into a bar, but it’s probably not a good idea to carry a bottle of beer into the classroom. The front makes a big difference in how we perceive and interact with the people we encounter there. Students and professors recognize one another and know how to interact when on campus or in the classroom. But in other venues, we are out of context, and this can confuse us. We seldom think of our professors as people who have off-campus lives—it’s hard to see them as people who dine out, see movies, or buy under- EXPRESSIONS GIVEN OFF wear (for that matter, professors observable expressions that can rarely think of their students this be either intended or unintended way either!). So when we encoun- and are usually nonverbal ter one another in unfamiliar IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT regions, we often don’t know how the effort to control the to behave because the old class- impressions we make on others so that they form a desired view room scripts don’t work. Our personal front— of us and the situation; the appearance, manner, and style use of self-presentation and performance tactics of dress (or “costume”), as well as gender, race, and age—helps DRAMATURGY an approach establish the definition of the pioneered by Erving Goffman situation as well. For example, in which social life is analyzed in terms of its similarities to Dr. Ferris is told quite often theatrical performance that she “doesn’t look like a professor.” This illustrates how FRONT in the dramaturgical we use elements of personal perspective, the setting or scene of performances that front to make judgments about helps establish the definition people: if our images of profes- of the situation sors involve gruff, grizzled, older men in unfashionable clothes, REGION the context in which the performance takes place, then someone who is younger, including location, decor, and friendlier, and female must work props harder at convincing others that she is in fact a professor. Simi- PERSONAL FRONT the performance tactics we larly, when a student happens use to present ourselves to to see Dr. Ferris at a restaurant, others, including appearance, movie theater, or department costume, and manner store, the student’s response is BACKSTAGE the places where almost always the same: “What we rehearse and prepare for our are you doing here?” performances In addition, there are places known as back regions, or back- FRONTSTAGE the places where we deliver our performances to an stage, where we prepare (or audience of others rehearse) for our performances. And then there are front regions, or frontstage, where we play a particular role and perform for an “audience” of others. We behave differently—and present different selves—frontstage than we do backstage; your professor behaved differently this morning while he showered, shaved, dressed, and made breakfast for his kids than he is behaving now, lecturing and answering questions in his sociology class. For Goffman, the key to understanding these nuances in impression management Theories of the Self 107 is to recognize that we present different selves in different situations, and the responses of others to those selves continually shape and mold our definitions of situation and self. Thus we can say that the self is a social construction (Berger and Luckmann 1966). The self is something that is created or invented in interaction with others who also participate in agreeing to the reality or meaning of that self as it is being presented in the situation. We also make claims about who we are in our interactions. These claims can be either accepted or contradicted by others, which can make things either easier or harder for our self-image. Most of the time, others support the selves we project. For example, when your professor starts lecturing and you begin to take notes, you are supporting the version of self that he is presenting: he is “doing professor,” and in response, you are “doing student.” Another way that we support the selves that people present is to allow them to save face—to prevent them from realizing that they’ve done something embarrassing. Goffman calls this cooling the mark out, a phrase borrowed from con games, but it can be used as a tool of civility and tact as well. When the professor mixes up two related concepts in a lecture, for example, you let it pass because SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION the you know what she really meant process by which a concept or to say. Or, even worse, you practice is created and maintained overlook the spinach between by participants who collectively your professor’s teeth until it agree that it exists can be called to his attention COOLING THE MARK OUT privately! behaviors that help others to save There are also situations in face or avoid embarrassment, which the selves we project are often referred to as civility or tact contested or even destroyed. For example, if you raised your hand in a 200-person lecture hall and told the professor that he had spinach between his teeth, you would be undermining the self he is trying to present. His identity as an expert, an authority figure, and a senior mentor would be publicly damaged once you called attention to his dental gaffe (unless he was able to deflect the situation gracefully). In Goffman’s view, then, the presentation of self and impression management are about power as well as about self. If you embarrass your professor in front of an auditorium full of students, he no longer possesses quite as much power as he did a few moments before. Goffman’s view of our interactions can be disturbing to some people, for it suggests that we are always acting, that we are never being honest about who we really are. But Goffman would challenge this interpretation of his work. Yes, some people deliberately deceive others in their presentation of self, but we must all present some type of self in social situations. Why wouldn’t those selves be presented sincerely? As Goffman-inspired sociologist Josh Meyrowitz says, “While a dishonest judge may pretend to be an honest judge, even an honest judge must play the role of ‘honest judge’” (1985, p. 30). 108 CHAPTER 4 Socialization, Interaction, and the Self DATA WORKSHOP Analyzing Everyday Life Impression Management in Action They say that you never get to make a first impression twice, that people can size us up in a matter of seconds and quickly jump to conclusions about who we are. How well do you know yourself and the impressions you make on others? This exercise is designed to help make your own impression management work visible—and to help you see how integral it is to your everyday life. For this Data Workshop you will be doing participant observation research with yourself as the subject. Research that involves observing one’s own behavior is known as autoethnography. Refer to Chapter 2 for a review of this method. Your task will be to observe yourself as you participate in two different social situations. Afterward, you will do a comparative analysis of your presentation of self in each setting. As you examine the most minute details of yourself in interactions, you will probably discover that you perform somewhat different versions of yourself in the two situations. “Doing student,” for instance, might be very different from “doing boyfriend.” Let’s see. Step 1: Observation Choose two different situations that you will encounter this week in your everyday life and commit to observing yourself for thirty minutes as you participate in each. For example, you may observe yourself at work, at a family birthday celebration, at lunch with friends, in your math class, riding on the bus or train, or watching an athletic match. The two situations you choose don’t need to be extraordinary in any way; in fact, the more mundane, the better. But they should be markedly different from one another. Step 2: Field notes In an autoethnography, your own actions, thoughts, and feelings are the focus of study. Write some informal field notes about your experience so that you can refer to them when you discuss your findings. Your notes can be casual in tone and loose in format, but, as always, it’s a good idea to write them as soon as possible after your time in the field. That way you capture more of the details you’ll want to remember. Aim for at least one (or more!) full page of notes for each of the two situations. Step 3: Analysis After observing yourself in the two situations, read through your field notes and consider the following questions: ✱ What type of “front” do you encounter when you enter each situation? What role do you play and who is your “audience”? ✱ How does the “region” or setting (location, scenery, and props) affect your presentation of self there? Agents of Socialization Since our sense of self is shaped by social interaction, we should now turn our attention to the socializing forces that have the most significant impact on our lives. These forces, called agents of socialization, provide structured situations in which socialization takes place. While there is a variety of such influences in American society, notably religion, as well as our political and economic systems, we will focus here on what may be the four most predominant agents of socialization: the family, schools, peers, and the media. ✱ Can you identify “backstage” and “frontstage” regions for each situation? Which of your activities are preparation and which are performance? ✱ What type of “personal front” (appearance, manner, dress) do you bring to each situation? ✱ How are your facial expressions, body language, and so forth (“expressions given off”) different in each situation? ✱ What kinds of things do you say (“expressions given”) in each situation? ✱ How convincing are you at managing the impres- sion you want to make on others in each of the two situations? ✱ Who are you in each situation? Do you present a slightly different version of yourself in each? Why? A final Goffman-inspired question to ask is this: Does engaging in impression management mean that we have no basic, unchanging self? If we bring different selves to different situations, what does that say about the idea of a “true self”? This issue is an important one, and we hope you use your Data Workshop findings to pursue it in greater depth. There are two options for completing the Data Workshop: PREP- PAIR- SHARE Carry out your observations and bring your field notes to class with you. Partner with another student and discuss your experiences. Work together on developing your analysis by responding to the Data Workshop questions. Use this as a way to learn more about yourself and others. DO- IT-YOURSELF For Step 1, use ethnographic methods of data gathering. Create written field notes to record your actions, interactions, and thoughts during each thirtyminute observation period. Be as detailed as possible. Then write a three- to four-page essay applying Goffman’s dramaturgical analysis to your own experiences, in response to the questions in Step 3. Refer to your field notes in the essay, and include them with your paper. The Family The family is the single most significant agent of socialization in all societies. It’s easy to see why. The family is the original group to which we belong. It is where early emotional and social bonds are created, where language is learned, and where we first begin to internalize the norms and values of our society. Most of our primary socialization, which teaches us to become mature, responsible members of society, takes place within the family. It is not surprising, then, that the family has perhaps the longest-lasting influence on the AGENTS OF SOCIALIZATION individual. social groups, institutions, and Much research has focused individuals (especially the family, on the role of mothers in child- schools, peers, and the mass rearing practices (Goode 1982), media) that provide structured although attention has also situations in which socialization turned to the significance of takes place fathers, as well as siblings and other relatives. For example, Ralph LaRossa’s research (2016) looks at historical changes in the role of men as active parents and how men feel about their involvement in their children’s lives. The family has such a powerful impact on us partly because as young children we have limited outside contact (until we start day care or school) and therefore few if any other influences. The family is our world. The family is also in the world. Where a family is located, both geographically and socially—its ethnic, class, religious, educational, and political background—will affect family members (Lareau 2003). For example, one of the most important lessons we learn in families is about gender roles: we see what moms and dads, sisters and brothers are expected to do (like mow the lawn or fold the laundry) and convert these observations into general rules about gender in society (Chodorow 1978). Socialization differs from family to family because each family has its own particular set of values and beliefs. A single family can also change over time. As years pass, children may not be raised in the same way as their older siblings, for the simple reason that parents have no experience with babies when their first child is born but plenty of experience by the time the youngest comes along. Nor are all aspects of Agents of Socialization 109 The Power of Family The family is the original group to which each person belongs, and it is the most important agent of socialization. socialization deliberate; some in fact are quite unintentional (as when a father’s violent temper or a mother’s depression is passed down to the next generation). Schools Many people remember their school years with fondness, dread, or perhaps relief that they’re over! No wonder school makes such a great subject for bad dreams and movie scripts. Public elementary and secondary schools were first established in the United States in the 1800s. While attendance was uneven at first, education advocates believed that schooling played a critical role in maintaining a democracy (though blacks and women HIDDEN CURRICULUM values still lacked the right to vote) and or behaviors that students learn in shaping future generations of indirectly over the course of their citizens. Over the years, schools schooling have gradually taken on greater responsibilities than merely teaching a prescribed curriculum. Schools now provide physical education, meals, discipline, and child care, all formerly the provinces of other social institutions. When children begin attending school (including preschool and day care), it may be their first significant experience away from home. School helps them to become less dependent on the family, providing a bridge to other social groups. In school, children learn that they will be judged on their behavior and on academic performance. They learn not only formal subjects but also a hidden curriculum (Jackson 1968), a set of behavioral traits such as punctuality, neatness, discipline, hard work, competition, and obedience, and even ideologies 110 CHAPTER 4 Socialization, Interaction, and the Self like racial and gender hegemony (Jay 2003). The socialization children receive from teachers, staff members, and other students occurs simultaneously and overlaps with what they learn in the family. Recently, there has been increasing scrutiny regarding the role of teachers, especially in public schools. Because teachers are such potent role models for students, parents are concerned about the moral standing of those who are in charge of teaching their children, as well as their training and competence. There is increasing pressure for schools to take on even more responsibilities, including dealing with issues that used to be taught at home or in church—such as sex, violence, drugs and alcohol, and general morality and citizenship. Peers Peer groups are groups of people who are about the same age and have similar social characteristics. Peers may be friends at school or from the neighborhood, members of a sports team, or cabin mates at summer camp. As children get older, peers often become more important than parents as agents of socialization. As the influence of peers increases, the influence of parents decreases. While the family still has the most long-lasting influence on an individual, it is peers who have the most intense and immediate effect on each other. By adolescence, young people spend more time with their peers than with their parents or anyone else (Larson and Richards 1991). Membership in a peer group provides young people with a way of exercising independence from, and possibly reacting against, adult control. Young people tend to form peer subcultures that are almost entirely centered on their own interests, such as gaming or disc golf or garage bands, with distinct values and norms related to those interests. The need to “fit in” with a peer group may seem overwhelming to some young people. Some will do almost anything to belong—even betray their own values: Bradley and Wildman (2002) found that peer pressure was a predictor of adolescent participation in risky behaviors such as dangerous driving, unsafe sex, and drug and alcohol use. Peer pressure can also produce beneficial outcomes, such as increased engagement with academic work and a positive sense of ethnic identity (Shin, Daly, and Vera 2007). Peer groups, while providing important and enjoyable social bonds, can also be the source of painful self-doubt, ridicule, or rejection. The Media The media’s role as one of the most significant sources of socialization is a somewhat recent phenomenon. Television began infiltrating American homes in the 1950s, and Internet usage has become widespread only in the past two decades. Yet, for many of us, it would be almost impossible to imagine life without the media—whether print, broadcast, or digital. This huge explosion, the dawning of the Information Age, is something we already take for granted, but we don’t always see the ways in which it is changing our lives. Many sociologists question whether the media may have even usurped some of the functions of the family in teaching basic norms and values and giving advice on common problems. As an example, take the people of Fiji, a South Pacific island that lacked widespread access to television until 1995. A group of Harvard Medical School researchers took this unique opportunity to study the effects of television on the local population. Specifically, they were interested in the ways in which Western programs influenced eating habits and body image among adolescent girls in a culture that “traditionally supported robust appetites and body shapes” (A. Becker et al. 2002). Through surveys and interviews with the young women (the mean age was around seventeen) in 1995, just months after television was introduced, and again in 1998, the researchers ascertained that Western television was in fact affecting body image and corresponding behaviors among the Fijian girls. In those three years, the percentage of subjects whose survey responses indicated an eating disorder jumped from 12 to 29, and the percentage who reported self-induced vomiting as a form of weight control rose from none to 11. Dieting and dissatisfaction with weight were prevalent—and 83 percent of the girls who were interviewed reported that they felt television “had specifically influenced their friends and/or themselves to feel differently about or change their body shape or weight” (A. Becker et al. 2002). Fashion for Whom? Most women do not look like this model, yet her body type is held up as the ideal in magazines and other forms of media. The women of Fiji only recently encountered TV and other forms of modern media. How do we measure the cumulative effect of the ubiquitous exposure to the media pervading American society, day in and day out? Whose messages are we listening to, and what are we being told about ourselves and each other? On average, Americans watch about three hours of television per day and spend more hours listening to music, reading, watching movies, playing video games, surfing the web, or using social media. By the time young people graduate from high school, they will have spent far more time with the media than in the classroom. While some worry that this means kids are lost in a fantasy world, Hodge and Tripp (1986) have argued that watching TV actually helps kids learn to distinguish between reality and fantasy, an important developmental milestone. In addition to their ability to entertain, the media also have great potential to inform and educate. It is clear that we internalize many of the values, beliefs, and norms presented in the media and that their powerful influence in our lives only stands to increase as we proceed deeper into the Information Age. Agents of Socialization 111 DATA WORKSHOP Analyzing Media and Pop Culture TV as an Agent of Socialization Television is a powerful and surreptitious agent of socialization. It is everywhere, and we devour thousands of hours of it—so it seems important to ask what kinds of messages we are getting about ourselves and our society from all that viewing. How does TV socialize us? You’re going to help answer that question. For this Data Workshop you will be using existing sources and doing a content analysis of a particular TV program. See the section on existing sources in Chapter 2 for a review of this research method. Choose one of the most popular TV series currently on the air—at the time of this writing, your choices might include NCIS, The Big Bang Theory, or Orange Is the New Black. Choose a regular drama or comedy series rather than a news program, talk show, game show, or reality show. Make sure that the show takes place in contemporary times (rather than in the past or in some fantasy world), since your aim will be to analyze how the show depicts modern society and affects today’s viewer. Now choose some aspect of social status and individual identity that you want to focus on, such as gender (how women or men are portrayed), sexuality (heterosexuals, gay men, or lesbians), disability (people who are deaf or blind or in wheelchairs), or class (poor people, wealthy people, or the middle class). For instance, you might look at the depiction of women in Two Broke Girls or men in The Big Bang Theory, the representation of people with disabilities in Speechless or Switched at Birth, or the portrayal of transgender people in Transparent or the wealthy in Empire or Billions. Watch an episode of your chosen program in its entirety. You will want to record the program or look for an episode on DVD, Netflix, Hulu, or another online source so that you can review certain scenes or bits of dialogue several times. It is important to take some notes as you watch, paying attention to the program’s content with reference to your particular topic choice. To give you an example of how to do this workshop, we use depictions of women (in brackets) as our topic and the program Modern Family. You should substitute your own TV program and choice of topic for each of the following questions: ✱ In this episode of the program, how many [women] characters are there? How does the number of 112 CHAPTER 4 Socialization, Interaction, and the Self [women] characters compare with the number of other characters? Are the [women’s] roles major characters or minor characters? How can you tell? ✱ What types of roles do the [women] characters have? What are their activities, attitudes, and interactions like on the show? What kinds of things do they do and say that tell you who they are and what they are like? ✱ Are the portrayals of [women] positive or negative? Humorous or serious? One-dimensional or multidimensional? How can you tell? ✱ What image(s) of [women] does this program por- tray? In other words, what messages do the words, pictures, plot lines, and characters convey to viewers about [women] in general? In the case of Modern Family, there are some interesting portrayals of women to analyze. There are two adult women as part of the main cast: Claire Dunphy and Gloria Pritchett. The women are related to each other through Jay Pritchett, who is Claire’s father and Gloria’s husband (it’s a second marriage for both). Claire and Gloria are both stay-at-home moms. Gloria appears to be just a sexy, gold-digging “trophy wife” but is also portrayed as having a depth of wisdom and strength that results from her experiences in a tough neighborhood of her Colombian hometown. Claire is a “daddy’s girl” who is initially jealous of Gloria and who searches for meaningful work as her children grow older (she eventually gets a job at her father’s company). These women relate to each other, as well as the men in their lives, in ways that provide powerful messages about gender roles and femininity. Now that you have examined the roles and portrayals, let’s consider the effects on society: ✱ How does the content of this program contribute to our socialization process? What do we learn about [women] in society from watching the program? After finishing your analysis, what do you think about TV’s powers of socialization? There are two options for completing this Data Workshop: PRE P- PA IR- SH A RE Watch your chosen episode of TV and bring your notes with you to class. Partner with another student and present your findings. Work together on responding to the Data Workshop questions. Listen for any differences or variations in each other’s insights. DO - IT-YOU RSE L F Write a three- to four-page essay in response to the Data Workshop questions, including a content analysis of your chosen TV program. Make sure to refer to specific segments of the episode that help to support your discussion of TV as an agent of socialization. Attach your notes on the program to your paper. Adult Socialization Being an “adult” somehow signifies that we’ve learned well enough how to conduct ourselves as autonomous members of society. But adults are by no means completely socialized. Life is continually presenting us with new situations and new roles with unfamiliar norms and values. We are constantly learning and adjusting to new conditions over the life course and thereby participating in secondary socialization. For example, your college training will teach you a great deal about the behaviors that will be expected of you in your chosen profession, such as responsibility and punctuality. But after graduating and obtaining a job, you will likely find further, unanticipated expectations. At the very least, you will be socialized to the local culture of a specific workplace, where new rules and customs (like “Always be closing!” in a real estate office) are observed. As your career unfolds, such episodes of socialization will recur as you take on different responsibilities or switch jobs. Other examples of altered life circumstances include marrying, becoming divorced or widowed, raising a family, moving to a new community, losing a job, or retiring—all of which require modifying attitudes and behaviors. For example, being divorced or widowed after many years of marriage means jumping into a dating pool that may look quite different from the last time you were in it—“safe sex,” “splitting the check,” and other new norms may be hard for older daters to assimilate. Adult socialization often requires the replacement of previously learned norms and values with different ones, what is known as resocialization. Facing a serious illness or growing old also often involves intensive resocialization. In order to cope with a RESOCIALIZATION the process new view of what their aging of replacing previously learned body will permit them to do, norms and values with new ones people must discard previous as a part of a transition in life behaviors in favor of others TOTAL INSTITUTIONS (not working out every day, for institutions in which individuals are cut off from the rest of society example). Another dramatic example so that they can be controlled and regulated for the purpose of resocialization is found in of systematically stripping away total institutions (Goffman previous roles and identities in 1961), such as prisons, cults, and order to create new ones mental hospitals, and, in some cases, even boarding schools, nursing homes, monasteries, and the military. In total institutions, residents are severed from their previous relations with society, and their former identities are systematically stripped away and reformed. There may be different ends toward which Desocialization Total Institutions such as the military and cults put new members through a process of resocialization by controlling most aspects of their lives and stripping them of old identities to create new ones. On the left, officers lead new recruits through drills at boot camp; followers of Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church, “Moonies,” get married en masse. Agents of Socialization 113 IN RELATIONSHIPS Sister Pauline Quinn and Training Dogs in Prison C an adopting a puppy change your fundamental sense of self for the better? According to Sister Pauline Quinn, a Dominican nun, it can when the puppies are adopted by prison inmates who train them to become service or therapy dogs. Sister Pauline knew something firsthand about life in a total institution, and not just the convent. Born Kathy Quinn, she was once a chronic runaway because of a dysfunctional family life and was eventually institutionalized for lack of another place for her to go. For several years afterward, she was homeless, staying in abandoned buildings and trying to avoid getting picked up by the police as a vagrant. Kathy Quinn could well have died on the streets of Los Angeles, but instead her life was turned around when she found Joni, a German shepherd. Quinn felt that the dog was the beginning of the process of resocialization that helped her reestablish herself as a functioning member of society. It was the first time she had a true friend, one whose unconditional love was restoring her badly damaged self-esteem. Her time in institutions had left her “depersonalized,” stripped of any positive identity with which to tackle the demands of life on the “outside.” The bond that forms between a human and a dog provides positive feedback and a loving relationship that can influence one’s sense of self. The work that Quinn did in training Joni transformed not only the dog but the person as well, eventually leading her to a happier and more productive life devoted to helping others. Quinn was particularly drawn to the plight of women prisoners and believed that they, too, could find similar benefits through contact with dogs. She knew that life in prison could be extremely depersonalizing, especially for women, and that rehabilitation, if it was offered at all, was too often unsuccessful, returning convicts to the streets without having rebuilt their identities and their lives. In 1981, with the assistance of Dr. Leo Bustad, a professor of veterinary science at the University of Washington, she approached the Washington State Correctional Center for Women and proposed that inmates volunteer to train puppies adopted from local shelters and rescue organizations to become service and therapy dogs. The result was the Prison Pet Partnership Program. The women selected to participate in the program get more than just dogs to train; they get the opportunity for substantial resocialization, which helps them to develop new, positive Rehabilitation through Dog Training Inmates reap many benefits when they train service and therapy dogs, including learning new skills that can help them find jobs once they leave prison. identities and learn valuable social skills that can translate to the outside world. The labor-intensive process of training a dog is perfectly suited to the needs and abilities of inmates, who have a great surplus of time and a desperate need to find constructive ways to occupy it. The rigors of dog training, which places an emphasis on achieving discipline and obedience through repetition and positive reinforcement, is a lesson not lost on the trainers. During the months of training, the animals even sleep with the inmates, providing added psychological benefits. Prisons report significant improvements in morale and behavior once dog-training programs are in place. Allowing prisoners access to the dogs’ unconditional love and giving the prisoners a chance to contribute to society in a meaningful way increase the likelihood that the prisoners will reenter mainstream society successfully. More than half of state prisons have now established similar dog-training programs, and military prisons have begun comparable programs to train service dogs for disabled veterans. A service animal can cost as much as $10,000 to train, so these prison programs make a difference in placing more dogs with the people who need them. Just as important here, each relationship with a dog transforms the life of the inmate, who gets another chance at developing a more positive sense of self in the process. total institutions are geared, such as creating good soldiers, punishing criminals, or managing mental illness, but the process of resocialization is similar: All previous identities are suppressed, and an entirely new, disciplined self is created. 114 CHAPTER 4 Socialization, Interaction, and the Self Relatively few adults experience resocialization to the degree of the total institution. All, however, continue to learn and synthesize norms and values throughout their lives as they move into different roles and social settings. Statuses and Roles While agents of socialization play an important role in developing our individual identities, so does the larger scaffolding of society. This happens as we take on (or have imposed upon us) different statuses and roles. A status is a position in a social hierarchy that comes with a set of expectations. Sometimes these positions are formalized: “professor,” “president,” or even “parent.” Parental obligations, for example, are written into laws that prohibit the neglect and abuse of children. Other statuses are more informal: You may be the “class clown,” for instance, or the “conscience” of your group of friends. The contours of these informal statuses are less explicit but still widely recognizable. We all occupy a number of statuses, as we hold positions in multiple social hierarchies at once. Some statuses change over the course of a lifetime (e.g., marital or parental status), while others usually do not (e.g., gender). There are different kinds of statuses. An ascribed status is one we are born with that is unlikely to change (such as our gender or race). An embodied status is located in our physical selves (such as beauty or disability). Finally, an achieved status is one we have earned through our own efforts (such as an occupation, hobby, or skill) or that has been acquired in some other way (such as a criminal identity, mental illness, or drug addiction). All statuses influence how others see and respond to us. However, some ascribed, embodied, or achieved statuses take on the power of what sociologists call a master status—a status that seems to override all others in our identities. Master statuses carry with them expectations that may blind people to other facets of our personalities. People quickly make assumptions about what women, Asians, doctors, or alcoholics are like and may judge us according to those expectations rather than our actual attributes. This kind of judgment, often referred to as stereotyping, is looked upon as negative or destructive. However, it is important to realize that we all use these expectations in our everyday lives; stereotyping, as problematic as it is, is all but unavoidable. A role is the set of behaviors expected from a particular status position. Sociologists such as Erving Goffman (1956) and Ralph Turner (1978) deliberately use the theatrical analogy to describe how roles provide a kind of script, outlining what we are expected to say and do as a result of our position in the social structure. Professors, then, are expected to be responsible teachers and researchers. Employment contracts and faculty handbooks may specify the role even further: professors must hold a certain number of office hours per week, for example, and must obtain permission from the university in order to skip classes or take a leave of absence. Class clowns don’t sign a contract, nor are they issued a handbook, but they have role expectations nonetheless: They are expected to turn a classroom event into a joke whenever possible and to sacrifice their own success in order to provide laughs for others. Multiple Roles and Role Conflict In setting out general expectations for behavior, roles help shape our actions in ways that may come to define us to ourselves and others. For example, we often describe ourselves according to personality traits: “I am a responsible person,” “a nurturer,” “competitive,” or “always cheerful.” These traits are often the same as the role expectations attached to our various statuses as professionals, parents, athletes, or friends. If a person can play a number of different roles well, it can enhance her sense of self, but it is not always easy to juggle the varying demands and expectations associated with multiple roles. Sometimes problems arise in our everyday STATUS a position in a social lives because of our roles. hierarchy that carries a particular The story of professional set of expectations baseball player Daniel Murphy ASCRIBED STATUS a status illustrates some of these prob- that is inborn; usually difficult or lems. In 2014, Murphy and his impossible to change wife, Tori, were expecting a EMBODIED STATUS a baby whose due date coincided status generated by physical with the beginning of the base- characteristics ball season. Murphy ended up ACHIEVED STATUS a status taking three days off for the earned through individual effort birth of baby Noah and missed or imposed by others both the Mets’ season opener MASTER STATUS a status that and an away-game against is always relevant and affects all the Washington Nationals. As other statuses we possess a result of taking three days of paternity leave, Murphy STEREOTYPING judging others based on preconceived became the focus of an unexgeneralizations about groups or pected controversy as several categories of people high-profile sportscasters criticized him for missing work to ROLE the set of behaviors expected of someone because be with his family. This highof his or her status lights what is known as role conflict, a situation in which ROLE CONFLICT experienced two or more roles have con- when we occupy two or more roles with contradictory tradictory expectations. His expectations occupational role as professional athlete required actions ROLE STRAIN experienced that were seemingly incompat- when there are contradictory expectations within one role ible with his familial role as husband and father. Murphy chose his family over baseball, explaining in an interview, “My wife and I discussed it and we felt the best thing for our family was for me to try to stay” for a few days after the baby’s birth (Rubin 2014). Murphy’s situation may have caused him to experience role strain as well, which occurs when there are contradictory expectations within one single role a person plays: As a new father, Murphy was expected to be present and involved. But he was also expected to support his growing family financially Statuses and Roles 115 another cry. It would seem, then, that our emotions are the one thing about our lives that aren’t dictated by society, that can’t be explained with reference to sociological concepts or theories. Well, our emotions aren’t fully determined by society, but they are indeed social. We respond individually, but there also are social patterns in our emotional responses. For example, some emotional responses differ according to the culture— even an emotion as personal as grief, as noted in the Global Perspective box that follows. The Social Construction of Emotions Role Conflict Daniel Murphy, a professional baseball player, incited controversy when he missed Opening Day in order to be with his wife when their son was born. and this required him to be away from home. When the Mets later a role that we will no longer occupy traded Murphy to the Nationals, ROLE-TAKING EMOTIONS he may have experienced a proemotions such as sympathy, cess known as role exit, when embarrassment, or shame that a person leaves behind a role he require that we assume the once occupied. perspective of another person or You may not become a profesgroup and respond accordingly sional athlete with a new baby FEELING RULES norms regarding arriving on Opening Day, but it the expression and display of is certain that you will find youremotions; expectations about the self in situations where there are acceptable or desirable feelings competing demands between in a given situation multiple roles or within a single EMOTION WORK (EMOTIONAL role you play. How will you LABOR) the process of evoking, resolve those tensions? suppressing, or otherwise managing Statuses and roles help shape feelings to create a publicly observable display of emotion our identities by providing guidelines (sometimes formal, someCOPRESENCE face-to-face times informal) for our own interaction or being in the behavior and by providing the presence of others patterns that others use to interact with us. They are part of the construction of our social selves. ROLE EXIT the process of leaving Emotions and Personality As the Murphys’ experience demonstrates, role conflicts can be very emotional events. Our emotions are intensely personal responses to the unique situations of our lives. We react with happiness, anger, fear, or sorrow to our own experiences, as well as things that happen to others, even fictionalized events in books, movies, or video games. Individuals sometimes react very differently—what makes one person laugh may make 116 CHAPTER 4 Socialization, Interaction, and the Self Sometimes our interaction with others affects our emotional responses: we may yell angrily at a political rally along with everyone else, realizing only later that we don’t really feel that strongly about the issue at all; we may stifle our tears in front of the coach but shed them freely after the game. Role-taking emotions, such as sympathy, embarrassment, and shame, require that we be able to see things from someone else’s point of view. When a friend is injured in an accident, you know she is feeling pain, so you feel sympathy for her. Feeling rules (Hochschild 1975) are socially constructed norms regarding the appropriate feelings and displays of emotion. We are aware of the pressure to conform to feeling rules even when they are unspoken or we don’t agree with them (for example, “Boys don’t cry,” “No laughing at funerals”). Emotions are thus sociological phenomena, and our individual reactions are influenced (if not determined) by our social and cultural surroundings. Finally, emotions can also be influenced by social institutions, such as workplaces or religious groups. Arlie Hochschild’s (1983) study of flight attendants revealed that when airlines required their employees to be cheerful on the job, the employees’ authentic emotions were displaced (they weren’t necessarily always cheerful). Flight attendants were required to manage their own feelings as a requirement of their job— what Hochschild calls emotion work—maintaining a bright, perky, happy demeanor in-flight, no matter what they actually felt. Because of the structural pressures of emotion work, they became alienated from their own real feelings. Interacting Online As we learned in earlier chapters, sociological theories and approaches can change over time—indeed, they must. As the society around them changes, sociologists can’t always hold on to their tried-and-true ways of looking at the world. New and innovative approaches take the place of traditional paradigms. Most sociological perspectives on interaction, for example, focus on interactions that occur in copresence—that is, when individuals are in one another’s face-to-face, physical company. More and more, however, we find ourselves in situations outside physical copresence, aided by rapidly developing technologies. GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE Cross-Cultural Responses to Grief W hen it comes to emotions, grief seems to be one of the strongest. No matter what we believe about the afterlife (or lack thereof ), we mourn the passing of our loved ones. In many different societies, the cultural practices surrounding grief and mourning are directed toward giving the deceased a proper send-off and comforting those left behind. But you might be surprised at what other cultures consider comforting in times of grief! For example, Maoris (the native people of New Zealand) believe that death is not final until all funeral rites are complete—which takes an entire year. Though the body is buried after three days, the relatives and friends of the deceased speak of and to her as if she were alive until the year of mourning is complete. The Roma (often incorrectly referred to as “Gypsies”) mourn in particularly intense and public ways: both men and women refuse to wash, shave, or comb their hair, neglect to eat for three days, and absorb themselves totally in the process of mourning, sometimes to the point of harming themselves. In addition to this passionate grieving, Roma mourners provide the dead with clothes, money, and other useful objects for their journey to the afterlife. In contrast to Western societies, where black is the prevailing color of grief, Roma mourners traditionally wear white clothes, and the favored color for funeral decorations is red. Red is also the color of grief for the Ashanti of Ghana, who wear red clothing, smear red clay on their arms and foreheads, and wear headbands festooned with red peppers. Proper Ashanti expressions of grief are distinguished by gender: women must wail, and men must fire guns into the air. In fact, the amount of gunpowder used in a funeral is considered a mark of the grieving family’s status in the community. When mourning their dead, many cultures, including the Irish, hold “wakes”: long-lasting, heavily attended parties honoring and celebrating the lives of the dead. At a wake, while tears may fall, there is also likely to be singing, dancing, drinking, laughing, and all manner of seemingly celebratory emotional outbursts. So despite the fact that all cultures mourn and all individuals feel grief, we express those emotions in different ways depending on the society of which we are a part. Businesspeople can hold video conferences with colleagues in other cities. The lovelorn can seek relationship advice and find prospective mates online. Students can text their friends at faraway colleges and carry on real-time conversations using Skype or Facetime. Doctors on the mainland can perform remote robotic surgery on shipboard patients in the middle How Different Cultures Grieve Maori warriors row a coffin to their burial ground (top), mourning Roma women weep over a coffin (center), and Ashanti women practice a traditional funeral dance (bottom). of the ocean. Do conventional theories have the explanatory power to encompass these new ways of interacting? And since interaction is vital to the development of the self, how do these new ways of interacting create new types of social identities? Researchers like Josh Meyrowitz (1985), Marc Smith and Peter Kollock (1998), Steve Jones (1997), Philip Howard (Jones Interacting Online 117 ON THE JOB The Wages of Emotion Work I n her groundbreaking work The Managed Heart, sociologist Arlie Hochschild (1983) introduced the concept of emotion work, or the ways in which workers are expected to manage—and sell—their feelings in the name of good service. Conducted in the 1980s, Hochschild’s research focused on flight attendants. The almost entirely female corps of flight attendants was required to present a cheerful and calm front regardless of how they felt on the inside or how badly they were treated by passengers. The airlines promised pretty, perky, and perfectly obliging stewardesses as part of their ad campaigns, raising clients’ gendered and sexualized expectations for their onboard experiences. In the years since this landmark book, other researchers have explored the role of gender, sex, and emotional labor in many different types of service work. But flight attendants remain the archetypal emotion workers—stuck at 30,000 feet with demanding, irate, and/or sexually aggressive clients, in an industry where smiling subservience is a job requirement. A recent book, Louwanda Evans’s Cabin Pressure: African American Pilots, Flight Attendants and Emotional Labor (2011), adds a new dimension—race—to Hochschild’s concept of emotional labor. Black pilots work in a setting dominated by white men (less than 1 percent of commercial airline pilots are black), and black flight attendants work in a setting dominated by white women (about 14 percent of flight attendants are black) (2011, p. 6). This means that in addition to the emotional labor expected of all crew Emotion Work at 30,000 Feet Black pilots and black flight attendants must manage their emotions when they confront racism on the job. 118 CHAPTER 4 Socialization, Interaction, and the Self members, black crew members must manage their own and their passengers’ emotions around race, racialized stereotypes, and other types of race-based expectations. For example, black pilots describe over and over again the assumptions made about them by passengers: that they are incompetent and unqualified compared to their white counterparts. This is a tough emotional burden to bear while on the job. “The black pilot has to prove that he’s not a jackass. You are assumed to be inept,” said one of the pilots Evans interviewed (2011, p. 17). Another pilot overheard a passenger in the boarding area complain to the gate agent: “That [N-word] better not be flying my plane” (2011, p. 1). Flight attendants, who have the most intensive in-flight contact with passengers, bear the burden of racialized emotion work as well. One senior black flight attendant describes what happened when she offered a white male passenger a drink: “Would you mind getting someone else to bring me my drink? I would prefer you not touch my cup.” Initially, I thought that maybe it was something religious and based on my gender because we get that sometimes. But then a white female flight attendant served him his Coke with no problems. I was shocked and upset, and as a matter of fact, I did not want him to have a drink at all! (2011, p. 1) The problem for emotional laborers, of course, is that it doesn’t matter what they want, or how they feel, or how they might like to respond to a rude or racist customer. It is a requirement of their job that they keep smiling, get the passenger what he or she wants (in this case, a drink served by white hands), and force themselves not to show how they really feel. The rise of the service economy has led to what Hochschild refers to as the “commercialization of feeling” (1983). Emotion work is a requirement of many different types of work, including retail sales workers, front desk receptionists, restaurant wait staff, even your Uber driver eager for that five-star rating (Stark, 2016). In fact, you probably have a job that requires at least some emotional labor. Are there gendered, racialized, or sexualized aspects to that work? Are you expected to keep your mouth shut when clients, customers, patients, or passengers say or do something you don’t like? Are you required to do it while trapped in an airtight, enclosed space five miles above the earth? Will this change how you see and treat the flight crew the next time you board an airplane? and Howard 2003), and Barry Wellman (2004) were among the pioneers in the sociology of technologically mediated interaction. They looked at how we began interacting with each other in virtual space and via electronic media—and how we interacted with the machines themselves. Today, people like Sherry Turkle, who directs the Initiative on Technology and the Self at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), study different ways that technology and identity intersect—through our use of computers, robots, technologically sophisticated toys, and so on (1997, 2005). In Alone Together (2011), Turkle focuses on the problems of the social media age. Online interactions allow us to contain and reduce risks—not risk to life and limb, necessarily, but risk to self. When we interact online, we can control when, where, and how we communicate. This means that, if we want, we can keep others at arm’s length, which further allows us to perform a self that may or may not correspond to who we are in real life. We have become less willing to take risks in terms of forging intimate bonds online, and while we may have lots of connections (friends, fans, followers), we experience less depth in our relationships with them. Turkle believes that we all lose something in a world of mediated relationships, and her latest work, Reclaiming Conversation (2015), contains a call to put down our devices, pull up a chair, and talk to one another in real, old-fashioned copresence. Turkle is concerned that when we replace face-to-face communication with tweets, texts, and snaps, our ability to conduct meaningful face-to-face communication atrophies and with it our capacity for empathy. danah boyd is slightly less gloomy about technology. She finds that Internet users—especially teens—seek private spaces in which to conduct their personal relationships and view online environments like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter as places that can offer such privacy. They invite only their close friends into their electronic circles and then use those virtual spaces as getaways from the pressures of parents, teachers, and other adults. This is contrary to the ways that adults use social media—grownups tweet and post to expand their social circles and spread the word about their accomplishments, while teens do so only for the chosen few. The differences in generational cohorts’ perspectives on online interaction are conveyed by the title of boyd’s book: It’s Complicated (2014). These and other researchers seek answers to the following question: Who will we become as we increasingly interact with and through digital technologies? Their work is helping sociology enter the age of interactive media and giving us new ways of looking at interactions and identities. Postmodern theorists claim that the role of technology in interaction is one of the primary features of postmodern life. They believe that in the Information Age, social thinkers must arrive at new ways to explain the development of the self in light of the digital media that inundate our social world (Holstein and Gubrium 2000). We are now exposed to more sources and multiple points of view that may shape our sense of self and socialize us in different ways than ever before (Gottschalk 1993). Kenneth Gergen (1991) coined the term the saturated self to refer to this phenomenon and claims that Mediating Interaction With new technologies like Facetime, we can interact with each other outside of physical copresence. How will these new technologies affect our interactions and identities? the postmodern individual tends SATURATED SELF a postmodern to have a “pastiche personalidea that the self is now developed ity,” one that “borrow[s] bits and by multiple influences chosen from pieces of identity from whatever a wide range of media sources sources are available” (p. 150). AGENCY the ability of the individual What this means is that the self to act freely and independently is being constructed in new ways that were unforeseen by early symbolic interactionists, who could not have imagined that interaction would one day include so many possible influences from both the real world and the world of virtual reality. CLOSING COMMENTS By now you may be wondering, are we all just prisoners of socialization? How much freedom do we really have if we are all shaped and influenced to such an extent by others and by society? Are our ideas of ourselves as individuals—unique and independent—just a sorry illusion? It is true that the process of socialization can be rather homogenizing. And it tends to be conservative, pushing people toward some sort of lowest common denominator, toward the mainstream. But still, not everybody ends up the same. In fact, no two people are ever really alike. Despite all the social forces at play in creating the individual, the process by which we gain a sense of self, or become socialized members of society, is never wholly finished. We are not just passive recipients of all the influences around us. We are active participants. We possess what is called agency, meaning that we are spontaneous, intelligent, and creative. We exercise free will. Symbolic interactionism tells us that we are always doing the work of interpreting, defining, making sense of, and responding to our social environment. That gives us a great deal of personal power in every social situation. The process is not unilateral; rather, it is reciprocal and multidirectional. Remember that you are shaping society as much as it is shaping you Closing Comments 119 Everything You Need to Know about Socialization “ Socialization is the process of learning and internalizing the values, beliefs, and norms of our social groups, by which we become functioning members of society. “ 120 AGENTS OF SOCIALIZATION ✱ Family: The original group to which people belong, where early emotional and social bonds are created, language is learned, and where we first begin to internalize the norms and values of society. ✱ School: Helps people become less dependent on their family and provides a bridge to other social groups. ✱ Peers: Provide young people with a way of exercising independence from, and possibly reacting against, adult control. ✱ Mass media: Entertains, informs, educates, and is responsible for the internalization of many values, beliefs, and norms of society. REVIEW 1. Think about a social issue about which you hold a very different opinion than your grandparents or people their age, such as drug legalization, sexual mores, or even fashion. How might this difference of opinion be the result of different socialization? 2. According to Erving Goffman, we all engage in impression management to control what others think of us. Choose one interaction, and list every aspect of the personal front you use to manage the impression you create. 3. Describe yourself in terms of your statuses and roles. Which are master statuses? Which roles are less important? Which statuses have changed over the course of your lifetime? Which roles do you anticipate occupying in the future? EXPLORE Harry’s Law, Girls, and the Media Marketplace Does popular entertainment provide an accurate representation of society? What does learning about society through television tell us? Visit the Everyday Sociology blog to explore these questions through the lens of HBO’s show Girls. http://wwnPag.es/trw404 121 CHAPTER 5 Separate and Together: Life in Groups f you’re a college student and a musician, we hope you’re not familiar with these terms and I their definitions: “hot seat” (being beaten with drum sticks, mallets, and straps while covered with a blanket in the back of the band bus) and “crossing over” (being kicked and hit by your bandmates as you run down the aisle of the bus). It might seem like being subjected to these brutal attacks would mean that it is time to quit the band. In reality, this ritual is how your bandmates might let you know that they want you to stay—and even advance in the band leadership hierarchy. But on November 19, 2011, this ritual went horribly wrong on the Florida 122 123 A&M University (FAMU) “Marching 100” band bus. Drum major Robert Champion suffered such severe injuries at the hands of his bandmates that he died at a hospital later that night. His family, friends, fellow musicians, and university community were grief-stricken, of course. But his death also touched off a national controversy over “hazing” that has yet to subside. The hazing process is meant to test newcomers and transform them into group members; if you can endure the abuse, you can be part of the group. Although hazing is usually associated with college fraternities, it has been known to occur in high school and college clubs, athletic teams, sororities, marching bands, and even church groups, as well as in police and fire departments and the military. Although hazing is against the law in almost every state and is usually prohibited by group charters, it is still a popular—though risky—way of initiating new members. Every year, it results in at least one death and countless injuries. All told, there have been over 150 hazing deaths among U.S. college students since 1970. Experts estimate that alcohol plays a major role in around 80 percent of these incidents (Nuwer 1999, 2004, 2016). The FAMU hazing has left a tragic legacy. Twelve of Champion’s bandmates were charged with manslaughter in his death and four were ultimately convicted and sentenced to prison. The band itself was suspended for nearly two years, the band director was fired, and the FAMU president resigned in the wake of the incident. In addition, Champion’s parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the university and were ultimately awarded $1.1 million and an apology. They later established the Robert D. Champion Drum Major for Change Foundation to help fight hazing in schools, bands, and athletics nationwide (Hudak 2015). Despite all of these devastating consequences, some of Champion’s bandmates have protested that he and other students volunteered to be hazed that night because they wanted to be able to move into leadership roles in the band. This fact highlights a key question in all hazing cases: who is responsible when the consequences of hazing include illegality, injury, or even death—the host group or the individual who submits to hazing? The relationship between the individual and the group is a complex one. We sometimes do things in groups, both good and bad, that we might never do as individuals. Exploring group dynamics from a sociological perspective can help us understand and even eliminate problems like hazing and maximize the benefits of group life as well. 124 CHAPTER 5 Separate and Together: Life in Groups HOW TO READ THIS CHAPTER This chapter explores some of the different ways we organize our lives in groups. Here you will gain some of the analytic tools you can use to understand the specific groups we’ll be investigating in later chapters. Concepts such as peer pressure, teamwork, bureaucratization, and anomie can be fruitfully applied to analyses of families, work and volunteer organizations, political groups, and religious communities. Consider this chapter an introduction to group dynamics in general—a springboard from which to begin our sociological analysis of particular types of groups. As you read, think about the groups you belong to and how they affect your values and behavior. What is your influence on such groups? Have you ever “gone along” with group rules but later wished you hadn’t? What Is a Group? We often use the term group to refer to any collection of two or more people who have something in common, whether it’s their appearance, culture, occupation, or just a physical proximity. When sociologists speak of a group or social group, however, they mean a collection of people who not only share some attribute but also identify with one another and have ongoing social relations—like a family, a Star Trek fan club, a soccer team, a sorority, or the guys you play poker with every month. A crowd, such as the throngs of sightseers at a tourist attraction or people who gather to watch a fire, would not usually be considered a group in the sociological sense. While crowd members do interact (Goffman 1971), they don’t necessarily have a sense of common identity, and they rarely assemble again once they disperse. Collections of people such as crowds, audiences, and queues are known as aggregates— people who happen to find themselves together in a particular physical location. People in aggregates don’t form lasting social relations, but people in groups do. Similarly, people belonging in the same category—everyone eighteen years of age or all owners of Chevy trucks, for example—don’t regularly interact with one another or have any common sense of connection other than their status in the category. Primary and Secondary Groups Groups in which we are intimately associated with the other members, such as families and close friends, are known as primary groups. Primary groups typically involve more face-to-face interaction, greater cooperation, and deeper feelings of belonging. Members often associate with each other for no other reason than to spend time together. Charles Horton Cooley (1909) introduced the term primary for this type of group because such groups have the most profound effects on us as individuals. Primary groups provide most of our emotional satisfaction through interaction with other members, are responsible for much of our socialization, and remain central to our identities throughout our lives. We measure who we are, and perhaps how we’ve changed, by the way we interact with primary group members. To Cooley (as we saw in Chapter 4), primary groups represent the most important “looking glasses” in the formation of our social selves—they constitute our “significant others.” Larger, less intimate groups are known as secondary groups: GROUP a collection of people These include co-workers, col- who share some attribute, identify lege classes, athletic organiza- with one another, and interact tions, labor unions, and political with each other parties. Interaction here is more CROWD a temporary gathering of formal and impersonal. Second- people in a public place; members ary groups are usually organized might interact but do not identify around a specific activity or the with each other and will not accomplishment of a task. Mem- remain in contact bership is often temporary and AGGREGATES collections of does not usually carry the same people who share a physical potential for emotional satisfac- location but do not have lasting tion that primary group member- social relations ship does. Nonetheless, a great CATEGORY people who share deal of what we do involves sec- one or more attributes but who lack a sense of common identity ondary groups. Because secondary groups can or belonging include larger numbers of people PRIMARY GROUPS groups and be geographically diffuse, composed of the people who are membership can be almost com- most important to our sense of pletely anonymous. At the same self; members’ relationships are typically characterized by facetime, however, secondary group to-face interaction, high levels of membership often generates pri- cooperation, and intense feelings mary group ties as well. Close of belonging personal relationships can begin SECONDARY GROUPS groups with the more impersonal ties that are larger and less intimate of secondary groups (the friends than primary groups; members’ you make at work, for example) relationships are usually and are sometimes a direct out- organized around a specific goal growth of our attempts to coun- and are often temporary teract the depersonalizing nature of secondary groups. For this reason, it is sometimes difficult to classify a particular group. Your soccer team may indeed be goal oriented, but you’ve probably also developed personal ties to at least some of your teammates. So, is your team a primary or secondary group? It features elements of both, proving that real life can be even more complex than the models sociologists devise to explain it. There are other ways that seemingly insignificant relationships with near strangers can have a powerful and positive impact on our own lives. Many social researchers are interested in examining the ways in which people make up for What Is a Group? 125 Primary Groups Are Typically Families or Close Friends Deborah Daniels (front left, in pink) opened her home to four generations of her family after Hurricane Katrina destroyed their New Orleans homes in 2005. the loss of intimate contact that is commonly shared among those who belong to primary groups. Melinda Blau and Karen Fingerman (2009) have identified what they call “consequential strangers”—people we might not think of as mattering much to our sense of happiness or well-being but who nonetheless play an important role in our otherwise fragmented postmodern lives. These people are not total strangers but are more likely to be acquaintances from the places we work, shop, play, or conduct business—from the local barista at the coffeehouse or our favorite manicurist to the checkout clerk at the grocery SOCIAL NETWORK the web of store or that guy at the gym. These direct and indirect ties connecting an individual to other people who are people who become familiar may also affect the individual and essential parts of our everyday lives. These people serve as SOCIAL TIES connections social anchors, just as our close between individuals friends or family members do. Blau and Fingerman suggest that we need a new framework or perspective with which to look at the people in our world and perhaps to expand the number and range, as well as the value we ascribe to them. It seems that we need both primary and secondary relationships, as well as those along the continuum between the two. Social Networks You and your family, your friends, peers, colleagues, teachers, and co-workers constitute a social network. Sociologists who study networks call the connections between individuals 126 CHAPTER 5 Separate and Together: Life in Groups social ties. Social ties can be direct, such as the tie between you and your friend, or indirect, such as the tie between you and your friend’s cousin whom you’ve never met. To understand how a social network works, think of yourself at the center with lines connecting you to all your friends, family, peers, and so on. These lines represent direct ties. Now think about all the family, friends, and peers who belong to each of these people. The lines connecting you to this second group must pass through the people in your first network; this second set of lines represents indirect ties. Indirect ties can include business transactions—flows of goods, services, materials, or monies—between organizations or nations. They can even represent the flow of ideas. For instance, when you read ancient Greek philosophy, you become part of a network that spans centuries of writing, thinking, and educating. In Chapter 2 you learned about the principle of “six degrees of separation,” which suggests that everyone in the world is connected to everyone else within six steps: “If you know 100 people, and each of them knows 100 more, then you have 10,000 friends of friends. Take that a step further to three degrees and you are connected to 1 million people. At six degrees, the number increases to 9 billion” (Schofield 2004). This means, theoretically, that you’re connected to every human on the planet. It might be the case that somebody you know knows someone who knows somebody else who knows the president of the United States or a yak herdsman in the Himalayas; in other words, you might be separated from either of these others by just four degrees. Sociologists who study networks are concerned not only with how networks are constructed but also how influence moves along a network and, thus, which persons or organizations have more influence than others within the network. In his book Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age (2003), sociologist Duncan Watts examined not only the connections individuals have to one another but also how those connections shape our actions. He found, for example, that we may change our minds about whom to vote for if enough of our friends are voting for the other candidate. Social networks can help us understand everything from the spread of fads and fashions to the way people hear about job openings to how sexually transmitted diseases are spread among various segments of the population. WINNERS, LOSERS, AND INFLUENCE How does the flow of influence work at the level of an international organization? We could take the World Trade Organization (WTO) as an example. Comprising 161 member nations, the WTO monitors the trade rules among countries and resolves international disputes over trade. While all member nations are part of the network, they hold different positions of power within it. We might hypothesize that nations that win the most disputes have the most influence within the network. But Joseph Conti (2003, 2005, 2010) finds that while the United States, one of the most powerful members of the WTO, is involved in the vast majority of disputes, it usually loses. The question that remains for the network theorist is whether “winning” or “losing” is an effective way to measure influence. What Conti concludes is that America’s centrality, a network analysis term that means an actor with the most ties in a given network, is what gives it powerful influence and not the actual outcomes of the disputes. JOBS, GENDER, AND NETWORKS How does the flow of influence work at the level of interactions between individuals? Sociologists look at how personal ties, both direct and indirect, can influence a person’s life. In the pathbreaking work “The Strength of Weak Ties” (1973), Mark Granovetter measured how a person’s distant relatives and acquaintances, attached to different social networks, pass along information about job opportunities. An individual with high socioeconomic status, or SES (taking into account income, education, and occupation), for example, usually has relatives and acquaintances with similarly high SES. Because those relatives and acquaintances belong to different social networks, all with high SES, the job seeker now has indirect connections with a vast array of high-SES contacts who can provide job leads. In other words, if your father, mother, and sister are all actors, you would likely “inherit” a network of acting contacts. The implications of Granovetter’s findings are that people tend to form homogeneous social networks—to have direct ties to those who are like themselves, whether through race, class background, national origin, or religion. Further, individuals with low SES are likely to form direct ties to others with low SES and thus indirect ties as well. Information about job opportunities is less likely to travel along those networks. More recent findings about the strength of weak ties, from Matt Hoffman and Lisa Torres (2002), indicate that women who are part of networks that include more men than women are more likely to hear about good job leads. But if their networks include more women than men, then those same women are less likely to hear about quality jobs. The number of men or women within a man’s network doesn’t seem to matter; men are just as likely to get quality information about job opportunities from both men and women in their social networks. Hoffman and Torres offer two rationales to explain their findings. First, women are simply less likely than men to hear about job leads. Second, women who do hear about job leads are more likely to pass along that information to men; they may feel threatened by the idea of more women in their places of employment and fear loss of their own jobs. So our networks work for us, but they may also work against us. SEXUAL HEALTH AND NETWORKS Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler (2009, 2013) provide another example of how transmission happens between individuals belonging to similar social networks. They explain two principles: first, all social networks have a connection, and second, there is contagion, which refers to what flows through social ties. While we may have complete control over whom we are connected to directly, we exert little control over our indirect connections. Contagion not only influences an individual’s health but also can spread everything from obesity to smoking and substance abuse. For example, sexually transmitted diseases are more likely among people who have had four or more partners in the past year. In particular, whites who have many partners tend to have sex with other whites who have many partners, and whites who have few partners tend to have sex with whites who have few partners. STDs, then, are kept in “core” groups of active white partners and are found less often in less active groups. This spread of STDs can be seen as a literal consequence of the contagion principle of social networks. When we think of someone as being “well connected,” we imagine that they not only have lots of close friends but also might have relationships and acquaintances in a large and diverse social circle. As the old adage goes, it’s not what you know, it’s who you know. And who they know, and who they know—and now you have a social network. Separate from Groups: Anomie or Virtual Membership? According to Durkheim, all the social groups with which we are connected (families, peers, co-workers, and so on) have this particular feature: the norms of the group place certain limits on our individual actions. For example, you may have wanted to backpack through Europe after you graduated from high school, but your parents demanded that you stay home, work, and save money for college. Durkheim argues that we need these limits—otherwise, we would want many things we could never have, and the lengths to which we would go in search of our unattainable desires would be boundless. Think about it: if you were always searching for but never getting the things you wanted, you would be very unhappy and over time might even become suicidal. Durkheim (1893/1964) called such a state of normlessness anomie and believed that group membership keeps us from feeling it. So group membership not only anchors us to the social world—it’s what keeps us alive. Durkheim was worried that in our increasingly fragmented modern society, anomie would become more and more common. Other scholars share Durkheim’s position, noting that Americans today are less likely than ever to belong to the types of civic organizations and community groups that can combat ANOMIE “normlessness”; term anomie and keep us connected used to describe the alienation to one another. Harvard profes- and loss of purpose that result sor Robert Putnam, in his book from weaker social bonds and an Bowling Alone: The Collapse and increased pace of change Revival of American Community Separate from Groups: Anomie or Virtual Membership? 127 IN THE FUTURE What Happens to Group Ties in a Virtual World? irtual reality (VR) is no longer the stuff of science fiction. In fact, VR has recently gone from being a technology that most of us simply imagined or read about to one that has begun to appear in peoples’ homes, with Facebook, Google, Sony, and Microsoft all bringing new products to market. For example, Oculus Rift is a virtual reality headset that creates an immersive 3D vision and sound experience (Urstadt and Frier 2016). When Mark Zuckerberg bought the company behind Oculus Rift for $2 billion, he said in his announcement, “Imagine enjoying a courtside seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face just by putting on goggles in your home.” As Zuckerberg highlighted, virtual reality offers not only the potential for enhanced games but also may increase access to the arts, medicine, education, and even travel for all members of society. If a musician performs a concert in virtual reality, will all concertgoers be able to access frontrow seats, indicating a leveling of class-based access to consumer products, or will industries replicate real-world inequalities in the services and products offered in virtual reality? VR also has the potential to create greater empathy and understanding across cultures; filmmakers and journalists have a new tool to bring us closer to the lives of others (Berman 2017). As part of a campaign to highlight the plight of refugees, the United Nations released the first-ever VR film, Clouds over Sidra, which drops viewers inside Jordan’s Zaatari refugee camp. And virtual reality doesn’t simply end at visual and mental stimulation. Japanese developer Tenga has created a fullbody virtual interface that includes not only a headset but also a bodysuit with sensors that send impulses all over the wearer’s body to make it feel like the wearer is being touched by another human being. It might not be a surprise to learn that companies like Tenga are using VR to simulate sexual contact and thereby capitalize on the lucrative market for adult toys. If we no longer have to meet up in physical places to engage in such activities, how will this shape our relationships with family, friends, and even strangers? In the future, with virtual reality and full-body sensors, you might be able to experience giving a hug to a loved one in another part V 128 CHAPTER 5 Separate and Together: Life in Groups of the country, or doctors might be able to virtually guide mechanized surgical equipment to provide medical services to those in geographically remote locations. Virtual realities might alter nearly everything we do in the future, which can raise some real anxieties. How far will such technologies reach into our lives and in what ways? Is doing something in virtual reality the same as doing it in “meatspace” (the physical world)? How do the experiences compare? For example, for years, researchers and educators have been concerned with the effectiveness of online courses as compared to face-to-face instruction. How will virtual reality factor into that debate? Will VR eliminate the need for physical classrooms? Virtual reality has seemingly unlimited potential. You and your friends might all be able to watch a movie in a VR theater each from your own homes but experience it together. You could join them to tour museums across the globe, attend lectures at Harvard University, walk the streets through one of Rio de Janeiro’s favelas, or climb Mount Everest together. But just because you’re capable of doing something with other people in virtual reality doesn’t necessarily mean you won’t opt to do it alone. Will technologies such as this bring us closer together or drive us further apart? Virtual Reality Will VR facilitate relationships and civic engagement? Or will this new technology undermine our “real world” connections? The Good Old Days? In Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam argues that the decline of group activities, such as bingo nights or league bowling, represents a decline in civic engagement. However, technologies such as the Internet and social networking sites have allowed large numbers of people to gather, connect, and avoid anomie. (2000), argues that we no longer practice the type of “civic engagement” that builds democratic community and keeps anomie at bay: Fewer people bowl in leagues than ever before, and people are less likely to participate in organizations like the League of Women Voters, PTA, or Kiwanis or engage in regular activities like monthly bridge games or Sunday picnics. He even offers statistics on how many angry drivers “flip the bird” at other drivers every year—all part of his argument about our disintegrating collective bonds. Putnam’s critics argue that he longs for the “good ol’ days” that will never be again (and perhaps never were). It may be true that we don’t belong to bridge clubs anymore, but we have a new set of resources to help us connect with others and avoid anomie. In the years since Putnam’s influential work first appeared, there has been an explosion of new technologies, and with it, some similar debates about the potential effects on social life. Some social thinkers are concerned that the Internet will only serve to exacerbate our condition of isolation and separation from one another. They argue that the Internet makes us more lonely, replacing our face-to-face bonds with a set of “broader but shallower” online connections that don’t really do the trick (Marche 2012). This argument also includes the criticism that we are more disconnected from our communities as a result of our immersion in online worlds: we are not as committed to civic life, local politics, or public service as we should be or once were. Even scholars who once saw promise in the rise of the Internet, such as MIT’s Sherry Turkle (2011, 2015), now worry that we have come to prioritize technologies over relationships and that, furthermore, we may need to unplug from our devices in order to reclaim the most basic person-to-person connections. Findings from the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project (Greenwood et al. 2016; Hampton et al. 2011; Lenhart 2015) contradict many of these tech-induced anxieties. According to Pew, users of social media may actually be more connected with others than nonusers. Facebook users were found to have more close relationships and higher levels of social support and to be more trusting of others and more politically engaged than users of other social media and nonusers. In addition, sociologists Eric Klinenberg (2012a) and Claude Fischer (2011) make the case that, despite a rise in social media use and an increase in single-person households, Americans are no more or less lonely or detached from one another than they have ever been. The Internet has made it possible for people who might not otherwise have met to come together—albeit in cyberspace— and to belong to a variety of online groups. From participants involved in massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs), such as World of Warcraft or Second Life, to support groups that “meet” regularly to deal with personal issues or medical conditions, to fans of different authors, bands, artists, or filmmakers swapping comments, technology offers us new opportunities to connect by making us members of virtual communities. So what will the future hold with regard to technology and our relationships with one another? To answer that, we might actually want to look to the past. Remember Émile Durkheim’s concerns about anomie and modern life? Durkheim was worried that the technological and cultural changes that accompanied the Industrial Revolution would cause VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES people to become more disconsocial groups whose interactions nected from one another and are mediated through that this disconnection would information technologies, be detrimental both to individu- particularly the Internet als (who might be more likely to Separate from Groups: Anomie or Virtual Membership? 129 commit suicide as a result) and for society (which would lack necessary cohesion and solidarity). Over a hundred years later, critics have similar concerns about the changes being ushered in by the Digital Age. It seems that rapid changes in technology and society, no matter what they look like or when they occur, induce anxiety. DATA WORKSHOP Analyzing Media and Pop Culture “Who’s in Your Feed?” Did you know that almost 70 percent of all adults—and 86 percent of young adults between the ages of eighteen and twentynine—use some kind of social networking site? That Facebook has more than 1 billion daily active users, that 500 million tweets are sent on Twitter every day, or that more than 30 billion photos have been uploaded to Instagram? And then there’s also the tens (or hundreds) of millions of things that are happening right now on LinkedIn, Pinterest, and Snapchat. The statistics for social media usage are astounding. And there’s a good chance you’re adding to those numbers with each status update, selfie, or pin. The skyrocketing popularity of social networking sites has social scientists scrambling to keep up with studying what this rapidly evolving technology means not only for our personal identity and everyday lives but also for our relationships with others and the nature of social interaction in groups. The very idea of what constitutes a group has changed, and sociologists have had to broaden their definition of the term to include what people are doing in online or virtual communities. If people gather together to share interests, offer advice, provide support, or exchange ideas but never meet in person, are they still a group? In sociological terms, we can see how social networking can help us make the most of our primary and secondary group connections. It is easier than ever to stay in touch with the important people in our lives (even if they are not in close physical proximity) and reconnect with old acquaintances. Social networking has brought people together who might not have otherwise been able to find each other in the past, when it was not possible to search for others based on their common interests, backgrounds, and demographic details. Now you can find that long-lost 130 CHAPTER 5 Separate and Together: Life in Groups friend from fifth grade, meet new people who are into the same things as you, or keep tabs on someone you already see on a daily basis. So, who’s in your feed? For this Data Workshop you will be conducting interviews to find out how people use social networking in their everyday lives and its role in shaping individual and group identity online. You’ll begin to see how group life is created, maintained, and changed online by group members who might share many things in common— especially other people. Your task will be to construct a set of interview questions and to gather responses from subjects you recruit to take part in your pilot study. Then you can make some preliminary analyses based on your findings. Refer to the section on interviews in Chapter 2 for a review of this research method. There are several choices to make in the way you structure your research project. Because this is such a small-scale study, you do not need to take a scientific sample, but you should include members of the target population you want to study—for example, college students or lacrosse players. Because there are many social networking sites that people use, you will also need to choose whether to focus on just one, such as Facebook, or to make your questions apply more broadly to multiple sites. You’ll need to customize your interview questions accordingly. Here are some questions to get you started. You may choose some or all of these, modify them as needed, put them in a different order, or add some questions of your own. ✱ What social networking sites do you use? When, where, and how often? ✱ How do you decide to whom to send friend/ connection/follower requests? ✱ How do you decide from whom to accept friend/ connection/follower requests? ✱ How many people do you feel comfortable having on your friends/connections/followers list? ✱ How many of the people in your social network do you know in real life? ✱ Are there people in your life with whom you refuse to interact on social media? ✱ Are your networks public or for approved friends/ connections/followers only? ✱ When you look at your list of friends/connections/ followers, how much diversity is there in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, class, age, sexuality, geographic location, or other factors? DYAD ✱ What do you like to do most on social networking sites? ✱ How often do you post to social networking sites? B A One Relationship ✱ Does your friends/connections/followers list affect TRIAD what you decide to post online? A ✱ What kinds of groups have you joined online? Why? ✱ Does social networking help you feel more con- nected to others? Why or why not? ✱ What other functions does social networking play C B Three Relationships in your life? GROUP OF FOUR There are two options for completing this Data Workshop: PRE P- PA IR- SH A RE Construct your interview questions and obtain some initial responses from yourself and one or two others. Jot down some notes about your preliminary findings. Bring your questionnaire to class and interview a partner. Discuss your answers and what else you might like to know about social networking. Listen for any differences in others’ insights. A C B D Six Relationships GROUP OF FIVE B DO - IT-YOU RSE L F Conduct a small pilot study on social networking. Prepare a questionnaire and interview three to five respondents. Ask permission if you would like to record their answers. Write a three- to four-page essay discussing your experience and preliminary findings. What more would you like to know about social networking? A C E D Ten Relationships Figure 5.1 The Effects of Group Size on Relationships Group Dynamics Sociologists have always been interested in how groups form, change, disintegrate, achieve great goals, or commit horrendous wrongs. Add all these phenomena together and they constitute group dynamics. How do groups affect an individual’s sense of self? What forces bind members to a group? How do groups influence their members? When do groups excel at the tasks they undertake? What are the qualities of group leaders? When are groups destructive to the individual? How can relations between groups be improved? We will attempt to answer some of these questions in the next sections. Dyads, Triads, and More The size of a group affects how it operates and the types of individual relationships that can occur within it (Figure 5.1). A dyad, the smallest possible social group, consists of only two members—a romantic couple, two best friends, or two Smaller groups feature fewer and more intimate personal ties; larger groups feature more relationships, but they are also likely to be more impersonal. siblings, for example (Simmel 1950). Although relationships in a dyad are usually intense, dyads are also fundamentally unstable, because if one person wants out of the group, it’s over. A triad is slightly more stable because the addition of a third person means that conflicts between two members can be refereed by the third. As GROUP DYNAMICS the patterns additional people are added to of interaction between groups and individuals a group, it may no longer be possible for everyone to know or DYAD a two-person social group interact with everyone else per- TRIAD a three-person social sonally (think of all the residents group of a large apartment building), Group Dynamics 131 IN RELATIONSHIPS Social Networking: You’re Not the Customer—You’re the Product ocial networking sites have come a long way since the early days of the Internet. Today Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram are all in the top twenty-five most visited sites by Internet users in the United States. Facebook alone boasts more than 1 billion active daily users. The rise of social networking has been so rapid that social scientists can barely keep pace with studying what this new technology means, but it has become clear that when social networks become online social networks, they also become big business. “When something online is free, you’re not the customer, you’re the product.” This aphorism seems to have been independently coined by a number of different people, and it expresses one of the most significant features of social networking websites. Online, social networks exist because businesses like Facebook facilitate them. For everyone who participates, the rewards and benefits are obvious—staying in touch with faraway friends and family, sharing photos of cute babies and kittens, organizing for political change. But are there risks as well? In 2014 researchers at Facebook and Cornell University published a paper arguing that “emotional states can be transferred to others via emotional contagion, leading people to experience the same emotions without their awareness,” and this can happen through exposure to emotionally charged posts on Facebook (Kramer, Guillory, and Hancock 2014). The researchers wondered if “exposure to emotional content led people to post content that was consistent with the exposure.” Does seeing happy posts lead to more happy posts, and seeing sad posts lead to more downbeat ones? To test this hypothesis, Facebook performed an experiment on almost 700,000 users. Every time someone logs into Facebook, the site displays a newsfeed of posts by people in their network; however, rather than simply displaying every post, Facebook uses an algorithm to pick a smaller subset of material. For one week Facebook tweaked this algorithm so hundreds of thousands of unwitting users saw posts that were either slightly more positive, or slightly more negative, than usual. Researchers then analyzed the emotional content of the posts created by their test subjects and determined that the users who saw happier content wrote posts with more positive words, while users who saw more depressing content created posts with more negative words. An uproar followed the publication of these findings. Not only did Facebook experiment on people without their knowledge or permission, but they did so in a way that caused emotional harm. Facebook was almost universally condemned, and the lead investigator of the study issued a public apology. However, not everyone thought Facebook was in the wrong. Their most prominent defender was Christian and so policies may have to be established to enable communione identifies with and feels cation and resolve conflicts. The loyalty toward features of dyads and triads point OUT-GROUP a group toward out an important axiom of group which an individual feels dynamics in general: The smaller opposition, rivalry, or hostility a group is, the more likely it is to be based on personal ties; larger groups are more likely to be based on rules and regulations (as we’ll see later when we examine bureaucracies). stemming from our ethnic, familial, professional, athletic, and educational backgrounds, for example. Group loyalty and cohesion intensify when differences are strongly defined between the “us” of an in-group and the “them” of an out-group; we may also feel a sense of superiority toward those who are excluded from our in-group. School sports rivalries make clear in-group and out-group distinctions, as evident in this popular slogan seen on T-shirts and bumper stickers all over Los Angeles: “My favorite teams are UCLA and whoever’s playing USC!” As we might expect, in-group membership can be a source of prejudice and discrimination based on class, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or political opinion. The differences attributed to an out-group often become exaggerated, if not entirely fabricated to begin with: “All Irishmen are drunks” or “All Mexicans are lazy,” for example. Robert Merton (1968) noted how the same qualities or behaviors that are viewed positively when they are “ours” are viewed negatively S IN-GROUP a group that In-Groups and Out-Groups An in-group is a group a member identifies with and feels loyalty toward. Members usually feel a certain distinctness from or even hostility toward other groups, known as out-groups. Most of us are associated with a number of in- and out-groups, 132 CHAPTER 5 Separate and Together: Life in Groups Rudder, the co-founder of dating/social networking website OkCupid. In the aftermath of Facebook’s experiment he posted a blog entry on OkCupid titled “We Experiment on Human Beings!” Rudder is unapologetic about OkCupid’s practices and doesn’t think anyone should be upset at Facebook either: “We noticed recently that people didn’t like it when Facebook ‘experimented’ with their newsfeed. . . . Guess what, everybody: If you use the Internet, you’re the subject of hundreds of experiments at any given time, on every site. That’s how websites work.” Although he detailed a number of “experiments,” the one that got the most attention was based on OkCupid’s “match percentage.” OkCupid asks users a number of questions and then matches people who answered in complementary ways. For this experiment they took people who were only a 30 percent match and told them they were a 90 percent match. They found that when people were told they were a better match, the odds of them carrying on a conversation online did in fact increase, but some were shocked that a site dedicated to helping people find love would resort to this kind of deception. Facebook apologized for the way it handled the publication of the experiment, while OkCupid seemed positively proud of its practices, but neither organization said anything to indicate that they would stop doing such experiments. Online social networks are an increasingly important part of people’s lives, but the consequences of giving so much power over our personal lives to a for-profit business are still not well understood. What does it mean to live in a world where a corporation has a profit motive to meddle in our social networks? when they are “theirs”: the out-group is “lazy,” whereas the ingroup is “laid-back”; they are “snobbish,” we are “classy”; they are “zealots,” we are “devout.” At their worst, in-group/outgroup dynamics create the backdrop for such social tragedies as slavery and genocide. don’t see ourselves as having the same desirable qualities, we may adopt a negative self-image. We make such comparisons often, evaluating whether and how we measure up to those who provide a model or benchmark for us. A reference group may also be one to which we aspire to belong but of which we are not yet a member. Take a professional group, for example. If someday we plan on becoming a REFERENCE GROUP a group nurse or lawyer, we may look to that provides a standard of those groups and wonder if we, comparison against which we evaluate ourselves too, have what it takes to join their ranks. We can base our comparisons on real people we know or on fictional characters we see in film and TV or online. We may even compare ourselves to celebrities or sports stars; while it’s unlikely we’ll join their ranks, the glitterati can still serve as a powerful reference group, influencing our actions and our own sense of self. Reference Groups Our perception of a group and what it takes to be a bona fide member can be crucial to our sense of self. When a group provides standards by which a person evaluates his own personal attributes, it is known as a reference group. A common reference group is one’s peers. We might ask ourselves: Am I maintaining a higher or lower grade point average than other students in my class? Am I faster or slower than other runners on the track team? We often try to live up to the standards of our peers and compare ourselves to them. If we Social Networks Are Big Business Facebook conducted an experiment on users of the social networking site to determine whether emotional states can be transferred via contagion. Group Dynamics 133 DATA WORKSHOP Analyzing Everyday Life The Twenty Statements Test: Who Am I? The Twenty Statements Test (TST) is a wellknown instrument that is widely used to measure self-concept. The TST was originally developed in the 1950s by social psychologist Manfred Kuhn as a way of determining the degree to which we base our self-concepts on our membership in different groups (Kuhn and McPartland 1954). Group affiliation proved to be a significant and prevalent quality that defined Americans of the 1950s and 1960s. In the following decades, the TST was adopted by other researchers for its ease of use and ability to provide direct firsthand data from respondents. Despite some methodological critiques, the TST has been used to examine the self-concept of members of various ethnic, gender, and generational groups, as well as to make cross-cultural comparisons (Carpenter and Meade-Pruitt 2008). In some of the earliest and most influential work using the TST, Louis Zurcher (1977) studied the changing self-images of Americans in the 1970s and 1980s. Zurcher found that respondents in this later group were more likely to base their self-concept on individual traits and independent action rather than on group membership. These results represented a major shift in how people defined themselves and, perhaps, in society as a whole. Zurcher and his colleague Ralph Turner (1976) became concerned about this shift away from group identification and toward a more radically individualistic sense of self. Why were they so concerned? We might also ask, what are people like now? Have things continued to change since the 1980s? What can the TST tell us about contemporary society and ourselves today? For this Data Workshop, you will be using the Twenty Statements Test to examine how self-concept is defined within a particular group of respondents. The TST is a questionnaire that elicits open-ended responses; it can be treated as a quasi-survey research method. Return to the section in Chapter 2 for a review of survey research. We have provided a format for the questionnaire. Start by completing Steps 1 and 2 and taking this simple test yourself. Then we will find out more about what your responses mean—for you and for society, in Step 3. 134 CHAPTER 5 Separate and Together: Life in Groups Step 1: The Twenty Statements Test (TST) In the spaces provided below, write down twenty different responses to the question “Who am I?” Don’t worry about evaluating the logic or importance of your responses— just write the statements quickly and in whatever order they occur to you. Leave the “Response Mode” spaces blank for the moment; they will be used for scoring after you have completed the statements. Give yourself five minutes to complete this task. Statements Response Mode 1. I am . 2. I am . 3. I am . 4. I am . 5. I am . 6. I am . 7. I am . 8. I am . 9. I am . 10. I am . 11. I am . 12. I am . 13. I am . 14. I am . 15. I am . 16. I am . 17. I am . 18. I am . 19. I am . 20. I am . TOTALS: A-Mode: B-Mode: C-Mode: D-Mode: Step 2: Scoring Now it’s time to score your responses according to the following four categories. Evaluate, to the best of your ability, which responses fall into the A-mode, B-mode, C-mode, and D-mode categories. A-mode responses are physical characteristics of the type that might be found on your driver’s license: “I am a blonde”; “I am short”; “I am a Wisconsin resident”; “I am strong”; “I am tired.” B-mode responses describe socially defined roles and statuses usually associated with group membership of some sort: “I am a college student”; “I am a Catholic”; “I am an African American”; “I am a quarterback”; “I am a daughter”; “I am a sales clerk.” C-mode responses reflect personal traits, styles of behavior, or emotional states: “I am a happy person”; “I am a country music fan”; “I am competitive”; “I am laid-back”; “I am a fashionable dresser.” D-mode responses are more general than specific; they may express an abstract or existential quality: “I am me”; “I am part of the universe”; “I am a human being”; “I am alive.” You may have some difficulty deciding how to categorize certain responses—for example, where does “I am an American” go? Is it an A-mode, because it is where I live as a physical location, or is it a B-mode, because it is my nationality and the country with which I identify? Or where does “I am lazy” go? Is it an A-mode, because it describes my current physical state, or is it a C-mode, because it is one of my habitual character traits? Use your best judgment. Now count the number of each type of response and provide the totals for each mode at the bottom. So, which category got the most responses? We predict that although some of you may have given more B-mode responses, the predominant mode among those taking the test will be C-mode. Often, respondents have a combination of these two modes. People with more B-mode responses base their self-concept on group membership and institutional roles, whereas people with more C-mode responses see themselves as more independent and define themselves according to their individual actions and emotions rather than their connections to others. It is likely that there are few (if any) people whose responses fall predominantly in the A or D mode. Those with more A-mode responses may feel that they have a “skin deep” self-concept, based more on their appearance to others than on their internal qualities. Those with more D-mode responses are harder to categorize and may feel uncertain about the source of their sense of self. Step 3: Analysis Does the shift from a predominantly B-mode society to a predominantly C-mode society still hold today? And if so, what are we to make of it? The primary characteristics of the B-mode, or “institutional,” self are a willingness to adhere to group standards and accept group obligations as well as an orientation toward the future and a sense that the individual is linked to others (Turner 1976). The primary characteristics of the C-mode, or “impulsive,” self are the pursuit of individual satisfaction, an orientation toward the present, and a sense that the individual should not be linked to others and that group obligations inhibit individual expression. Zurcher and Turner worried that a society full of self-interested (and even selfish), impulsive individuals might no longer care about the common good and would only work to satisfy their own needs. What do you think are the consequences for a society overwhelmingly populated by one type of mode or the other? How would schools, families, workplaces, sports teams, governments, and charitable organizations and other groups function if almost everyone fell into the B-mode or C-mode category? Are these two orientations mutually exclusive, or can you combine the best parts of both? What can you do to optimize the qualities of each mode for yourself and for the groups you belong to? There are two options for completing this Data Workshop: PREP- PAIR- SHARE Take the TST yourself (Step 1), and score it (Step 2). Get ready to discuss the results with others by jotting down some initial thoughts about your results. Bring your completed questionnaire and notes to class, and discuss them with two or more students in small groups. How many “institutional” or “impulsive” selves are part of your discussion group? Compare your responses and work together on analyzing the group’s findings (Step 3). DO- IT-YOURSELF Conduct a pilot study using the TST. Find a small sample population of three to five other people and administer the test to each of them. Collect, compare, and analyze the responses from your group. Present and analyze your findings in a three-page essay. Make sure to refer to your TST data in the essay; as long as you’ve preserved the confidentiality of respondents, include the completed questionnaires with your paper. Group Cohesion A basic concept in the study of group dynamics is group cohesion, the sense of solidarity or team spirit that members feel toward their group. Put another way, group cohesion is the force that binds members together. A group is said to be more cohesive when individuals feel strongly tied to membership, so it is likely that a group of fraternity brothers is more GROUP COHESION the sense cohesive than a random group of solidarity or loyalty that of classmates. The life of a group individuals feel toward a group depends on at least a minimum to which they belong level of cohesion. If members Group Dynamics 135 of the group. Cohesion may be enhanced when members are able to cooperate and work together in achieving goals (Thye and Lawler 2002). This might help explain cohesion among fans of the Green Bay Packers or members of a local Elks lodge. Group Cohesion Why might fraternity brothers feel more group cohesion than a large group of students attending a lecture? begin to lose their strong sense of commitment, the group will gradually disintegrate (Friedkin 2004; Friedkin, Jia, and Bullo 2016). Cohesion is enhanced in a number of ways. It tends to rely heavily on interpersonal factors such as shared values and shared demographic traits like race, age, gender, or class (Cota et al. 1995). We can see this kind of cohesion, for example, GROUPTHINK in very cohesive in a clique of junior high school groups, the tendency to enforce girls or members of a church a high degree of conformity congregation. Cohesion also among members, creating tends to rely on an attraction to a demand for unanimous the group as a whole or to ceragreement tain individuals as exemplars 136 CHAPTER 5 Separate and Together: Life in Groups GROUPTHINK Whereas a high degree of cohesion might seem desirable, it can also lead to the kind of poor decision making seen in hazing cases. In a process Irving Janus (1971, 1982) called groupthink, highly cohesive groups may demand absolute conformity and punish those who threaten to undermine the consensus. Although groupthink does help maintain solidarity, it can also shortcircuit the decision-making process, letting a desire for unanimity prevail over critical reasoning. When this happens, groups may begin to feel invulnerable and morally superior (White 1989). Members who would otherwise wish to dissent may instead cave in to peer pressure and go along with the group. The problem of groupthink can be found in insular groups such as fraternities or private clubs and even reach into the highest level of industry or government, sometimes with disastrous results. For instance, there are those who believe that the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger in 1986 may have been a result of NASA scientists’ failing to take seriously those who suspected weaknesses in the shuttle’s launch design (Vaughan 1996). In the instance of the U.S. military, groupthink may have been to blame for the failure of the CIA and the White House to accurately assess the state of Saddam Hussein’s programs for weapons of mass destruction; the perceived existence of such weapons was a primary rationale for waging the Iraq War in 2003. A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee claimed that a groupthink dynamic caused those involved to lose objectivity and to embellish or exaggerate findings that justified the U.S. invasion (Ehrenreich 2004; Isikoff 2004). The 2016 U.S. presidential election points to another possible instance of groupthink, this time on the part of the media. In the months and weeks leading up to the election, news outlets and polling organizations were nearly unanimous in predicting a win for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. As such, Trump’s victory on November 8 produced widespread shock and disbelief among many Americans. Social Influence (Peer Pressure) While you may not have any personal experience with groupthink, you are certain to find the next set of sociological concepts all too familiar. When individuals are part of groups, they are necessarily influenced by other members. Sociologists refer to this as social influence, or peer pressure. Knowing how social influence works can help you when you need to convince others to act in a certain way (like agreeing on a specific restaurant or movie). In turn, it can also help you recognize when others are trying to influence you (to drink too much or drive too fast, for example). The idea of social influence is not new: The Greek philosopher Aristotle considered persuasion in his Rhetoric. But the more modern studies on social influence date back to World War II, when social scientists were trying to help in the war effort by using motivational films to boost morale among servicemen. Since then, the study of social influence has become an expanding part of the field devoted to discovering the principles that determine our beliefs, create our attitudes, and move us to action (Cialdini and Trost 1998; Friedkin and Cook 1990; Friedkin and Granovetter 1998). Recent research on social influence has revealed that everything from our performance in school (Altermatt and Pomerantz 2005), to how we settle disagreements in small groups (Friedkin and Johnsen 2014), to the likelihood that we will commit rape (Bohner et al. 2006) can be subject to the influence of others. We will focus here on how social influence functions in everyday situations. Almost all members of society are susceptible to what is either real or imagined social pressure to conform. In general, we conform because we want to gain acceptance and approval (positive sanctions) and avoid rejection and disapproval (negative sanctions). We follow prescriptions, doing the things we’re supposed to do, as well as proscriptions, avoiding the things we’re not supposed to do. Social psychologists have determined that social influence produces one of three kinds of conformity: compliance, identification, or internalization (Kelman 1958). Compliance, the mildest kind of conformity, means going along with something because you expect to gain rewards or avoid punishments. When people comply, however, they don’t actually change their own ideas or beliefs. Take, for example, someone who is court ordered to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings because of a drunk driving offense. This person might comply in order to avoid a jail sentence or hefty fine, but he might not be persuaded to join AA once the required visits are done. Identification, a somewhat stronger kind of conformity, is induced by a person’s desire to establish or maintain a relationship with a person or group. It’s possible that the person required to attend AA might actually begin to identify with other members. A person who identifies with a group conforms to the members’ wishes and follows their behavior. This is especially true when there is a strong attraction to the group. So perhaps the person who was first ordered to attend AA decides to keep going to meetings, stay sober, and become a member of the group himself. Internalization, the strongest kind of conformity and most long-lasting, occurs when individuals adopt the beliefs of a leader or group as their own. SOCIAL INFLUENCE group When internalization occurs, control over others’ decisions there is no separation between beliefs and behavior; people believe in what they are doing and feel that it is morally right. Members of Alcoholics Anonymous practice the principles of the twelve-step program, making it an integral part of their identity and way of life. Experiments in Conformity Three rather famous social psychological studies were conducted in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s with the related goal of trying to understand more about the dynamics of social pressure and, in particular, about group conformity and obedience to authority. THE ASCH EXPERIMENT The first of these experiments was a study on compliance conducted in 1951 by Solomon Asch (1958), who gathered groups of seven or eight students to participate in what he called an experiment on visual perception. In fact, only one of the students in each group was a real research subject; the others knew ahead of time how they were supposed to act. During the experiment, the participants were asked to look at a set of three straight lines and to match the length of a fourth line to one of the other three (see Figure 5.2). In each case, the real research subjects would be the last to give an answer. At first, all participants gave the same correct answer. After a few rounds, however, the experimenter’s confederates began to give the same consistently wrong answer. They were completely unanimous in perceiving the line lengths incorrectly. How would the real subjects react when it came to their turn? Most subjects felt considerable pressure to comply with the rest of the group. A third (33 percent) were “yielders” who A Exhibit 1 B C Exhibit 2 Figure 5.2 Which Line in Exhibit 2 Matches Exhibit 1? Solomon Asch’s studies showed that some people will go against the evidence of their own senses if others around them seem to have different perceptions. Social Influence (Peer Pressure) 137 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE Group vs. Individual Norms: Honor Killings n American culture, when reports of family members murdering each other emerge, the reasons generally include abuse, crimes of passion, or monetary gain. The murder of Kathleen Savio by her ex-husband Drew Peterson in 2004 is among the most notorious cases of murder within a family. Her death was ruled an accident until 2007, when the case grabbed headlines as Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, vanished without a trace. What made matters all the more fishy was that Stacy had also been Peterson’s alibi on the night that Savio went missing. This led law enforcement to re-open the case into Savio’s death and eventually led to Peterson being HONOR KILLING the convicted of her murder and murder of a family member— usually female— who is sentenced to thirty-eight believed to have brought years in prison. Despite his dishonor to the family conviction in the Savio case, many believe Drew Peterson still got away with murder: the Stacy Peterson case remains unsolved. While “murders involving family members killing other family members are not terribly rare,” the reaction to such tragedies is especially harsh, judging murderers like Peterson as dishonorable traitors to their families, men who were more concerned with their own personal gain than their loyalty to family (Berman 2014). But what if the reason for a murder of a family member is to uphold the reputation of the family as a whole? Honor killing is the murder of a I family member based on the belief that the victim is bringing dishonor to the family or the community. In honor killings, which are primarily seen in Middle Eastern and South Asian cultures, the victims are usually women who have not lived up to the moral codes set by the religion or community. Reasons for honor killings may include refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, being a rape victim, dressing or acting immodestly, or having sex outside marriage. The United Nations has estimated that as many as 5,000 women a year are murdered in honor killings worldwide, though there is no reliable or definitive accounting, and these crimes are rarely classified or prosecuted as such (United Nations 2000). Researchers believe the numbers may be far greater, and they point to an increase in the last two decades (Chesler 2010; McCoy 2014). In Pakistan alone, there were more than 1,000 honor killings in 2015 (British Broadcasting Corporation 2016). The methods of killing range from shooting the victim to setting her on fire or stoning her to death. In each case, the person who commits the murder is seen as the norm enforcer and not the norm violator, as he is doing it to seek vindication and to right a wrong. In this cultural context, the murdered woman is viewed as someone who deserved to die for betraying and dishonoring her family. Some who study honor killings maintain that in countries with less access to basic resources, health care, and human capital, there is a correlating lack of social power and equality for women. Gender inequality is exacerbated in places where gave in at least half the time to what they knew were the wrong answers. Another 40 percent yielded less frequently but still gave some wrong answers. Only 25 percent were “independents,” refusing to give in to the majority. In a debriefing period after the experiment, some subjects reported that they had assumed the rest of the participants were right and they were wrong. Other subjects knew they were not wrong but did not want to appear different from the rest of the group. Almost all of them were greatly distressed by the discrepancy between their own perceptions and those of the other participants. Clearly, it can be difficult to resist peer pressure and to maintain independence in a group situation. What would you have done? in 1961, just after the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann had begun in Israel. Many of those who were prosecuted in the years after World War II offered the defense that they were “only following orders.” But it was not just soldiers who sent millions of innocents to concentration camps— ordinary citizens turned in their neighbors. Milgram wanted to know whether something particular about the German national psyche led so many to act as accomplices to the mass executions, why they complied with authority figures even when orders conflicted with their own consciences. While we usually think that following orders is a good thing, in the case of the Holocaust, it amounted to a “crime of obedience.” The Milgram experiment (1963, 1974) used a laboratory setting to test the lengths to which ordinary people would follow orders from a legitimate authority figure. The experiment included three roles: the “experimenter” (a scientist in a white lab coat), a “teacher,” and a “learner.” The teachers were THE MILGRAM EXPERIMENT Stanley Milgram’s experience as a graduate student of Solomon Asch’s led him to work further on conformity. His first experiments were conducted 138 CHAPTER 5 Separate and Together: Life in Groups there are fewer social resources, making honor killings more likely (Wilkinson 2005). Clashes occur when the cultural practice of honor killing is brought to Western countries like France, Canada, and the United States, where a woman’s sexual freedom may face informal sanctions but is widely accepted as the norm. In some cases it is the adoption of Western values by women in traditional societies, such as India, Iraq, or Yemen, that is invoked as the grounds for honor killings. One such case made global headlines in 2016. It involved the murder of Qandeel Baloch, a twenty-six-year-old model and social media star who some called the Kim Kardashian of Pakistan (Zraick 2016). Baloch was celebrated by many as a new feminist hero, a strong, independent woman unafraid to express herself or stir controversy. But Baloch also drew harsh criticism by many who disapproved of her provocative online pictures and videos. While sleeping at her parents’ home, Baloch was drugged and strangled to death by her brother, who then proudly proclaimed to the press that he had killed his sister for the “shameful” pictures she had posted to Facebook. “She was bringing dishonor to our family,” he said (Iftikhar 2016). Baloch’s murder incited a massive public outcry, with many petitioning authorities to prosecute and convict Waseem Azeem for murder, a rare outcome in a case of honor killing. Pakistani law permits honor killings to be resolved by the families themselves. The cultural norm promoting strong family values that causes disgust toward murderers such as Drew Peterson is the same norm behind honor killings. However, in honor killings, the family is seen as more important than each individual family member; therefore, an individual member should suffer severe punishment for bringing shame to the family. While Waseem Azeem’s actions appear to most Americans’ individualist notions of justice as a betrayal of the family, in countries such as Pakistan these same actions are viewed as justified within the larger cultural understandings of family honor. the only real research subjects in the experiment: Although the teachers were led to believe otherwise, the learners were actually confederates of the experimenters. When roles were assigned at the outset of the experiment, the research subjects were always picked to play the teacher, despite a seemingly random assignment of roles. The stated goal of the experiment was to measure the effect of punishment on memory and learning. The teacher was instructed to read aloud a set of word pairs for the learner to memorize. The teacher would then repeat the first word in the pair and, for each incorrect answer, administer a shock of increasing voltage to the learner. The teacher watched while the experimenter strapped the learner to a chair and applied electrodes to his arms. The teacher was then directed to an adjoining room where he could communicate with, but not see, the learner. This room contained a machine with a series of levers indicating the increasing levels of voltage that would be administered for each successive incorrect answer. (In actuality, the machine was not connected to the learner, and he received no shocks.) The experiment began. As the teacher amplified the voltage for each incorrect answer, the learner responded in increasingly vocal ways. In reality, the teacher was hearing a prerecorded tape that included exclamations, banging on the wall, complaints by the learner about a heart condition, and finally, silence. Many subjects grew uncomfortable at around 135 volts, often pausing and expressing a desire to check on the learner or discontinue the experiment. At that point, the experimenter would give a succession of orders, prodding the teacher to continue. After being assured that they would not be held responsible, most subjects continued, many reaching the maximum of 450 volts. Milgram and his colleagues were stunned by the results. They had predicted that only a few of the subjects would be In the Name of Family Pakistani actress and social media sensation Qandeel Baloch was murdered by her brother in a 2016 honor killing. Social Influence (Peer Pressure) 139 abusive and potentially dangerous situation. Rioting began by the second day; the guards quelled it harshly, harassing the prisoners and depriving them of food, sleep, and basic sanitation. Several guards became increasingly sadistic as the experiment went on, degrading and punishing any prisoner who challenged their authority, and several prisoners showed signs of psychological trauma. After only six days, Zimbardo was compelled to shut down the experiment after a graduate student researcher (whom he later married) became appalled by the conditions. The Stanford Prison Experiment provided another example of the way situational dynamics, rather than individuals’ personal attributes, can determine behavior. The Milgram Experiment How did Stanley Milgram test participants’ obedience to authority? Do you think he would get the same results today? MILGRAM REVISITED Some researchers have claimed that the Asch experiment was a “child of its time”—that students in the 1950s were more obedient in their roles, and the culture placed greater emphasis on the value of conformity (Perrin and Spencer 1980, 1981). Researchers in recent willing to inflict the maximum voltage. In the first set of experiments, 65 percent of the participants administered the maximum voltage, though many were very uncomfortable doing so and all paused at some point. Only one participant refused outright to administer even low-voltage shocks. Milgram’s results highlight the dynamics of conformity revealed in the Asch experiment. A subject will often rely on the expertise of an individual or group, in this case the experimenter, when faced with a difficult decision. We also see how thoroughly socialized most people are to obey authority and carry out orders, especially when they no longer consider themselves responsible for their actions. Clearly, few people have the personal resources to resist authority, even when it goes against their consciences. THE STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT The Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by Milgram’s high school classmate Philip Zimbardo (1971), also examined the power of authority. Twenty-four undergraduates deemed psychologically healthy and stable were recruited to participate in a two-week mock prison simulation. Role assignment as prisoner or guard was based on a coin toss. Guards were given batons, khaki clothing, and mirrored sunglasses and were told they could not physically harm the prisoners but could otherwise create feelings of boredom, fear, or powerlessness. Prisoners were “arrested” and taken to a mock “jail” set up in the basement of a university building, where they were stripsearched, dressed in smocks and stocking caps (to simulate shaven heads), and assigned identity numbers. A research assistant played the role of warden, while Zimbardo himself was the superintendent. The students quickly inhabited their roles, but soon exceeded the experimenters’ expectations, resulting in an 140 CHAPTER 5 Separate and Together: Life in Groups The Stanford Prison Experiment Why do you think the students in Zimbardo’s experiment inhabited their roles so completely? What does it reveal about group behavior? decades who have replicated the Asch experiment have in fact seen significantly lower rates of compliance, suggesting that the historical and cultural context in which the experiment was conducted had an effect on how subjects performed (Bond and Sussex 1996). This conclusion echoes some of Ralph Turner’s findings about the institutional or impulsive self, discussed in an earlier Data Workshop; namely, he found that patterns of behavior can change over time and that separate generations may respond differently to social pressures. The power of the group continues to interest sociologists, psychologists, and others who want to understand what drives our powerful impulse to comply (Cialdini 1998). Both the Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments would be considered unethical by today’s professional standards. Although each of the experiments revealed important truths about obedience to authority, some of the participants suffered real, and in some cases long-lasting, psychological pain beyond what is considered an acceptable threshold of minimal harm. Yet the experiments remain relevant because real-life examples of crimes of obedience continue to occur—whether in the case of the prison guards at Abu Ghraib or in a serial telephone hoax perpetrated on fast-food workers in which a caller posing as a police officer instructed assistant managers to abuse fellow workers (Wolfson 2005). Nearly half a century elapsed before researchers at Santa Clara University found a means of replicating the Milgram experiment that would pass the institutional review board process for research on human subjects. After a careful screening process, Jerry Burger (2009) conducted a modified version of the famous experiment that protected the wellbeing of the participants while still providing a valid comparison to the original. Contrary to expectations, obedience rates were only slightly lower in Burger’s replication than they had been in Milgram’s lab more than forty-five years earlier. Although we might like to imagine ourselves as being more able to resist the same forces of conformity that trip up research participants who consistently cave in to social pressure, it’s likely that if we found ourselves in situations similar to those created in the laboratory, we’d go along and obey authority, too. Working Together: Teams and Leadership What does it mean to make a “group effort”? Sometimes we can accomplish things together that we could not do alone. But such outcomes are far from guaranteed. Whether group efforts result in synergy or inefficiency may depend on a number of factors, including the makeup of its members and the relationship between leaders and followers. Teamwork Are two heads better than one? Or do too many cooks spoil the broth? Early research on groups (Homans 1951) typically assumed that it was always more productive to work in a team rather than alone. However, researchers soon recognized that both the nature of the task and the characteristics of the group have a lot to do with the comparative advantage or disadvantage of working in a group (Goodacre 1953). When we measure productivity, groups almost always outperform single individuals. Things get a bit more complicated, however, when groups are compared with the same number of people working by themselves. In one of the earliest attempts to systematically study group productivity, experimental social psychologist Ivan Steiner (1972) compared the potential productivity of a group (what they should be able to do) with the group’s actual productivity (what they in fact got done). According to Steiner, actual group productivity can never equal potential productivity because there will always be losses in the team process. Two major sources of inefficiency in particular come with the group process, and both get worse as group size increases. One source is organization: coordinating activities and delegating tasks. For example, if four friends are going to help you move to a new apartment, SOCIAL LOAFING the some time will be lost while phenomenon in which each individual contributes a little less you figure out who should pack as more individuals are added to what, how the furniture will be a task; a source of inefficiency arranged in the truck, where when working in teams the boxes should go in the new apartment, and so forth. Another source of inefficiency is the phenomenon known as social loafing, which means that as more individuals are added to a task, each one takes it a little easier (Karau and Williams 1993). Furthermore, as more people become involved, the harder it is to discern individual effort. If it is impossible for any single person to receive credit or blame, motivation usually suffers. Have you ever asked too many people to help you move to a new apartment? If so, chances are that a few did most of the work, some showed up late and helped out a bit, and others did very little but had a good time talking and eating pizza. Having too many “helpers” may contribute to social loafing. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has taken this quite seriously, instituting something referred to as the two pizza rule. If a team of Amazon workers cannot be fed by two pizzas, then that team is too large. Too many people means too much miscommunication, chaos, and bureaucracy, which leads to social loafing and reduces efficiency and slows progress (Morgan 2014). Solutions to the problem of social loafing include recognizing individual effort and finding ways to make a task more interesting or personally rewarding. But such solutions are not always possible. It might be difficult, for instance, to Working Together: Teams and Leadership 141 ON THE JOB Teamwork and the Tour de France he Tour de France is the world’s premiere competitive cycling event. It is a race that lasts more than three weeks, covers more than 2,000 miles, and traverses the European Alps. Each summer, it draws a television audience of millions worldwide, many of whom never ride their own bikes and do not pay attention to any other bicycle racing events at any other time of year. It has also seen more than its share of controversy: Seven-time Tour winner Lance Armstrong was stripped of his medals and banned from competitive cycling for life after admitting to “doping,” or using banned substances to improve his athletic performance. Other recent winners, including American Floyd Landis and Spain’s Alberto Contador, have also been stripped of their wins and been banned for doping; in fact, in the more than 110-year history of the Tour de France, the race has been fraught with doping scandals. Early riders used alcohol, ether, and strychnine to improve their stamina and speed. Since 2010, the winners of the Tour have been verifiably drug free. But they still cannot say that their victories were achieved without assistance. In fact, no one wins the Tour de France on his own. Winning riders are supported by teams of eight other premier athletes who must coordinate complex teamwork relations to prevail over the other twenty or so teams in competition. As with so many other areas of social life, individual success is buoyed by the work of many. No one can become president of the United States, win an Oscar, reach the summit of Mount Everest, open a restaurant, meet a sales quota, or earn a bachelor’s degree without relying on others—groups as well as individuals—to support his or her efforts. So, although the winner of the Tour is listed individually, he didn’t do it alone. Each team member has a particular specialty, and each stage of the race requires a different strategy. Sprinters may be needed to make a “breakaway” early in the race; “superclimbers” are necessary in the mountainous regions; and T make “moving day” more rewarding. Another solution, however, is suggested by social identity theory. Having a social identity, as opposed to a personal one, involves thinking and feeling like a representative of a group (Turner and Killian 1987); SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY a you have a real desire to belong theory of group formation and to, not simply keep company maintenance that stresses the with, the group. According to this need of individual members to model, the most efficient teams feel a sense of belonging are characterized by the greatest 142 CHAPTER 5 Separate and Together: Life in Groups sometimes the entire team has to protect the team leader, “blocking” and “drafting” in order to save energy. Teamwork is required to organize bathroom and food breaks, as the race stops for no man. Extremely consistent riders (rouleurs) are prized, as are those who ride with aggressiveness and bravery (combativité). When the individual winner crosses the finish line on the Champs-Elysées in Paris, it is the sacrifices of his altruistic teammates that have made his win possible. Which position will you find yourself in when you enter the workplace? Will you be the team leader whose individual successes depend on the contributions of others? Or will you be the team member whose special skills support the achievements of the group? It is likely that you will find yourself in both situations over the course of your working life. So remember, when you don the maillot jaune (the yellow jersey worn by the Tour de France leader), in most cases it takes a team effort to get you to the winner’s circle. Group Effort British cyclist Chris Froome, in the yellow jersey, completed the Tour de France with the support of his teammates. shared social identity among their members; such social identity increases motivation and places the needs of the group above purely personal concerns (Turner and Reynolds 2010). Power, Authority, and Style Effective group leaders possess a variety of qualities, some of which are particular to the kind of group they lead. The leader of a therapeutic support group, for example, needs the proper credentials as well as experience and compassion for his Table 5.1 Theory in Everyday Life Perspective Approach to Groups Case Study: Fraternities Structural Functionalism Life in groups helps to regulate and give meaning to individual experience, contributing to social cohesion and stability. Affiliation groups like fraternities help create social cohesion in the context of a larger, possibly alienating, university system by bringing young men with shared values together. Conflict Theory Group membership is often the basis for the distrbution of rewards, privileges, and opportunities in our society. An individual may be treated preferentially or prejudicially based on his or her group membership. In-group and out-group dynamics can contribute to stereotyping and conflict as fraternity brothers develop an “us vs. them” perspective regarding other frats and non-Greeks. Group norms, values, and dynamics are generated situationally, in interaction with other members. The pressure to conform to group culture (as in the cases of peer pressure and groupthink) can lead individuals to do things they might never do alone, and can have negative consequences, as in the case of fraternity hazing and binge drinking. It can also lead to positive actions, such as when fraternity members volunteer or raise money for charity. Symbolic Interactionism patients. The captain of a sports team must display expertise at her game as well as the ability to inspire her teammates. An office manager must be well organized and good at dealing with different kinds of people. A police commander must be in good physical shape, skilled in law enforcement tactics, and quick-thinking in a crisis. One thing almost all leaders have in common, though, is power—the ability to control the actions of others. Whether it is coercive power (backed by the threat of force) or merely influential power (supported by persuasion), leadership involves getting people to do things they may or may not want to do. For example, a football coach might wield both coercive and influential power over his players. Although the athletes want to win games, they might not want to run their training drills every day. During a workout, team members might respond to either the threat of being kicked off the team or encouragement from the coach. Power, in whatever form it takes, is both a privilege and a requirement of leadership. Because leadership requires the exercise of power, most formal organizations have institutionalized it in some officially recognized form of authority. Max Weber (1913/1962) identified three types of authority that may be found in social organizations. Traditional authority, based in custom, birthright, or divine right, is usually associated with monarchies and dynasties. Kings and queens inherit the throne, not only through lineage but also by divine appointment, meaning by higher authority. Their personal qualities don’t really matter, and they can’t be replaced by legal proceedings. Legal-rational authority, on the other hand, is based in laws and rules, not in the lineage of any individual leader. Modern presidencies and parliaments are built on this kind of authority. The third type, charismatic authority, is based in the remarkable personal qualities of the leader. Neither rules nor traditions are necessary for the establishment of a charismatic leader—indeed, the leader can be a revolutionary, breaking rules and defying traditions. This is perhaps the only place we will ever find Jesus Christ and Adolf Hitler in the same category—by all accounts both were extremely POWER the ability to control the charismatic leaders. actions of others The three types of authorCOERCIVE POWER power that ity are not necessarily mutu- is backed by the threat of force ally exclusive; they can coexist within the same leader. Bill INFLUENTIAL POWER power that is supported by persuasion Clinton and Ronald Reagan were appealing and char- AUTHORITY the legitimate right ismatic leaders within the to wield power context of the legal-rational TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY authority of the presidency; the authority based in custom, Kennedy family is considered birthright, or divine right an American political dynasty LEGAL-RATIONAL AUTHORITY of sorts, following a tradition authority based in laws, rules, and of leadership within the struc- procedures, not in the heredity ture of electoral politics. The or personality of any individual late King Hussein of Jordan leader was revered for his extraor- CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY dinary charisma and states- authority based in the perception manship despite his traumatic of remarkable personal qualities ascent to the throne: As a teen- in a leader ager, he witnessed his grandfather’s assassination and, as his heir, was crowned less than a year later. For people like Bill Clinton (a legal-rational ruler) and King Hussein (a traditional ruler), their charisma was not necessarily the root of their authority, but it did play a part in their ability to rule. Working Together: Teams and Leadership 143 Qualities of Leadership Nelson Mandela, pictured here with the South African rugby team, the Springboks, is an example of a leader with both legal-rational and charismatic authority. Mandela used his charismatic leadership to unite post-apartheid South Africa through rugby, culminating in a narrow victory in the 1995 Rugby World Cup final. In addition to different types of power and authority, group leaders may exhibit different personal leadership styles as well. Some are more instrumental—that is, they are task or goal oriented—while others are more expressive or concerned with maintaining harmony within the group (Parsons and Bales 1955). An instrumental leader is less concerned with people’s feelings than with getting the job done, whereas an expressive leader conveys interest in group members’ emotions as well as their achievements. We often consider leadership styles through the INSTRUMENTAL LEADERSHIP lens of gender, expecting men to be leadership that is task or more instrumental and women goal oriented to be more expressive. In fact, we EXPRESSIVE LEADERSHIP sometimes feel surprised or upset leadership concerned with when these gendered expectamaintaining emotional and tions aren’t met: A male leader relational harmony within the group with a more expressive style (like BUREAUCRACY a type of California governor Jerry Brown, secondary group designed once nicknamed “Moonbeam” for to perform tasks efficiently, his emotive, touchy-feely style) is characterized by specialization, sometimes seen as weak, while technical competence, hierarchy, a female leader with a more written rules, impersonality, and formal written communication instrumental style (such as Hillary Clinton, whose ambition and drive have earned her criticism throughout her political career) is sometimes seen as pushy. Such gender stereotypes can keep women out of boardrooms. Some women may hesitate to take on leadership roles for fear of being called “bossy,” “pushy,” or even a “ball buster” when they assert themselves in the workplace and elsewhere. In her best-selling book Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg encourages girls and women to aspire to leadership roles. Sandberg’s own style has been characterized as a blend of expressive and instrumental 144 CHAPTER 5 Separate and Together: Life in Groups leadership. In an effort to reach a larger and younger audience, Sandberg recently partnered with the Girl Scouts and other powerful women in politics, business, and the arts, including Beyoncé, Jennifer Garner, and Condoleeza Rice, to launch the “ban bossy” campaign. Perhaps by example, more girls and women will embrace being leaders, and more people will feel comfortable following them. Bureaucracy Examples of bureaucracy, a specific type of secondary group, are everywhere in your life—your university, employer, Internet service provider, fast-food restaurant, and even church are likely to be organized bureaucratically. Bureaucracies are designed to perform tasks efficiently, and they approach their tasks, whatever they are, with calculations designed deliberately to meet their goals. Bureaucracies have certain organizational traits that help them operate efficiently. Max Weber (1921/1968) identified these characteristics as follows: 1. Specialization: All members of a bureaucracy are assigned specialized roles and tasks. 2. Technical competence: All members are expressly trained and qualified for their specific roles within the organization. 3. Hierarchy: Bureaucracies always feature the supervision of subordinates by higher-ranking managers and bosses. 4. Rules and regulations: These are meant to make all operations as predictable as possible. Bureaucracies Are Everywhere Bureaucratic regulations are supposed to make organizations run smoothly; however, bureaucracy can also be impersonal, inflexible, and hyperrational. 5. Impersonality: In a bureaucracy, rules come before people; no individual receives special treatment. 6. Formal written communication: Documents such as memos (or e-mails) are the heart of the organization and the most effective way to communicate. You can see these traits in action at your own college or university. Take specialization and technical competence, for instance. Virtually none of your professors could teach another’s classes: Your sociology professor would likely be completely useless in a chemistry lab, a math classroom, or even an English seminar. The groundskeepers, campus police officers, soccer coaches, and librarians are all specially qualified to do their own jobs and no one else’s. In addition, there are layers of hierarchy at a university, from the trustees and president to the vice chancellors, provosts, deans, and department chairs. Professors are, in some ways, at the bottom of the academic hierarchy (except for you, the students)! And every other campus unit (athletics, residence life, food service, facilities maintenance) has its own hierarchy as well. Regulations keep a university running smoothly—or at least that’s what they are meant to do. Undoubtedly, though, you have run up against a regulation that kept you from doing something you really wanted to do—for example, add a class after a deadline or move into a campus apartment. This is where the feature of impersonality also comes into play: The rules of the bureaucracy trumped your individual needs, no matter how deserving you thought you were. This is especially true at larger universities; at small schools, special treatment is still sometimes possible. But big bureaucracies often treat you “like a number”—and in fact, you are a number to your college; your student ID number is the first thing you are issued on arrival. The McDonaldization of Society Weber’s model of bureaucracy seems cold and heartless, alienating and impersonal, rule-bound, inflexible, and undemocratic. Indeed, many bureaucracies are like this. They are highly efficient secondary groups that operate on the principle of rationalization, where the focus is on logical procedures, rules and regulations are paramount, and an individual’s unique personal qualities are unimportant. Worse yet, some of the hyperrationalized features of successful bureaucracies are trickling down into other areas of our everyday lives. Sociologist George Ritzer (1993) called this trickle-down rationalization process McDonaldization. We touch-tone our RATIONALIZATION the way through telephone calls at application of economic logic to work, never speaking to a real human activity; the use of formal person; at lunch, we construct rules and regulations in order to maximize efficiency without our own salads at the salad bar consideration of subjective or and bus our own tables after- individual concerns ward; at the bank, we no longer interact with human tellers but MCDONALDIZATION George Ritzer’s term describing rather drive through the ATM on the spread of bureaucratic the way home, where we micro- rationalization and the wave our dinners and watch accompanying increases in increasingly predictable sitcoms efficiency and dehumanization or movie sequels on TV. Ritzer Bureaucracy 145 Responding to Bureaucratic Constraints McDonaldization in Action According to Ritzer, there are four main principles of McDonaldization: predictability, calculability, efficiency, and control. What other industries are adopting these principles? is critical of the dehumanizing aspects of McDonaldization and hopes that increased awareness of the process will help us avoid the “iron cage” of bureaucracy—a term coined by Weber to illustrate the way bureaucracies can trap individuals. Sociologist Robin Leidner delved further into the McDonaldization phenomenon in her book Fast Food, Fast Talk (1993). Through fieldwork in actual McDonald’s franchises, Leidner developed a model for understanding the increasing routinization of service industries, in this case the ubiquitous fast-food restaurant. In particular, she looks at how standardized “scripts” for interaction help shape customers’ experiences. The physical atmosphere of a McDonald’s is not conducive to hanging out (unlike, say, a café); customers don’t expect to sit down and be waited on. Rather, they respond to expectations that they will enter, order food from a predetermined menu and pay for it, eat quickly, deposit trash in the receptacles, and then leave. Leidner exposes these processes of routinization by looking at what happens when breakdowns occur in these expectations. For example, Leidner noted that McDonald’s trains workers to refer to customers as “guests,” reinforcing the obligation to serve them respectfully even if that respect is not reciprocated. Leidner observed that if customers were angry or uncooperative, workers tried even harder to serve them swiftly so that they would leave faster and have less time to make trouble in the restaurant. Workers developed a mindset that allowed them to handle problem customers in a way that minimized trouble and facilitated the workers’ routinized job. 146 CHAPTER 5 Separate and Together: Life in Groups Not everything about bureaucracies is bad. In fact, in contemporary, postindustrial society, just about everything you need or want is created, produced, distributed, and serviced by a bureaucracy. The water in the tap, the lights, the streets, the car and its insurance, the food on the table, the table itself, the clothes on your back, and the movies, songs, and books you enjoy—all are the products of bureaucratic organizations. As problematic as they are, we can’t live without them. So how can we benefit from our contact with bureaucracies without being controlled by them? For one thing, even the most overrationalized, McDonaldized bureaucracy is populated by people who are capable of forming primary group relationships as well, who might celebrate birthdays, throw parties, and go out for drinks after work. Indeed, interpersonal interactions help humanize bureaucracies. Further, in forward-thinking organizations, new management strategies meant to address alienation and disenchantment are being implemented. Yes, bureaucracies still seek to be as efficient and predictable as possible in their daily operations. But some, such as Apple, Toyota, and Google, are trying to play up their human side as well—becoming “enlightened” bureaucracies by being inclusive, sharing responsibility, and providing opportunities for all to advance. In fact, businesses like Google have come to believe that corporate success and employee well-being are complementary. Larry Page and Sergey Brin founded Google with the idea that analyzing information could lead to a better search engine, and as their company grew, they also embraced the idea that data analysis could create a better, happier workplace. For example, they found that they weren’t hiring enough women, and those they hired were quitting significantly faster than men. When they crunched the numbers, Google’s human resources department—or, as they call it, People Operations—found that women who turned down job offers had disproportionately been interviewed by men, a problem that was easily solved (Miller 2012). When they looked at who exactly was quitting, they found that “women who had recently given birth were leaving at twice Google’s average departure rate,” a problem they addressed by increasing maternity leave (Manjoo 2013). For the past few decades, businesses have spent an increasing amount of time and money on employee training and development, with over $46 billion devoted to just team-building games and exercises alone (Browning 2014). Many large businesses are also involved in organizing employee retreats to teach managers how to understand individual strengths and weaknesses, support individual skills and talents, and encourage cooperation, trust, and leadership. Some, such as Fidelity Financial, have adopted the Japanese management technique called kaizen, in which lower-level workers are encouraged to suggest innovative ways to improve the organization, and upper-level managers are required to actually put these ideas into practice, rewarding individual creativity and benefiting the company at the same time (Hakim 2001; Pollack 1999). Make no mistake—corporations are not sacrificing the bottom line for the good of the individual. They’re still looking for ways to improve productivity and cut costs. But often they are finding that the needs of the individual and those of the organization are not mutually exclusive. BURNING MAN In the barren Black Rock Desert of Nevada, some people actively seek out an escape from their bureaucratically regimented life, at least for one week every summer, at a festival called Burning Man (Chen 2004; Sonner 2002). The festival, begun in 1990 on a beach near San Francisco with just twenty participants, drew nearly 70,000 people in 2016. Burning Man is hard to describe for those who have never attended. It is a freewheeling experiment in temporary community, where there are no rules except to protect the well-being of participants (“burners”) and where everyone gathers together to celebrate various forms of self-expression and self-reliance not normally encountered in everyday life. Burning Man attracts a wide variety of individuals from different backgrounds (though it may be difficult to tell beneath the body paint, mud, or costumes that many wear). Unlike in many places in the real world, participants are encouraged to interact with each other; there are no strangers at “the Burn.” Each year is characterized by a different theme—“American Dream” in 2008, “Carnival of Mirrors” in 2015, and “Radical Ritual” in 2017—and participants are invited to contribute in some meaningful way to its realization, most often artistically. Matt Wray (2011), a sociologist who’s also a burner, explains that “fire, art, dust, and bodies collide and collude to make bizarre and unforgettable transformations” as thousands of people step outside their normal lives and interact in new ways. Much of what is appealing about Burning Man is that it challenges many of the norms and values of mainstream society, especially those associated with conformity, bureaucracy, and capitalism. Black Rock resembles a city when the thousands of participants converge, but one composed of tents and RVs gathered into neighborhoods with names like “Tic Toc Town” and “Capitalist Pig Camp” (Doherty 2000, 2004). The city has its own informal economy as well. Once an admission fee is paid, money is no longer used. Participants must bring enough supplies to support themselves or use alternate forms of currency, such as barter, trade, gifts, or services. Corporate sponsorship is strictly avoided, and logos of any kind are banned. Despite its stated ideals, there is not total freedom at Burning Man. Over the years, various government and local law-enforcement agencies have imposed some restrictions on the event, such as bans on fireworks, guns, and dogs. However, most conflict is handled by the Black Rock City Rangers, who “are volunteers trained in dispute resolution techniques that help diffuse conflict and manage disruptive behavior before it escalates” (Gomez 2013). On the last night of the festival, the giant wooden structure known as the Burning Man is lit on fire, and the celebrants discover their own personal epiphanies as they watch it burn. When the festival is over, participants are committed to leaving no trace behind. One burner called the festival “authentic life,” with the other days of the year “a tasteless mirage, a pacific struggle against the backwardness of Middle America—consumer culture, bad politics, Fear Factor, and fear thy neighbor” (Babiak 2004). So while Burning Man participants don’t abandon permanently the web of contemporary bureaucracies that shapes their lives, they gain some relief by ditching it all once a year, if just for a few days. CLOSING COMMENTS Burning Man Finale Each year thousands of “burners” gather in the Black Rock Desert to celebrate the rejection of such values as conformity, bureaucracy, and capitalism. Groups make our lives possible by providing the necessities of our existence—food, clothes, cars, homes, and all the other things we use on a daily basis. Groups make our lives enjoyable by providing us with companionship and recreation—from our friends and families to the entertainment conglomerates that produce our favorite music and films. Groups also make our lives problematic. Bureaucracies can squelch our individuality, major manufacturers can create social and environmental problems, and some organizations can engender conflict and prejudice among groups. We are at our best in groups, and our worst. We can do great things together, and horrible things. Sociology helps us understand group life at both extremes and everywhere in between. Closing Comments 147 Everything You Need to Know about Groups “ “ A group is a collection of people who share some attribute, identify with one another, and interact with each other. 148 TYPES OF GROUPS ✱ Primary groups: People who are most important to our sense of self; characterized by face-to-face interaction, high levels of cooperation, and intense feelings of belonging. ✱ Secondary groups: Groups that are larger and less intimate than primary groups; relationships are organized around a specific goal. ✱ Dyads: The smallest possible group, consisting of only two members. ✱ Triads: A slightly more stable small group consisting of three people; the third member can referee conflicts that arise between the other two. ✱ In-groups: Groups that members identify with and feel loyalty toward. ✱ Out-groups: Any group that an individual feels opposition, rivalry, or hostility toward. ✱ Reference groups: Groups that provide a standard of comparison against which we evaluate ourselves. REVIEW 1. Which groups serve as your reference groups? Are you a member of all your reference groups? How do these reference groups affect your self-image? 2. The text identifies three types of conformity: compliance, identification, and internalization. Describe some moments when you’ve exhibited each type of conformity. 3. Theorist George Ritzer believes that McDonaldization, the spread of the organizational principles of bureaucracies to all areas of life, is a growing concern. Thinking about Weber’s six characteristics of bureaucracies, can you identify areas of your life that have been McDonaldized? Strong or Weak? The kinds of people you know can determine your next job. “Ties” or contacts become a key method to network and reach a higher status. EXPLORE It Takes a Village . . . to Create Binge Drinkers What group of people do you think has the biggest influence over teens’ drinking habits? The answer might not be what you think. Visit the Everyday Sociology blog to discover how social groups can influence teen drinking. Local Bridge A person who can connect two people who don’t know each other. Bridges can connect people outside their circle and help them reach different jobs. http://wwnPag.es/trw405 Tight Circles When everyone in a circle primarily has strong ties with each other, it becomes difficult to reach beyond that circle. STRONG TIES are people you are close with, such as relatives, good friends, and mentors. WEAK TIES are acquaintances. SOURCE: Granovetter 1973 149 CHAPTER 6 Deviance W ould it surprise you to learn that both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were cannabis farmers? They called it “hemp” and used the fibrous stalks to make fabric, rope, and paper, including the paper on which Jefferson drafted the Declara- tion of Independence. There is no evidence that the Founding Fathers used their crop to get high: the fact that they harvested hemp for its stalks may have meant that its flowers (in which the intoxicating resin THC is located) may not have had a chance to bloom. Over time, hemp as an industrial crop began to have more and more competition—from other agricultural products, such as cotton and timber, and from other chemical and industrial 150 processes that had the backing of powerful industries and individuals. In the 1920s and 1930s, William Randolph Hearst, along with others in hemp-competitive industries, exerted pressure on government officials to make hemp’s intoxicating by-product, marijuana, illegal. A propaganda campaign against marijuana was led by Hearst’s media outlets, promoting it as a dangerous threat to America’s youth, public health, and national security. A film called Reefer Madness was shown in schools as an anti-marijuana propaganda piece, using images of insanity, rape, and murder to paint a picture of pot as a catastrophic scourge on society. Marijuana was associated with criminals, reprobates, jazz musicians, and (gasp!) ethnic minorities and was presented to schoolchildren as the cause of immediate social and moral chaos. By 1937, every state had outlawed the use of marijuana as an intoxicant, and cannabis farming had been effectively eliminated by the passage of the prohibitively high Marijuana Tax Act. Fast forward to the present, in which the current surge in environmentalism is part of the change in views about Cannabis sativa: restoring legal hemp farming nationwide would allow the production of tree-free paper and other fiber and textile products, which would please many people who are worried about the depletion of environmental resources. After an election-year sweep, three more states (California, Nevada, and Massachussetts) legalized the recreational use of marijuana. Once these and other new laws take effect, a majority of U.S. states will have legalized marijuana in some form or another. This is good news for patients whose conditions may be helped by medical marijuana use, for recreational users who think pot should be treated like alcohol in the eyes of the law, and for businesspeople eager to capitalize on new opportunities for profit. Many hope that other states will legalize marijuana as well, and that the “dominoes” will continue to fall. How is it possible that there could be such different reactions to the users of this plant? Changing values lead to changing laws and changing practices in everyday life. Along with cultural values, definitions of deviance change over time, and we can sometimes observe them as they swing back and forth, from one extreme to the other, over the course of history. What was once mainstream becomes defined as deviant; what is now seen as deviant may soon become normal and acceptable. Shouldn’t we be able to agree on whether marijuana production and use are deviant? As we shall see, nothing is inherently deviant—rather, it is the cultural, historical, and situational context that makes it so. 152 CHAPTER 6 Deviance HOW TO READ THIS CHAPTER Have you ever driven faster than the posted speed limit? Have you ever gotten caught picking your nose in public? Did you have your first taste of beer, wine, or hard liquor before you reached the legal drinking age? Did you pierce something (your lip, eyebrow, or belly button) that your grandmother wouldn’t have wanted you to pierce? If you work in an office, did you ever take home a pen, pencil, or packet of Post-it notes? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you are the embodiment of what we seek to understand in this chapter: You are deviant. Remember this as you read the chapter. Defining Deviance Deviance is a behavior, trait, or belief that departs from a norm and generates a negative reaction in a particular group. The norms and the group reactions are necessary for a behavior or characteristic to be defined as deviant (Goode 1997). The importance of norms becomes clear when we remember that what is deviant in one culture might be normal in another (see Chapter 3); even within the same culture, what was deviant a century ago—like marijuana use—might be perfectly acceptable now (and vice versa). The importance of group reactions is clear when we look at the varied reactions that norm violations generate: Some violations are seen as only mildly deviant (like chewing with your mouth open), while others are so strongly taboo that they are almost unthinkable (like cannibalism). Deviant behavior must be sufficiently serious or unusual to spark a negative sanction or punishment. For example, if you were having dinner with friends and used the wrong fork for your salad, you would be violating a minor norm but your friends probably wouldn’t react in a negative fashion; they might not even notice. On the other hand, if you ate an entire steak dinner—meat, mashed potatoes, and salad—with your hands, your friends probably would react. They might criticize your behavior strongly (“That’s totally disgusting!”) and even refuse to eat with you again. This latter example, then, would be considered deviant behavior among your group of friends— and among most groups in American society. Because definitions of deviance are constructed from cultural, historical, and situational norms, sociologists are interested in a number of topics under the rubric of deviance. First, how are norms and rules created, and how do certain norms and rules become especially important? Second, who is subject to the rules, and how is rule breaking identified? Third, what types of sanctions (punishments or rewards) are dispensed to society’s violators? Fourth, how do people who break the rules see themselves, and how do others see them? And finally, how have sociologists attempted to explain rule making, rule breaking, and responses to rule breaking? Challenging Norms As a pregnant transgender man, Trystan Reese faced criticism for challenging society’s norms about gender and parenting and was labeled deviant by some. Deviance across Cultures It is important to remember that when sociologists use the term “deviant,” they are making a social judgment, never a moral one. If a particular behavior is considered deviant, this means that it violates the values and norms of a particular group, not that it is inherently wrong or that other groups will make the same judgment. Much of the literature on deviance focuses on crime, but not only do different cultures define strikingly different behaviors as criminal, they also differ in how those crimes are punished. Most serious crime in the United States today is punished DEVIANCE a behavior, trait, by imprisonment. This method belief, or other characteristic that of punishment was rare until the violates a norm and causes a nineteenth century, however, as negative reaction maintaining a prison requires considerable resources. Buildings must be constructed and maintained, guards and other staff must be paid, and prisoners must be fed and clothed. For groups without these resources, incarceration is not a possibility, even assuming it would be a desirable option. Instead, there is a whole host of other techniques of punishment. Deviance across Cultures 153 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE Body Modification B randing has long since died out as a method of punishment, but in a perfect illustration of the mutability of deviance, it has made something of a comeback as a form of body decoration (Parker 1998). What used to be an involuntary mark of shame has been reclaimed as a voluntary mark of pride. Small branding irons of stainless steel are heated with a blowtorch until white hot and are held on the skin for a second or two. Some who undergo the procedure burn incense to cover the smell of their own flesh burning. Many African American fraternities have a long tradition of branding, usually in the shape of one of the fraternity’s Greek letters. The practice has received a public boost as several popular athletes have prominently displayed their fraternity brands. Basketball legend Michael Jordan sports such a brand, as does the NFL’s Malcolm Jenkins. Branding is spreading to other subcultures, where it is just another extension of tattoos, Mohawks, and body piercings as an outward manifestation of youthful rebellion or an expression of personal aesthetic or group identification. When it comes to body modification, what Americans might label deviant might be identified as desirable or normal in other cultures and vice versa. Among the Suri of southwestern Ethiopia, progressively larger plates are inserted into the lower lip so that it gradually becomes enlarged. The Padaung women of Burma stretch their necks with brass rings. Young girls begin by encircling their necks with just a few rings, then add more as they grow; by the time of maturity, their necks are considerably elongated. Breast augmentation surgery is 154 CHAPTER 6 Deviance commonplace in the United States, while butt augmentation is popular in Brazil. Body modification does not always need to be dramatic. In reality, there is a great number of subtle methods of body modification practiced by most Americans that may not seem so obvious if we concentrate on eyebrow rings and neck tattoos. First of all, there have always been body modifications for the middle and upper classes. Corsets, worn by women through the ages until the early twentieth century, are an obvious example. Stomachs were flattened with “stays,” long strips of some rigid material like whalebone. A tightly laced corset could achieve a dramatically narrow waistline but often at a serious cost to the wearer’s health. Women sometimes even had ribs removed in order to accommodate them. The hair salon is another great unacknowledged center for body modification. If you get a perm, you are breaking the disulfide bonds in your hair and reshaping them to straighten them or make them curly. Even a simple haircut is a type of body modification—luckily, for those of us who have gotten bad haircuts, they’re temporary! Some body modifications seem so “normal” that we practice them as routines without considering how they may seem deviant elsewhere. Other cultures may view Americans’ obsession with hair removal—shaving, tweezing, and waxing—as bizarre. As you can see, whether it’s wearing a corset, branding yourself, or shaving your legs, the boundaries between beauty and deviance are fluid across time and place. For example, the Amish, a religious community whose members do without modern devices like electricity, cars, and telephones, practice meidung, which means shunning those who violate the strict norms of the group (Kephart 2000). A biblical rule instructs them “not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one” (1 Corinthians 5:11). In other words, the Amish believe they should not associate with rule breakers even when they come from within their own family. No one does business with, eats with, or even talks to the guilty party. The shunning is temporary, however: After a short period, the violator is expected to publicly apologize and make amends and is then welcomed back into the community. A much more permanent method of punishment is total banishment from the community. For many Native American people, the social group was so important that banishment was considered a fate worse than death (Champagne 1994). It was one of a variety of practices used to maintain social control (along with shaming songs, contests, and challenges of strength) and something of a rarity because it completely severed ties between the group and the individual. Banishment has a long history of use in all parts of the world, from British prisoners being “transported” to Australia to Russian dissidents being exiled to Siberia, and has been one of the most cost-effective methods of punishment ever discovered. Just as methods of punishment vary between societies and groups, they also change over time. In Colonial America, for example, corporal punishment was the rule for the majority of crimes (Walker 1997). These days, the phrase “corporal punishment” may conjure up images of elementary school teachers spanking students, probably because spanking was the last vestige of what was once a vast repertoire of techniques. Thieves, pickpockets, and others who would today be considered petty criminals were flogged, had their ears cropped, had their noses slit, had their fingers or hands cut off, or were branded. These punishments were designed not only to deliver pain but also to mark the offender. As such, the particular punishment was often designed to fit the crime. A pickpocket might have a hand cut off; a forger might have an “F” branded on his forehead. Brands were also used to mark African American slaves as property during the 1800s. Theories of Deviance In this section, we will learn how three sociological paradigms discussed in Chapter 1—functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism—can be applied to deviance. We will also learn about other related theories that have been developed specifically to explain particular aspects of deviance. Functionalism As you may recall, adherents of functionalism argue that each element of social structure helps maintain the stability of society. What, then, is the function of deviance for society? Émile Durkheim came up with a couple of functions. First, deviance can help a society clarify its moral boundaries. We are reminded about our shared notions of what is right when we have to address wrongdoings of various sorts. In 2005, Terri Schiavo, a hospital patient in St. Petersburg, Florida, received national attention when a legal battle was fought over her life. Schiavo had been in a persistent vegetative state since 1990 and kept alive through a gastric feeding tube. Her husband, Michael, petitioned the courts in 1998 to end life support; he thought it was the right thing to do and was what Terri would have wanted. Her parents, Mary and Robert Schindler, took legal action against Michael’s decision—they thought it was wrong. While most people might have had a vague idea of how they felt about artificially prolonging life, the Schiavo case forced them to think concretely about how such choices affect actual people. After a seven-year process, the courts sided with Michael Schiavo, and on March 18, 2005, his wife’s feeding tube was SOCIAL CONTROL THEORY removed. She died thirteen days a theory of crime, proposed by Travis Hirschi, that posits that later. strong social bonds increase Another function of deviance conformity and decrease deviance is to promote social cohesion (one of functionalism’s valued ideals); people can be brought together as a community in the face of crime or other violations. For example, while the country was divided over the decision in the Schiavo case, an opinion poll by ABC News on March 21, 2005, reported that 70 percent of Americans believed that Michael Schiavo had the authority to make decisions on behalf of his wife and that the case should not have been a federal matter. In the same poll, 63 percent maintained that the federal government was involved solely for political advantage. Whatever they believed about prolonging life, the majority of Americans thus agreed that the choice was best made by family and not the government. Social cohesion is central to other theories of deviance as well. Travis Hirschi’s social control theory hypothesizes that the stronger one’s social bonds—to family and religious, civic, and other groups—the less likely one is to commit crime. Such bonds tend to increase one’s investment in the community and also increase one’s commitment to that community’s shared values and norms. With both internal and external forces regulating behavior, Hirchi argues that social bonds promote conformity (Hirschi 1969). STRUCTURAL STRAIN THEORY Sociologist Robert Merton (1938/1976) provides a bridge between functionalist and conflict theories of deviance. Like Durkheim, Theories of Deviance 155 156 CHAPTER 6 Deviance Accept CULTURAL GOALS INSTITUTIONALIZED MEANS Accept Reject Conformity Innovation Reject Ritualism Retreatism NEW MEANS NEW GOALS Merton acknowledges that some deviance is inevitable in society. But like conflict theorists, he argues that an individual’s position in the social structure will affect his experience of deviance and conformity. Social inequality can create situations in which people experience tension (or strain) between the goals society says they should be working toward (like financial success) and the means they have available to meet those goals (not everyone is able to work hard at a legitimate job). Our society’s intense emphasis on financial success and materialism—through the mythology of the “American Dream”—can be stressful for those whose chances of realizing that dream are limited (Messner and Rosenfeld 2012). The INNOVATORS individuals who rewards of conformity are availaccept society’s approved goals but not society’s approved means able only to those who can pursue to achieve them approved goals through approved means. Any other combination of RITUALISTS individuals who means and goals is deviant in one have given up hope of achieving society’s approved goals but still way or another (see Figure 6.1). operate according to society’s Innovators, for example, approved means might seek financial success via unconventional means (such as RETREATISTS individuals who renounce society’s approved drug dealing or embezzlement). goals and means entirely and Ritualists go through the conlive outside conventional norms ventional motions while abanaltogether doning all hope of success, and REBELS individuals who reject retreatists (like dropouts or society’s approved goals and hermits) renounce the culture’s means and instead create and goals and means entirely and live work toward their own (sometimes outside conventional norms altorevolutionary) goals using new gether. At the far end of the conmeans tinuum, rebels reject the cultural SOCIAL CONTROL the formal definitions of success and the norand informal mechanisms used mative means of achieving it and to elicit conformity to values and advocate radical alternatives to norms and thus promote social the existing social order. cohesion For example, consider the characters in the film The Dark Knight, an action movie that documents Batman’s cleanup of Gotham City. The goal is to combat the corruption that has overcome Gotham through multiple lucrative criminal mobs. In the movie, conformity is represented by District Attorney Harvey Dent, who is attempting to fight crime through the approved means of the law. Dent, along with Police Lieutenant James Gordon and Assistant D.A. Rachel Dawes, enact a tough campaign to convict all mob bosses through the testimony of their accountant. Batman is an innovator who fights crime using cunning, high-tech weaponry, and unconventional means that ignore the legal process. As always, traditional bureaucrats like Police Commissioner Loeb and the Gotham mayor are ritualists who operate within the parameters that they have been given with little hope of quelling the crime wave. Corrupt Officer Ramirez is a retreatist who Rebellion Figure 6.1 Merton’s Typology of Deviance Different orientations toward society’s goals and differential access to the means to achieve those goals combine to create different categories of deviance. actually helps out the mob rather than attempt to fight it. Finally, the Joker, whose portrayal by Heath Ledger won him a posthumous Academy Award, embodies the true spirit of the rebel. Rather than attempting to fight crime, the Joker causes mayhem for both law enforcers and the mob bosses with the ultimate goal of bringing about the downfall of all of Gotham. While the mob bosses stand to gain financially from their crime sprees, the Joker’s sadistic goal is to see the entire city descend into chaos and anarchy. Conflict Theory Conflict theorists, who study inequalities of wealth and power, note that inequalities are present in our definitions of deviance as well. In other words, conflict theorists believe that rules are applied unequally and that punishments for rule violators are unequally distributed: Those at the top are subject to different rules and sanctions than those nearer the bottom, and the behaviors of less powerful groups and individuals are more likely to be criminalized than the behaviors of the powerful. American criminologist Richard Quinney theorized that capitalism—and the exploitation and oppression of the working class—make deviant and even criminal behavior nearly inescapable for workers. The ruling class can make laws that target the poor. When the poor act out against repression, they become targets for law enforcement, while the rich and powerful remain free to do what they like. Norms, rules, and laws are used to regulate the behavior of individuals and groups. This process, known as Rebel with a Cause In The Dark Knight, Batman is an innovator who fights crime unconventionally, Harvey Dent is a ritualist who conforms to established parameters, and the Joker is a rebel intent on bringing about the downfall of Gotham. social control, can be either informal, as in the exercise of control through customs, norms, and expectations, or formal, as in the exercise of control through laws or other official regulations. Both formal social control and informal social control can be exercised unequally in a hierarchical society, and this is what conflict theory is concerned with when it comes to the topic of deviance. As recently as 2003, more than a dozen U.S. states still imposed heterosexuality on their citizens through antisodomy laws, which prohibited any sexual acts that did not lead to procreation. While in theory anti-sodomy laws could include acts like masturbation and heterosexual oral sex, in practice these laws were generally imposed against samesex partners. Before a Supreme Court ruling invalidated all state anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), sexual acts done in the privacy of your own home could be penalized with fines and jail time in states such as Florida, Idaho, and Michigan. From a conflict theorist perspective, anti-sodomy laws were a way for the heterosexual majority to exercise control over same-sex minorities. As another example, the Great Recession of 2008 was in large part caused by banks engaging in risky and often predatory mortgage lending. Millions of ordinary people lost not only their homes but also their jobs and life savings during the ensuing economic crisis, and both the national economy and global economy were on the verge of collapse. But the banks and corporations were bailed out with taxpayer money, and only a single Wall Street executive was ever prosecuted in relation to the crash (Lewis 2011). This unhappy episode in American history is just one illustration of the way that wealth and privilege protect the powerful from being defined as deviant or being punished for their violations. The recent and ongoing controversy over voter identification laws reveals how even policies that some would argue are neutral really do affect some groups differently than others. At the time of the 2016 presidential election, twelve states had a photo identification requirement for voters, meaning that voters must show a photo ID in order to cast a vote. While supporters of such laws argue that they help stem voter fraud, opponents say that voter fraud is almost nonexistent. They argue that voter ID requirements are really meant to keep various groups— ethnic and racial minorities, DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION immigrants, the elderly, and the THEORY Edwin Sutherland’s poor, all of whom tend to vote hypothesis that we learn to be Democrat—away from the vot- deviant through our associations ing booth. These groups don’t with deviant peers always have IDs and may have trouble getting them, especially if there is a fee involved. Unfortunately, there is a good deal of evidence to support the conflict theorists’ argument that rules are applied unequally in our hierarchical society. Symbolic Interactionism While conflict theorists and functionalists focus on inequalities and the social functions of deviance, interactionists consider the way that interpersonal relationships and everyday interactions shape definitions of deviance. DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY One such approach is Edwin Sutherland’s differential association theory (Sutherland 1939; Sutherland et al. 1992), which asserts that we learn to be deviant through our interactions Theories of Deviance 157 IN RELATIONSHIPS Cyberbullying, Trolls, and Online Deviance W ith the advent of the Internet came new ways of interacting with one another . . . and new ways of being deviant. Or maybe they’re just old ways of being deviant in a new relational context. Because bullies and trolls go way, way back. Although parents and schools have always worried about bullying, their concerns have multiplied since children and teenagers started using the Internet. The phenomenon of cyberbullying—the use of electronic and social media to tease, threaten, or humiliate someone—catapulted to the forefront of national consciousness after the suicide of thirteenyear-old Megan Meier in October 2006. Megan had received an online message from a boy named Josh, who said he lived nearby but that his family didn’t have a phone. During the next several weeks, they sent messages back and forth and seemed to have become close very quickly. Then, without warnCYBERBULLYING the use ing, Josh started taunting of electronic media (web and abusing her. Megan was pages, social networking sites, e- mail, Twitter, cell devastated and hung herself phones) to tease, harass, in her closet. Several weeks threaten, or humiliate later, the Meiers learned that someone “Josh” was not a real person and that the online account had been created by neighborhood mom Lori Drew, in order to get back at Megan for snubbing her daughter. Unfortunately, Megan’s is not an isolated case. More recently, eleven-year-old Tyler Benz killed himself after receiving a series of texts claiming that his thirteen-year-old girlfriend had committed suicide. The texts turned out to be from the girlfriend herself. No one explained that the texts were a prank, and Benz took them so seriously that he hung himself in his bedroom closet. The girl is facing charges (Phillips 2017). A 2016 survey found that about a third of all young people have been victims of cyberbullying at some point in their lives (Patchin and Hinduja 2016). According to the U.S. Department of Education, 20 percent of students between the ages of twelve and eighteen reported being bullied during the 2014–2015 school year; 12 percent of those students reported being bullied online or by text (National Center for Education Statistics 2016). So while cyberbullying is still less common than its off-line equivalent, in several ways it’s more frightening. Like every phenomenon created by the Information Revolution, cyberbullying (sometimes called “electronic aggression”) is faster and connects more people than offline activity. Traditional bullying usually happens at school, while cyberbullying can happen anytime and in the privacy of your own home. Likewise, the effects are longer lasting. One of the most common forms of cyberbullying is spreading rumors about someone. Traditional bullying relied on word of mouth or the proverbial graffiti on the bathroom wall to do this. But word of mouth is limited, and only so many people can read nasty comments scrawled on the stall in the bathroom before the janitor washes it off. Online, there is almost no limit to how many people might see a nasty comment, even if it is later taken down. with others who break the rules. This is the theory of deviance that your parents subscribed to when you were a teenager: Don’t hang out with the bad kids! Simple peer pressure by those you associate with can lead to deviant behavior. For LABELING THEORY Howard instance, an athlete who uses Becker’s idea that deviance steroids to help build strength is a consequence of external judgments, or labels, that modify might also influence his teamthe individual’s self- concept and mates to start “doping” even change the way others respond though this practice is banned to the labeled person in most sports. Have you ever been influenced by others to do something deviant that you would have never tried on your own? This theory of deviance seems at first glance to be pretty sensible—interacting often with those who break the rules would seem to socialize an individual into their rulebreaking culture. But, as it turns out, not all who hang out with deviants become deviant themselves, and plenty of people who engage in deviant acts have never consorted with other rule breakers. Also, in cases where deviance is not the result of a willful act (mental illness, for example), a learning theory such as this one is not a useful explanation. While differential association theory seeks to explain “why they do it,” it cannot fully explain every case of deviant behavior—nor can any theory of deviance. 158 CHAPTER 6 Deviance LABELING THEORY Howard Becker’s labeling theory (1963) proposes that deviance is not inherent in any act, belief, or condition; instead, it is determined by the social context. A man who kills an intruder who is attacking his child may be labeled a hero, while a man who kills a cashier in the process So far, most research has focused on cyberbullying that is perpetrated by someone who knows the victim in real life, but there have always been Internet bullies (or “trolls”) who seek to abuse people they’ve never met or have only encountered online. For example, after Megan Meier’s suicide, a blog was created by someone with no connection to her case, called “Megan Had It Coming,” that contained posts from a cast of characters who purported to know Megan, all expressing a distinct lack of remorse. The blogger, a thirty-two-yearold computer programmer from Seattle, had a history of humiliating others online and expressed pride in his achievements. Indeed, “trolls” seem to enjoy their abusive activities and often continue under different usernames even after they have been blocked by service providers or website administrators. Trolls make a game of harrassing, bullying, and stalking others online: Threats of violence are common, as is “doxxing,” or the practice of publishing private, humiliating information (photos, financial data, etc.) online for all to see (Stein 2016). As more and more of people’s lives play out online, cyberbullying will only become more common. Will we treat it the way we treat other related forms of deviance? In “real” life, abuses like slander, harassment, and stalking can be prosecuted as crimes. But it is harder to apply such penalties to Internet trolls and cyberbullies, given the questions about identity and jurisdiction that arise in online settings. Perhaps the only way to respond to this type of deviance is to troll the trolls? Cyberbullying Tina Meier holds two pictures of her daughter Megan, who committed suicide after receiving cruel online messages. of robbing a store may be labeled a villain. Even though the act of homicide is the same, the way the person who did it is treated differs greatly depending on the label. Labeling theory recognizes that labels will vary depending on the culture, time period, and situation. David Rosenhan’s study “On Being Sane in Insane Places” (1973) provides a striking demonstration of the power of labeling and the importance of context. Rosenhan and seven other researchers gained admission to psychiatric hospitals as patients. Other than falsifying their names and occupations, the eight subjects gave honest answers to all but one of the questions in the entrance examination. They all complained of hearing voices, a symptom often linked to schizophrenia. Nevertheless, the subjects felt certain that once they were hospitalized, they would be quickly exposed as “pseudo-patients,” not really mentally ill. In fact, the opposite turned out to be true. Once admitted, the pseudo-patients turned immediately to the task of getting themselves discharged—and failed miserably. Although they behaved as normally and pleasantly as possible, doctors and nurses continued to treat them as mentally ill patients in need of treatment. No amount of explanation on the part of the pseudo-patients could convince the hospital staff of their sanity (though, in an interesting twist, it was usually obvious to the other patients). When they were finally discharged (after one to seven weeks!), it was not because the staff had finally seen through the deception; they were all released with their schizophrenia “in remission.” As Rosenhan concluded, “Once labeled schizophrenic, the pseudopatient was stuck with that label” (1973, p. 253). The effects of this “sticky” deviant label on actual patients can follow them through their lives, even after they leave the hospital. Theories of Deviance 159 Labeling Theory Deviant labels such as “teen mom” vary based on culture, time period, and context. Labeling theory is also concerned with how individuals think of themselves once a deviant label has been applied. Recall Cooley’s concept of the “ looking-glass self”: how we perceive ourselves depends in part on how others see us, so if others react to us as deviant, we are likely to internalize that label (even if we object to it). Applying deviant labels can also lead to further deviance, as PRIMARY DEVIANCE in labeling a person moves from primary theory, the initial act or attitude deviance (the thing that gets that causes one to be labeled her labeled in the first place) to deviant secondary deviance (a deviant SECONDARY DEVIANCE in identity or career) (Lemert 1951). labeling theory, the subsequent If you’ve watched NBC’s deviant identity or career that The Biggest Loser, you’ve seen develops as a result of being examples of both types of devilabeled deviant ance. On the show, overweight TERTIARY DEVIANCE and obese contestants sign up redefining the stigma associated for an intensive weight-loss boot with a deviant label as a positive camp, and viewers follow the phenomenon ups and downs of their progress SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY over the course of each season. an inaccurate statement or belief Their excess body weight, which that, by altering the situation, is seen as deviant in contempobecomes accurate; a prediction rary U.S. culture, is an example that causes itself to come true of primary deviance, and conSTEREOTYPE THREAT a kind testants’ recognition that they of self-fulfilling prophecy in which are “fatties” who need to slim the fear of performing poorly— down is an example of secondary and confirming stereotypes about deviance. their social groups—causes Although deviant labels are students to perform poorly sticky and hard to shake, it is 160 CHAPTER 6 Deviance sometimes possible for an individual to turn what could have been a negative identity into a positive one. John Kitsuse (1980) calls this tertiary deviance, which occurs when the person labeled deviant rejects the notion of deviance entirely and attempts to redefine her “deviant” attributes or behavior as normal. Some members of The Biggest Loser cast demonstrated this level of deviance as well. Many contestants gain the weight back after leaving the show, their bodies fighting to return to their original weights; for some, this leads them to a newfound acceptance of their body shape and size (Huddleston 2016; Kolata 2016). This argument—“sure, I’m fat, but there shouldn’t be anything wrong with that”—is an attempt to recast that identity as acceptable difference rather than deviance. Some of the most exciting, but also disturbing, research on labeling theory has focused on self-fulfilling prophecy, a term coined by Robert Merton in his 1948 article of the same name. Merton’s concept was derived from the so-called Thomas theorem, formulated by sociologist W. I. Thomas in 1928, which held that “if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” From this theorem, Merton developed his notion of the self-fulfilling prophecy, which is basically a prediction that causes itself to come true merely by being stated. He offered the example of a bank in the Depression-era 1930s that collapsed through “a rumor of insolvency,” when enough investors became convinced that the bank was out of money (1948, p. 194). Merton argued that the self-fulfilling prophecy can be used to explain some racial and ethnic issues in the United States, and subsequent research has borne him out. For example, Elijah Anderson’s classic Streetwise (1990) details how the police and community perceive black male inner- city teen agers as a criminal element, with the result that they are more likely to be arrested than other teenagers, and citizens are also more likely to report black males for crimes. This cloud of suspicion that surrounds black urban teens requires them to defend their innocence in situations that other teens can negotiate with little or no difficulty. Young black males are also more likely to be incarcerated, which only feeds the public image of criminality. The racial discrimination and profiling by police and the community thus lead to a negative cycle that is difficult to break. Stereotypes are often part of self-fulfilling prophecies. Claude Steele’s research (1997) on stereotype threat shows that when students worry that their own poor academic performance could unintentionally confirm a negative stereotype of their social group, they actually perform poorly, thus confirming that stereotype. Stereotype threat has been measured in high-achieving African American students as well as highly ranked female math students (Spencer, Steele, and Quinn 1999). Stereotypes and self-fulfilling prophecies are not always negative. Jennifer Lee and Min Zhou (2014) found that Asian American students can actually benefit from both. In the case of stereotype promise, Asian American students are more likely to be placed in Advanced Placement (AP) classes, receive high grades, and be treated well by teachers because others assume that they are high achievers. In both cases, the stereotypes become real as people (teachers, students, others) act based on them—even in cases where students are trying to avoid this very problem. Labels alone are not 100 percent deterministic, and prophecies are not always self-fulfilling. But in our society, deviant labels can override other aspects of individual identity and exert a powerful influence on self-image, treatment by others, and even social and institutional policies. The Stigma of Deviance In ancient Greece, criminals and slaves were branded with hot irons, making a mark called a stigma, from the Greek word for tattoo. The stigma was meant to serve as an outward indication that there was something shameful about the bearer, and to this day we continue to use the term STEREOTYPE PROMISE a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy in which to signify some disgrace or failpositive stereotypes, such as the ing. Although we no longer live “model minority” label applied to in a society where we are forced Asian Americans, lead to positive to wear our rule violations performance outcomes branded onto our bodies, stigSTIGMA Erving Goffman’s term matized identities still carry for any physical or social attribute serious social consequences. that devalues a person or group’s Stigma, a central concept identity and that may exclude in the sociology of deviance, those who are devalued from was analyzed and elaborated normal social interaction by Erving Goffman (1962) in his book of the same name. Once an individual has been labeled as deviant, he is stigmatized and acquires what Goffman calls a “spoiled identity.” There are three main types of stigma: physical (including physical or mental impairments), moral (signs of a flawed character), and tribal (membership in a discredited or oppressed group). Almost any departure from the norm can have a stigmatizing effect, including a physical disability, a past battle with Table 6.1 Theory in Everyday Life Perspective Approach to Deviance Case Study: Plagiarism Structural Functionalism Deviance clarifies moral boundaries and promotes social cohesion. Punishing those who plagiarize separates those who should be in college from those who aren’t responsible enough. Strong social bonds increase conformity and decrease deviance. Requiring incoming college students to sign an honor code on the first day of orientation pledging that they will not cheat while they are a member of their college community. An individual’s position in society determines whether she has the means to achieve her goals or must otherwise turn to deviance. A student’s attitude about plagiarizing depends on whether she has the means to write the paper. Definitions and rules of deviance are applied unequally based on power. Students with fewer resources are punished harshly and have fewer options afterward; students with more money or connections can either transfer to another school or rely on their parents for help. Symbolic Interactionism The definition of deviance is relative and depends on the culture, time period, and situation. Plagiarism may be labeled as deviant in the United States but not in Russia or India. Differential Association Theory Deviance is learned through interactions with others who break the rules. Students learn to cheat because they hang out with other students who plagiarize. Labeling Theory Deviance is determined by the reactions of others; applying deviant labels to an individual may lead her to further deviance. A student who is caught plagiarizing may come to believe she is unable to write without cheating. Control Theory Structural Strain Theory Conflict Theory The Stigma of Deviance 161 alcohol or mental illness, time served in jail, or sexual transa member of a different group gressions. Goffman recognizes than the stigmatized group to that what may once have been which you belong a stigmatized identity may IN-GROUP ORIENTATION change over time or may vary among stigmatized individuals, the according to culture or social rejection of prevailing judgments context. Being black or Jewish or prejudice and the development is a stigma only if one lives in a of new standards that value their racist or anti-Semitic society. group identity In a community entirely populated by African Americans, it is white people who may be stigmatized; an all-Jewish enclave may see non-Jews as outside the norm. Goffman is careful to note that not all stigmatized identities are just or deserved— only that they are specific to the norms and prejudices of a particular group, time period, or context. PASSING presenting yourself as Managing Deviant Identities Goffman was particularly interested in the effects of stigmatization on individual identity and interactions with others. At the macro level, society does not treat the stigmatized very well; if you suffer from serious depression, for example, you may find that your health insurance does not cover your treatment. At the micro level, you may also find that your friends don’t fully understand your depression-related problems. In fact, you may find yourself working to keep others from finding out that you are depressed or receiving treatment for United Against Prejudice Through events like the Million Pound March, groups like the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance embrace an in-group orientation and reject the standards that mark them as deviant. 162 CHAPTER 6 Deviance depression precisely in order to avoid such situations. Having a stigmatized identity—of any sort—makes navigating the social world difficult. PASSING How can stigmatized individuals negotiate the perils of everyday interaction? One strategy analyzed by Goffman is called passing, or concealing stigmatizing information. The allusion to racial passing is entirely intended— Goffman meant to call to mind the experiences of light-skinned African Americans who, for more than 300 years and particularly in the decades before the civil rights movement of the 1960s, sought access to the privileges of whiteness (and relief from discrimination) by concealing their racial heritage and passing as white. The case of racial passing is instructive in developing an understanding of all types of passing—such as the passing engaged in by employees who dress to conceal their tattoos when at work, or people with illnesses like diabetes or depression or disabilities such as hearing impairments who try to keep their conditions a secret. IN- GROUP ORIENTATION Not everyone can pass, though, because not all stigma is concealable. While it may be possible to conceal your status as an ex-convict or survivor of rape, it is more difficult to conceal extreme shortness or obesity. And while some people cannot pass, others refuse to do so as a matter of principle. These people don’t believe that their identities should be seen as deviant, and they certainly don’t believe that they should have to change or conceal those identities just to make “normals” feel more comfortable. They have what Goffman calls an in-group orientation—they reject the standards that mark them as deviant and may even actively propose new standards in which their special identities are well within the normal range. For example, such groups as PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), NAD (National Association of the Deaf), and NAAFA (National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance) have allowed members of stigmatized groups to feel greater self-esteem and to unite in fighting against prejudice and discrimination. Activism might also take a more individual form of merely being “out,” open, and unapologetic about one’s identity. This in itself can be difficult and exhausting (as passing is); however, those with an in-group orientation see it as a powerful way to address society’s changing definitions of deviance. DEVIANCE AVOWAL AND VOLUNTARY OUTSIDERS Under most circumstances, people reject the deviant label and what it seems to imply about their personal identity. However, there are some who choose to be called a deviant. Those who belong to a particular subculture, for example— whether outlaw biker, rock musician, or eco-warrior—may celebrate their membership in a deviant group. Howard ON THE JOB Is “Cash Register Honesty” Good Enough? W hile we might like to think that most employees wouldn’t take money from the cash register or merchandise from the showroom floor, walk away with a laptop computer, drive away with the company car, or filter sales receipts to their own bank account, employee theft is still a major problem. According to a 2010 survey by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (2012), the typical business is estimated to lose about 5 percent of its annual revenues to employee fraud. This translates to a median loss of $140,000 per year per organization. Others estimate that employee theft is involved in up to one-third of all U.S. corporate bankruptcies (Russakoff and Goodman 2011). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports that 75 percent of all employees steal once, and that half of those individuals will steal repeatedly (Jones 2012). Michael Cunningham (Cunningham and Jones 2010), a professor of psychology at the University of Louisville and a consultant to the security industry, warns that only one in every three potential employees will be completely trustworthy. Of the other two, one may be tempted to steal given the opportunity, while the other will be more or less constantly looking for a chance to get away with taking company property. Although we may consider ourselves the trustworthy ones, we may not recognize that our own behavior could still be contributing to the tens of billions of dollars lost each year. How? Well, have you ever taken home paper clips, Post-it notes, Becker (1963) referred to such individuals as outsiders, people living in one way or another outside mainstream society. They may pass among “normals,” continuing to work and participate in everyday life. Or their deviant identity may have become a master status, thus preventing them from interacting along conventional lines; when this happens, a person’s deviance may be thought to reveal his underlying nature. For instance, members of the punk subculture, easily identified by their distinctive look, are generally assumed to be loud troublemakers, whatever their individual personality traits may be. Some potential deviants may actually initiate the labeling process against themselves or provoke others to do so, a condition Ralph Turner (1972) calls deviance avowal. Turner suggests that it may be useful to conceive of deviance as a role rather than as an isolated behavior that violates a single norm. And in some cases, it may be beneficial for an individual to identify with the deviant role. In the a pen, or a pad of paper from the office? Made personal copies on the office copier? Used your work computer to surf the web, download music or movies, play video games, or send an e-mail to a friend? Eaten or drunk company products? How about taking a little more time than you’re supposed to on your lunch break or leaving work a little early? It’s called “pilfering,” and it happens on the job tens of thousands of times a day. And it all adds up. Most companies consider these kinds of losses as just another factor in the cost of doing business. But how is it that so many people think nothing of these small infractions in spite of prevailing social norms that discourage stealing and while otherwise being upstanding or even exemplary employees? You could say that these people are practicing “cash register honesty.” That is, they draw the line at actually stealing money (or its equivalent) out of the till but don’t hesitate to make off with other odds and ends that might have a less easily calculable value. Employees may be deterred by informal social control or by more formal surveillance measures such as videotaping, keystroke logging, or other kinds of scanning and searching practiced by employers. But even when they do get away with taking home a pen or snacking on the merchandise, they might be appalled at the suggestion that they are deviant, especially since everyone else seems to take something now and then. Alcoholics Anonymous program, for example, the first step in recovery is for a member to admit that she is an alcoholic. Since total abstinence from drinking is the goal, only those who believe they have a drinking problem and who willingly accept the label of alcoholic can take the suggested steps toward OUTSIDERS according to recovery. Howard Becker, those labeled Deviance avowal can also deviant and subsequently help a person avoid the pres- segregated from “normal” society sures of having to adopt certain conventional norms, or what DEVIANCE AVOWAL process by which an individual self-identifies Turner calls the “neutralization as deviant and initiates her own of commitment.” For instance, labeling process a recovering alcoholic might resist taking a typical nineto-five job, claiming that the stress of corporate work had always made him drink before. Another recovering alcoholic who refuses to attend family gatherings might offer The Stigma of Deviance 163 as an excuse that she can’t be around family because they drink at every occasion. In such ways, people become voluntary outsiders, finding it preferable to be a deviant in spite of the prevailing norms of mainstream society. DATA WORKSHOP Analyzing Everyday Life AA’s Pioneer Women Alcoholics Anonymous offers an interesting case where members choose to embrace a deviant identity as a positive aspect of themselves, one that is critical to their success in the program. Research by Melvin Pollner and Jill Stein (1996, 2001) has focused on the role of narrative storytelling as a key feature of reconstructing the alcoholic’s sense of self and turning a stigmatized identity into a valued asset in the process of recovery. The basic text of the twelve-step program is laid out in the book Alcoholics Anonymous (1939/2001), often referred to by members as the “Big Book.” Its first 164 pages have remained virtually the same since it was first published in 1939; it is now in its fourth edition. The book also includes dozens of personal stories written by AA members themselves. These chapters always begin with the “Pioneers of AA,” but in each subsequent edition some new (and more modern) stories have been added, while others have been dropped. That such a large part of the Big Book is devoted to the personal stories of members shows their importance. They are intended to help newcomers to the program identify with and relate to the lives of other recovering alcoholics and to follow their examples. In this Data Workshop, you will examine the story of “Marty M.”—one of AA’s pioneers and one of the first women to join the program, way back in 1939, when the book was just being written. Her story is the fourth that appears (but not until the second and subsequent editions) and is called “Women Suffer Too.” The title refers to a widely held notion at the time that only men could be alcoholics. The idea of a woman alcoholic was almost unthinkable. Marty M. defied the conventions of her day in many ways. She was a divorcee, entrepreneur, world traveler, and later, philanthropist. But first and foremost, she was a sober drunk. Marty M.’s story follows the classic narrative structure of all AA stories: what 164 CHAPTER 6 Deviance we used to be like, what happened, and what we are like now. It is told from the perspective of a sober alcoholic looking back on her life and understanding that through the process of deviance avowal (by accepting her alcoholism) she was able to transform a negative past into a positive life. For this Data Workshop you will be examining an existing source and doing a content analysis of the story “Women Suffer Too.” Refer to Chapter 2 for a review of this research method. The text of the story can be found in the Big Book (pages 222–229) and accessed online at various websites, including http://www.aa.org/assets /en_US/en_bigbook_personalstories_partI.pdf. Read the story in its entirety, keeping in mind how the study of life histories or oral histories can reveal important features of societal norms and everyday life. Remember that Marty M. lived in a particular time period and social context. Pay close attention to how the story describes both deviant behavior and the process of deviance avowal, and consider the following questions: ✱ Identify the instances of deviance described in the author’s story. Why were these behaviors considered deviant? ✱ In what ways was she in denial about her condition early on? How did she actively try to disavow the deviant label? ✱ At what point did she begin the process of deviance avowal? How did admitting that she was an alcoholic affect her self-concept? ✱ In what ways did deviance avowal allow her to see her past in a different light? How did her deviant identity finally become a positive part of her life? ✱ How have our perceptions about alcoholics and alcoholism changed since the pioneer days of AA? There are two options for completing this Data Workshop: PREP- PAIR- SHARE Prepare some written notes based on your answers to the questions that you can refer to during in-class discussions. Share your reactions and conclusions with other students in small groups. Listen for any differences in each other’s insights. DO- IT-YOURSELF Write a three- to four-page essay answering the questions. Include your own reactions to the story. Make sure to refer to specific passages from the story that help to support your analysis. Studying Deviance When studying deviance, sociologists have often focused on the most obvious forms of deviant behavior—crime, mental illness, and sexual deviance. This “nuts and sluts” approach (Liazos 1972) usually focuses on the deviance of the poor and powerless, while accepting the values and norms of the powerful in an unacknowledged way. Social scientists tended to apply definitions of deviance uncritically in their research and failed to question the ways in which the definitions themselves may have perpetuated inequalities and untruths. David Matza (1969), a sociologist at the University of California, Berkeley, set out to remedy this situation. He urged social scientists to set aside their preconceived notions in order to understand deviant phenomena on their own terms—a perspective he called “naturalism.” Leila Rupp and Verta Taylor, for example, spent three years with a dozen drag queens in order to gain perspective for their research in Drag Queens at the 801 Cabaret (2003)—at one point, they even performed onstage (see Part II’s introduction to read more). Matza’s fundamental admonition to those studying deviance is that they must appreciate the diversity and complexity of a particular social world—the world of street gangs, drug addicts, strippers, fight clubs, outlaw bikers, homeless people, or the severely disfigured. If such a world is approached as a simple social pathology that needs correcting, the researcher will never fully understand it. A sociological perspective requires that we seek insight without applying judgment—a difficult task indeed. The Emotional Attraction of Deviance Most sociological perspectives on deviance focus on aspects of a person’s background that would influence him to act in deviant ways. This is the case with both functionalist and conflict perspectives. For example, many sociological studies of crime make the case that youth with limited access to education may be more likely to turn to dealing drugs or theft. Labeling theory also suggests that a person’s social location is a crucial determinant: It shapes how others see the person, as well as his or her own self-view, and these perceptions can lead a person from primary to secondary deviance and into a deviant career. One of the main problems with such theories, however, is that they can’t explain why some people with backgrounds that should incline them to deviance never actually violate any rules, while others with no defining background factors do become deviant. Approaches that focus exclusively on background factors neglect one very important element: the deviant’s own in-the-moment experience of committing a deviant act, what sociologist Jack Katz refers to as the “foreground” of deviance. In The Seductions of Crime (1988), Katz looks at how emotionally seductive crime can be, how shoplifting or even committing murder might produce a particular kind of rush that becomes the very reason for carrying out the act. For example, what shoplifters often seek is not the DVD or perfume itself as much as the “sneaky thrill” of stealing it. Initially drawn to stealing by the thought of just how easy it might be, the shoplifter tests her ability to be secretly deviant—in public—while appearing to be perfectly normal. This perspective explains why the vast majority of shoplifters are not from underprivileged backgrounds but are people who could easily afford the stolen items. How else might we explain why a wealthy and famous actress such as Lindsay Lohan would try to steal a necklace from a jewelry store? Similarly, muggers’ and robbers’ actions reveal that they get more satisfaction from their crimes than from the things they steal. They are excited by the sense of superiority they gain by setting up and playing tricks on their victims. In fact, they can come to feel morally superior, thinking that their victims deserve their fate because they are less observant and savvy. Even murderous rages can be seen as seductive ways to overcome an overwhelming sense of humiliation. A victim of adultery, for example, may kill instead of simply ending the relationship because murder, or “righteous slaughter,” feels like the most appropriate response. In a reallife example from 2014, twenty-two-year-old gunman Elliott Rodger killed seven people (including himself) and wounded thirteen in Isla Vista, California. He left behind a video manifesto explaining that he was angry after being romantically rejected by women. In effect, he was seduced by the possibility of becoming a powerful avenger rather than remaining a wounded and impotent victim. Katz’s foreground model of deviance deepens our appreciation for the complexity of deviant behavior and reminds us that social actors are not mere products of their environment but are active participants in creating meaningful experiences for themselves, even if harmful to others. The Study of Crime Crime is a particular type of deviance: It is the violation of a norm that has been codified into law, for which you could be arrested and imprisoned. Official state-backed sanctions, such as laws, exert more power over the individual than do nonlegal norms. For example, if you risked arrest for gossiping about your roommate, you might think twice about doing it. “Might,” however, is the key word here, for the risk of arrest and jail time does not always deter people from breaking laws. In fact, ordinary people break laws every day without really thinking about it (speeding, underage drinking, CRIME a violation of a norm that stealing those pens and pen- has been codified into law cils from the office). As we saw The Study of Crime 165 earlier, being bad can feel good, and even murder can feel righscientific study of crime, criminals, teous at the time (Katz 1988). and criminal justice These are among the many UNIFORM CRIME REPORT reasons that sociologists study (UCR) an official measure of crime—in fact, there’s a word for crime in the United States, the study of crime, criminals, produced by the FBI’s official and the criminal justice system: tabulation of every crime criminology. Criminologists ask reported by more than 18,000 and attempt to answer questions law enforcement agencies like the following: Who makes VIOLENT CRIME crimes in which the laws? Who breaks them? violence is either the objective or Who benefits from defining and the means to an end, including enforcing them? How do indimurder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery viduals begin committing crime, and how do they desist? What PROPERTY CRIME crimes that are the intentions and outcomes do not involve violence, including of law enforcement institutions? burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson Using systematic data and social scientific theory, the work of CYBERCRIME crimes committed criminologists contributes to via the Internet, including identity our understanding of this type of theft, embezzlement, fraud, sexual predation, and financial scams deviance in our society. In the United States, crime is officially measured by the Uniform Crime Report (UCR), the FBI’s tabulation of every crime reported by more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies around the country. In particular, the UCR is used to track the “crime index,” or the eight offenses considered especially reprehensible in our society (see Figure 6.2). Murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery are categorized as violent crime. Burglary (theft inside the home), larceny (of personal property), motor vehicle theft, and arson are considered property crime. Even though the UCR has been shown to be a flawed system (participation by agencies is voluntary, and the FBI CRIMINOLOGY the systematic rarely audits it for accuracy), it is useful in helping to track trends in overall crime as well as particular patterns; it also records the number of arrests made compared with the number of crimes committed, which is the most traditional measure of police effectiveness. Through the UCR, criminologists are able to make comparisons in crime rates using such variables as year and region. One notable finding is that rates of violent crime declined significantly in the last decade of the twentieth century. The year 1991 saw the highest homicide rates in U.S. history, at 9.8 per 100,000 persons or 24,700 murders. Between 1991 and 2000, there was a dramatic drop in homicide rates, and the number continued to decline to 4.4 murders per 100,000 persons, or 14,164 murders, in 2014 (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2016a). Violent crime, though, increased nearly 4 percent from 2014 to 2015; the number of murders jumped up 11 percent. Other findings from the UCR include the observation that murder rates peak in the months of July and August. Perhaps related to summer heat and humidity, murder rates are also higher in the southern states. Financial hardship may influence murder rates, as southern states also have the lowest median family incomes. Other patterns identifiable in UCR data: murder is committed most frequently by a friend or relative of the victim and seldom by a stranger; robbery occurs most frequently in urban areas among youth. Other trends are visible in the UCR as well. Property crimes occur more frequently than violent crimes. The most common crime is larceny, with burglary and motor vehicle theft trailing far behind. Although there has also been a decline in rates of property crime in the last decade, it is not as extreme as the drop in violent crime. And with the arrival of the Information Age, the category of cybercrime has emerged, covering a wide variety of illegal violations committed via the Internet. VIOLENT CRIME PROPERTY CRIME Aggravated assault Robbery Rape Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2015 Figure 6.2 Crime in the United States, 1992–2015 SOURCE: Federal Bureau of Investigation 2016a. 166 CHAPTER 6 Deviance 7,000 Crimes per 100,000 inhabitants Crimes per 100,000 inhabitants 1,000 Larceny Burglary 6,000 Motor vehicle theft 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2015 Crime and Demographics When criminologists look at quantitative crime data, which provide information on who is more likely to commit or be a victim of crime, they may learn more about the cause of crime. We should, however, question the assumptions and biases of the data. For example, Robert Merton’s theory of the self-fulfilling prophecy prompts us to ask, if society has a tendency to cast certain categories of people as criminal types, will this assumption ensure that they will indeed be labeled and treated like criminals? This has certainly seemed to be true in cases like the high-profile 2014 killing of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown by Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson. And, as David Matza warned, will our preconceived notions about a category of people influence our interpretations of numerical data? In this section, we look at the relationship between crime and demographics such as class, age, gender, and race and examine alternate explanations for what may seem like clear numerical fact. CLASS Statistics consistently tell us that crime rates are higher in poor urban areas than in wealthier suburbs, but these higher crime rates may not actually be the result of increased criminal behavior. Rather, police tend to concentrate their efforts in urban areas, which they assume are more prone to crime, and thus make more arrests there. It appears that social class is more directly related to how citizens are officially treated by the police, courts, and prisons than to which individuals are likely to commit crime. And even if we do accept these statistics as an accurate representation of crime rates, such theorists as Robert Sampson and William Julius Wilson (2005) argue that the same factors that cause an area to become economically and socially disadvantaged also encourage criminal activity. Lack of jobs, lack of after-school child care, and lack of good schools, for example, are all factors that can lead to economic strain and criminal activity. On the other end of the social class spectrum, white collar crime has been defined by sociologist Edwin Sutherland as “a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation.” White collar crime can include fraud, embezzlement, or insider trading. Most white collar criminals come from a relatively privileged background (Shover and Wright 2001), and it is no coincidence that white collar crime is policed and punished less stren- WHITE COLLAR CRIME crime uously than street crime. committed by a high-status individual in the course of his AGE The younger the popula- occupation tion, the more likely its members are to commit crimes. Criminologists have shown that this relationship between age and crime has remained stable since 1935, with the peak age for arrests being nineteen. In the United States, fifteen- to nineteen-year-olds make up 6.5 percent of the population yet account for 13 percent of criminal arrests. In addition, there is a specific set of laws, courts, and correctional facilities for juveniles. Some acts are only crimes when they are committed by people under eighteen—curfew violations, for example. Juvenile courts usually involve bench trials (no jury), and some sentences (such as moving the offender into a foster home) are only applied in juvenile cases. The Who, What, Where, and When of Crime The HBO series The Wire was set in Baltimore and focused on topics such as drug dealing, government corruption, and failed school systems. How would a criminologist explain this scene? The Study of Crime 167 On the other end of the spectrum, people sixty-five and older make up about 15 percent of the population and account for only 1 percent of arrests (U.S. Census Bureau 2017d; Federal Bureau of Investigation 2016a). We call this trend aging out of crime. Here, too, however, we must be careful about what we read into official statistics. Since our stereotypical image of a criminal is youthful, it may be that the public and police are more likely to accuse and arrest young people and less likely to target seniors. In addition, youth may commit more visible crimes (like robbery or assault), while older people may commit crimes that are more difficult to detect, like embezzlement or fraud. GENDER Males are more likely than females to commit crime. In fact, males accounted for 89 percent of arrests for murder and 73 percent of all arrests in 2015 (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2016a). Earlier researchers hypothesized that the gender difference in crime rates was based on physical, emotional, and psychological differences between men and women. The logic was that women were too weak, passive, or unintelligent to commit crime. This argument has been replaced by a focus on the social and economic roles of women. Starting in the 1970s, criminologists found that lower crime rates among women could be explained by their lower status in the power hierarchy. Conflict theorists such as James Messerschmidt (1993) argued that once women start gaining power in the labor market through education and income, crime rates among women will rise to more closely match those among men. This hypothesis has been largely supported by recent trends. Between 2006 and 2015, the number of males arrested decreased by more than a quarter (26 percent), while the number of females arrested decreased by only 12 percent (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2016a). So while at first glance it may seem logical to argue that women’s crime rates are lower because of genetics, on closer examination, we see that social structure plays an important role. RACE The relationship between race and crime is a controversial one. According to the UCR, African Americans make up 13 percent of the U.S. population but account for 27 percent of all arrests (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2016a). Once again, sociologists caution against making a link between biology and criminal activity. Instead, they maintain that the relationship can be explained by Merton’s self-fulfilling prophecy and by class variables. For example, we could hypothesize that African Americans are exposed to higher rates of crime because more of them live in lowerclass neighborhoods—and that here, it is class that matters more than race. Race shapes life experiences even after criminal offenders have paid their debt to society: Legal scholar Michelle Alexander makes the argument that once African Americans (and in particular, African American men) come into contact with the criminal justice system, they are permanently stigmatized and stripped of their civil rights. As she explains in The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindess, “They are legally denied the ability to obtain employment, housing, and public benefits—much as African Americans were once forced into a segregated, second-class citizenship in the Jim Crow era” (2011, p. 4). HATE CRIMES When criminals deliberately target victims because of their demographic characteristics (race, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability status) it’s classified as a hate crime. Hate crime charges are usually added to other criminal charges, such as assault, arson, or vandalism, when it is suspected that the original crime was motivated by bias. Such crimes are investigated and prosecuted at both the local and federal levels. National hate crime statistics are collected by the FBI, although not all local jurisdictions participate in the counts. Given this information, we should recognize the likelihood that official statistics underreport hate crimes. In 2015, the FBI reported 5,850 hate crimes, of which close to 60 percent were racially motivated; close to 20 percent targeted victims because of sexual orientation (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2016c). Gender Gap in Crime Orange Is the New Black follows the lives of female inmates at the fictional Litchfield Penitentiary. Women currently make up about 7 percent of the prison population. 168 CHAPTER 6 Deviance CRIME AND INTERSECTIONALITY Finally, it is important to recognize that none of these variables—class, age, gender, race—affect crime rates in isolation; they work together to shape the experiences of individuals as well as the larger society. Nikki Jones’s (2012) ethnographic study of innercity African American girls in Philadelphia shows how all of these variables contribute to young women’s experiences with violence in their everyday lives. For example, the girls in Jones’s study find themselves caught in a bind as they attempt to navigate community standards of both respectability and practicality. In order to be perceived as “respectable,” they must adhere to expectations, be “good girls,” and avoid violence, while also meeting feminine and race-based appearance norms (such as slender bodies and light complexions). On the other hand, the practical realities of life in what are often risky neighborhoods mean these girls must be ready at any time to look and act tough and be willing to fight to defend themselves and others in direct violation of the “good girl” expectations. Thus, their race, class, gender, and age put them in a situation where they must navigate the competing demands of respectability and toughness, balancing their good girl image while always being prepared for the realities of crime and violence. DATA WORKSHOP Analyzing Media and Pop Culture Norm Breaking on Television It’s clear that deviance is a fascinating subject not only for sociologists but for millions of television viewers as well. That’s why we’ve seen a proliferation of shows in recent years that feature people breaking almost every kind of social norm imaginable, from folkways to taboos. We might expect to see deviance covered in a talk show or newsmagazine program, but it’s a staple of many other genres. We see it in reality TV shows like Teen Mom, which focuses on how high schoolers deal with pregnancy and parenthood, and Mafia Wives, which portrays women whose husbands may be criminals with mob connections. But it’s not just reality TV shows that feature deviance. Dramas such as Riverdale, House of Cards, American Horror Story, or Billions, comedies such as Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt or Mom, hybrids such as Transparent or Orange Is the New Black, and even animated shows such as The Simpsons or Family Guy all deal with various elements of the pathological or dysfunctional. And there are many more such shows that we could add to the list. On-Air Deviance TV shows such as 13 Reasons Why and Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt turn norm breaking into mustsee TV. Why is there so much deviance on television? Are these shows merely entertainment, or is something more going on here? When we watch them, do we feel morally superior or get some kind of vicarious thrill? Does exposure to so much deviance help reinforce our social norms or serve to erode them? For this Data Workshop you will be using existing sources and doing a content analysis of an episode from a particular TV show. Return to Chapter 2 for a review of this research method. Choose a contemporary TV show that is available for multiple viewings, either by recording it or accessing it online or on DVD. As you watch the episode, take some notes about the content and try to document all the ways in which deviant behavior is portrayed on the show. Then consider the following questions: ✱ Who is the intended audience for this program? Why did you choose it? ✱ What kind of deviance is featured? Give specific examples of situations, scenes, dialogue, or characters, and explain why they are examples of deviance. The Study of Crime 169 ✱ What kinds of deviance are missing from media portrayals? ✱ Is the deviance celebrated or condemned? ✱ How does it make you feel to watch the program? ✱ What effect do you think the show has on other viewers? ✱ Do you think the program supports or challenges prevailing social norms? There are two options for completing this Data Workshop: P R E P- PA I R- S H A R E Watch your chosen episode and bring some written notes to class that you can refer to in small-group discussions. Compare and contrast the analyses of the different programs in your group. What are the similarities and differences among programs? DO- IT-YOURSELF View your chosen TV program, taking some informal notes about the episode. Write a three- to four-page essay answering the questions and reflecting on your own experience conducting this content analysis. What do you think these shows tell us about contemporary American society and our attitudes toward deviance? Attach your notes to the paper, and include a citation for the episode you viewed. DETERRENCE an approach to punishment that relies on the threat of harsh penalties to discourage people from committing crimes RETRIBUTION an approach to punishment that emphasizes retaliation or revenge for the crime as the appropriate goal INCAPACITATION an approach to punishment that seeks to protect society from criminals by imprisoning or executing them REHABILITATION an approach to punishment that attempts to reform criminals as part of their penalty CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM a collection of social institutions, such as legislatures, police, courts, and prisons, that creates and enforces laws 170 CHAPTER 6 Deviance The Criminal Justice System The question of deterrence is part of an ongoing debate about our criminal laws. Theorists who maintain that offenders carefully calculate the cost and benefits of each crime argue that punishment has a deterrent effect—that if the punishment seems too severe, people won’t commit the crime. That’s the logic behind California’s controversial “three strikes” law: The punishment for three felonies is an automatic life sentence. While deterrence theory seems practical enough, it is important to note that in matters of sociology, seldom is there such a direct and causal link between two factors—in this case, the cost of punishment versus the benefit of the crime. Other justifications for punishment include retribution—the notion that society has the right to “get even”—and incapacitation, the notion that criminals should be confined or even executed to protect society from further injury. Some argue, though, that society should focus not on punishment but on rehabilitation: The prison system should try to reform the criminal so that once released, he will not return to a life of crime. Each approach to punishment invokes different ideas about who the criminal is and what his relationship is to the larger society: Is he someone who can plan ahead and curb his illegal behavior so as not to face a possible negative outcome? Is she someone who can work toward personal transformation? Is he someone who must be punished quid pro quo? Or should she just be removed from society permanently? In the United States, the local, state, and federal government bureaucracies responsible for making laws together with the police, courts, and prison systems make up the criminal justice system—a system that, like any other social institution, reflects the society in which it operates. This means that while the American criminal justice system provides important benefits, such as social control and even employment for its workers, it also replicates some of the inequalities of power in our society. The research of Victor Rios, whom we introduced in the Part I opener, focuses on this issue. Rios, a professor of sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, went from gang member to PhD partly because a teacher intervened and put him in touch with a mentoring program at a local university. Otherwise, Rios believes, he would have become another victim of the “youth control complex,” his term for the way a variety of institutions, including law enforcement, the judicial system, and public schools, work together to “criminalize, stigmatize, and punish” working-class youth. Rios believes that the educational system has embraced a self-defeating strategy by adopting the attitudes and tactics of law enforcement, even as law enforcement and the judicial system have turned to more draconian measures. Increasingly, our society attempts to control gang violence and drug use with brute force, but this sort of indiscriminate policing often creates the very crime it is designed to eliminate as “enhanced policing, surveillance, and punitive treatment of youth of color” help to create a “school-to-prison pipeline” (Rios 2009, p. 151). In another example of the dysfunctions of the criminal justice system, in 2003 seventeen inmates on Illinois’s death row were found to be innocent of the crimes for which they had been sentenced to die. Some cases involved errors made by overworked or underqualified defense attorneys. Further, more than two-thirds of the inmates were African American, many of them convicted by all-white juries (Ryan 2003). As a result, then-governor George Ryan IN THE FUTURE American vs. Scandinavian Prisons B ecause of the way we think about punishment in the United States, American prisons are usually imposing, windowless buildings, walled off with high fences, barbed wire, and armed guards. They are infamously overcrowded and often violent, and prisoners are in need of medical, mental health, and rehabilitative care of which they receive little. American prisons are placed either in the middle of nowhere (rural and less inhabited areas) or in the middle of impoverished and depopulated urban areas (so as to remain largely invisible to those who live in more privileged circumstances). Visiting a prison is something we only consider doing if we have an incarcerated relative to see or we want to rack up some volunteer hours. We certainly wouldn’t consider touring prisons as vacation spots, nor would we want to stay long at any vacation spot that was itself too near a prison. We react to prisons and prisoners with fear and revulsion and institutionalize those emotions in the way we situate, construct, operate, and populate our penitentiaries. This is not always the case in other parts of the world. In Scandinavia (Sweden, Denmark, and Norway) and neighboring Nordic countries like Finland and Iceland in particular, many of the penal complexes are what criminologists call “open” prisons. Organized more like boarding schools than detention centers, open prisons operate on a model very different than that used in the United States. Instead of focusing on retribution and incapacitation, Scandinavia’s open prisons provide prisoners with an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and re-enter society as reformed, contributing members. For example, Helsinki’s Suomenlinna Island prison is not walled off from the surrounding town, which is located in a scenic archipelago that caters to tourists, arts patrons, and picnickers. Prisoners live in dormitory-like accommodations and hold jobs in the town’s maintenance and tourism departments, doing upkeep on the facilities for wages that run from $6 to $10 per hour. They wear their own clothes, cook their own meals, and have televisions and sound systems in their rooms. They can visit with their families in Helsinki, and they have supportive rather than adversarial relationships with the guards. Places like Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway are, of course, smaller than the United States and somewhat more demographically homogeneous. However, Scandinavian prison populations are proportionally much smaller than U.S. prison populations (U.S. rates are ten times those of Scandinavian countries) and much more representative of Open Prisons Norway’s Halden Prison uses education, job training, and therapy to help rehabilitate inmates. The Norwegian Correctional Service makes all inmates a “reintegration guarantee,” helping them find homes and jobs once they are released. the larger society in terms of racial and ethnic diversity. And after serving their debt to society, Scandinavian ex-cons are far less likely to re-offend: They have a recidivism rate that is less than half that of U.S. prisoners. How do they do it? Pundits will, of course, argue about which Scandinavian strategy is the key to such successful prisoner rehabilitation. But throughout the Nordic countries, criminal justice policy is governed by research rather than politics. Legislators do not make decisions about how to house, treat, or control prison populations; instead, social scientists do. Criminological research on what does and doesn’t work forms the basis for decision making, and professionals in the criminal justice field are the ones who make those decisions. This is in stark contrast to the United States, in which “tough on crime” politics, fear-mongering media, and private corporate interests have created an overcrowded, violent, expensive, and ineffective prison system. If we were to approach criminal offenders with compassion rather than fear, would the results be different? Is this something we are willing to try? The Study of Crime 171 became convinced that capital punishment was unfairly and death penalty even wrongly applied in some POSITIVE DEVIANCE actions cases, and he suspended the considered deviant within a given death penalty altogether (it was context but are later reinterpreted officially abolished in Illinois as appropriate or even heroic in 2011). When inequities and errors such as these exist in the criminal justice system, we must question the true meaning of the word “justice” in our society. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT the THE PRISON- INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX One trend in corrections in the United States is the switch from governmentrun prison systems to privately run penitentiaries. Once prisons are privately contracted, they become for-profit businesses that push for increased state subsidies while adopting cost-saving measures such as requiring unpaid labor from inmates and reducing spending on education, health care, and food for inmates. When prisons become businesses, they become more focused on their bottom line and pleasing shareholders than rehabilitating their prisoners. Critics of private prisons question the benefit of this trend, especially given the rapid increase in incarceration rates (Figure 6.3) that has overlapped directly with the increase in prison privatization over the last twenty years. Reconsidering Deviance? Because definitions of deviance are historically, culturally, and situationally specific, they are often in flux and can be contested in a variety of ways. If you think about it, most of our interpersonal arguments, legislative battles, and movements for social change are about the question of what is deviant. Remember the case of marijuana use and cultivation from the opening pages of this chapter? It’s a perfect example of how the question of how to define deviance is one that we will constantly wrestle with as a society. Even in Durkheim’s hypothetical “society of saints” (1895), deviance is unavoidable. But are there instances in which a rule violation is actually a principled act that should generate a positive rather than negative reaction? Sociologists use the term positive deviance to describe situations in which norms are broken in the name of the good. Next we provide two examples of positive deviance: In both cases, individuals broke laws and were initially seen as criminals. In hindsight, they are now considered heroes. Number of prisoners per 100,000 U.S. residents 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Year Figure 6.3 Incarceration Rate,* 1925–2015 *Incarceration rate is the number of prisoners under state or federal jurisdiction sentenced to more than one year per 100,000 U.S residents. SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics 1982, Prisoners Series 1983–2015. 172 CHAPTER 6 Deviance The first example is the simple act of civil disobedience performed by Rosa Parks on December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, an act often considered pivotal in launching the civil rights movement. In those days, a Montgomery city ordinance required buses to be segregated: Whites sat in front and blacks in the back. Rosa Parks defied the law by refusing to give up her front seat to a white man and move to the back. Her arrest galvanized the black community and triggered a bus boycott and subsequent protests that eventually ended segregation in the South. It is worth recognizing that Parks was not an accidental symbol; she was an experienced activist. In her one small, courageous act of defiance, she served as a catalyst that eventually helped to advance the fight against racial discrimination all across America. More than forty years after the day she took her seat on the bus, Parks was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996. When she died in 2005, it was front-page news. Her funeral was attended by luminaries of all types and races: mayors, members of Congress, presidents, CEOs, clergy, celebrities, and as many others as could fit into the packed church and spill outside its doors. The second example is the story of three soldiers who put a stop to a massacre during the Vietnam War. On March 16, 1968, the men of Charlie Company, a U.S. battalion under the command of Lieutenant William Calley, stormed into the village of My Lai in South Vietnam on a “search and destroy” mission and opened fire on its civilian inhabitants. The boys and men of the village had gone to tend the fields, leaving only unarmed women, children, and the elderly. Hundreds were killed on that terrible day, in direct violation of military law. Although the soldiers should have ceased fire when they saw that the enemy (members of the Viet Cong) was not present, they obeyed the commands of their leaders and continued ravaging the village. Calley was later convicted in a court martial; his men, claiming that they were only “following orders,” were not held responsible. The massacre would have continued unchecked had it not been for three other American soldiers—Hugh Thompson, Lawrence Colburn, and Glenn Andreotta—who flew their helicopter into the middle of the carnage at My Lai, against the orders of their superiors, and called for backup help to airlift dozens of survivors to safety. They then turned their guns on their fellow Americans, threatening to shoot if they tried to harm any more villagers. For years, the army tried to cover up the three men’s heroism in order to keep the whole ugly truth of My Lai a secret. But finally, in 1998, the men were recognized for their bravery and heroism with medals and citations—for having had the courage and skill to perform a perilous rescue and the moral conviction necessary to defy authority. Can you think of a time when someone in your community exhibited positive deviance? CLOSING COMMENTS The sociological study of crime and deviance raises complicated issues of morality and ethics. When we study sensitive topics like rape and alcoholism or vulnerable populations like juvenile delinquents and the mentally ill, we have a responsibility as scholars to recognize the effects our attention may have on the people we study. As David Matza noted, we must try to eschew moral judgments in our work, no matter how difficult that may be. And as our professional code of ethics demonstrates, we must protect the people we study from any negative outcomes. Groups lodged under the rubric of deviance can be disempowered by this label, and policy decisions made on the basis of social science research may further injure an already marginalized group. On the other hand, a sociological perspective on deviance and crime provides for the possibility that groups previously labeled and marginalized may someday receive assistance and legitimacy from the larger society as well. The sociological perspective is a powerful tool. Closing Comments 173 Everything You Need to Know about Deviance “ Deviance is a behavior, trait, or belief that departs from the norm and generates a negative reaction in a particular group. “ 174 REVIEW THEORIES OF DEVIANCE ✱ Functionalism: Deviance reminds us of our shared notions of wrong and right and promotes social cohesion. ✱ Structural strain: Social inequality creates tension between society’s goals and the means an individual has to achieve those goals. ✱ Conflict: Both society’s rules and the punishments for breaking those rules are applied unequally. ✱ Differential association: We learn to be deviant through interactions with people who break rules. ✱ Labeling: Deviance is determined by the social context. 1. There are many ways to be mildly deviant without breaking any laws. How do we sanction minor deviant acts? 2. Have you ever known someone to reject the “deviant” label and turn his or her negative identity into a positive one? What was the deviant identity? What term describes this sort of deviance? Do you know anyone who has embraced a stigmatized role through deviance avowal? How might these strategies be useful to individuals? 3. The United States has the dubious distinction of leading every other nation in both the largest total number and largest percentage of incarcerated citizens. Why do you think America has more prisoners than any other country? Who Goes to Prison in the United States? Prison Population (by Race and Hispanic Origin), 2015 35.4% 21.6% Black Hispanic EXPLORE 33.8% White Policing, Solidarity, and Conflict Total U.S. Population (by Race and Hispanic Origin), 2015 13.3% Black 17.1% Hispanic 62.6% White Many news stories have noted that violent crime rates have risen in certain cities. Some are blaming the so-called Ferguson effect. Visit the Everyday Sociology blog to learn more about how the different theoretical perspectives can help us better understand the relationship between communities and their police departments. http://wwnPag.es/trw606 Prison Population (by Gender), 2015 7.3% Female 92.7% Male Total U.S. Population (by Gender), 2015 50.8% 49.2% Female Male SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics 2017, “Prisoners in 2015”; U.S. Census Bureau 2017, “National Population by Characteristics Tables: 2010–2016” 175 PART III Understanding Inequality A 178 ll societies have systems for group- they are maintained or changed, and the ways ing, ranking, and categorizing people, they affect society and the lives of individuals. and within any social structure, some people For instance, sociologist Mitchell Duneier’s occupy superior positions and others hold book Sidewalk (Duneier and Carter 1999) tells the inferior positions. While such distinctions may story of a marginalized group of New York City appear to be natural, emanating from real dif- street vendors whose lives and social identities ferences among people, they are actually social are much more complex than the casual pass- constructions. Society has created and given erby might imagine. The story considers the con- meaning to such concepts as class, race, and vergence of class (Chapter 7), race (Chapter 8), gender, and consequently, those concepts have and gender (Chapter 9) in the social structure taken on great social significance. The social of the city and its inhabitants’ everyday interac- analyst’s job is to understand how these cat- tions. In many ways, Sidewalk brings together egories are established in the first place, how the themes of these next three chapters. Duneier studied men and women who live on the streets of New York’s Greenwich Village, selling used goods—mostly books and magazines—to passersby. Duneier befriended the vendors and became part of their curbside culture for five years, during which he conducted his ethnographic research. By examining the intersecting lives of people who frequent the Village, Duneier shows what social inequality looks and feels like and what it means to those who live with it every day. On Sixth Avenue, the class differences between the vendors and their customers are obvious. The vendors live from day to day in a cash-based, informal economy; they are poor and often “unhoused”; most are African American males; some are educated, others are not; and all have stories of how they became part of the sidewalk culture. The passersby, on the other hand, are of all ages, races, and occupations, and they are likely to be both employed and housed. They are often well educated; some are wealthy. Interactions between these vendors and customers cut across boundaries of class, race, and sometimes gender—all interrelated forms of social inequality. A key insight in Duneier’s work is that the street vendors are not necessarily what they seem at first glance. It would be easy to characterize these people as lacking any social aspirations, given that so many are homeless and don’t fit into conventional social roles. Though they might offend some by their appearance, few are drug addicts, alcoholics, or criminals—and they are pursuing the same kinds of goals as those of many of the passersby. In this liberal neighborhood, sales of written material are allowed on the streets without permits or fees, thus providing these marginalized citizens with an opportunity for entrepreneurial activity and a chance to earn an honest living. Most vendors say they are trying “to live ‘better’ lives within the framework of their own and society’s weaknesses.” Most work hard to construct a sense of decency and reputability in their dealings with customers. Although some of them violate social norms, in most ways the vendors adhere to a code of conduct that minimizes any negative impact they might have on the surrounding community. Many vendors develop friendly, ongoing relations with regular buyers despite their different positions in social status hierarchies. Sometimes, however, the chasm between the vendors and their customers is difficult to bridge. For example, the male vendors in Duneier’s study regularly engaged in flirtatious banter with female passersby. Their efforts at engaging the women in interactions brought a fleeting sense of entitlement and power to men who otherwise have few resources. Typically, the vendors were ignored or rebuffed by the women. When asked why this was the case, one of the vendors said, “She wants room and board, clothing, makeup, hairdos, fabulous dinners, and rent” (Duneier and Carter 1999, p. 196). In other words, because he is poor, he cannot provide these uppermiddle-class amenities. The women, however, may perceive this behavior as sexual harassment and, accordingly, may use standard streetwise avoidance techniques. Here, social class becomes the great divide in everyday gender relations. Some people oppose the street vendors’ presence in the neighborhood, and the vendors are frequently the target of anti-peddling campaigns by the mayor’s office, police, and local businesses. Yet Duneier believes that expelling these street vendors in an effort to “improve” the neighborhood would actually be counterproductive. Without the unconventional PART III form of employment that street vending provides to these otherwise destitute people, there would likely be more crime, panhandling, and deviance. Moreover, as law-abiding citizens with a strong desire to conform to social norms, the vendors often serve as mentors to other homeless people, easing them back into mainstream society. Duneier contends that street vendors are an asset to the area and that they contribute to the vibrancy and health of the Village. While the study is focused on New York’s Sixth Avenue vendors, it provides insights into the structure of difference and social inequality in the United States, showing that interactionist perspectives can also be relevant to the study of class, race, and gender, which are more often examined through macrosociological theories. What we come to learn is that the world of sidewalk vending is highly complex and organized, with its own rules and social order. PART III 179 CHAPTER 7 Social Class: The Structure of Inequality T he photographs on page 183 show median-income families from six nations—the United States, Iceland, Mali, Bhutan, Thailand, and Kuwait. In other words, these people are statistically average for their countries and represent the middle of the socioeconomic range of their national population. They are each pictured outside the family home with all their worldly goods displayed around them. And while tallying people’s stuff isn’t the most scientific way to measure status, the visuals allow us to see what inequalities look like on the ground 180 level, in real people’s real homes (or, rather, outside of them!). These pictures, from Peter Menzel’s book Material World: A Global Family Portrait (1995), clearly illustrate some of the most striking inequalities of wealth and power that exist among societies worldwide. How do these drastically different realities arise? Compare, for example, the U.S. and Thai families, the Skeens and the Kuenkaews. What are the differences between these families as evidenced by their possessions? The two Skeen children have their own bedrooms; the two Kuenkaew children sleep on one bed covered in mosquito netting. The Kuenkaews own two water buffaloes, several chickens, and a family dog; their home is surrounded by banana, coconut, mango, and other fruit trees. In contrast, the Skeens have a pet dog and several stuffed deer heads hanging on the wall, trophies of Mr. Skeen’s favorite pastime, hunting. The Skeens have three radios, three stereos, five telephones, two televisions, a VCR, a computer, and three vehicles; the Kuenkaews own one radio, one black-and-white television, a recently purchased handheld video game that the children and parents enjoy playing, and their most valued possession, a motor scooter. Similar comparisons may be made between the Natoma family in Mali, the Namgay family in Bhutan, the Thoroddsen family in Iceland, and the Abdulla family in Kuwait. The younger Mrs. Natoma carries water from the village well in a bucket balanced on her head; the Abdullas have a private indoor swimming pool. The Thoroddsens enjoy weekend trips to the hot springs in their town; the Namgays own little and live near a Buddhist monastery where monks chant daily for peace. Remembering that each of these families is “average” compared to their compatriots, these photographs reveal stark contrasts between the world’s wealthiest citizens in places like the United States and Kuwait and its poorest people in countries like Mali and Bhutan. These families represent vastly different lifestyles and life chances resulting from very different economic and social conditions. Imagine yourself in their place. What are the real meanings of terms like “rich” and “poor,” and how do sociologists define and apply them? These family photos provide a place to start. 182 CHAPTER 7 Social Class: The Structure of Inequality Family Portraits Clockwise from the top left: the Skeens (Pearland, Texas), the Thoroddsens (Hafnarfjordur, Iceland), the Abdullas (Kuwait City, Kuwait), the Natomas (Kouakourou, Mali), the Kuenkaews (Ban Muang Wa, Thailand), and the Namgays (Shingkhey, Bhutan). 183 HOW TO READ THIS CHAPTER In this chapter, we will examine the phenomenon of stratification that occurs in all human societies, our own included. Despite rhetorical claims about equality of opportunity for all, America is a profoundly hierarchical society, with the benefits and rewards of living here unequally distributed among its people. A sociological perspective on stratification will increase your understanding in several important ways. First, it will help you recognize inequities in places you may have overlooked, such as your own town, neighborhood, or school, and in the media. Second, it will help you consider how social divisions and hierarchies of privilege and disadvantage appear across many of our institutions; access to health care, the justice system, employment, and housing are all governed by structures of inequality. Third, it should enable you to identify your own place in these social arrangements and to see how some of your own life chances have been shaped by your position (or your family’s position) in certain hierarchies. Finally, a knowledge of stratification may help you play a role in changing systems of inequality. Look for ways that you can alleviate some of the problems that social inequality causes—if you can have an impact, even a small one, then this chapter will not have been in vain! Social Stratification and Social Inequality Social stratification in one form or another is present in all societies. This means that members of a given society are categorized and divided into groups, which are then placed in a social hierarchy. Members may be grouped according to their gender, race, class, age, or other characteristics, depending on whatever criteria are important to that society. Some groups will be ranked higher in the social strata (levels), while others will fall into the lower ranks. The higher-level groups enjoy more access to the rewards and resources within that society, leaving lower-level groups with less. This unequal distribution of wealth, power, and prestige SOCIAL STRATIFICATION the results in what is called social division of society into groups inequality. We find several difarranged in a social hierarchy ferent systems of stratification SOCIAL INEQUALITY the operating in the United States, unequal distribution of wealth, where it is not hard to demonpower, or prestige among strate that being wealthy, white, members of a society or male typically confers a higher SLAVERY the most extreme form status (and all that goes along of social stratification, based on with it) on a person than does the legal ownership of people being poor, nonwhite, or female. 184 CHAPTER 7 Social Class: The Structure of Inequality Because social inequality affects a person’s life experience so profoundly, it is worthwhile to examine how stratification works. There are four basic principles of social stratification. First, it is a characteristic of a society, rather than a reflection of individual differences. For instance, if we say that in Japan men rank higher in the social hierarchy than women, this doesn’t mean that a particular woman, such as actress/singer Ryoko Hirosue, couldn’t attain a higher status than a particular man; it means only that in Japan as a whole, men rank higher. Second, social stratification persists over generations. In Great Britain, a child inherits not only physical characteristics such as race but also other indicators of class standing, such as regional accent. It is because of this principle of stratification that wealthy families remain wealthy from one generation to the next. Third, while all societies stratify their members, different societies use different criteria for ranking them. For instance, the criterion in industrialized nations is material wealth (social class), but in hunter-gatherer societies, such as the Khoisan Bushmen of southern Africa, it is gender. Fourth, social stratification is maintained through beliefs that are widely shared by members of society. In the United States, it is still common to think that people are poor not only because of the existing class structure but also because they have somehow failed to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” Systems of Stratification In order to better understand social stratification, it is useful to examine various historical periods and to make global comparisons across cultures. So here we look at three major systems of stratification: slavery, caste, and social class. Slavery Slavery, the most extreme system of social stratification, relegates people to the status of property, mainly for the purpose of providing labor for the slave owner. Slaves can thus be bought and sold like any other commodity. They aren’t paid for their labor and in fact are forced to work under mental or physical threat. Occupying the lowest rank in the social hierarchy, slaves have none of the rights common to free members of the same societies in which they live. Slavery has been practiced since the earliest times (the Bible features stories of the Israelites as slaves) and has continued for millennia in South America, Europe, and the United States. Sometimes the race, nationality, or religion of the slave owners was the same as that of the slaves, as was the case in ancient Greece and Rome. Historically, a person could become enslaved in one of several ways. One way was through debt: A person who couldn’t repay what he owed might be taken into slavery by his creditor. Another way was through warfare: Groups of vanquished soldiers might become slaves to the victors, and the women and children of the losing side could also be taken into slavery. A person who was caught committing a crime could become a slave as a kind of punishment and as a means of compensating the victim. And some slaves were captured and kidnapped, as in the case of the transatlantic slave trade from Africa to the Americas. Slavery as an economic system was profitable for the slave owner. In most systems of slavery, people were slaves for life, doing work in agriculture, construction, mining, or domestic service, and sometimes in the military, industry, or commerce. Their children would also become slaves, thus making the owner a greater profit. In some systems, however, slavery was temporary, and some slaves could buy their own freedom. Slavery is now prohibited by every nation in the world, as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not only is it illegal, but it is considered immoral as well. Nevertheless, the shocking fact is that slavery continues to exist today in such places as India, South Asia, West Africa, and many other places around the world in the form of child soldiers, serfdom, forced and bonded laborers, human trafficking, and sex slaves. America and the Western world are not exempt from these same shocking practices either, where people are held as agricultural, domestic, and sex slaves. The National Human Trafficking Hotline reported over 5,000 cases of slavery in the United States in 2016 alone; more than 80 percent of those cases involved sexual slavery, and more than 30 percent occurred in just three states (California, Texas, and Florida). Americans also play an indirect role in supporting slavery elsewhere in the world by means of our material appetites and the type of labor utilized in certain countries to satisfy our varied consumer demands (Bales and Soodalter 2009). Using a somewhat broader definition of slavery that includes all of the above plus other conditions such as forced marriage, debt bondage, and the sale or exploitation of children, researchers at the Walk Free Foundation (2017) believe there are more than 40 million people trapped in some form of modern slavery. That is more enslaved people in terms of total numbers (not proportion) than at any other time in human history (Bales 2000). Caste Caste represents another type of social stratification found in various parts of the world. The traditional caste system is based on heredity, whereby whole groups of people are born into a certain strata. Castes may be differentiated along religious, economic, or political lines, as well as by skin color or other physical characteristics. The caste system creates a highly stratified society where there is little or no chance of a person changing her position within the hierarchy, no matter what she may achieve individually. Members must marry within their own group, and their caste ranking is passed on to their children. In general, members of higher-ranking castes tend to be more prosperous, whereas members of lower-ranking castes tend to have fewer material resources, live in abject poverty, and suffer discrimination. Modern-Day Slavery Women and children work in a brickyard in Pakistan. Bonded labor is one form of modern slavery. India is the country most closely associated with the caste system, based there in the Hindu (majority) religion. The caste system ranks individuals into one of five categories: Brahman (scholars and priests), ksatriya or chhetri (rulers and warriors), vaisya (merchants and traders), sudra (farmers, artisans, and laborers), and the untouchables (social outcasts). The caste system is a reflection of what Hindus call karma, the complex moral law of cause and effect that governs the universe (Cohen 2001). Accord- CASTE SYSTEM a form of social stratification in which status is ing to this belief, membership in a determined by one’s family history particular caste is seen as a well- and background and cannot be deserved reward or punishment changed for virtuous or sinful behavior APARTHEID the system of in a past life. Caste is thus consegregation of racial and ethnic sidered a spiritual rather than groups that was legal in South material status, but it still results Africa between 1948 and 1991 in real-world inequalities. Casterelated segregation and discrimination were prohibited in 1949 by India’s constitution, but they are still prevalent. Resistance to social change remains, and thus far the social ramifications of the caste system have not been completely dismantled. THE CASE OF SOUTH AFRICA An interesting example of the caste system was apartheid, a legal separation of racial and ethnic groups that was enforced between 1948 and 1991 Systems of Stratification 185 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE Systems of Stratification around the World A lthough stratification systems in other countries may appear different from those in the United States, they all result in patterns of inequality. Brazil, for example, has a system of stratification based on skin color rather than (but closely related to) race. In Iran the most important distinction is religious: Muslim versus non-Muslim. Finally, Sweden tries to minimize economic inequality (but doesn’t entirely succeed) with government support programs for all. Brazil 186 Race is a powerful influence on social stratification in Brazil, where the situation is even more complex than in the United States. By any standards, Brazil is a remarkably diverse nation. The early settlers to the area were mainly European, and with their arrival the number of native inhabitants declined sharply as a result of violence and disease. Through the mid-1800s, slaves from Africa were imported, and in the twentieth century, a new wave of immigrants arrived from Asia and the Middle East. For much of Brazilian history, the European whites enjoyed a privileged status. However, as people from different races married and raised children, new racial categories emerged. Sociologist Gilberto Freyre claimed in 1970 that this new mixture of races and cultures was a unique strength that led to something like a “racial democracy.” Although the idea was appealing, it was subsequently challenged by other social scientists, who argued that Brazil was still highly stratified by race, if only in a less obvious way (Telles 2004). Intermarriage in South Africa. The term itself literally means “apartness” in Afrikaans and Dutch. The consequence of apartheid was to create great disparity among those in the different strata of society. South Africans were legally classified into four main racial groups: white (English and Dutch heritage), Indian (from India), “colored” (mixed race), and black. Blacks formed a large majority, at 60 percent of the population. These groups were geographically and socially separated from one another. Blacks were forcibly removed from almost 80 percent of the country, which was reserved for the three minority groups, and were relocated to independent “homelands” similar to the Indian reservations in the United States. They could not enter other parts of the country without a pass—usually in order to work as “guest laborers” in white areas. Ironically, African Americans visiting South Africa were given “honorary white” status and could move freely within the country. Social services for whites and nonwhites were separate as well: Schools, hospitals, buses, parks, beaches, libraries, theaters, public restrooms, and even graveyards were segregated. Indians and “coloreds” were also discriminated against, though they usually led slightly more privileged lives than blacks. Despite claims of “separate but equal,” the standard of living among whites far exceeded that of any other group. In South Africa under the apartheid system, whites held all the political, economic, and social power, despite being a numerical minority. It was not long before civil unrest and resistance to the system began developing within South Africa and among the international community. Blacks and even some whites began to organize wage strikes and demonstrations, and sanctions were imposed by Western nations. The plights of high-profile anti-apartheid leaders such as Steve Biko and Nelson Mandela became known worldwide. Pressure on the white government continued to grow, until the country was in an almost constant state of emergency. In 1991, apartheid as a legal institution was finally abolished. Its legacy, however, has been much more difficult to dismantle. It has been over twenty years since democratic elections in which all South African citizens could participate were first held in 1994. And still change is happening very slowly. Although nonwhites now share the same rights and CHAPTER 7 Social Class: The Structure of Inequality Polite Racism While intermarriage has eliminated distinct racial groups, Brazil remains stratified by race. may have eliminated clearly defined racial groups, but skin color still largely defines an individual’s place in society, with light-skinned Brazilians enjoying privileges of wealth and power denied to their dark-skinned counterparts. Contemporary critics have referred to this inequality as racismo cordial, or “polite racism.” who held Western university degrees were forced into exile; those who remained were required to attend special classes on Islamic law in order to keep their positions. Strict observance of Islamic law and custom has become a prerequisite for maintaining one’s social position, and many of the new political elites are religious leaders. Iran Sweden The basis for social stratification in Iran has undergone radical changes since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, which transformed the country from a constitutional monarchy to a theocracy. Before the revolution, political and economic power was concentrated in the upper class, made up of landowners, industrialists, and business executives; the middle class consisted of entrepreneurs, small-business owners, merchants, and members of the civil service. Economic mobility was an option largely for those with secular values and a Western education—that is, those who had gone to college in the United States or Europe and who believed in the separation of church and state. After the revolution, however, religion became a primary influence on stratification. Many members of the civil service who were not Muslim or Sweden has deliberately attempted to craft a system that lessens social inequality, a policy made somewhat easier, perhaps, by the country’s relative homogeneity of race, ethnicity, and religion. Sweden provides its citizens with a far greater number of social services than the United States does: The government guarantees its citizens a high level of access to health care, education, child and elderly care, unemployment benefits, and public facilities like libraries and parks. In order to furnish such programs, taxes are high, with a top taxation rate of 60 percent for the wealthiest Swedes. Although the Swedish system certainly has its problems (high taxation rates among them), there are demonstrated benefits, including increased life expectancy and literacy, and decreased infant mortality, homelessness, poverty, and crime. privileges as whites, social inequality and discrimination have decreased little (Nattras and Seekings 2001; Seekings and Nattras 2005). South Africa remains a country with one of the most unequal distributions of income in the world. The wealthiest 10 percent of the population earn nearly 60 percent of the nation’s total income; this upper economic strata is almost exclusively composed of whites, a group that makes up just under 9 percent of South Africa’s population (Chiles 2012). Though black incomes and employment rates have improved, a large income gap remains, with the rich, and especially the already rich whites, getting richer (Boyle 2009). On average, whites are still paid six times more than blacks (Laing 2012). There are other measures of wealth inequality that persist as well. Whites still own around 70 percent of the land in South Africa, despite promises to redistribute 30 percent of that land to blacks (Atauhene 2011). The restoration of land seized during apartheid is only slowly being accomplished and at a price to those making claims. Similar inequalities between whites and other races in South Africa are present in education, health care, and the criminal justice system. In some ways, new patterns of class stratification are replacing rather than erasing old patterns of racial stratification. THE NEW JIM CROW Law professor and civil rights attorney Michelle Alexander (2011) argues that there is a similar caste system in the United States, but that it operates through the criminal justice system. While it is no longer legal or socially acceptable to discriminate against people based on race, we still allow discrimination based on criminal convictions; in other words, felons are denied many of their citizenship rights, including voting in many states, even after they have been released from prison. And since black men are disproportionately represented in the prison population, they are also disproportionately affected by felon disenfranchisement and the lifelong stigmatization associated with the identity of the ex-con. “An extraordinary percentage of black men in the United States are legally barred from voting today, just as they have been throughout most of American history,” argues Alexander. “They are also subject to legalized discrimination in employment, housing, education, public benefits, and jury service, just as their parents, Systems of Stratification 187 grandparents, and great-grandparents were.” Instead of slavery or the segregation laws of the Jim Crow era, Alexander writes, discriminatory criminal laws and an unfair justice system enforce racial inequality in the United States today. Social Class Social class, a system of stratification practiced primarily in capitalist societies, ranks groups of people according to their wealth, property, power, and prestige. It is also referred to by sociologists as socioeconomic status (SES) to keep in mind the social as well as economic basis of this system of stratification. The social class system is much less rigid than the caste system. Although children tend to “inherit” the social class of their parents, during the course of a lifetime they can move up or down levels in the strata. Strictly speaking, social class is not based on race, ethnicity, gender, or age, although, as we will see, there is often an overlap between class and other variables. INTERSECTIONALITY It is important to recognize that while social statistics often address issues of inequality one variable at a time, social actors do not. In other words, we experience our lives not just as “middle-class” or “workingclass” or “upper-class” people, but as women and men; blacks, whites, Latinos, and Asians; college or high school graduates; Christians, Jews, or Muslims; spouses or singles; and so on. Our lived experience is one of intersectionality, a concept that acknowledges that multiple dimensions of status and inequality intersect to shape who we are and how we live (Crenshaw 1991). Our life chances are influenced by our class and our race and our gender and our religion and our age (and multiple other catSOCIAL CLASS a system of egories) all together, not one at stratification based on access a time. to such resources as wealth, An example of this can be seen property, power, and prestige in the ethnographic research of SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS sociologist Karyn R. Lacy (2007), (SES) a measure of an individual’s who studied black middle-class place within a social class system; suburbanites in the Washingoften used interchangeably with ton, DC, region. As Lacy’s find“class” ings show, social status is more INTERSECTIONALITY a complex than just a “middleconcept that identifies how class” salary might indicate: different categories of inequality Her respondents’ identities were (race, class, gender, etc.) intersect shaped by their income, occupato shape the lives of individuals tion (in mostly white-dominated and groups professions), residential status UPPER CLASS an elite and (as suburban homeowners), and largely self-sustaining group who race. In fact, many reported possess most of the country’s being frustrated as they tried to wealth; they constitute about convince others (such as store 1 percent of the U.S. population employees, real-estate agents, 188 CHAPTER 7 Social Class: The Structure of Inequality and bankers) that they were among the middle class in the first place; their race obscured their class in the eyes of whites and made it difficult for whites to see them as “belonging” in certain neighborhoods or business establishments at all. This is an example of how, in the reality of everyday life, race and class are experienced as inseparable; their effects on our experiences are intertwined, even as we attempt to unravel them in different chapters in sociology textbooks. Keep this concept of intersectionality in mind as you read on about class and then again in subsequent chapters when we address other forms of social inequality. Sociologists are not always in agreement about what determines class standing or where the boundaries are between different social classes. We will consider some of these disagreements after first taking a look at the United States and its class system. Social Classes in the United States It is difficult to draw exact lines between the social classes in the United States; in fact, it may be useful to imagine them as occurring along a continuum rather than being strictly divided. The most commonly identified categories are upper class, middle class, and lower class. If we want to make even finer distinctions, the middle class can be divided into the upper-middle, middle, and working (or lower-middle) class (Gilbert 2014; Wright et al. 1982). You probably have some idea of which class you belong to, even if you don’t know the exact definition of each category. Interestingly, most Americans claim that they belong somewhere in the middle class even when their life experiences and backgrounds would suggest otherwise. While keeping in mind that the borders between the classes can be blurry, let’s examine a typical model of the different social classes (Figure 7.1). The Upper Class The upper class makes up just 1 percent of the U.S. population, and its total net worth is greater than that of the entire other 99 percent (Beeghley 2008). The upper class consists of elites who have gained membership in various ways. Some, like the Rockefellers and Carnegies, come into “old money” through family fortunes; others, like Mark Zuckerberg or Lady Gaga, generate “new money” through individual achievements. Many in the upper class maintain that status not through income from a job but by investing enormous sums of money and taking advantage of whopping tax deductions offered to those with investment-based fortunes. Members of this class make around $2 million per year (and sometimes far more than that) and are often highly educated and influential. They tend to attend private schools and prestigious universities and display a distinctive lifestyle; some seek positions of power in CLASS Percentage of Population Typical Household Incomes Typical Occupations Typical Education 1% $2 million Investors, heirs, executives, media/sports personalities Some prestigious university degrees 14% $150,000 Professionals and managers College and university degrees, some graduate degrees 30% $70,000 Semi-professionals, lower-level managers, white collar and highly skilled blue collar jobs Two- and four-year college degrees 30% $40,000 Semiskilled labor, service, manual, and clerical jobs High school degrees 13% $25,000 Low and unskilled workers, lower-paid manual and service jobs, seasonal work Some high school 12% $15,000 Seldom employed or unemployed, part-time labor, many rely on public or private assistance Some high school UPPER CLASS UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS MIDDLE CLASS WORKING (LOWERMIDDLE) CLASS WORKING POOR UNDERCLASS Figure 7.1 The U.S. Social Class Ladder SOURCE: Gilbert 2014. government or philanthropy. The upper class is largely selfsustaining, with most members remaining stable and few new ones able to gain membership in its ranks. The Upper-Middle Class The upper-middle class comprises about 14 percent of the population. This group tends to be well educated (with college or postgraduate degrees) and highly skilled. Members work primarily in executive, managerial, and professional jobs. They may enjoy modest support from investments but generally depend on income from salaried work, making around $150,000 per year. As a result, the upper-middle class is most likely to feel some financial stability. They usually own their homes and may especially value activities like travel and higher education. The Middle Class The middle class makes up about 30 percent of the population, though some social analysts believe that the middle class is shrinking as a result of a variety of phenomena, including economic recession, along with high unemployment, corporate downsizing, and outsourcing of work to foreign countries. Many people who would have once been considered middle class may have moved down to the lower-middle class, while some others have moved up to the upper-middle class. The middle class comprises primarily white collar workers, skilled laborers in technical and lower-management jobs, small entrepreneurs, and oth- UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS social ers earning around $70,000 class consisting of mostly highly per year. Most members have educated professionals and a high school education and a managers who have considerable two- or four-year college degree. financial stability; they constitute While members of the middle about 14 percent of the U.S. population class have traditionally been homeowners (a sign of having MIDDLE CLASS social class achieved the American Dream), composed primarily of white this trend changed during the collar workers with a broad range of education and incomes; they recent recession and the associconstitute about 30 percent of ated banking and mortgage cri- the U.S. population ses. Along with issues like the cost of housing, and given other WHITE COLLAR a description characterizing lower-level debts carried by many Ameriprofessional and management cans, not all middle-class people workers and some highly skilled can afford their own homes laborers in technical jobs anymore. Social Classes in the United States 189 The Working (Lower-Middle) Class The working class, or lower-middle class, makes up about 30 percent of the population. Members typically have a high school education and generally work in manual labor, or blue collar, jobs, as well as in the service industry (retail, restaurant, tourism, etc.)—jobs that are often more routine, where employees have little control in the workplace. Members of the working class typically earn around $40,000 per year. A small portion, especially those who belong to a union, may earn above-average incomes for this class. Working-class people typically have a low net worth and live in WORKING CLASS or LOWERrental housing or in a modest MIDDLE CLASS social class home they have inherited or long consisting of mostly blue collar saved for. or service industry workers who are less likely to have a college degree; they constitute about 30 percent of the U.S. population BLUE COLLAR a description characterizing skilled and semiskilled workers who perform manual labor or work in service or clerical jobs WORKING POOR poorly educated manual and service workers who may work full-time but remain near or below the poverty line; they constitute about 13 percent of the U.S. population The Working Poor and Underclass The working poor constitute approximately 13 percent of the population. Members are generally not well educated; most have not completed high school and experience lower levels of literacy than the other classes. They may also lack other work skills valuable in the job market. Typical occupations include unskilled, temporary, and seasonal jobs—including minimum-wage jobs, housekeeping, day labor, and migrant agricultural work. The average income is around $25,000. This group suffers from higher rates of unemployment and underemployment, with some members receiving social welfare subsidies. Another 12 percent of the population, the underclass, could be categorized as truly disadvantaged. These Americans live in poverty conditions and typically earn $15,000 or less per year. As such, they may have chronic difficulty getting enough money to support their basic needs. They may hold a few steady jobs and depend on public benefits or charity to survive. They are often found in inner cities, where they live in substandard housing or are homeless; their numbers are increasing in the suburbs as well. They are part of a group that is considered officially impoverished by federal government standards. A separate section later in this chapter will be devoted to discussing poverty. Problematic Categories Because SES is based on a collection of complex variables (including income, wealth, and education, as well as power or prestige), it is difficult to say exactly where, for example, middle class ends and upper class begins. In addition, individuals may embody a variety of characteristics that make precise SES classification difficult. Someone may be highly educated, for example, but make money cleaning houses while working on her novel. So how would we categorize a person such as the late Sam Walton, founder of Walmart? He was the product of a Status Inconsistencies Sam Walton, the “Okie” billionaire, and Mother Teresa, the Catholic nun who was revered around the world but had no personal wealth, are two examples that complicate SES classifications. 190 CHAPTER 7 Social Class: The Structure of Inequality struggling “Okie” family, a farm boy and state college graduate who became a billionaire businessman. Walton did not come from a background of privilege; he neither attended an elite university nor worked in a prestigious occupation. He was called “America’s shopkeeper,” and despite amassing a huge fortune, Walton remained close to his rural roots. What sociologists would say is that Walton is an example of status inconsistency, or stark contrasts between the levels of the various statuses he occupied. Another example is Mother Teresa, a Catholic nun who ministered to the poor, sick, and dying in Calcutta, India. As a member of the clergy, she held some occupational prestige, but her religious order took vows of poverty, and she had virtually no personal wealth. Yet Mother Teresa was regularly ranked as among the most admired people of the twentieth century. She garnered numerous honors, including the Nobel Peace Prize, but she was most concerned with how to parlay whatever power she gained into helping the world’s most needy. Of course, not all examples are quite this dramatic, but status inconsistencies are especially prevalent in the United States because of our “open” class system. Class mobility (which will be discussed in more detail later) is more easily attainable here than in many other countries, so we are more likely to see people with a mixture of different statuses. While we seem to be able to recognize class distinctions implicitly, there are no systematic ways of delineating each category. Still, sociologists have made an effort to understand and define class, and we turn now to the theories that result from those efforts. Theories of Social Class In this section, we will look at social stratification from the perspectives of each of the major schools of thought within sociology. We start with classical conflict and Weberian theories and structural functionalism, and then consider postmodern and symbolic interactionist theories. Each perspective offers different ideas about what determines social class, with the macro theorists focusing on larger-scale social structures and the postmodern and micro theorists focusing more on meaning, interpretation, and interactions in everyday life. Conflict Theory Karl Marx formed his social theories at a time when monumental changes were occurring in the stratification systems that characterized nineteenth-century Europe. The feudal system, which consisted of a hierarchy of privileged nobles who were responsible for and served by a lower stratum of serfs (forced laborers), was breaking down. Cities were growing larger as more people moved from rural areas to take part in the new forms of industry that were emerging there. With these changes, what had UNDERCLASS the poorest traditionally determined a pergroup, comprising the homeless son’s social standing (whether and chronically unemployed who one was born a noble or a serf) may depend on public or private was no longer as relevant. Marx assistance; they constitute about was concerned about a new kind 12 percent of the U.S. population of social inequality that he saw STATUS INCONSISTENCY a emerging—between the capital- situation in which an individual ists (bourgeoisie), who owned holds differing and contradictory the means of production, and levels of status in terms of wealth, the workers (proletariat), who power, prestige, or other elements of socioeconomic status owned only their own labor. Marx argued that economic FEUDAL SYSTEM a system of relationships were quickly becom- social stratification based on ing the only social relationships a hereditary nobility who were that mattered: The impersonal responsible for and served by a forces of the market were creat- lower stratum of forced laborers called serfs ing a new, rigid system of social stratification in which capital- WEALTH a measure of net worth ists had every economic advan- that includes income, property, tage and workers had none. He and other assets believed that the classes would remain divided and social inequality would grow; that wealth and privilege would be concentrated among a small group of capitalists and that workers would continue to be exploited. Contemporary conflict theorists continue to understand social class in a similar way. Erik Olin Wright (1997), for example, describes an animated film he made as a student in which the pawns on a chessboard attempt to overthrow the aristocracy (kings, queens, knights, and bishops) but realize that the “rules of the game” doom them to relive the same unequal roles—a metaphor for the way social structure shapes and sustains inequality. Weberian Theory Max Weber noted that owning the means of production was not the only way of achieving upper-class status; a person could also accumulate wealth consisting of income and property. As a contemporary example, Microsoft and Facebook are both publicly traded companies on the stock market, which means that they are owned by thousands of individual shareholders who benefit when the company turns a profit. But the people who started those companies have amassed far greater fortunes. In 2017, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates (worth $86 billion) was ranked the #1 richest person in the world, while Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg (worth $56 billion) was ranked #5 (Dolan 2017). Weber suggested that power (the ability to impose one’s will on others) should be considered as part of the equation when measuring a person’s class standing. Although they may not own their corporations, executives can exert influence over the marketplace, consumers, and the work lives of their employees. And they can use their wealth to support various causes and campaigns. Theories of Social Class 191 Weber believed that another important element in social class has to do with prestige, the social honor granted to people because of their membership in certain groups. A person’s occupation is a common source of prestige: In a typical ranking, you might find physicians near the top and janitors near the bottom. Take note that athletes rank higher than sociologists in Table 7.1. People’s relative prestige can affect not only their wealth or power but also how they are perceived in social situations. Wealth by itself can also be a source of prestige, though not always. In some social circles, especially those that are more traditional or have a history of aristocracy, a distinction is made between “old money” and “new money.” In the United States it is more prestigious to come from a family heritage of wealth than to have recently made a fortune. For Weber, wealth, power, and prestige are interrelated because they often come together, but it is also possible to convert one to the other. The Kardashian sisters, for example, whose father Robert was a wealthy attorney (most memorably in the O.J. Simpson case) and a businessman who inherited his parents’ meat-packing fortune, turned that aspect of their status into a certain type of contemporary prestige— celebrity. They did little themselves to gain their prestige besides being born into wealth and being willing to participate PRESTIGE the social honor in the reality shows that now bear people are given because their names. Still, it is important of their membership in wellto distinguish these three eleregarded social groups ments: property and wealth can be inherited or earned, power usually comes from occupying certain roles within organizations, and prestige is based on a person’s social identity and is bestowed by others. 192 Table 7.1 The Relative Social Prestige of Selected Occupations in the United States White Collar Occupations Prestige Score Physician 86 Lawyer 75 Professor 74 Architect 73 Dentist 72 Member of the Clergy 69 Pharmacist 68 Registered Nurse 66 65 Electrical Engineer 64 Veterinarian 62 Airplane Pilot 61 Sociologist 61 60 Actor Athlete Police Officer 58 53 Social Worker Blue Collar Occupations Firefighter 52 51 Electrician 46 Secretary 40 Farmer Structural Functionalism 36 Child-Care Worker Functionalism emphasizes social order and solidarity based on commonly shared values about what is good and worthwhile. The system of stratification that has emerged over time, though not egalitarian, is still functional for society in a number of ways. Because there is a variety of roles to perform for the maintenance and good of the whole, there must be incentives to ensure that individuals will occupy those roles that are most necessary or important. Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore (1945) discuss some of the principles of stratification that result in a system of rewards that are unequally distributed among various roles. The assumption is that some roles are more desirable than others and may require greater talent or training. In addition, certain roles may be more critical than others to the functioning of society, as well as difficult to fill, so there must be a mechanism for attracting and securing the best individuals to those positions. This would mean that there is widespread consensus about which positions are most important—either in terms of their special qualifications or 36 Hairdresser 31 Auto-Body Repairperson CHAPTER 7 Social Class: The Structure of Inequality Cashier 29 28 Waiter/Waitress 22 Janitor SOURCE: National Opinion Research Center 2015. the potential scarcity of qualified individuals to occupy those positions—and that society accepts the need to bestow rewards upon people who are considered of greater importance. Take, for instance, the role of a physician, which has the highest ranking of occupational prestige in American society (National Opinion Research Center 2015). Doctors play an important role in providing highly prized services to other members of society. Think of the steps it takes to become Social Reproduction The Kardashian sisters are famous for being famous. How did their inherited wealth influence their career paths? a doctor. A person must have an extensive education and graduate training and must complete a long and intensive internship before being certified to practice medicine. This individual also devotes a great deal of personal resources of time and money to this process. It is further assumed that there are only so many people who might have the talent and determination to become doctors, and so it follows that there must be incentives or rewards for them to enter the field of medicine. The functionalist perspective helps explain the existing system of social stratification and its persistence, but it still leaves us with questions about the structured inequalities that it continues to reproduce. Is it really functional for social rewards (such as wealth, power, and prestige) to be so unequally divided among members of society? And while we might agree that doctors are very important to society, are they more so than teachers and carpenters? Our heroes of pop culture (famous actors, athletes, musicians) can rise to the highest ranks while our everyday heroes (day-care providers, firefighters, mechanics) may struggle to make a living. Whose values are structuring the system and, after closer scrutiny, is it clear that compensating stockbrokers more than bricklayers is really functional to society as a whole? We will revisit some of these questions in later sections of the chapter. Postmodernism Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1973, 1984) studied French schools to examine a phenomenon referred to as social reproduction, which means that social class is passed down from one generation to the next and thus remains relatively stable. According to Bourdieu, this happens as a result of each generation’s acquisition of what he called cultural capital: Children inherit tastes, habits, and expectations from their parents, and this cultural capital either helps or hinders them as they become adults. For example, having highly educated parents who can help with homework and enforce useful study habits makes it more likely a child will succeed in school. Just the parents’ expectation that their children will earn similar credentials can be a powerful incentive. Since better-educated parents tend to come from the middle and upper classes, their children will also have better chances to attain that same status. According to Bourdieu, cultural capital also shapes the perceptions that others form about a person. For instance, in job interviews, the candidates who can best impress a potential employer with their social skills may be chosen over other workers who may be equally qualified but less adept socially. Since cultural capital has such profound effects, people often try to acquire it—to “better” themselves. They may take adult education classes, attend lectures and concerts, join a tennis club, or travel to Europe—all in an attempt to increase their cultural capital. Often, however, the effects of early childhood are SOCIAL REPRODUCTION the too powerful to overcome. It can tendency of social classes to be difficult for someone who grew remain relatively stable as class up in a less privileged environ- status is passed down from one ment to project a different class generation to the next background; their accent, for CULTURAL CAPITAL the example, may give them away tastes, habits, expectations, (“He talks like a hillbilly,” “She skills, knowledge, and other just sounds too ‘street’”). There cultural assets that help us gain is evidence to suggest that social advantages in society mobility in the United States is falling: While 90 percent of children born in the 1940s earned more than their parents, only 50 percent of young people today are likely to do the same (Chetty et al. 2016a). Symbolic Interactionism If macrosociologists believe that there is little an individual can do to change systems of structured inequality, interactionists believe that all social structures—including systems of inequality—are constructed from the building blocks of everyday interaction. For instance, sociologist David Sudnow (1972) argues that we make split-second judgments about who people are and which social status they occupy based on appearance. We take action based on what we observe “at a glance.” Along the same lines, Aaron Cicourel (1972) suggests that we make inferences about the status of others when we encounter them in different social situations. For example, you may assume that the passengers sitting in the first-class cabin of an airplane are wealthier than those in coach. But perhaps one of those first-class passengers is a “starving student” whose seat was upgraded because coach Theories of Social Class 193 was overbooked—by thrifty millionaires. “Wealthy,” “poor,” and “middle class” are statuses that, rather than existing in and of themselves, are continuously being negotiated in interaction. Erving Goffman (1956) noted that we “read” different aspects of identity by interpreting the behavior of others and that we become accustomed to others “reading” our behavior in the same way. This means that our clothing, our speech, our gestures, the cars we drive, the homes we live in, the people we hang out with, and the things we do on vacation are all part of our presentation of self and provide information that others use to make judgments about our SES. In turn, we look for these EVERYDAY CLASS same clues in the behavior of othCONSCIOUSNESS awareness ers. This type of everyday class of one’s own social status and that of others consciousness, or awareness of our own and others’ social status, is important for us to understand but difficult to identify empirically. As a humorous answer to this dilemma, University of Pennsylvania English professor Paul Fussell (1983) created the “living room scale,” which lists items that we may find in someone’s living room and attaches point values to them. For example, if you have a copy of the New York Review of Books on your coffee table, add five points. A copy of Popular Mechanics? Subtract five. A working fireplace? Add four. A wall unit with built-in television and stereo? Subtract four. Add three Everyday Class Consciousness Clothes, cars, homes, and vacation plans are all indicators of socioeconomic status. What impression does this living room give of who might live here? 194 CHAPTER 7 Social Class: The Structure of Inequality points for each black-and-white family photograph in a sterling silver frame; subtract three points for any work of art depicting cowboys. When we total the final score, higher numbers indicate higher SES, and vice versa. While Fussell’s living room scale may seem like a joke, we really do make snap judgments about the status of others based on just this sort of information. (Here it should be noted that in Dr. Stein’s living room, the fireplace and TV wall unit are side by side, while Dr. Ferris’s living room features a silver-framed black-and-white photograph of her father as a child—dressed like a cowboy, on horseback! As we’ve said before, real life sometimes defies easy categorization.) The Data Workshop that follows will help you see how swiftly and automatically you employ class categories in your interactions with others. While we have considered the theories of macrosociologists and symbolic interactionists separately here, there are actually some intersections between interaction and structure. Our identities as “working class” or “privileged” individuals may be structured by preexisting categories, yet those identities are also performed every day in our interactions with others. The structural perspective and the interactionist perspective are not mutually exclusive when it comes to a discussion of class: They are complementary. Status inequality is structured, categorical, and external; it is also interactionally created and sustained. Structure shapes interaction, and interaction generates structure. Contemporary sociologists have conducted studies that make this connection clear. For example, Christine Mallinson and Becky Childs (2007), who studied the linguistic patterns of groups of black Appalachian women, found that the locations of group interactions tended to reinforce class divisions in the larger society: The group of women who met formally at a local church engaged in talk that reflected topics and vocabularies associated with higher SES, while the women who met informally on a friend’s porch engaged in talk that reflected topics and vocabularies associated with lower SES. The linguistic patterns in these “communities of practice” reinforce class divisions within and between the groups. All the information we gather at a glance is used to make evaluations of others’ wealth, income, occupation, education, and other categories that indicate status and prestige. In some ways, it doesn’t matter whether we’re right—especially in anonymous public places like airports. You should be aware, however, that you do use these cues to evaluate the status of others in split seconds and that you act on those evaluations every day. Maybe you chose to stand on the bus or on the subway rather than sit next to someone who didn’t look quite “right”—whatever that means to you. Often, we end up falling back on stereotypes that may lead us to false conclusions about a person’s status or character. When it comes to everyday class consciousness, appearances are sometimes deceiving, but they are always consequential. DATA WORKSHOP Analyzing Everyday Life Everyday Class Consciousness When we are out in public places, we can quickly gather bits of information about other people in the social environment. These “data” are useful in forming judgments and evaluations about them. Even the smallest presentational details can tell us something about who they are. So, how do you know which social class other people belong to? How do you feel about the fact that others will also be trying to figure out your class status? Do the assessments we make about others (and that they make about us) influence our thoughts, attitudes, and behavior? What are the consequences of everyday class consciousness? In this Data Workshop you will be conducting participant observation research to understand more about how we size up other people in terms of their socioeconomic status. Return to the section in Chapter 2 for a refresher on ethnography/participant observation research methods. First, choose a location to be the field site for your study; it should be a busy public place with a variety of passersby. You will want to be both a participant and an observer in the setting. So, for example, you could pretend to be waiting for someone at the airport, sitting in the food court at the mall, or standing in line at the post office. Next, you’ll want to make some discreet but in-depth observations about a small number of people in the setting. One way to take a simple sample of the population is to select every seventh or tenth person who walks by you. Spend several long moments looking closely at him or her. Ask yourself quickly: What class status do you think this person holds? Don’t think too long at this point; just register your guess. Continue this process as you observe another three or four people. Now it is time to write some ethnographic field notes, preferably while you’re still in the field, or as soon as possible afterward. You’ll want your notes to include as many details as possible about the people you selected. Consider the following questions as you analyze your data. What kinds of things did you observe about others that helped inform your evaluation of their class status—height, weight, race, age, gender, hairstyle, tattoos, piercings, watch or other jewelry, or makeup? Perhaps their style of dress, the colors, fabrics, or logos on a T-shirt, hat, purse, sunglasses, or shoes caught your attention. Did you notice anything else, such as the person’s posture, voice, or mannerisms? If you observed someone on the street, did you see the car he or she was driving? What was its make, year, and condition? Did you notice other status clues in any accessories the person had—a laptop or smartphone, a baby stroller or shopping bags? How did the setting itself (mall, post office, airport) influence your assumptions about their social class standing? There are two options for completing this Data Workshop: PREP- PAIR- SHARE Conduct your participant observation research according to the instructions. Prepare some ethnographic field notes that you can refer to in class. Get together with one or more of your fellow students and share your experiences. Note similarities and differences in the criteria used by each group member to determine the social class of the people they observed. DO- IT-YOURSELF Conduct your research in a public place and write a three- to four-page essay describing your observations of four to five people from the field site. Answer the questions in the preceding section, and make specific reference to your field notes as the data to support your analysis (remember to attach the field notes to your paper). What are the consequences of everyday class consciousness? How does it affect your perceptions, attitudes, and behavior? Socioeconomic Status and Life Chances Belonging to a certain social class brings such profound consequences that it’s possible to make general predictions about a person’s life chances in regard to education, work, crime, family, and health just by knowing his or her SES. The following discussion may help you appreciate the respective privileges and hardships associated with different levels of the social hierarchy. Family Sociologists know that people are likely to marry or have longterm relationships with persons whose social and cultural backgrounds are similar to their own—not because they are Socioeconomic Status and Life Chances 195 IN RELATIONSHIPS Socioeconomic Status and Mate Selection 196 ou say you don’t judge a book by its cover? You say it’s the person who matters, and not the social categories he or she belongs to? We may believe these things, but sociological studies strongly suggest that we don’t act on them. When it comes to dating, courtship, and marriage (“mate selection” activities, as defined by social scientists), we tend to make homogamous choices. Homogamy (“like marries like”) means that we choose romantic partners based on our similarities in background and group membership. Despite the old adage that “opposites attract,” decades of sociological research show that we make choices based on similarities in race, ethnicity, religion, class, education, age—even height and levels of physical attractiveness (Kalmijn 1998). Homogamy based on socioeconomic status is especially clear: We tend to marry HOMOGAMY the tendency those who share the same to choose romantic partners economic and educational who are similar to us in terms backgrounds. This holds true of class, race, education, even if we practice heterogreligion, and other social amy (marrying someone who group membership is different from us) in other HETEROGAMY the areas, such as race or religion. tendency to choose romantic Why is class-based homogpartners who are dissimilar amy so prevalent? to us in terms of class, race, As it turns out, we have education, religion, and other relatively few opportunities social group membership to meet people of different Y socioeconomic backgrounds during the course of our everyday lives. At home, at school, on the job, at the coffee shop or gym, we are likely to be surrounded by those who are like us, classwise. Homogamy is more strictly enforced in upper-class families than in other social classes. Those who enjoy the privileges of wealth often want to make sure those privileges continue into the next generation and may monitor their children’s activities by sending them to prestigious schools and posh summer camps so that they don’t get the opportunity to meet anyone but other privileged kids. This helps ensure that wealth and power remain consolidated within a relatively small community. If you spend all your free time at the country club pool instead of getting a summer job at Starbucks or McDonald’s, your opportunities to meet the hoi polloi are limited. If we focus only on those in the public eye, it is easy to see how limits on opportunity result in marriages between affluent and powerful families. This happens in political families. For example, Julie Nixon, daughter of a former U.S. president, married David Eisenhower, grandson of another former president. Kerry Kennedy, daughter of former attorney general Robert Kennedy, married (and later divorced) Andrew Cuomo, son of former New York governor Mario Cuomo. After the divorce, Andrew ascended to the New York governor’s mansion as well and found love again with Food Network star Sandra Lee. And it happens among celebrities, whether movie stars (and now exes) Brad Pitt and Angelina looking for such similarities, but simply because they have more access to people like themselves. When you develop ties to classmates, fellow workers, neighbors, and members of clubs, these people may share your cultural background as well as your social class. It is from such groups that marriage and domestic partners most often come. Social class also plays a role in the age at which people marry: The average age of first marriage for women with high school diplomas is twenty-five, while for women with graduate degrees it is thirty. People with higher levels of education are also less likely to get divorced (Lewis and Kreider 2015; Wang 2015). The age at which people start a family and the number of children they have are also related to educational attainment. The average age at which women with a master’s degree or more have their first child is thirty, while the average age for women with a high school diploma is just twenty-four (Livingston 2015). Less educated women also have a higher average number of births throughout their lifetime than more educated women. On average, women without a high school diploma have 2.8 children, whereas women with a bachelor’s degree have about 1.9 children (U.S. Census Bureau 2015a). CHAPTER 7 Social Class: The Structure of Inequality Health Those at the bottom of the social class ladder are the least likely to obtain adequate nutrition, shelter, clothing, and health care and are thus more prone to illness. Often they cannot afford to see a doctor, fill a prescription, or go to a hospital. Instead of preventing an illness from becoming worse, they must wait until a health crisis occurs, and then they have no option but expensive emergency room care. Health-care Jolie, singers Beyoncé and Jay-Z, or NFL quarterback Tom Brady and supermodel Gisele Bündchen. All practiced a form of status homogamy by partnering with people from the same social circles—other famous and wealthy celebrities. Whether they met on set, at the yacht club, or at an awards show, they met in a status-restricted setting to which not everyone is eligible for entry. Questions have arisen recently about how Internet technologies may facilitate—or impede—our tendency toward homogamy. Dating apps allow people who occupy vastly different social circles to meet online—and perhaps fall in love. In this way, it would seem that Internet dating has the potential to inhibit our off-line predilection for people who belong to the same social groups as we do. On the other hand, Internet dating can also assist us in choosing people who are like us, in that certain sites cater to particular social groups: J Date (for Jewish singles), The League (for Ivy Leaguers), BlackPeopleMeet (for black singles), and even Trek Dating. com (for Star Trek fans). As these and other such sites specifically select for social group membership, they may actually strengthen homogamous effects in online mate selection processes. Vast differences in class standing between marital partners are usually the stuff of fairy tales and fantasy. The “Cinderella story,” in which a low-status woman is romantically “rescued” by a high-status man, is familiar to us all—yet we likely have seen it happen only in storybooks and movie reforms, such as those provided by the Affordable Care Act, are meant to help change that pattern. A recent study out of Stanford University found that for men, the richest 1 percent live, on average, nearly fifteen years longer than the poorest 1 percent. For women, the gap in life expectancy was just over ten years (Chetty et al. 2016b). One factor that contributes to these disparities in health is exercise. As education and income increase, so does the likelihood of a person engaging in some physical activity. For instance, only 24 percent of respondents living below the poverty level report engaging in physical activity regularly, compared with 43 percent of those living at the higher income level (CDC 2013a). Education may have something to do with these disparities, as more knowledge about the health benefits of exercise may lead to more active participation. But we can also see exercise as a luxury for Jay-Z and Beyoncé Knowles “Like marries like.” theaters. Classics like Sabrina and Pretty Woman feature low-status women being wooed by wealthy men. The only touch of sociological reality in these tales is the portrayal of women’s hypergamy and men’s hypogamy; that is, when class boundaries are crossed, women usually marry up HYPERGAMY marrying “up” while men marry down. in the social class hierarchy Take a look at the role of SES HYPOGAMY marrying in your own mate selection “down” in the social class activities: Are you homoga- hierarchy mous or heterogamous? those in higher social classes, who are not struggling with the day-to-day efforts to survive that characterize the lives of the poor. Education How children perform in school determines whether and where they go to college, what professions they enter, and how much they are paid. And generally, those with more education make more money. The median annual earnings for those with advanced professional (medical and law) degrees is $100,120, followed by doctoral degrees at $91,644, master’s degrees at $65,881, bachelor’s degrees at $52,782, and high school diplomas at $31,600 (U.S. Census Bureau 2017k). On the surface, these earnings may seem fair. After all, shouldn’t people with more education make more money? However, as Socioeconomic Status and Life Chances 197 sociologists, we must probe further and ask some fundamental questions; for example, who has access to education, and how good is that education? One of the main goals of education is to make sure students get a chance to succeed both in school and in life. But to meet this goal, schools would have to serve all students equally, and they aren’t always able to do so. Schools with low-income students often receive fewer resources, have greater difficulty in attracting qualified teachers, and experience less support from parents (Fischer and Kmec 2004). A student’s social class background will also influence her attitude toward education. The higher the family’s SES, the higher the student’s expectations for educational achievement. Students from higher social classes are expected to complete more years of school and are more likely to attend— and graduate—college than those from lower social classes (Bozick et al. 2010; Reardon 2012). It’s not surprising to find that 84 percent of high school graduates from high-income families are enrolled in college, compared to 64 percent of high school graduates from middle-income families and just 58 percent of high school graduates from low-income families (Figure 7.2). Even larger than the gap in college enrollment between the rich and poor is the gap in graduation rates: Young adults from families in the top income group are four times more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree or higher within ten years of graduating high school than young adults from families in the bottom income group (60 percent versus 15 percent) (Cahalan et al. 2016). Although educational attainment is at an all-time high in the United States, a high school education doesn’t mean what it once did. College and advanced degrees are becoming more important. If the trends continue, fewer and fewer jobs will be available to those without college degrees, and of those jobs, fewer will support middle-class lifestyles. Yet not all students are equally prepared for or able to afford a college education, which creates a risk that children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds will slip farther down the social class ladder. Work and Income In the past couple of decades, we have seen a widening income gap between those at the top, middle, and bottom of the scale (see Figure 7.3). According to a 2015 report, upperincome families are seven times more wealthy than middleincome families, and more than seventy times more wealthy than lower-income ones (Pew Research Center 2015g). Income is the product of work, and members of different social classes, with unequal educational opportunities, tend to work in different types of jobs. At the bottom of the scale, members of the lower class generally experience difficulties in the job market and may endure periods of unemployment or underemployment (working in a job that doesn’t pay enough to support a person’s needs, is seasonal or temporary, or doesn’t make full use of their skills). Among the lower class are people receiving a variety of forms of government aid. In 2016, some 2.7 million people were receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (Office of Family Assistance 2017) and 44.2 million were receiving help from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2017). Members of the working ( lower-middle) class work for wages in a variety of blue collar jobs. They can generally earn a dependable income through skilled or semiskilled 100% Percentage enrolled in college High income Middle income Low income 84% 75% 64% 58% 50% 25% 0% 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Figure 7.2 Percentage of High School Grads Enrolled in Two- or Four-Year College, by Income Level SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education 2016b. 198 CHAPTER 7 Social Class: The Structure of Inequality 2014 Cumulative percent change since 1979 300% 250% 200% Recession Top 1 percent 96–99% 91–95% 81–90% Middle fifth Bottom fifth 153.9% 150% 100% 58.9% 45.9% 33.5% 27.6% 14.1% 50% 0% -50% 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2010 Figure 7.3 Change in Average Real Annual Household Income, by Income Group, 1979–2010 SOURCE: Gould 2014. occupations, but they may also experience periods of unemployment tied to fluctuations in the economy, layoffs, and plant closings. While factory work and other types of skilled labor were once enough to support a middle-class lifestyle, most middleclass jobs today are found in the service, information, and technology sectors. Most households here require two incomes to maintain a comfortable lifestyle, and many middle-class jobs require some sort of college degree. Those in the upper-middle class tend to work in executive and professional fields. Some members are business owners; a small portion owns large farms or ranches. Others, known as the “creative class” (Florida 2002)—architects, writers, scientists, artists, professors, and engineers—tend to cluster in “creative” cities, such as Austin, San Francisco, and Seattle. Through exceptional success in any profession or art, or sometimes through inheritance, one can join the upper class. In the United States, the upper class is influential in politics, business, and culture, largely because of its economic privilege: In our highly stratified society, the top 1 percent consistently captures nearly a quarter of all income. Since the recession, the incomes of the top 1 percent have grown 37 percent, while the incomes of the bottom 99 percent have only grown by 7.6 percent (Saez 2016). As a result of the recent recession, workers—most often in lower-middle and lower-class occupations—increasingly find themselves engaging in what is termed “precarious labor” (Kalleberg 2009). Precarious labor is work that is uncertain, unpredictable, and unprotected, such as contract labor, temporary work, or part-time work. Economic fluctuations often affect these workers first, placing them at greater risk of layoffs because of downsizing and outsourcing. Corporations seeking to cut costs have resorted to a variety of strategies. Some have restructured their workforce and made do with leaner payrolls, while others have relocated their operations overseas in countries where labor costs are lower. Both manufacturing and service jobs are subject to downsizing and outsourcing, meaning that blue collar and white collar workers—and even some higher-ranking executives—are now vulnerable. Their jobs, and class status, may be more precarious than ever before. Criminal Justice In general, people of lower SES are more likely to encounter the criminal justice system, whether as a perpetrator or victim of a crime, than those of higher SES. But the statistics are not as straightforward as they might seem. One influential study (Blau and Blau 1982) showed that while poverty is associated with higher rates of violent crime, variables such as dense population and anomie (a sense of alienation or lack of social connections) have an even greater impact on crime rates. People in lower classes are often more visible, less powerful, and thus more likely to be apprehended and labeled as criminals than those from higher social classes. There are also differences in how crimes are prosecuted. White collar criminals are less likely to be arrested, prosecuted, or convicted than ordinary “street” criminals (Schwellenbach 2008). White collar criminals (such as Enron heads Jeffrey Skilling and the late Kenneth Lay, and Bernie Madoff, whose Ponzi scheme bilked wealthy clients of billions of dollars) can also afford the best legal representation and hence enjoy distinct advantages in the courtroom. If white collar criminals Socioeconomic Status and Life Chances 199 are convicted, their sentences are likely to be lighter. Still, while Enron’s Kenneth Lay avoided prison time by dying of a massive heart attack several months before his October 2006 sentencing date, Jeffrey Skilling was sentenced to twenty-four years in prison, and Madoff received 150 years for his crimes. Studies have claimed that 90 percent of inmates on death row could not afford to hire a lawyer when they were tried (Lane and Tabak 1991) and that the quality of representation, rather than the actual facts presented in a trial, determines whether someone is sentenced to death (ACLU 2003). Studies have also shown that race and SES influence whether the death penalty SOCIAL MOBILITY the is sought. Prosecutors are more movement of individuals or groups within the hierarchical system of likely to seek the death penalty if social classes the killer is black or if the victim was white, while those who are CLOSED SYSTEM a social able to hire legal counsel are less system with very little opportunity to move from one class to another likely to be sentenced to death. Therefore, the intersection of race OPEN SYSTEM a social system and SES can dramatically affect with ample opportunities to move the outcome of criminal sentencfrom one class to another ing (Phillips 2009). INTERGENERATIONAL Lower-class people are also MOBILITY movement between more likely to be the victims social classes that occurs from of violent crime. Statistics one generation to the next consistently show that poor INTRAGENERATIONAL people are more than twice as MOBILITY the movement likely to be victims of violent between social classes that crime than those in higher social occurs during the course of an individual’s lifetime class brackets (Harrell et al. 2014; Truman and Morgan 2016). HORIZONTAL SOCIAL At the same time, people with MOBILITY the movement of lower SES are also more likely individuals or groups within a particular social class, most to feel at risk of harassment by often a result of changing police. As both education and occupations income decreased, respondents reported feeling more threatVERTICAL SOCIAL MOBILITY the movement between different ened by police; as education and class statuses, often called either income increased, they felt less upward mobility or downward threatened (Levinson 2002). mobility Social class affects more than just our financial or material state—it is intricately woven into the fabric of our lives. You may once have concluded that differences in people’s education, work, family, or health were simply a matter of individual preference or effort, or that each individual is responsible for her own circumstances. While this may be true to some extent, research shows that social class background has a profound impact on one’s life chances, leading those with different statuses into very different life courses. This means that we can’t take for granted whatever advantages or disadvantages we might experience but should acknowledge how hierarchies of inequality have helped create our particular social realities. 200 CHAPTER 7 Social Class: The Structure of Inequality Social Mobility How do people move from one social class to another? In other words, how do they achieve social mobility? Sociologists use the concept of social mobility to measure movement within the stratification system of a particular society, whether it’s a small town, a state, or a nation. In some societies, social mobility is highly restricted by formal or informal rules. India’s caste system is an example of what sociologists refer to as a closed system: There is very little opportunity for social mobility among classes. The United States, where social mobility is possible, is perceived to be an open system. But that wasn’t always the case. In the period before the Civil War, slavery was widespread, keeping African Americans from climbing the social class ladder. The movement of people among social classes can happen in three ways: through intergenerational mobility, intragenerational mobility, or structural mobility. Intergenerational mobility refers to the movement that occurs from one generation to the next, when a child eventually moves into a different social class from that of her parents. Americans have always placed great faith in the idea of economic mobility. Research shows that Baby Boomers (the generation of children born immediately after World War II) have, for the most part, achieved upward intergenerational mobility: On the whole, they amassed more wealth during the course of their lives and consequently moved up the social class ladder. Since then, however, mobility seems to have stalled and in the last fifty years it has not gotten any easier to climb the social class ladder, despite progressive social policy changes that were intended to help more people. In fact, since the 1980s, it has gotten much harder (Carr and Weimers 2016). New research has found that young adults today are significantly less likely than past generations of young adults to earn more than their parents (Chetty et al. 2016a). Perhaps more distressing is the finding that people born near the bottom tend to stay near the bottom. Children raised in wealthy families can expect to make 200 percent more income than children raised in poor families and 75 percent more than those raised in middle-class families (Mitnik and Grusky 2015). Conversely, there are many mechanisms in place, such as tax laws and social policies, that allow those at the top of the ladder to protect their assets and pass them down to the next generation, making it more difficult for the middle and lower classes to improve their positions (Chetty et al. 2014). Intragenerational mobility refers to the movement that occurs during the course of an individual’s lifetime. In other words, it is the measure between the social class a person is born into and the social class status she achieves during her lifetime. Intragenerational mobility can be measured in two directions. Horizontal social mobility, which is fairly common, refers to the changing of jobs within a social class: A therapist who shifts careers so that he can teach college experiences horizontal mobility. Vertical social mobility is Social Mobility President Trump is flanked by his two eldest children, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump. In the United States, it’s much easier to stay at the top than to move up. movement up or down the social ladder and thus is often called upward or downward mobility. If this same therapist marries a president of a large corporation, he might experience upward mobility. On the other hand, if he or his wife becomes unemployed, he might experience downward mobility. People are far more likely to experience horizontal than vertical social mobility. Although we usually think of social mobility as the result of individual effort (or lack thereof), other factors can contribute to a change in one’s social class. Structural mobility occurs when large numbers of people move up or down the social ladder because of structural changes in society as a whole, particularly when the economy is affected by large-scale events. For instance, during the Great Depression of the early 1930s, precipitated by the stock market crash of 1929, huge numbers of upper- and middle-class people suddenly found themselves among the poor. Conversely, during the dot-com boom of the late 1990s, developing and investing in new technologies made many people into overnight millionaires. Both of these extreme periods eventually leveled out. Still, many people in the Depression era remained in their new class, never able to climb up the social ladder again. Poverty Social mobility is most difficult—and most essential—for those who live at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. In this section, we look at what it means to experience poverty in the United States. Poverty can be defined in relative or absolute terms. Relative deprivation is a comparative measure, whereby people are considered impoverished if their standard of living is lower than that of other members of society—for example, a retail clerk who works part-time for minimum wage might be considered among the working poor compared with a neurosurgeon whose salary places her comfortably in the upper-middle class. Many communities are characterized by such dual realities. Absolute deprivation, on the other hand, is a measure whereby people are unable to meet minimal standards for food, shelter, clothing, and health care. In the African country of Swaziland, for example, more than 28 percent of adults are living with HIV/AIDS. Many lack access to health care, exacerbating the HIV epidemic and making this country among the lowest in terms of life expectancy, averaging less than fifty-three years (Central Intelligence Agency 2017). Hunger, malnutrition, and the inability to afford medications are some of the basic indicators of absolute poverty. In the United States, the federal poverty line—an absolute measure, calculated annually—indicates the total annual income below which a family would be impoverished. These STRUCTURAL MOBILITY figures are derived from either changes in the social status of the poverty thresholds estab- large numbers of people as a lished by the Census Bureau or result of structural changes in the guidelines determined by society the Department of Health and RELATIVE DEPRIVATION a Human Services. In 2017, the relative measure of poverty based poverty threshold was $24,600 on the standard of living in a for a family of four, $20,420 for a particular society family of three, $16,240 for a fam- ABSOLUTE DEPRIVATION an ily of two, and $12,060 for an indi- objective measure of poverty, vidual (Federal Register 2017). In defined by the inability to meet fact, families making much more minimal standards for food, than these amounts, although not shelter, clothing, or health care officially qualifying as below the FEDERAL POVERTY LINE poverty line, might still be unable federal index that defines “official” poverty in the United to afford some basic necessities. How many people fall below States based on household income; updated annually the poverty line? The numbers are startling, given that we usually think of the United States as a wealthy nation. In 2016, 12.7 percent of the population, or 40.6 million people, were considered to be living in poverty (Semega, Fontenot, and Kollar 2017). During the past forty years, the percentage of people living in poverty has fluctuated in the low teens, but it has never dipped below 10 percent. In fact, the number has occasionally risen to more than 15 percent, as it did in 2009 and 2011, while in the late 1950s it rose to as high as 22 percent (see Figure 7.4). Contrary to popular myth, most people living in poverty are not unemployed; this is why they are often categorized as among the working poor. The annual earnings of a fulltime worker making $7.25 an hour (the prevailing federal minimum wage since 2009) still put him below the poverty line if he is trying to support a family. In fact, at no time in its nearly eighty-year history has the federal minimum wage Poverty 201 50 Recession 40.6 million Numbers in millions, rates in percent 45 Number in poverty 40 35 30 25 20 Poverty rate 15 12.7% 10 5 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Figure 7.4 Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate, 1959–2016 SOURCE: Semega, Fontenot, and Kollar 2017. been sufficient for a worker to exist above the poverty line with a dependent, such as a child, unemployed spouse, or family member. According to researchers, more than 80 percent of low-income minimum-wage workers, even if they are working full-time, are not earning enough to guarantee a decent standard of living, and many cannot afford some of the basic necessities (Wicks-Lim and Thompson 2010). The poverty line has often been criticized because of the way it is uniformly applied without regard to regional or other differences. For instance, a family living in Washington, DC, might need two or three times as much income as a family in Des Moines, Iowa, for expenses like rent, transportation, health insurance, and child care (exceptions are made for Alaska and Hawaii, both states with extremely high costs of living). In addition, some families may be eligible for some form of government assistance, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or the earned income tax credit (EITC), which makes a difference in the total amount of their household money. Many working families thus live close to the edge and struggle to make ends meet but are not included as part of the official poverty statistics (Gould, Cooke, and Kimball 2015; Sherman 2012; Waldron, Roberts, and Reamer 2004). Poverty is also more prominent among certain population groups (Figure 7.5). For instance, poverty rates are higher among blacks (22 percent) and Hispanics (19 percent) than Asians (10 percent) or whites (9 percent) (Semega, Fontenot, and Kollar 2017). They are higher for the elderly, disabled, and those who are foreign born, as well as for women, children, and single-parent households. By geographic region, poverty 202 CHAPTER 7 Social Class: The Structure of Inequality is highest in the South, though there are concentrations of people living in poverty in every region of the country, in inner cities, in rural areas, and also in suburbs (Plumer 2013). Social Welfare and Welfare Reform Some of the most heated debates about the nature of poverty involve how or even whether society should help those who are impoverished. Some argue that government assistance lifts people out of poverty and helps them become selfsupporting; others say that it fosters a dependence on aid and causes further problems. The idea behind the current American welfare state, which consists of such programs as Social Security, unemployment insurance, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), was first proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression. These programs, collectively called the New Deal, were a response to a national crisis and were meant to serve as a safety net for citizens, helping them in times of adversity or old age, poverty, or joblessness. The 1960s ushered in a new war on poverty. A second wave of programs, such as Medicaid and Head Start, intended to solve a variety of social and economic problems, was proposed by President John F. Kennedy and instituted by President Lyndon B. Johnson as part of his Great Society program in 1964. The welfare system attempted to be fair by providing uniform, standard benefits to all the nation’s needy without 40% White, non-Hispanic Blacks Asians Hispanics Percentage in poverty 30% Under 18 Aged 18−64 Aged 65+ Male Female 22.0 19.4 20% 18.0 14.0 11.6 10% 0 8.8 10.1 Race 11.3 9.3 Age Sex Figure 7.5 Poverty in the United States by Selected Characteristics, 2016 SOURCE: Semega, Fontenot, and Kollar 2017. regard to their personal circumstances and with no time limit. Social Security and Medicaid lifted aging retirees and others with medical issues out of poverty, and programs like Head Start and Upward Bound offered educational support for poor children. Food stamps, now called SNAP, improved nutrition for those with limited incomes, and job-training programs helped the poor gain marketable skills. By 1970, the poverty rate had declined from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent (Califano 1999), the fastest it has ever dropped. In the 1980s, political opinion turned against social welfare programs despite their successes. Critics claimed that these programs were responsible for creating a permanent underclass of people living off government checks—some receiving benefits they didn’t deserve—and essentially discouraging them from seeking work. Much of the rhetoric surrounding welfare programs stems from concerns about federal spending. People commonly assume that welfare constitutes a large portion of the federal budget, when in fact only 10 percent of the federal budget in 2015 ($362 billion) was spent on safety net programs such as the earned income tax credit, Supplemental Security Income for the elderly and disabled poor, low-income housing assistance, and unemployment insurance (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 2016). Compare that with Social Security (about 24 percent of spending, or $888 billion) or defense and the war on terror (about 16 percent of spending, or $602 billion) (Figure 7.6). In response to criticism of welfare programs, reforms arrived in the 1990s. Under President Bill Clinton, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was passed into law in 1996. Often referred to as the Welfare Reform Act, it ended the concept of “entitlements” by requiring recipients to find work within two years of receiving assistance and imposing a limit of five years as the total amount of time in which families could receive assistance. The act also decentralized the federal system of public assistance, allowing individual states to design their own programs, some of which would deny or reduce certain benefits and impose their own criteria for eligibility. The rationale was to encourage people on welfare to take responsibility for working themselves out of poverty. In 2003, Congress approved changes to the act, requiring an even larger percentage of recipients to take jobs and work longer hours. Total spending: $3.7 trillion Social Security: 24% Other: 4% Interest on debt: 6% Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: 25% Science: 2% Education: 3% Transportation: 2% Benefits for federal retirees and veterans: 8% Safety net programs: 10% National defense: 16% Figure 7.6 Federal Spending, 2015 SOURCE: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 2016. Poverty 203 While welfare reform has been an economic “success” in terms of reducing the number of people on welfare, there is still a great deal to be learned about its success or failure in transforming the lives of the poor. Evidence suggests that moving from welfare to work does not increase income levels—in other words, federal assistance is merely replaced with an equally low-paying job, which has the effect of keeping families beneath the poverty line once they’re off welfare. The reasons for this—the increased costs of child care, health insurance, and transportation—make it difficult for former welfare recipients to succeed outside the system (Hao and Cherlin 2004; Hays 2003; Slack et al. 2006). As the twentieth anniversary of Clinton’s welfare reform approached, sociologists Kathryn Edin and H. Luke Shaefer began investigating what had happened to families and individuals affected by welfare reform—in other words, those who had “maxxed out” their states’ benefit caps and who were on their own, without the social safety net that social welfare programs had once provided (their research centered on Cleveland, Ohio, and environs). In their book, $2 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America (2016a), Edin and Shaefer report that while welfare rolls have declined over 75 percent since 1996, the number of Americans living in absolute poverty has skyrocketed to approximately 1.5 million families (including 3 million children). Especially in the wake of the Great Recession, full-time, well-paid jobs are hard to find, and with neither cash assistance from welfare programs nor sufficient earnings from stable work, poor people are unable to meet even the most basic needs of their families: “[The] biggest problem—by far—has been the lack of access to a cash safety net—money—when failing to find or keep a job. In 21stcentury America, a family needs at least some cash to have any chance at stability. Only money can pay the rent (though a minority of families get subsidies via a housing voucher). Only money buys socks, underwear, and school supplies. Money is what’s needed to keep the utilities on” (Edin and Shaefer 2016b). With significantly less cash from work, TANF, or other sources, how are the truly disadvantaged getting by? In 2014, plasma “donations” (sales, really, of a vital bodily fluid) hit an all-time high of 32.5 million, tripling since 2004 (Edin and Shaefer 2016b). Food pantry usage almost doubled in the same time period, to a high of close to 7 million families (Barrocio and Shaefer 2016). They live with friends or in their cars or on the streets. In other words, without a robust social safety net, the poorest of our citizens are not getting by. Support for a government social safety net to help the CULTURE OF POVERTY poor has long been split, often entrenched attitudes that along political lines. In 2015, can develop among poor a majority of 55 percent said communities and lead the poor that helping people escape to accept their fate rather than poverty is a major role of the attempt to improve their lot government, jumping as high 204 CHAPTER 7 Social Class: The Structure of Inequality Falling through the Safety Net Two women donate plasma in Eagle Pass, Texas. Plasma donations have skyrocketed in recent years. as 72 percent for Democrats compared to just 36 percent of Republicans (Pew Research Center 2015b). Americans are similarly divided when it comes to perceptions of the impact of government aid to the poor: While nearly half (49 percent) of all people say government aid to the poor “does more good than harm because people are unable to escape poverty until basic needs are met,” nearly the same proportion (44 percent) feel it “does more harm than good by making people dependent on the government” (Pew Research Center 2015e). Americans remain conflicted in their opinions about people living in poverty. Overall, 53 percent say that circumstances beyond one’s control are more often to blame if a person is impoverished, while about a third (34 percent) say that an individual’s lack of effort is more often to blame (Pew Research Center 2016a). Still, 37 percent of registered voters acknowledge that hard work in itself is no guarantee of success (Pew Research Center 2016c). The “Culture of Poverty” and Its Critics Some argue that what keeps people impoverished is not public policy but rather the result of entrenched cultural attitudes. Oscar Lewis (1959) first promoted the idea of a culture of poverty after he studied poor Hispanics in Mexico and the United States. Lewis suggested that the poor, because they were excluded from the mainstream, developed a way of life that was qualitatively different from that of middle-class groups that allowed them to cope with the dire circumstance of poverty. This way of life includes attitudes of resignation and fatalism, which lead them to accept their fate rather than trying to improve their lot. It also emphasizes immediate gratification, making it difficult for impoverished people to plan or save for the future or to join trade unions or community groups that might help them improve their situation. ON THE JOB Get a Job! Minimum Wage or Living Wage? T here are many misconceptions about people living in poverty, and one is that they’re in such conditions because they’re unwilling to work. What many fail to realize is that working, even full-time at forty or more hours per week, may not be enough to lift people and their families out of poverty. So telling someone to just go get a job (assuming work is available) may be shortsighted. While unemployment and underemployment are both issues in themselves, full-time employment in a minimum-wage job can also be problematic. Who are minimum-wage workers? While the common perception is that they are predominately teenagers or other young people working part-time, the average minimum-wage worker is thirty-six years old, female, and working full-time. Fully 89 percent of minimum-wage workers are at least twenty, and 37 percent are over forty (Cooper and Essrow 2015). They work largely in service industries such as hospitality and retail and are particularly concentrated in the fast-food sector. First passed into law as part of the New Deal in the years following the Great Depression, the federal minimum wage— the lowest hourly amount an employer is required to pay workers—is considered a fundamental measure to protect workers from exploitation. Since 2009, the federal minimum wage has been set at $7.25 per hour (though individual states may mandate higher minimum wages, as many states currently do). At the federal rate, a full-time minimum-wage worker earns approximately $1,256 per month before taxes. Despite increases over the years, the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation. There are other problems as well. When adjusted for real dollars, the hourly minimum wage is worth $4 less today than in the late 1960s, making it increasingly difficult to survive on minimum wage. In 2015, 8.6 million workers were among the working poor, people who spent at least twenty-seven weeks in the labor force but who still didn’t make enough to escape poverty, including nearly 12 percent of service workers (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2017l). In response, there is a growing movement to establish a “living wage” instead of a minimum wage. Whereas the minimum wage is defined as pay sufficient for basic survival, a living wage is defined as the minimum income necessary for a decent standard of living. Most consider it the minimum income necessary to obtain not only food, clothing, and shelter, but also utilities, transportation, health care, education, and savings for retirement. A living wage, then, might vary depending on the community and its cost of living, but it can run from 50 to 150 percent higher than a minimum wage (or from about $11 to about $18 if we use the federal minimum as a starting point). More than 125 U.S. municipalities have The Fight for $15 Low-wage workers in Los Angeles protest for a $15 per hour nationwide minimum wage. already passed some form of living wage ordinance since the first one was instated in Baltimore in 1994 (National Employment Law Project 2011; Neumark 2004), including such major cities as Seattle, St. Louis, Philadelphia, and Miami. Activists in dozens more cities across the country, both large and small, have launched living wage campaigns, the largest of which is “Fight for $15,” a movement that seeks to turn the minimum wage into a living wage by raising it to at least $15 per hour everywhere. Among some of the most high profile are living wage movements in Los Angeles and New York City, both places with millions of low-wage workers and high costs of living (Kirkham and Hsu 2014). In the wake of more cities passing local minimum wage ordinances, some of America’s biggest retail firms have also followed suit. Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, raised wages for its lowest-paid workers to $10 per hour in 2016. This was seen as something of a victory, although activists were pushing for a starting rate of $15 per hour, a figure that is closer to a living wage. Other retailers soon did likewise, including McDonald’s, Target, and Gap, Inc. Costco and IKEA went even higher, to $12 per hour (Gustafson 2015). Still, none of these rates meets the demands of the living wage activists. Debates about raising the federal minimum wage have persisted over many decades. It is a complex issue that brings up many questions about whether higher wages will also lead businesses to increase consumer prices, lay off workers, or relocate to where labor is less expensive. More important, will raising the minimum wage or establishing a living wage help reduce poverty in America and provide millions more working people with a decent standard of living? Your future, or that of someone you know, is likely at stake. Poverty 205 Once such a culture is formed, Lewis argued, it takes on a life of its own and is passed on from parents to children, leaving them ill-equipped to change. The culture of poverty theory was later adopted by other social scientists (Banfield 1970) and applied to Americans living in poverty, particularly those in inner cities. Not surprisingly, though, the theory has been met with considerable controversy, in part because it suggests that there is little point in trying to eradicate poverty because it’s more a problem of culture (attitudes, lifestyle, and behavior) than of economics. By focusing on individual character and personality, the theory tends to blame the victims of poverty for their own misfortunes while overlooking the force of their social conditions. The tendency to see victims of social injustice as deserving of their fates is explained by what social psychologists call the just-world hypothesis. According to this argument, we have a strong need to believe that the world is orderly, predictable, and fair in order to achieve our goals in life. When we encounter situations that contradict this belief, we either act quickly to restore justice and order or persuade ourselves that no injustice has occurred. This can result in assuming that victims have “asked for it” or deserve whatever has befallen them. This attitude is continually reinforced through the morality tales that are a ubiquitous part of our news and entertainment, which tell us that good is rewarded and evil punished. The just-world hypothesis, developed by Melvin Lerner (1965, 1980), was tested through a series of experiments that documented how people can convince themselves that others deserve what they get. In these experiments, cash prizes were randomly distributed to students completing the exact same tasks in the exact same way. Observers, however, judged the cash recipients as the more deserving, harder workers. Other researchers (Rubin and Peplau 1975) have found that people with strong beliefs in a just world tend to “feel less of a need to engage in activities to change society or to alleviate the plight of social victims.” In the face of poverty, many simply become apathetic. It is important to be aware of our own tendencies to follow such thinking, so that we might avoid becoming blind to others’ misfortunes. Another problem with the culture of poverty theory is that JUST-WORLD HYPOTHESIS it lacks a certain sociological argues that people have a imagination. It fails to take into deep need to see the world as account the structural factors orderly, predictable, and fair, that shape culture and are part of which creates a tendency to the preexisting problem in which view victims of social injustice as impoverished individuals find deserving of their fates themselves. Dalton Conley (2002) RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION argues that to solve the problem of the geographical separation poverty, we must examine wealth of the poor from the rest of an as well. A social system that area’s population allows extremes of both wealth 206 CHAPTER 7 Social Class: The Structure of Inequality and poverty (as ours does) reveals structural reasons why poverty persists, such as laws that protect the inheritances of the wealthy but provide few breaks for working families. Research like Conley’s helps us understand that there are alternative explanations for why people are poor and even suggests that extreme wealth ought to be conceptualized as a social problem similar to that of extreme poverty. Especially in the United States, the rise of what Thomas Piketty (2014) calls “supermanagers” earning “supersalaries” has meant that the top 1 percent of the population (CEOs, high-level money managers, and other professionals) earn an average of twenty-five to thirty times what the other 99 percent earn (Luhby and Yellin 2016). This idea resonated with the Occupy Movement and other activists who question the health of an economic system in which just 1 percent of the population has amassed so much of the nation’s money and power. The Invisibility of Poverty Although we are used to seeing televised images of abject poverty from overseas—crying children with bloated bellies and spindly limbs in Asia, Africa, or Latin America—we rarely see similar images from the United States. While it may be true that few Americans are as impoverished as people living in Zimbabwe, Haiti, or Honduras, some 41 million Americans lived below the poverty line in 2016 (Semega, Fontenot, and Kollar 2017). That’s more than 12 percent of the population of the wealthiest nation in the world. How can such large numbers of people remain all but hidden to their fellow Americans? What makes poverty invisible? Consider some of these factors. RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION One factor is residential segregation—the geographical isolation of the impoverished from the rest of the city (or in the case of rural areas, from any neighbors at all). Such segregation often occurs along racial as well as socioeconomic lines, further exacerbating class divisions (Massey and Denton 1993). In the phrase “wrong side of the tracks,” used to describe poverty-stricken neighborhoods, there is usually a racial connotation as well, since railroad tracks traditionally served as boundaries that kept black neighborhoods separated from white ones in the nineteenth century (Ananat 2005). Residential segregation is accomplished most notably through public housing projects, which are typically highdensity, low-income apartment complexes in urban areas, funded and managed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Living in these apartment complexes, many of which are in high-crime neighborhoods and are poorly maintained, can be dangerous as well as unpleasant. But when housing authorities attempt to reintegrate low-income tenants into other parts of town, neighbors often complain, vociferously, that they do not want “those” people in their neighborhood. Table 7.2 Theory in Everyday Life Perspective Approach to Social Inequality Case Study: Poverty Structural Functionalism Social inequality is a necessary part of society. Different reward structures are necessary as an incentive for the best qualified people to occupy the most important positions. Even poverty has functions that help maintain social order. Poverty is functional for society: The poor take otherwise undesirable jobs and housing, purchase discount and secondhand goods, and provide work for thousands, including social service caseworkers and others who work with the poor. Conflict Theory Social inequality creates intergroup conflict—poor and rich groups have different interests and may find themselves at odds as they attempt to secure and protect these interests. Social welfare programs that assist the poor are funded by tax dollars, which some wealthy citizens may be reluctant to provide because taxes reduce their net income. This can create conflict between rich and poor groups in society. Social inequality is part of our presentation of self. We develop everyday class consciousness as a way to distinguish the status of others. Poor and wealthy persons have differential access to the “props” used to project particular versions of self. In particular, professional clothing such as business suits can be too expensive for poor individuals to purchase, which can put them at a disadvantage in job interviews for which a professional image is necessary. Organizations like Dress for Success provide professional clothing for those who can’t afford it, leveling the playing field a bit in terms of impression management. Symbolic Interactionism Residential segregation is also exacerbated by the practice of “redlining,” in which banks and mortgage lenders identify high-risk areas (usually low-income or minority neighborhoods) and either refuse mortgages to applicants from those neighborhoods or offer loans at prohibitively high rates. Redlining keeps low-income people from acquiring assets (such as real estate) that might allow them to rise out of poverty and move to a more affluent neighborhood. Though redlining is technically illegal, there is evidence that it is still practiced today in banking, insurance, and other industries, disproportionately affecting the poor and minorities (Wilson 2009). In one instance, a major mortgage company, MidAmerica Bank, settled a redlining case in Chicago by agreeing to open more branches in low-income and minority neighborhoods and to include consumers from those communities in the bank’s advertising campaigns, which had previously targeted only buyers at higher income levels. POLITICAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT People living in poverty may also remain invisible to the larger society because of their lack of political power. Disenfranchisement is a correlate of poverty: The impoverished are less likely to vote or otherwise participate in political life (Kerbo and Gonzalez 2003). When everyday life is a struggle, it is difficult to muster the extra energy necessary to work for political change. The impoverished may also feel that the system has not served them; if the government ignores their DISENFRANCHISEMENT interests, why bother to become the removal of the rights of involved? Because of their lack citizenship through economic, political, or legal means of involvement, the impoverished lack political clout and the resources to make their plight a high-profile political priority. Politicians at the local and national levels have little motivation to address their needs, because as a constituency the impoverished wield less power than such groups as senior citizens, “soccer moms,” and small-business owners. When the impoverished do organize politically, even their successes may not be well known. One group, Mothers of East Los Angeles (whose motto includes the phrase “not economically rich, but culturally wealthy”), has been successfully protecting its neighborhood from environmental degradation and exploitation for decades. The group has rebuffed plans to build a prison, toxic waste plants, and an oil pipeline near homes and schools in its community. But have you ever heard of it? High-profile occasions, such as political conventions and major sporting events, put a media spotlight on city streets. In the run-up to the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, city officials and representatives of the International Olympic Committeee promised that construction and infrastructure projects would benefit not just wealthy international tourists coming to the Games but also the impoverished favela Poverty 207 (or slum-dwellers) who make up almost 25 percent of Rio’s access to computer and Internet population. In reality, though, technology, both globally and the “improvements” either took within the United States place in already affluent areas or demolished favela housing without plans for replacement or relocation. So favela residents became activists themselves, marching in the streets to demand inclusion in government decision making. Favela advocacy groups helped craft “Agenda 2017,” a plan for improved services and human rights protections for poor residents and neighborhoods (Waldron 2016). Activism like this can turn previously invisible communities into forces to be reckoned with politically. DIGITAL DIVIDE the unequal THE DIGITAL DIVIDE In a postindustrial economy, most people will have to demonstrate a certain level of computer proficiency in order to secure a job. One way or another, the majority of jobs in contemporary society involve computers, so it’s likely you’ll have to know how to use certain programs to do your work, whatever it may be. Because you are attending college, you’ll probably be lucky enough to acquire some of these skills in the course of your education. But not everyone has the same opportunities, and many Americans lack the basic computer literacy, experience, and access necessary to compete in a job market that increasingly demands such skills. This inequality in access to and use of digital technology is known as the digital divide. The hierarchies of inequality in the larger society—such as socioeconomic status, race, age, and educational attainment— all shape one’s access to technology (Glaser 2007). For example, while 88 percent of all adults in the United States use the Internet regularly, there are differences in access among various demographic groups. In 2016 there were lower Internet usage rates among households with incomes under $30,000 (79 percent), those with a high school education or less (68 percent), and seniors (64 percent) (Pew Research Center 2017a). Similarly, while nearly all adults (97 percent) with an income over $100,000 own a desktop or laptop computer, only 56 percent of those with an income of less than $30,000 do (Anderson 2017). With the rise in popularity and availability of smartphones, more underrepresented groups are gaining Internet access. Still, some researchers expect the digital divide between the “haves” and the “have-nots” to continue and even expand into the next decades (Pew Research Center 2017a). These disparities mirror the contours of other sorts of social inequality, especially because technology requires resources—funds to purchase devices and the means to get online. Those higher up the social class ladder have more of these resources than the working poor or underclass. The digital divide is really about the benefits of having technological competence and access, especially as it relates to the additional opportunities and advantages it brings. Most important, the digital divide 208 CHAPTER 7 Social Class: The Structure of Inequality matters in the areas of education and the job market. Internet access and proficiency are quickly becoming a requirement for both finding and keeping a job, meaning that those without such access or proficiency are at a disadvantage (Smith 2015). HOMELESSNESS In certain situations, the people who are most impoverished are deliberately removed from public view. Police are sometimes ordered to scour the streets, rousting the homeless and herding them out of sight, as they did in 1988 in New York City’s Tompkins Square Park (an infamous riot ensued). Mostly, though, the homeless remain invisible. We don’t know exactly how many homeless live in the United States. The Census Bureau focuses its population counts on households, so the homeless living in long-term shelters may get counted, but not those on the streets. One recent estimate is that at least 2.5 to 3.5 million people (approximately 1 percent of the U.S. population) will experience homelessness at least once during a given year, with an additional 7.4 million people living doubled up with others out of economic necessity (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty 2015). The recent recession left many people unemployed and their finances drained, creating a surge in homelessness that included many who were formerly among the middle classes. “We have this emergence of a very visible and very large homeless population in the shadow of tremendous affluence,” said Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness in San Francisco (Gee et al. 2017). Each year, the city of New York attempts to measure the number of homeless men and women. Volunteers comb the streets in the overnight hours, making note of all those they find sleeping on park benches or in building stairwells. They do not, however, enter abandoned buildings or subway tunnels, where many of New York’s homeless seek shelter. Counting the Homeless Volunteers speak with a homeless man on a subway for the all-night Homeless Outreach Population Estimate (HOPE). The goal is to obtain an estimate of individuals living on the street in New York City in order to help the government provide better services for the homeless population. The 2016 count of the New York City homeless population found that nearly 2,800 people were living on the city’s streets (NYC.gov 2016). Another 62,435 were living in shelters, including more than 15,000 families with 23,764 children; this number is nearly 80 percent higher than it was ten years ago, largely due to a lack of affordable housing (Coalition for the Homeless 2017). Although this is sometimes a difficult population to locate and there may be questions about the accuracy of reports, such counts help the city estimate its needs for homeless services in the coming year. The homeless also remain invisible to most of us because of our own feelings of discomfort and guilt. John Coleman, a former college president and business executive, discovered this when he lived in poverty, if only temporarily, on the streets of Manhattan. Coleman went “undercover” as a homeless man for ten days and found that the minute he shed his privileged identity, people looked at him differently—or not at all. During his days on the streets, Coleman passed by and made eye contact with his accountant, his landlord, and a co-worker—each looked right through him, without recognition. But he was not invisible to everyone. Police officers often shook him awake to get him moving from whatever meager shelter he had found for the night. A waiter at a diner took one look at him and forced him to pay up front for his 99-cent breakfast special. Other homeless men, though, showed him kindness and generosity (Coleman 1983). To whom are the homeless (and others living in poverty) most visible? Those who work with them: caseworkers, social service providers, government bureaucrats, volunteers and charity workers, clergy, cops, business owners (including those who may not want to deal with them, as well as those who may exploit them). And now, they are more visible to you. With a sociological perspective, you can now see the effects of social stratification everywhere you turn. And when you recognize the multiple, complex causes of poverty—such as limited educational and job opportunities, stagnating wages, economic downturns, racism, mental illness, and substance abuse—it will no longer be as simple to consider each individual responsible for his or her own plight. Finally, the sociological perspective will give you the ability to imagine possible solutions to the problems associated with poverty— solutions that focus on large-scale social changes as well as individual actions, including your own. Don’t let poverty remain invisible. Inequality and the Ideology of the American Dream Ask almost anyone about the American Dream and they are likely to mention some of the following: owning your own home; having a good marriage and great kids; finding a good job that you enjoy; being able to afford nice vacations; having a big-screen TV, nice clothes, or season tickets to your team’s home games. For most Americans, the dream also means that all people, no matter how humble their beginnings, can succeed in whatever they set out to do if they work hard enough. In other words, a poor boy or girl could grow up to become president of the United States, an astronaut, a professional basketball player, a captain of industry, or a movie star. One problem with the American Dream, however, is that it doesn’t always match reality. It’s more of an ideology: a belief system that explains and justifies some sort of social arrangement, in this case America’s social class hierarchy. The ideology of the American Dream legitimizes stratification by reinforcing the idea that everyone has the same chance to get ahead and that success or failure depends on the person (Hochschild 1996). Inequality is presented as a system of incentives and rewards for achievement. If we can credit anyone who does succeed, then logically we must also blame anyone who fails. The well-socialized American buys into this belief system, without recognizing its structural flaws. We are caught in what Marx would call “false consciousness,” the inability to see the ways in which we may be oppressed. Nevertheless, it’s not easy to dismiss the idea of the American Dream, especially when there are so many highprofile examples. Take, for instance, Oprah Winfrey. Born in Mississippi in 1954, Winfrey endured a childhood of abject poverty. In 2016, Forbes magazine listed her as #239 of the 400 richest Americans, with an impressive personal The American Dream Oprah Winfrey’s meteoric rise from a childhood of poverty to her position as one of the most powerful celebrities in America is often cited as a prime example of the American Dream. How does Oprah’s success represent the exception rather than the rule? Inequality and the Ideology of the American Dream 209 IN THE FUTURE Why We Can’t Afford the Rich A s noted in other sections of this chapter, the wealth gap is growing, both domestically and globally. The very rich are getting richer, and everyone else, no matter how hard they work, is either getting poorer or struggling to stay even. By 2012, the richest 1 percent of households in the United States owned 42 percent of the country’s wealth, driven in large part by the top 0.1 percent of households: Their share of the country’s wealth jumped from 7 percent in 1978 to 22 percent in 2012 (Saez and Zucman 2016). This is a problem not only for those who are at the bottom of the economic hierarchy—it is a problem for the entire planet. This is the argument WEALTH GAP the unequal of Professor Andrew Sayer, distribution of assets across who makes a case for extreme a population wealth as a serious social problem in his new book Why We Can’t Afford the Rich (2016). For Sayer, the wealth gap is about social justice (and injustice) in more ways than one. Not only does inequality mean that some individuals and groups suffer more than others in our society, but also the uberwealthy are a drain on the economy and a threat to the planet. According to Sayer (2016), here’s why we can’t afford the rich: In contemporary capitalism, the super-rich usually get and stay that way as a result of “wealth extraction” rather than “wealth creation.” In other words, their money is less likely to be the result of their own inventions, ideas, or entrepreneurship; rather, they profit from what they (and their ancestors) already own: capital gains and interest from investments, rents, and royalties from inherited properties. The truly rich extract wealth from others through their control of money and property, while the rest of us work in order to be able to give that money to the already wealthy in the form of rent payments, interest on debt, and surplus value from our labor. With economic power often comes excessive and antidemocratic political influence. In other words, the tiny group of disproportionately wealthy individuals is also disproportionately powerful in other areas of civic life. Of course, this isn’t news to anyone who read Chapter 1: C. Wright Mills argues the same thing in his theory of the power elite. It isn’t hard to see this proposition in action in national, state, and local politics. Who has the money to run for office (and win)? Usually, it’s people who are already rich. Our forty-fifth president, real estate mogul Donald J. Trump, and the billionaires he appointed to important Cabinet and ambassador positions are perfect examples. The super-rich are super-consumers. This seems fairly obvious—the more money they have, the more they probably spend. But think about what this means if you take it to its logical end point: Excessive consumption means excessive use of scarce resources such as energy, water, and raw materials such as lumber, metals, and rubber. Not only does excessive consumption deplete these resources, but it leads to waste and pollution as well. Think of the many celebrities who have multiple homes in various locales. Each of those homes needs electricity to turn on the lights, irrigation systems to water the lawn, wealth of $2.8 billion. In 2010, Forbes honored her as the world’s most powerful celebrity (of 100), based on a composite that included earnings ($165 million that year) and dominance across various media. In that same year, Winfrey launched her own independent cable network—the Oprah MERITOCRACY a system in Winfrey Network, or OWN. The which rewards are distributed accolades and awards span based on merit many categories. Not only is she extremely successful as a media mogul and personality, but she is also widely praised for her philanthropic efforts and is admired as a symbol of what can be achieved in pursuit of the American Dream. The problem is, we tend to think of her as representing the rule rather than the exception. For most Americans, the rags-to-riches upward mobility she has achieved is very unrealistic. Though popular opinion and rhetoric espouse the American Dream ideology or that the United States is a meritocracy (a system in which rewards are distributed based on merit), sociologists find contrary evidence. In fact, no matter how hard they work, most people will make little movement at all. And the degree of mobility they do achieve can depend on their ethnicity, class status, or gender rather than merit. For example, whites are more likely to experience upward mobility than persons of color (Mazumder 2012), and married women are more likely to experience upward mobility than nonmarried women (Li and Singelmann 1998). Immigrant persons of color are 1. 210 CHAPTER 7 Social Class: The Structure of Inequality 2. 3. drives high-performance race cars really fast for twentyfour hours straight with no destination at all. Those weekly trips in the corporate jet also make the carbon footprints of the rich much bigger than those of ordinary folk. And don’t forget all the associated air and water pollution. and other resource-guzzling functions to maintain the property, even when no one is living there. Oprah Winfrey (who owns five houses from Chicago to Hawaii), we’re talking to you! Finally, wealth depends on continued use of fossil fuels— to create and maintain it and to live the lifestyle of the “rich and famous.” With this comes disproportionate environmental impact. We all use fossil fuels, but most of us drive one car to work and probably fly in airplanes once or twice a year, if at all. Former late night host Jay Leno owns 150 cars. Actor Patrick Dempsey competes in prestigious “24 hour” races all over the world where he To paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald, the very rich live differently than you and me. And as their wealth grows, it translates into more austerity, less purchasing power, and more insecurity (in employment, housing, health, and environment) for the rest of the population. The recent turn toward oligarchy (rule by the wealthy few) in OLIGARCHY political the United States and else- rule by a small group of where makes this feel espe- people, usually members cially urgent, as President of a wealthy or otherwise Trump and his Cabinet of dominant class billionaires implement policies that benefit their wealthy friends at the expense of the poor, the middle class, the environment, and the rest of the planet. The wealthy can use their greater resources to shield themselves from the outcomes of global warming, famine, disease, and uprising for a while—but not forever. Looking toward the future, a more sustainable society must be based on a fairer distribution of economic resources. We must pioneer different ways of living in order to reduce inequalities of wealth, power, consumption, and waste, and keep our society alive. the most likely to experience downward social mobility (McCall 2001). It is also much harder for those who start at the bottom of the class ladder to rise up the ranks (DeParle 2012). Where you live matters as well: Those who live in the nonwhite portions of racially segregated areas have lower levels of upward mobility, but if you’re from a lowincome family who lives in a high-income county, your earning chances improve over those of similar families in low-income counties (Chetty et al. 2014). A 2015 Harvard poll showed college-age millennials evenly split on the issue of the American Dream: About half say it still exists, while half declared it dead (Harvard IOP 2015). The numbers shift when broken down by such factors as education, gender, and race of the respondent. More college graduates (58 percent) believe in the American Dream than those with just a high school education (42 percent). While 52 percent of Hispanics believe in the American Dream, the same is true of 49 percent of whites and just 44 percent of blacks. Although the American Dream tends to promote consumerism as a way to achieve “the good life,” the fact is that chasing after it has left us feeling less secure and satisfied— not to mention less wealthy—than previous generations (De Graaf, Waan, and Naylor 2002). Some pundits suggest that we have lost focus on the original meaning of the American Dream, that our increasing obsession with the idea of “more (or newer or bigger) is better” is leading to more debt, less free time, and greater discontent. In 2016, for households carrying Conspicuous Consumption One reason we can’t afford the rich, according to Sayer, is because the wealthy are super-consumers who sap scarce resources. 4. Inequality and the Ideology of the American Dream 211 credit card debt, the average amount was nearly $17,000 a loosely knit movement that (Wooley 2016). A recent Gallup opposes consumerism and poll reported that about half of encourages people to work Americans feel that they do not less, earn less, and spend less, in accordance with have enough time to do all of the nonmaterialistic values things they need to do in their everyday lives (Newport 2015). A countervailing trend in American life, sometimes referred to as the simplicity movement, rejects rampant consumerism and seeks to reverse some of its consequences for the individual, for society, and for the planet. This movement, a backlash against the traditional American Dream, encourages people to “downshift” by working less, earning less, and spending less in order to put their lifestyles in sync with their (nonmaterialistic) values (Grigsby 2004; Schor 1999). What does this mean in practice? Growing your own vegetables, perhaps, or riding your bike to work, wearing secondhand clothes, and spending more time with friends and family and less time commuting, shopping, or watching TV. One of the most radical extensions of this philosophy is embraced by “freegans” (Barnard 2016)—a term that merges “free” with “vegan” (a person who eats no animal products). Freegans are people who avoid consumerism and who engage in strategies to support themselves without participating in a conventional economic system. This can mean scavenging for usable food, clothing, and other goods, sometimes called “urban foraging” or “dumpster diving,” along with sharing housing and transportation with others in order to work less and minimize their impact on the planet. SIMPLICITY MOVEMENT DATA WORKSHOP Analyzing Media and Pop Culture Advertising and the American Dream We are surrounded by advertising, which aims not only to give us information about products but also to create and stimulate a buying public with demands for an ever-increasing array of goods and services. Advertising shapes our consciousness and tells us what to dream and how to pursue those dreams. It provides us with a concept of the good life and tells us that it’s available to everyone. Advertising equates shopping and acquisition with emotional fulfillment, freedom, fun, happiness, security, and self-satisfaction. 212 CHAPTER 7 Social Class: The Structure of Inequality And the sales pitch seems to be working. Like no other generation, today’s eighteen- to thirty-four-yearolds have grown up in a consumer culture with all its varied enticements, but they are having a harder time reaching financial stability in adulthood than did their parents. Many young people are finding themselves caught in a difficult job market, with too few positions and too little pay, at the same time they are carrying larger student loans and mounting credit card debt. The credit card industry has garnered many critics who claim that it is designed to keep people in debt. Some reforms to the industry and a declining number of credit card holders during post-recession years have made a dent in the student debt crisis. Yet many young people still embrace easy credit only to discover that late-payment fees and high interest rates can keep them from paying down their balances. In 2015, seven in ten college graduates left school with student loan debt; the average amount owed rose to $30,100 (TICAS 2016). On top of that, more than half of all college students use credit cards (Sallie Mae 2016). While some students may be spending on luxuries like fancy clothes, expensive meals, and high-tech toys that they really can’t afford, many young people are using credit cards for basic household needs and expenses, such as prescription medications and car repairs. And the appeal to spend more is always there, urging you to buy your way into the American Dream, and perhaps leading you further into debt. So let’s examine where some of this pressure to spend comes from—advertising. In this Data Workshop, you will analyze some advertisements in terms of the ideology of the American Dream. This entails the use of existing sources and doing a content analysis to look for patterns of meaning within and across the ads. See the section on existing sources in Chapter 2 for a review of this research method. To start your research, find three or four ads from magazines, newspapers, websites, or other sources. These should be print ads rather than video clips. Look for ads that are of interest to your particular age, gender, or other demographic group. In particular, try to identify ads that are selling the idea of the American Dream of wealth, success, or living the “good life.” Examine both the visual (images and layout) and textual (words) elements of the advertisements. For each of the ads, consider the following questions: ✱ What product or service is being advertised? ✱ For whom is the advertisement intended? ✱ Does the ad “work”? Would you like to buy the prod- uct or service? Why or why not? ✱ In addition to a product or service, what else are the advertisers trying to “sell”? ✱ What are the explicit (obvious) and implicit (subtle) messages conveyed in the ad? ✱ How do these messages make you feel? Do they play on your emotions, desires, or sense of self-worth? If so, in what ways? Once you have examined all the ads, consider these more general questions: ✱ What were the similarities or differences between the ads you chose with regard to their underlying ideology? ✱ How do the ads represent a particular lifestyle that you should aspire to? How does that influence your buying habits? CLOSING COMMENTS Social stratification is all about power. Stratification systems, like SES, allocate different types of social power, such as wealth, political influence, and occupational prestige, and do so in fundamentally unequal ways. These inequalities are part of both the larger social structure and our everyday interactions. In the following chapters, we will examine other systems of stratification—namely, race and ethnicity, and gender and sexuality. While we separate these topics for organizational purposes, they are not experienced as separate in our everyday lives. We are women or men, working class or upper class, black or white, gay or straight simultaneously. Our experiences of these social categories are intertwined. We will continue to examine intersectionality and the complex relationship between our positions in the social structure and the varying social forces that shape our lives. ✱ What types of ads have a strong effect on you? Why? ✱ What kinds of pressures do you feel to keep up with the material possessions of your friends, neighbors, or co-workers? ✱ Why do you think we are lured into shopping and acquiring material possessions? There are two options for completing this Data Workshop: PRE P- PA IR- SH A RE Select three ads and bring them with you to class (either the physical ads from a magazine or newspaper, photocopies, or screen shots of online ads). Reflect on the questions as they apply to one or more of your ads, and be ready to discuss your answers with other students, in pairs or small groups. Compare and contrast each other’s contributions. DO - IT-YOU RSE L F Write a three- to four-page essay discussing your general thoughts on advertising, consumption, and the American Dream. Include an analysis of the specific ads you chose, answering the sets of questions. Make sure to attach the ads to your paper. Closing Comments 213 Everything You Need to Know about Social Stratification “ Social stratification is present in all societies. People are categorized and divided into groups, including gender, race, class, and age, which are then placed in a social hierarchy. “ 214 THEORIES OF SOCIAL CLASS ✱ Conflict: Social classes are highly stratified and continue to grow further apart. ✱ Weberian: Wealth, power, and prestige are interrelated, but one can also be converted into another. ✱ Structural functionalism: Stratification is necessary for society to function. ✱ Postmodernism: Social class is passed down from one generation to the next through cultural capital. ✱ Symbolic interactionism: We judge people’s social class constantly during everyday interactions. REVIEW 1. Think about your own class status. Is it consistent across the criteria that make up socioeconomic status (income, wealth, education, occupation, and power)? Or are you an example of status inconsistency? 2. According to Pierre Bourdieu, the cultural tools we inherit from our parents can be very important in trying to gain economic assets. What sort of cultural capital did you inherit? Has it ever helped you materially? Have you ever done something to acquire more cultural capital? 3. Erving Goffman says we “read” other people through social interaction to get a sense of their class status. What sort of clues can tell you about a person’s social class within thirty seconds of meeting that person? How Rich Are You? The average undergraduate sociology major earns around $35,000 in an entry level job. That salary 35K . EXPLORE makes you the 48,656,639th richest person on Earth Food: What’s Class Got to Do with It? by income. In 1 hour you would earn $18.23. The average worker in Zimbabwe earns only $0.53 in the same time. If you earn $35,000 in your first job after college, $ http://wwnPag.es/trw407 it would take the average worker in Indonesia 47 years to earn the same amount. 2 minutes Income and obesity are related: Poorer people have limited access to and less money to spend on fresh produce and high-quality brands. Visit the Everyday Sociology blog to find out what happens when a sociologist from the middle class in Culver City tries to shop for food in the low-income city of Compton. It’ll only take you to earn enough for a refreshing can of soda. The average worker in Ghana has to work for approximately 7 hours to buy a can of soda. SOURCE: Poke 2017. 215 CHAPTER 8 Race and Ethnicity as Lived Experience ike a lot of celebrities, comedian and actor Chris Rock has a verified Twitter account. L Unlike many of his peers, he isn’t a big fan of tweeting selfies. But in 2015 he posted three of them in less than two months, each taken immediately after he had been pulled over by the police. Social media posts such as Chris Rock’s selfies have put real faces on the issue of racial profiling by police. Rock’s recent run-ins with police even have a specific name: “driving while black.” Racial profiling is pervasive on America’s roads and highways. And this is nothing new: Civil rights groups in the 1950s and 1960s were already voicing bitter complaints about “the stopping of Negroes on foot or in cars without obvious basis” (Harris 1999). It would be nice to think that half a century would be enough time to solve such a serious social problem, but today both the political and legal situation make driving while black a fundamentally different experience. 216 217 Politically, the war on drugs has made driving while black (or brown) even riskier than before. In the 1980s the federal government dramatically increased its efforts to catch drug smugglers. Nationally this meant an increasingly militarized border and airport security. At the state and local levels, however, it meant law enforcement wanted to search a lot more cars. Despite overwhelming evidence that rates of illegal drug use are similar across racial lines, police and highway patrol officers have often disproportionately targeted nonwhite motorists when searching for drug couriers. Of course, it’s not legal to stop drivers just because of their race; however, the current legal situation allows the police to stop more or less anyone, at any time, because “traffic codes are so minutely drawn that virtually every driver will break some rule within a few blocks” (LaFraniere and Lehren 2015). This led to massive increases in “pretext stops,” where the violation cited as justifying the traffic stop is just a pretext to investigate the people in the car. In 1996, the Supreme Court found that pretext searches did not violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The phrase “driving while black” is an explicit claim about racial injustice. Are we all afforded the same rights, or are black and white drivers treated differently? For a long time this question was hard to answer empirically due to a lack of data on race and traffic stops. Even now there is no comprehensive nationwide database on who gets stopped, but the data that do exist make it clear that race matters. For example, a black driver is about 31 percent more likely to be pulled over than a white driver, and once pulled over “white drivers were significantly less likely to be searched than black or Hispanic drivers” (Ingraham 2014). Even in the face of these damning statistics many police departments have argued that racial bias is not at fault, speculating, for instance, that African Americans might just be driving more or violating traffic laws more often. However, as the New York Times found, there are “wide racial differences in measure after measure of police conduct” (LaFraniere and Lehren 2015). For instance, studies have shown that African Americans are more likely to be involved in a traffic stop that only resulted in a citation for “out of sight offenses,” like an expired license or registration. African Americans are also more likely to be pulled over in the daytime, when their race is more visible, than at night. In the African American community, having “the talk” with your kids isn’t just about sex; it often involves talking to them about how to interact with the police. As Ta-Nehisi Coates (2015) warns his own son in Between the World and Me, “The police departments of your country have been endowed with the authority to destroy your body. It does not matter if the destruction is the result of an unfortunate overreaction. It does not matter if it originates in a misunderstanding. It does not matter if the destruction springs from a foolish policy.” Driving while intoxicated is a crime, and the only thing that parents need to tell their children is not to do it. Driving while black is not an actual crime, but black parents are forced to tell their children that sometimes it will be treated like it is. 218 CHAPTER 8 Race and Ethnicity as Lived Experience HOW TO READ THIS CHAPTER Our goal in this chapter is for you to acquire a fundamental understanding of race and ethnicity as socially constructed categories. While each is based on traits we may see as biological, such as skin color or facial features, the meanings attached to race and ethnicity are created, maintained, and modified over time through social processes in which we all take part. When a society categorizes people based on their race and ethnicity (and all societies do), it creates a system of stratification that leads to inequality. Society’s resources—wealth, power, privilege, opportunity—are distributed according to these categories, thereby perpetuating inequalities that are all too familiar here in the United States. We also hope you will come to understand the importance of race and ethnicity in forming individual identity. Our racial and ethnic identities have profound effects on our sense of self, and our bonds to other people may be based on shared identities—or may transcend those categories entirely. Defining Race and Ethnicity “Race” and “ethnicity” are words we use so often in everyday speech that we might not think we need a definition of either. But people tend to use the words interchangeably, as if they mean essentially the same thing. There is, however, a significant difference between commonsense notions of race and ethnicity and what social scientists have to say about them. The idea of different races as belonging to distinguishable categories has existed for hundreds of years. In the nineteenth century, biologists came up with a schema that grouped humans into three races: Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid (corresponding roughly to black, Asian, and white). It was believed that each race was characterized by its own biological makeup, separate and distinct from the others. Modern scientists, however, possess advanced tools for examining race in a much more sophisticated way. What they have found, ironically, is that there are no “pure” races—that the lines among races are blurry rather than fixed. A person who looks white will inevitably have biological material from other races, as will someone who looks black. There is also no such thing as a “superior” race, as race itself is not the reason that different groups might display positive or negative characteristics (such as intelligence, athleticism, or artistic ability). Furthermore, there is greater genetic diversity within racial populations than between them. So within the Asian population, members differ more from each other (Koreans from Chinese, for example) than they do from whites. From a biological standpoint, the difference between someone with type O blood and someone with type A blood is much more significant than the differences between a dark-skinned and a lightskinned person. And yet blood types are not used in our society as a way of distinguishing groups for any reason other than medical treatment. The physical differences we see between groups, such as skin color or hair texture, are due to geographic adaptations. People living in places closer to the equator have more What Is Race? Rashida Jones (left) is the daughter of black producer Quincy Jones and white actress and model Peggy Lipton. Twins Kian and Remee, with their parents Remi Horder and Kylee Hodgson, were born within a minute of each other with different skin colors. Defining Race and Ethnicity 219 melanin (and darker skin) to protect them from too much sunlight, while people living closer to the poles have less melanin (and lighter skin), which allows them to absorb enough sunlight to produce vitamin D (a compound necessary for human health). We have attributed great significance to quite superficial differences. Such conclusions overlook the fact that all humans, whatever racial categories they seem to inhabit, are 99.9 percent genetically identical. And of that remaining 0.1 percent of our genetic material, only 15 percent of its variation occurs between geographically distinct groups. In other RACE a socially defined category words, there’s not enough “wiggle based on real or perceived room” in the human genome for biological differences between race to be a genetic trait (Harvard groups of people Magazine 2008). There is no race ETHNICITY a socially defined chromosome in our DNA. category based on a common Sociologists, then, have come language, religion, nationality, to understand race as a social history, or some other cultural category, based on real or perfactor ceived biological differences between groups of people. Race is more meaningful to us on a social level than it is on a biological level (Montagu 1998). There have also been varying criteria for determining who belongs in which race. The “one drop” rule—a way of defining any person with just one drop of blood from African ancestry as black—was used as a justification for slavery and denying rights during much of the nineteenth century. Actress Rashida Jones may “look white” to many, but in some southern states in 1925, she could just as easily have been considered black or Native American. Does knowing Mulberry Street at the Turn of the Century In the early 1900s, Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants were not considered “whites.” Because of residential segregation, new immigrants poured into densely populated neighborhoods like this one on New York’s Lower East Side, where they had little choice but to live in squalid tenements and work in sweatshops. 220 CHAPTER 8 Race and Ethnicity as Lived Experience Jones’s racial background now make you think of her in a different way? Ethnicity is another social category that is applied to a group with a shared ancestry or cultural heritage. The ScotchIrish (or Scots-Irish), for instance, are a distinct ethnic group in American society, linked by a common cultural heritage that includes language, religion, and history; the Scotch-Irish people, with few exceptions, are also white. In the eighteenth century they migrated to frontier territories in the United States and settled into parts of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Many Scotch-Irish are clustered in rural Appalachia. J. D. Vance (2016) writes about this group in his best-selling memoir, Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis. He characterizes the Scotch-Irish as a tight-knit and fiercely loyal group that clings to traditional family values, evangelical Christianity, and conservative politics. The Jewish people are another example; contrary to what the Nazis and other white supremacists may believe, Jews are an ethnic group but not a race. They share a religious and cultural background but are dispersed in many parts of the world. The stereotypical image is challenged when we see a blond, blue-eyed Jew from Scandinavia or a black Ethiopian Jew. As an example of the social construction of race and ethnicity, let’s look at the evidence documenting the historical changes in the boundaries of the category “white.” In the early 1900s, native-born Americans, who were frequently Protestant, did not consider recent Irish, Italian, or Jewish immigrants to be white and restricted where these groups could live and work (Brodkin 1999; Ignatiev 1996, 2008). Such housing Symbolic Ethnicity Irish Americans and Mexican Americans often embrace ethnic identity on special occasions like St. Patrick’s Day and Cinco de Mayo. discrimination forced new immigrants to cluster in urban neighborhoods or “ghettos.” After World War II, however, as the second generation of Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants reached adulthood, the importance of ethnic identity declined and skin color became the main way to differentiate between who was white and who was not. Today, the question is whether people of Middle Eastern descent are white. In the post–9/11 war on terrorism climate, Arabs and Muslims have been identified as racially and ethnically distinct in significant and even harmful ways. While these groups possess a range of skin colors and facial features, it may be their symbolic labeling in these difficult times that makes them “nonwhite.” “Ethnic Options”: Symbolic and Situational Ethnicity How do we display our racial and ethnic group membership? We may do so in a number of ways: through dress, language, food, and religious practices; through preferences in music, art, or literature; even through the projects we find interesting and the topics we pursue at school. Sometimes these practices make our group membership obvious to others; sometimes they don’t. White ethnics like Irish Americans and Italian Americans, for example, can actually choose when and how they display their ethnic group membership to others. One way group membership is displayed is through symbolic ethnicity, enactments of ethnic identity that occur only on special occasions. For example, most Irish Americans have been so fully assimilated for multiple generations that their Irish ancestry may not matter much to them on a daily basis. But on St. Patrick’s Day (especially in cities like Boston and New York), displays of Irish identity can be pretty overwhelming! Parades, hats, “Kiss me, I’m Irish” buttons, green clothing, green beer (and in Chicago, a green river!), corned beef and cabbage—all are elements of symbolic ethnicity. Similar ethnic displays occur on such holidays as Passover, Cinco de Mayo, and Nouruz. Another way we can show group membership is through situational ethnicity, when we deliberately assert our ethnicity in some situations while downplaying it in others. Situational ethnicity involves a kind of cost-benefit analysis that symbolic ethnicity does not: We need to appraise each situation to determine whether or not it favors our ethnicity. For example, Dr. Ferris’s Lebanese ancestry never mattered much, outside her own family, when she lived in Southern California. In fact, it was often something she felt she should downplay, given a political climate in which people of Arabic background were sometimes viewed with suspicion. But when she moved SYMBOLIC ETHNICITY an to Peoria, Illinois, she discovered ethnic identity that is only that this small city had a rela- relevant on specific occasions tively large population of Leba- and does not significantly nese descent and that the mayor, affect everyday life a city councilman, the state sena- SITUATIONAL ETHNICITY tor, the congressman, local busi- an ethnic identity that can be ness, arts, and religious leaders, either displayed or concealed and prominent families were all depending on its usefulness Lebanese. This suddenly made in a given situation Dr. Ferris’s ethnicity a valuable asset in a way that it had never been before. She received a good deal of social support and made new friends based on shared revelations of ethnic group membership. In the case of situational ethnicity, we see how larger social forces can govern the identities we choose—if we have a choice. Neither situational nor symbolic ethnicity is available to those who are visibly nonmainstream, whatever that may look like in a given society. In the United States, this generally means that nonwhites do not have a choice about whether to display their group membership (although this may eventually change as we become a “majority-minority” nation). Most nonwhites don’t have “ethnic options” that Defining Race and Ethnicity 221 they can take or leave. As sociologist Mary Waters explains, “The social and political consequences of being Asian or Hispanic or black are not, for the most part, symbolic, nor are they voluntary. They are real, unavoidable, and sometimes hurtful” (1990, p. 156). ✱ What kind of music is being played, and what types of foods or crafts are available? ✱ Are different languages being spoken? If so, by whom and in what situations? ✱ What are the differences in the activities of adults and children, men and women, members and visitors? DATA WORKSHOP Analyzing Everyday Life Displaying Ethnicity Choose a setting where you can watch people “doing” ethnicity, either situational or symbolic. You should be able to find multiple places, occasions, or other opportunities to conduct this kind of research. For instance, you can go to a St. Patrick’s Day parade, if your city hosts one, or attend an ethnic festival of some sort (such as St. Anthony’s Feast Day in Boston’s Italian North End or Los Angeles’s annual African Marketplace). Or just visit one of your city’s ethnic neighborhoods: Stroll through an Italian market in South Philadelphia, or shop the streets of Chicago’s Ukrainian Village, Greektown, or Pilsen (a Mexican American neighborhood). You could check out the windmills and eat pastry in Solvang, a small city in central California founded by Danish teachers. If you think your town is too tiny to have any ethnic diversity, think again: Even minuscule Postville, Iowa (population 2,200), includes a large Hasidic Jewish population, with significant clusters of Mexican, Guatemalan, Ukrainian, Nigerian, Bosnian, and Czech immigrants. You may even find an appropriate setting on your college campus or at one of your own family gatherings. For this Data Workshop you will be doing participant observation in order to produce a short ethnographic study. Return to Chapter 2 for a review of this research method. Once you have chosen a setting, notice your surroundings. Join in the activities around you while at the same time carefully observing how the other participants display their ethnic membership. As part of your observation, you will be writing field notes. Consider the following: ✱ What are participants wearing: traditional ethnic costumes, contemporary T-shirts, other symbols displaying their ethnic identity? 222 CHAPTER 8 Race and Ethnicity as Lived Experience ✱ Listen for snatches of conversation in which mem- bers explain such traditions as buying a goldfish on the first day of spring (Iranian), wrapping and tying a tamale (Mexican), or wearing the claddagh ring (Irish). ✱ Can you identify any other elements relating to eth- nicity in the setting, such as architecture, decor, art, or other items of material culture? Finally, ask yourself these questions about your own ethnic identity: ✱ Do you have the option to display your ethnicity in some situations and withhold it in others? Why or why not? ✱ How do you decide whether, when, and how to dis- play your ethnicity? What kind of cost-benefit analysis do you use? ✱ What role do ethnic and racial stereotypes, or stereotypes based on nationality, play in the process of displaying ethnicity? ✱ How do you think ethnic displays are received by others? There are two options for completing this Data Workshop: PREP- PAIR- SHARE Prepare written notes about your fieldwork that you can refer to in class. Discuss your experience with two or more students in a small group. Compare and contrast your fieldwork findings with those of your group members. Listen as each person describes his or her own ethnic displays. As a group, can you come up with an overarching statement (or set of statements) about situational and/or symbolic ethnicity that helps explain what you learned? DO- IT-YOURSELF Prepare written notes about your fieldwork. Consider all the questions and prompts provided and write a three-page paper describing your observations and experience, applying the concepts of situational and symbolic ethnicity in your analysis. Remember to attach your field notes to the paper. The U.S. Population by Race With each new generation, the United States is becoming a more diverse nation. Figure 8.1 shows the breakdown of various racial and ethnic groups and their percentage of the U.S. population. In 2016, whites made up approximately 61 percent of the population, Hispanics/Latinos 18 percent, blacks 13 percent, Asians 6 percent, and Native Americans about 1 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2017m). The picture is actually more complicated than these categories suggest. Many Americans identify themselves as belonging to two or more races. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts a comprehensive nationwide survey of the American people every ten years with smaller-scale surveys in the intervening years. In the 2000 Census, Americans were given the opportunity for the first time to identify with more than one race, thus creating fiftyseven possible racial combinations. In 2016, 2.6 percent of the population identified as multiracial. That proportion is expected to rise to over 6 percent by 2060 (U.S. Census Bureau 2015c). The Census Bureau is considering revising the categories for the next count in 2020 to better match the way Americans conceive of their own racial identities. Throughout its history, there have always been multiracial people in the United States, beginning with the European settlers who mixed with Native Americans and black slaves alike (Brooks 2002; Clinton and Gillespie 1997). Immigrant populations coming to the United States have added to its multicultural makeup. It is only logical that the separate lineages of the American people would eventually meld to a greater degree. We might, therefore, wonder: Will race and ethnicity continue to be as important in the future as they have been in the past? What Is a Minority? A minority is commonly thought of as a group that’s smaller in number than the majority group. Thus, we could say that in the United States, whites are a majority while African Americans, Asians, Hispanics/Latinos, and Native Americans are minorities, because whites outnumber each of these other groups. But numbers don’t tell the whole story. Sociologists define a minority group as people who are recognized as belonging to a social category (here either a racial or ethnic group) and who suffer from unequal treatment as a result of that status. A minority group is denied the access to power and resources generally accorded to others in the dominant groups. Therefore, it is possible to be in the numerical majority and still have minority status with regard to power and opportunity. Take South Africa, for example: Blacks there dramatically outnumber whites by a ratio of seven to one, yet before the 1994 election of President Nelson Mandela, a small white minority controlled the country while blacks occupied the lowest status in that society. Two or More Races 2.6% Asian 5.7% American Indian and Alaska Native 1.3% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.2% Black or African American 13.3% Hispanic or Latino* 17.8% White, non-Hispanic 61.3% Figure 8.1 Racial and Ethnic Populations in the United States, 2016 *Hispanic origin is considered an ethnicity, not a race. Hispanics may be of any race. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2017j. California provides us with another example. In 2016, whites made up less than 40 percent of the state’s population, whereas other ethnic groups (Hispanics/Latinos, blacks, Asian Americans, Native Americans) when added together constituted a majority of over 60 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2017l). California, then, is a majority-minority state. Whites represent less than half the population; however, this doesn’t make whites a minority group. Notably, whites remain the dominant group in terms of power, resources, and representation in social institutions. For instance, Hispanics/Latinos continue to be underrepresented in the University of California system (as both students and faculty) as well as in the state government and as business owners but overrepresented in prisons, in poverty counts, and as victims of violent crimes. Similar disparities can be found in Hawaii, Texas, and New Mexico, all of which are majority-minority states, as is the District of Columbia. Historically, whites have constituted a considerable majority of the American population, but this proportion is shrinking. In 1965, whites made up 85 percent of the population, compared to just over 60 percent now. The proportion of the U.S. population that is black has remained constant over the last few decades, while the proportions of Asians and MINORITY GROUP social group Hispanics/Latinos have grown. that is systematically denied Demographers predict that these the same access to power and resources available to society’s trends will continue, and that by dominant groups though they are 2044, whites will make up just not necessarily fewer in number 48 percent of the U.S. popula- than the dominant groups tion. This means that no single The U.S. Population by Race 223 racial or ethnic group will represent the majority of the U.S. population, making the United States a majority-minority country (Pew Research Center 2015d; U.S. Census Bureau 2015c). Should we change the language of racial relations? Are the words “majority” and “minority” too confusing now that racial demographics have changed? Membership in a minority group may serve as a kind of “master status,” overriding any other status, such as gender or age. Members may be subjected to racist beliefs about the group as a whole and thus suffer from a range of social disadvantages. Unequal and unfair treatment, as well as lack of access to power and resources, typically generates a strong sense of common identity and solidarity among members of minority groups. high-profile incidents of police brutality and the killing of unarmed black men, including Freddie Gray, Michael Brown Jr., and Eric Garner, contributed to social unrest. By 2016, polls showed that 69 percent of Americans thought that race relations were generally bad—the same level of racial discontent reported in 1992 after the Rodney King riots (Russonello 2016). Concerns about race relations deepened in the wake of Trump’s election. In 2017, polls revealed that 42 percent of Americans said they personally worried “a great deal” about race relations in the United States, up 7 percentage points since the previous year (Gallup 2017). Racism in Its Many Forms Prejudice and discrimination are closely related to racism, and though the terms are often used interchangeably, there are important distinctions between them. Prejudice, literally a “prejudgment,” is an inflexible attitude (usually negative, although it can work in the reverse) about a particular group of people that is rooted in generalizations or stereotypes. Examples of prejudice include opinions like “All Irish are drunks” or “All Mexicans are lazy.” Prejudiced ideas don’t always flow from the dominant group toward minorities. For instance, it’s possible for members of a minority group to hold negative stereotypes about the dominant group. It is also possible for minority group members to be prejudiced against themselves or their own group—what is sometimes referred to as “internalized racism” (Pyke 2010). Prejudiced ideas circulate through culture, making them hard to avoid, even for those who would wish not to have them. As we are socialized into the values and norms of society, we may unknowingly pick up some prejudice as well. Prejudice often, though not always, leads to discrimination: an action or behavior that results in the unequal treatment of individuals because of their membership in a certain racial or ethnic group. A person might be said to suffer discrimination if she is turned down for a job promotion or a home loan because she’s black or Hispanic. It is possible, though unlikely, that a person can be prejudiced and still not discriminate against others. For example, a teacher can believe that Asian American students are better at math and science, yet deliberately not let this belief influence his grading of Asian American students. Conversely, a person may not be prejudiced at all but still unknowingly participate in discrimination. Members of the dominant group, still whites in America, may enjoy certain benefits and advantages denied to minority group members. Whites may believe in equality but not act in such a way as to challenge the injustices perpetuated by our systems of stratification. Discrimination can take different forms. Individual discrimination occurs when one person treats others unfairly because of their race or ethnicity. A racist teacher might discriminate against a Hispanic student by assigning In order for social inequality to persist, the unequal treatment that minority groups suffer must be supported by the dominant groups. Racism, an ideology or set of beliefs about the claimed superiority of one racial or ethnic group over another, provides this support; it is used to justify unequal social arrangements between the dominant and minority groups (Kendi 2016). Racist beliefs are often rooted in the assumption that differences among groups are innate, or biologically based. They can also arise from a negative view of a group’s cultural characteristics. In both cases, racism presumes that one group is better than another. Some students have difficulty recognizing just how persistent and pervasive racism is in contemporary American society, while others experience it on a daily basis. We hear claims that it has been erased. While we’ve made tremendous strides, especially in the wake of the civil rights movement, and again with renewed calls for social jusRACISM a set of beliefs about tice from the Black Lives Matter the claimed superiority of one movement, racism is not yet a racial or ethnic group; used to thing of the past. Racism is woven justify inequality and often rooted into the fabric of American sociin the assumption that differences ety, from its historical roots to among groups are genetic the present day. It is part of our PREJUDICE an idea about the national legacy and still persists characteristics of a group that within our social institutions. is applied to all members of that There is still deep skeptigroup and is unlikely to change cism about whether negative regardless of the evidence against it racial attitudes are changing in America (Bobo et al. 2012). Many DISCRIMINATION unequal were hopeful that the election of treatment of individuals based on the first black president, Barack their membership in a social group; usually motivated by prejudice Obama, in 2008 and again in 2012 was a sign of racial healing. INDIVIDUAL DISCRIMINATION But during his terms in office, discrimination carried out by one racial strife continued and some person against another would say worsened. Numerous 224 CHAPTER 8 Race and Ethnicity as Lived Experience Prejudice and Discrimination Ferguson, Missouri Protests erupted after the killing of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown by police in 2014. The Department of Justice confirmed that the Ferguson Police Department had violated the civil rights of black residents over many years. him a lower grade than he deserves. Institutional discrimination, in contrast, is usually more systematic and widespread and occurs when institutions (such as government agencies, schools, or banks) practice discriminatory policies that affect whole groups of individuals. A powerful example of institutional discrimination involves the city of Ferguson, Missouri. Protests broke out in 2014 after a Ferguson police officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager. Unrest over the issue escalated when a grand jury failed to charge the officer with murder. This led to an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which found that the Ferguson Police Department had been routinely violating the constitutional rights of its black residents (U.S. Department of Justice 2015). The DOJ issued a scathing report that documented widespread racial bias that pervaded practically every aspect of the local criminal justice process. In a city where blacks comprise 67 percent of the population, they accounted for 85 percent of vehicle stops, 88 percent of cases involving use of force, and 93 percent of arrests. The New York Times summarized the findings by describing Ferguson as “a place where officers stopped and handcuffed people without probable cause, hurled racial slurs, used stun guns without provocation, and treated anyone as suspicious merely for questioning police tactics” (Apuzzo and Eligon 2015). The Justice Department concluded that the distrust and fear that blacks felt toward the Ferguson police had indeed been well-founded. Of course, of equal concern is the probability that Ferguson is not an isolated case. In his award-winning best seller Between the World and Me (2015), social commentator Ta-Nehisi Coates speaks powerfully about racism and discrimination in American society, drawing heavily from INSTITUTIONAL personal experience. In the DISCRIMINATION book, which was written as a let- discrimination carried out ter to his fifteen-year-old son, systematically by institutions Coates warns of the omnipres- (political, economic, educational, ent dangers facing black men. He and others) that affects all describes how their black bod- members of a group who come ies have always been at risk of into contact with it destruction—once at the hands of slave masters and lynching mobs and now from police who frisk, detain, beat, cage, and humiliate them. Coates concedes that “all of this is common to black people. And all of this is old for black people. No one is held responsible” (p. 9). Coates hopes to inspire his son to learn all he can about the noble history of black people, to discover empowering stories that have often been repressed or just unheard. His son will need to be armed with this knowledge in order to push back against a country in which his body is considered dispensable. White Nationalism Groups such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), Aryan Brotherhood, and Neo-Nazis espouse overtly racist and antiSemitic ideas about white supremacy and racial separation. They believe that whites are innately superior to all other races and should thus hold power and control over all social institutions and resources. They want an all-white nation. Images of men in white robes and hoods burning crosses, lynch mobs, and skinheads with Swastika tattoos are meant to strike terror and intimidation. While the KKK may be an extreme example, some of the ideas embraced by white Racism in Its Many Forms 225 and greater emphasis on multiculturalism, some whites feel that the country no longer represents their identity or interests. Those who feel anxious about the direction of social change may be attracted to white nationalist ideas. Of course, many whites and nonwhites alike welcome the nation’s growing diversity and inclusivity. As the United States becomes an increasingly majority-minority nation, however, we are likely to see more pushback from the more extreme factions of the far-right wing. White Privilege and Color-Blind Racism White Nationalism In August 2017, members of white nationalist groups joined together in Charlottesville, Virginia, for a “Unite the Right” rally. supremacist groups are also part of the more populist altright movement. They share a common commitment to white nationalism, or the belief that the nation should be built around a white identity that is reflected in religion, politics, economics, and culture. White nationalism has gained traction in recent years, becoming much more visible during the presidential campaign and election of Donald Trump. Trump’s antiimmigrant ideas dovetail with white nationalist sentiment, and his administration has sought to bring those ideas into the political mainstream. Many of us watched in horror in August 2017 as white nationalists descended upon Charlottesville, Virginia, for a “Unite the Right” rally that erupted in violence and ended with one woman dead and numerous others injured. However, writing in the aftermath of the violence, sociologist Joe Feagin urges us to remember that white supremacy and white nationalism are nothing new, but rather have been with us since our country’s founding. This history, he writes, is key to understanding why “racism today remains WHITE NATIONALISM the extensive, foundational, and sysbelief that the nation should be temic” (Feagin 2017, 2000). And built around a white identity that while it may be tempting to write is reflected in religion, politics, off white nationalism as devieconomics, and culture ant from American values and PRIVILEGE unearned advantage the views of a fringe minority, accorded to members of dominant research shows these same racsocial groups (males, whites, ist views are in fact held by many heterosexuals, the physically whites across the United States able, etc.) (Picca and Feagin 2007). COLOR-BLIND RACISM an For much of American hisideology that removes race as tory, white dominance has been a an explanation for any form of reality. But with changing demounequal treatment graphics, advances in civil rights, 226 CHAPTER 8 Race and Ethnicity as Lived Experience The concept of privilege is gaining greater currency while still garnering much debate. There are various mechanisms of privilege. In a stratified society, one may have privilege based on class, race, gender, sexuality, or other factors. The idea of the privileges of race dates back to early sociology and the work of W. E. B. DuBois (1903). More recently, Peggy McIntosh (1988) reintroduced the idea in a well-known article about “unpacking the invisible knapsack” of white privilege. In the past few decades, the idea has made its way into the various branches of academia and more widely into the national conversation. “White privilege” is the idea that one group (whites) in a society enjoys certain unearned advantages not available to others (nonwhites) and that group members (whites) are largely unaware of the unequal benefits they possess. Privilege can include a wide range of advantages experienced in our large social institutions as well as in our small everyday interactions (Wise 2011, 2012). Because privilege is often invisible to the privileged, it can blind them to the challenges faced by members of nonprivileged groups. Whites may claim, for example, that race no longer matters and that we live in a “color-blind” society. Color-blind racism purports to dismiss the factor of race from the equation of social inequality (Bonilla-Silva 2013). After all, we elected a black president, so racism must be a thing of the past, right? The notion of color blindness sounds good (judging people by the “content of their character” rather than by the color of their skin), but it is also problematic because it implies that race should be both invisible and inconsequential. And that just isn’t true. We don’t live in a “postracial” world, at least not yet. Race does matter, and racism does still exist. Racism today is neither as blatant as it once was—blacks and whites don’t use separate bathrooms or drinking fountains—nor is it only a black-andwhite issue. But it has taken other more subtle forms, such as the high concentration of liquor stores in predominantly black urban areas or the high concentration of Latino immigrants in low-wage jobs. Claims of color blindness make these more subtle forms of racism difficult to acknowledge and, therefore, difficult to address productively. According to social scientists like Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (2003, 2017), color blindness is just a new form of racism. Color-blind racism is hard to combat, especially when so many people think it is a good thing to try and overlook race, to say that they don’t see it. But there is an alternative: race consciousness, or an awareness of the importance of race in our everyday lives and in our dealings with social institutions. A race-conscious approach recognizes that despite the civil rights gains of the last hundred years, race is still a powerful factor in shaping our everyday lives and the world we live in. If we are to have a truly egalitarian society, we must recognize the historical record of racism and the social conditions that perpetuate contemporary inequalities. Whites and others might find that their own racial privilege plays a part in the social structure of racial inequality. Microaggressions Racism is not always as obvious as a swastika or the “N-word.” Sometimes it’s much more subtle. Racial microaggressions are the small-scale racial slights, insults, and misperceptions that play out in everyday interactions between people (Sue 2010; Sue et al. 2007). These exchanges typically occur between a person from the dominant (white) group and a member of a racial or ethnic minority. While microaggressions are typically subtle, casual, and often unintentional, they still deliver a powerful message that serves to denigrate or marginalize others because of their group membership. Sometimes these take the form of questions like “What are you?” or “Where are you really from?” that are demands to know a person’s racial, ethnic, or national identity and reveal the underlying assumptions of the questioner as well as the persistence of racial stereotypes in shaping how we see and perceive each other. Get Out Jordon Peele’s horror film Get Out dramatizes the microaggressions that black people face in their everyday lives. Microaggressions can also be seen in body language, such as when a white woman clutches her handbag more closely when she passes by a group of Latino men, or when a white person reaches out to touch a black person’s hair without permission to see what it feels like. Microaggressions can include instances when persons of color are treated as secondclass citizens, such as when they are mistaken for a service worker in a retail store or when they are passed over by a taxi cab driver who picks up a white person instead. Sometimes a microaggression might look like a compliment on the surface, such as when Asians are praised for how smart they are or mixed-race persons are told that they look exotic, but these statements further affirm stereotypes and may be taken as demeaning as well. Cultural Appropriation Another not always subtle form of racism has been identified as the practice of cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation occurs when members of the dominant group adopt, co-opt, or otherwise take cultural elements from a marginalized group and use them for their own advantage. Cultural elements can include art, music, dance, dress, language, religious rituals, and other forms of expression that originate in a particular group. We see this borrowing (or some would say stealing) of cultural elements in a range of contexts, from costumes for Halloween or for college theme parties, to the carefully crafted images and musical stylings of singers like Katy Perry and Iggy Azalea. Sometimes cultural appropriation is just insensitive. It can hurt the members of an aggrieved group, who may feel wronged, insulted, and offended. At the same time, it can have broader effects and serve to perpetuate negative stereotypes, exacerbate interracial relations, and further entrench social inequalities. Let’s look at some of the many instances of using the cultural RACE CONSCIOUSNESS an symbols of various Native Ameri- ideology that acknowledges race can peoples. Recent fashion run- as a powerful social construct way trends have included suede that shapes our individual and social experiences and fringe, moccasins, and turquoise jewelry. Add to that some MICROAGGRESSIONS everyday championship sports teams like uses of subtle verbal and MLB’s Cleveland Indians or the nonverbal communications that convey denigrating or dismissive NFL’s Washington Redskins, messages to members of certain both of which continue to use their social groups derogatory names (and mascots) despite widespread objections. CULTURAL APPROPRIATION the adoption of cultural elements Critics contend that it is a probbelonging to an oppressed group lem when specific items or prac- by members of the dominant tices with sacred value (such as group, without permission and a headdress or a sweat lodge) are often for the dominant group’s gain used without awareness of their Racism in Its Many Forms 227 White Washing in Hollywood Controversy erupted over the casting of white actress Scarlett Johansson in Ghost in the Shell. Johansson plays a Japanese anime character in the film. significance or in a disrespectful way. Furthermore, cultural appropriation most often benefits the dominant group, which takes an oppressed group’s cultural symbols and turns them into a commodity for profit. This kind of pillaging is postmodern cultural imperialism. Hollywood has a long track record of cultural appropriation and commodification intended to enrich its owners and shareholders. In the early decades of the film industry, white actors often played minority characters, and there is a long list of disgraceful portrayals to name. Yet such practices have continued, despite considerable backlash both past and present. Recently we have seen A-list white actors cast in roles that are distinctly nonwhite, including Matt Damon, who played a Chinese warlord in The Great Wall; Scarlett Johansson, who played a Japanese anime character in Ghost in the Shell; and Emma Stone, who played a mixed-race Asian character in Aloha. These portrayals sparked controversy and were widely criticized as “white-washing” (Burr 2017; Martinelli 2015; Wong 2016). Perhaps this backlash will persuade studios and filmmakers to rethink their casting in the future and instead draw from the pool of talented and culturally appropriate actors waiting to fill such roles. These changes may happen more often as more minorities move into positions of power in the film industry. THE CASE OF RACHEL DOLEZAL It is not always clear when the use of cultural elements by an outsider constitutes cultural appropriation and when it is cultural appreciation, and this ambiguity has been a source of debate. A case in point is Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who identified as black and went to great lengths to embody that chosen identity. A civil rights activist, leader of a local chapter of the NAACP, and professor of Africana studies, Dolezal presented herself as black for many years until her parents revealed in 2015 that their daughter was in fact white. Suddenly, Dolezal was the subject 228 CHAPTER 8 Race and Ethnicity as Lived Experience of much impassioned dialogue about race and racial identity. Some characterized what Dolezal did as “passing,” although in the opposite way it usually works. Others sympathized with her deep identification and desire to immerse herself in black culture (Michael 2015). Others questioned why she hadn’t just been honest about her racial background, remaining an ally to the black community and to the cause of justice. Still many more felt deeply incensed by Dolezal’s deception and by her claims to have experienced racial oppression as a black woman. Rogers Brubaker (2016) took the case of Rachel Dolezal in a different direction to help develop a provocative new proposition about the permeability of race and gender. If we can accept the notion that a person can be transgender (that is, having a gender identity that is different than the sex assigned to a person at birth), then is it also possible for a person to be “transracial” and identify with a racial group other than the one he or she was born into? Brubaker makes an interesting comparison between Caitlyn Jenner “coming out” as transgender and Rachel Dolezal being “outed” as white, both of which happened in 2015. Why is the one a more legitimate claim on identity than the other? Paris Jackson, the daughter of Michael Jackson, presents an intriguing counterpoint. Questions about the parentage of Jackson’s children have long been mired in controversy (was Michael really the father?). And at first glance, Paris Jackson appears white (not biracial), from her skin color and facial features to her blue eyes and blond hair. Yet in interviews, she asserts that her father always told her, “You’re black. Be proud of your roots.” So she considers herself black (Hiatt 2017). We may never find out Paris Jackson’s racial background like we did for Dolezal. How does that affect whether we accept her self-identification? Is she black because she says so? Rachel Dolezal The former leader of the Spokane, Washington, branch of the NAACP identifies as black despite being born to two white parents. Paris Jackson The daughter of Michael Jackson identifies as black. Reverse Racism Reverse racism is the claim that whites can also suffer discrimination based on their race and thus can experience the same kinds of disadvantages that minority groups have regularly encountered. This belief is persistent in the face of much data to refute it. A recent survey found that 49 percent of all Americans agree that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while another 49 percent disagree (Jones et al. 2016). These responses diverge when broken down by race: Only 29 percent of blacks and 38 percent of Hispanics agreed, compared with 57 percent of whites. Some of this difference of opinion among groups may derive from a fundamental misperception about what racism is and how it works. Let’s break it down. While whites may confront some forms of temporary, occasional, or situational discrimination, they don’t suffer from the widespread cumulative disadvantages in almost every sphere of social life that are perpetuated within a historically and pervasively racist society. Even if all people of color espoused a hatred of whites, they would not be in the position to affect white people’s ability to get an education or well-paying job or find a home, or increase the odds that whites would be racially profiled and disproportionately imprisoned. Racism against whites is not supported by the social structure or its major social institutions. According to sociologist Robin DiAngelo (2012), racism requires the ongoing use of institutional power and authority to perpetuate prejudiced and discriminatory actions in systemic ways with far-reaching effects. People of color may hold prejudices and discriminate against some whites, but they don’t have the collective power to transform our society into one that is systematically biased against whites. Whites have the position and the power to influence the laws, practices, customs, and norms that define American society in ways not widely available to people of culture. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Affirmative action is a particularly contentious area, and one about which claims of reverse racism have been made. Affirmative action policies, programs, and practices were established to help create opportunities for underrepresented minorities in housing, education, and employment. Some of the goals of affirmative action are to promote diversity and inclusion, provide equal access, and reduce the effects of historical discrimination. In the past few decades, critics have become more vocal in their opposition to affirmative action in the college admissions process. Several high-profile cases of white students suing universities on the grounds of reverse racism (because minority students were admitted when they were denied) have reached the Supreme Court and been struck down. Nevertheless, several states have passed laws banning the practice of affirmative action in higher education. California, which has REVERSE RACISM the claim the largest system of higher edu- by whites that they suffer cation in the nation, has sought discrimination based upon their to use other means to ensure a race and, therefore, experience social disadvantages more equitable representation of students in its campus popula- ANTIRACIST ALLIES whites and tions. While some opponents see others working toward the goal of affirmative action as giving one ending racial injustice group of people unfair preferential treatment over others, proponents of social justice argue that these kinds of programs are necessary for creating a more level playing field in the United States. Antiracist Allies In the struggle for racial justice, people of color have necessarily led the way. Whites also have a role to play, and they can work in solidarity toward the same goals by becoming antiracist allies. One of the most effective ways that whites Turban Day in NYC Sikhs gather in New York’s Times Square to celebrate the holiday of Vaisakhi and educate others about their faith by wrapping turbans on passersby. Racism in Its Many Forms 229 IN THE FUTURE Whose Lives Matter? 230 T he Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement arose in response to the extrajudicial killings of black men in cities across the United States, starting with the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Its mission was, most urgently, to make the United States a safer place for black people, a mission that challenges our country to acknowledge the continued existence of systemic racism. We have discussed this concept elsewhere in this chapter and book: systemic racism (sometimes called structural or institutional racism) is found in the policies and practices of social institutions (like education, the economy, the military, etc.) that result in discrimination against and exclusion of members of racial minority groups. Neither individual intent nor explicitly racist policy is necessary for systemic racism to occur. In fact, most institutional settings (schools, businesses, government agencies) have diversity policies and are populated by individuals who really do want an inclusive environment and equitable outcomes. Plus, it’s almost always against the law to craft policies that openly favor one racial group over another, and any institution that tries to do so will likely find itself in court. Systemic racism is built into all of our country’s structures and institutions because it was part of our founding principles: The Constitution supported slavery by legally dehumanizing people of African descent, and the racism of our early republic still shapes us centuries later. Many people want to believe that we live in a “postracial” world, that racism isn’t a problem anymore, and that those who claim it is—like BLM activists—are themselves racist for suggesting that there is still a racial divide. But if you have been paying attention while reading this chapter, you cannot deny that our country is still riven by racism. One of the main claims made by BLM is that law enforcement, as one of our most powerful social institutions, discriminates against black people in myriad ways, including shooting to kill in cases where there is little or no actual threat to anyone’s safety or when shots would likely not be fired at a white person. In addition, officers are less likely to be charged or convicted when they shoot black people. While cell phone videos and police dashboard and body cameras have finally made this problem visible to all, it is still difficult for many Americans to see these incidents as examples of systemic racism. Our temptation is to find some way to blame the victim (“he must have looked at the cop wrong”) or to make it about individual “bad apples” in an otherwise upstanding police force. BLM asks that we look at the system in addition to the individuals involved. As sociologists, we must ask: Why do we resist the idea of systemic racism? In order to dismantle a discriminatory system, mustn’t we see and understand it first? How can we plot a future in which Americans of all races acknowledge systemic racism, understand how it works, and commit to breaking it down for the good of all? How long will it take for can challenge racism is by working with other whites to help them gain a greater awareness of how racism works and what they can do about it. This means more than just lending sympathy or support to organizations such as the Black Lives Matter movement or the Anti-Defamation League. It also means confronting racism in their own everyday lives, when and where they see it. Many whites have begun to think critically about white supremacy and white privilege, and they are in a unique position to recruit other whites to do likewise. For many, it starts with getting educated about matters of race and racism and by listening to, rather than speaking for, people of color. It may also entail following the work of white antiracist authors and activists. In a growing number of social settings, such as schools, churches, and workplaces, whites are initiating peer group meetings to help support each other in their efforts to become better allies. New and existing organizations, such as the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) or Stepping Up for Racial Justice (SURJ), are now organizing around the goal of eradicating racism and can offer a framework for whites who want to be part of the solution. More whites are realizing that if they want a more inclusive, fair, and just society, they can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines. CHAPTER 8 Race and Ethnicity as Lived Experience Theoretical Approaches to Understanding Race Sociologists reject the notion that race has an objective or scientific meaning and instead seek to understand why race continues to play such a critical role in society. They have produced a number of theories about the connections between race, discrimination, and social inequality. Structural Functionalism For example, functionalist theory has provided a useful lens for analyzing how certain ethnic groups, mainly European immigrants (such as the Irish and Italians) arriving black lives to matter to all of us? The more we know about the history of race and racism in the United States, the better we will be able to understand that racism did not disappear with the abolition of slavery (or the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, or the Brown v. Board of Education decision, or the Civil Rights Act, or the election of a black president), and the sooner we will understand that racism is more complicated than just black and white. What can you contribute to the acknowledgment, apprehension, and obliteration of systemic racism in the United States? First, learn about our nation’s history— not the sanitized version of it that you may have gotten in elementary or high school, but the real, messy, and complicated version you have access to now. Maybe start with Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States and Ibram Kendi’s Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America (2016). You’ll also want to listen—to people whose experiences are different from yours. This can happen just about anywhere—in the classroom, at the bus stop, in church, at work, or even in your own family. Then act—in whatever way you have the ability to act. That may mean you join a movement like BLM and participate in marches, lobbying, or other political tactics. But it can also mean refusing to laugh at racist jokes. It can mean spending money at businesses owned by people of color. It in the early 1900s, eventually became assimilated into the larger society. Functionalism, however, has proven less successful in explaining the persistence of racial divisions and why other races and ethnicities, such as African Americans and Hispanics, have continued to maintain their distinct identities alongside the white majority culture today. Perhaps what functionalism can best offer is an explanation of how prejudice and discrimination develop by focusing on social solidarity and group cohesion. Groups have a tendency toward ethnocentrism, or the belief that one’s own culture and way of life are right and normal. Functionalists contend that positive feelings about one’s group are strong ties that bind people together. At the same time, this cohesiveness can lead members to see others, especially those of other races or ethnicities, in an unfavorable light. According to functionalists, these cultural differences and the lack of integration into the larger society on the part of minorities tend to feed fear and hostility. The Faces of a Movement Meet the co-founders of Black Lives Matter: Opal Tometi, Alicia Garza, and Patrisse Cullors. can mean writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. It can mean talking to your kids about race, difference, and inequality. It can mean volunteering in your community. It can mean traveling to other cities, states, or countries. None of these actions alone will solve the problem of systemic racism. But the more people who are aware, interested, and active, the better are our chances for a future with less systemic racism. Conflict Theory Conflict theory focuses on the struggle for power and control. Classic Marxist analyses of race, developed by sociologists in the 1960s, looked for the source of racism in capitalist hierarchies. Edna Bonacich (1980), for instance, argued that racism is partly driven by economic competition and the struggle over scarce resources. A “split labor market,” in which one group of workers (usually defined by race, ethnicity, or gender) is routinely paid less than those in other groups, keeps wages low for racial and ethnic minorities, compounding the effects of racism with those of poverty. William Julius Wilson (1980) posited that openly racist government policies and individual racist attitudes were the driving forces behind the creation of a black underclass but that the underclass is now perpetuated by economic factors, not racial ones. While this link between race and class is useful and important, it doesn’t provide a satisfactory explanation for all forms of racial and ethnic stratification. Theoretical Approaches to Understanding Race 231 In recent years, conflict theorists have developed new approaches to understanding race. In his book Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California (2008), for example, Tomas Almaguer looks at the history of race relations in California during the late nineteenth century. He describes a racial hierarchy that placed whites at the top, followed by Mexicans, blacks, Asians, and Native Americans at the bottom. Rather than focusing exclusively on class, he examines how white supremacist ideology became institutionalized. Racist beliefs became a part of political and economic life during that period. Ideas like “manifest destiny” (the belief that the United States had a mission to expand its territories) helped justify the taking of lands, and the notion that Native Americans were “uncivilized heathens” helped justify killing them. SociCRITICAL RACE THEORY ologists also argue that race isn’t the study of the relationship just a secondary phenomenon that between race, racism, and power results from the class system: It permeates both lived experience and larger-scale activity, such as the economy and the government (Omi and Winant 1994, 2015). Still others have sought to understand the meaning of race from the individual’s point of view and have begun to analyze the ways that race, class, and gender inequalities intersect. For instance, writers like Patricia Hill Collins (2006), bell hooks (1990), and Gloria Anzaldúa (1987) argue that race must be explained in the terms in which it is experienced, not as overarching general theories. Though some of these writers have been sharply critical of the symbolic interactionist tradition, which they believe does not take into account macro social forces that shape the realities of stratification, they share with interactionism a conviction that race, like all other aspects of social life, is created symbolically in everyday interactions. We will explore that idea further in the next section. Critical race theory is an important, though still somewhat controversial, outgrowth of conflict theory (Bell 1980; Delgado and Stefancic 2012; Williams 1991). It was developed in the 1980s by legal scholars who drew upon writings in the social sciences to form a school of thought around the issues of race, politics, and power. They believe that racism permeates our social institutions, especially our judicial system, and must be recognized and addressed as such. One feature of critical race theory is a focus on intersectionality, or taking into account how race is also modified by class, gender, sexuality, and other social statuses. To understand the experiences of racism, one must consider the differing experiences of a woman of color, or a middle-class black man, or a gay Latino. Critical race theory encourages the inclusion of narratives from a multitude of intersecting voices and viewpoints. Another feature of critical race theory is its commitment to challenging racist laws and policies and to engage in a kind of activism that not only critiques the status quo but also is intended to push forward an 232 CHAPTER 8 Race and Ethnicity as Lived Experience agenda for social justice. Some of the most visible figures in critical race theory engage in what is sometimes called public sociology—bridging legal and scholarly works with frontline involvement in solutions to the real-world problems of racial and gender oppression. Symbolic Interactionism Symbolic interactionists focus on how we perceive and interpret race in everyday life, looking at the meanings and ideas we hold and how this helps to produce and perpetuate realworld consequences. Meanings can and do change over time, and so has our understanding of race. THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF RACE Sociologists understand race as a social rather than a biological category. Students often find this idea confusing, because the everyday understanding of race in the United States is that it is based on skin color, which is an inherited physical trait. Sociologists who study race, however, point out that there is no physical trait that will always accurately identify what race someone belongs to. As Michael Omi and Howard Winant point out in Racial Formation in the United States (1994, 2015), “although the concept of race invokes biologically based human characteristics,” which particular features are chosen to make racial distinctions “is always and necessarily a social and historical process” (1994, p. 55). Indeed, although Americans talk about skin color as the principal physical marker of racial identity, some scholars argue that hair is a more important factor (Banks 2000). Even though they are expressed in terms of physical traits, the definitions of different racial groups are “at best imprecise and at worst completely arbitrary” (Omi and Winant 1994, 2015, p. 55). The definition of race is not stable but rather changes over time as racial categories are contested and developed. This is not to say that race is unimportant. Omi and Winant show how racial groups are created socially and historically by arguing that “race can be understood as a fundamental dimension of social organization and cultural meaning in the U.S.” (1994, p. viii). Real, physical bodies still matter to this process, but it is the meaning attributed to these bodies that determines what racial categories will exist, who will belong in them, and what they will mean. For example, sociologist Stuart Hall was born in Jamaica but immigrated to England as a young man, where he became one of the founding figures in the development of cultural studies. He explained the social construction of race by recounting a conversation he had with his young son, who was the product of a mixed marriage. Hall describes a moment when his “son, who was two and a half, was learning the colors.” Hall explained to him, “‘You’re Black.’ And he said, ‘No. I’m brown’” (2006, p. 222). Hall’s son was thinking in purely physical terms. If race really were biological, he would have been correct, but as Hall explains, he has the “wrong referent,” because he was not “talking about your paintbox” (p. 222). Hall understands that it is not skin color that created racial categories. If that were true, his son would belong to a different race than he. Race is not a preexisting biological category; it is a social one that is framed in terms of biological features. Another aspect of the social construction of race is that we “read” others through myriad cues, and we in turn make ourselves readable to others by our own self-presentations. Our identity is constructed in the negotiation between what we project and what others recognize. Even master statuses such as race, gender, and age are negotiated in this way. So how do we project our racial or ethnic identities and read the racial or ethnic identities of others? We might think immediately of stereotypes like surfer dudes, sorority girls, “welfare moms,” and so on. But in fact there are more subtle ways in which we project and receive our racial and ethnic identities. The interactional accomplishment of race is often easiest to see in the most unusual situations. PASSING Racial passing, or living as if one is a member of a different racial category, has a long history in the United States. Both during and after slavery, some light-skinned African Americans attempted to live as whites in order to avoid the dire consequences of being black in a racist society. And people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds still pass, intentionally or unintentionally, every day in the United States. Passing involves manufacturing or maintaining a new identity that is more beneficial than one’s real identity. W. E. B. DuBois, a pioneer in the study of race, devised the concept of double-consciousness, which seems relevant to a discussion of passing. DuBois asked whether one could be black and at the same time claim one’s rights as an American. Given the history of oppression and enslavement of African Americans, DuBois was not the only person to wonder whether this was possible. There are many social forces that disenfranchise and exclude minorities, and the phenomenon of passing suggests that in some places and times, it has been more advantageous to appear white if at all possible. One hundred years later, a different kind of passing is gaining attention in the black community. Black masculinity makes demands on black men that include a public persona of heterosexuality. For black men who have sex with other men, this often creates a pressure to “pass,” or live an apparently het- PASSING presenting yourself as ero lifestyle in which sexual rela- a member of a different group tions with men happen only “on than the stigmatized group to the down low” or “DL.” Jeffrey which you belong McCune’s (2014) ethnographic DOUBLE-CONSCIOUSNESS study of a Chicago nightclub W. E. B. DuBois’s term for the catering to gay black men reveals divided identity experienced by the ways in which race shapes blacks in the United States the performance of both gender and sexuality for men on the DL. “The Gate” played hip-hop music, infamous for its hypermasculine, heteronormative, and sometimes homophobic lyrics, but that didn’t stop the clientele from turning the Gate into a space where their samesex desires could be comfortably expressed. In their everyday lives, these men did the interactional work necessary to keep their sexuality private and their conventionally masculine and heterosexual images intact. But on Friday nights at the Gate, McCune observes that they could enjoy the coexistence of their multiple identities. Dancing to hip-hop music with other black men allowed them to both reinforce and accept Passing in Moonlight The 2016 film Moonlight tells the story of Chiron (left), a gay man on the down low. Chiron, like the men in Jeffrey McCune’s study of a Chicago night club, keeps his sexuality private, projecting a traditionally masculine and heterosexual identity. Theoretical Approaches to Understanding Race 233 IN RELATIONSHIPS From the Lovings to Kimye: Interracial Dating and Marriage hough it is now rather commonplace, at one point in history forty-one out of the fifty American states prohibited miscegenation—the romantic, sexual, or marital relationships between people of different races. In 1958, for example, Mildred and Richard Loving, an African American woman and a white man, married and settled in their native state of Virginia. In July of that year, they were arrested for violating the state’s “Act to Preserve Racial Purity” and convicted. The judge sentenced them to a year in prison but suspended the sentence on the condition that the couple leave the state. The Lovings moved to Washington, DC, where in 1967 the Supreme Court overturned all such laws, ruling that the state of Virginia had denied the Lovings their constitutional rights. While the Loving decision technically cleared the MISCEGENATION way for interracial marriages romantic, sexual, or marital nationwide, states were slow relationships between people of different races to change their laws. It took until 2000 for the state of Alabama to finally overturn the last antimiscegenation statute left in the nation. Just because it’s legal doesn’t always make it easy. People who date interracially may still face stigma and discrimination at a social and personal level. They may have to deal with in-group pressures from family, peers, and others to date (and especially marry) someone of their own race. Partnering with someone outside of one’s group may be perceived as being disloyal and can elicit strong sanctions from other members. Stereotypes about members of different racial and ethnic groups are also slow to disappear. People may hold on to racist and sexist notions about the attributes (or deficits) of men and women from different ethnic backgrounds and T dominant definitions of race, gender, and sexuality while also resisting and subverting them. EMBODIED (AND DISEMBODIED) IDENTITIES Are we heading toward a future when race will matter less and less? In a digital age does race disappear when more and more interactions take place exclusively online? When we’re interEMBODIED IDENTITY those acting online, we may not always elements of identity that are be able to see what others look generated through others’ perceptions of our physical traits like. In many online spaces, such as in e-mail, chat functions, or 234 CHAPTER 8 Race and Ethnicity as Lived Experience Mildred and Richard Loving Their interracial marriage was illegal in 1958. their suitability as romantic partners. We see these tensions played out in popular culture, in films, on TV shows, and in our own everyday lives. But real change is happening. As diversity has rapidly increased in the United States, so has the number of interracial marriages. Young adults have more relationships with more people from diverse backgrounds, and they are more favorable to forming a romantic partnership with someone from another racial or ethnic group. Spurred in part by a rise in immigration to the United States, interracial marriage has increased text messaging, we may not have any of the kind of physical cues that can tell us something about the other person. We may only have their written words to decipher and maybe just a small, inscrutable thumbnail photo of them in a corner of the posts, which makes it all the more difficult to ascertain their racial or ethnic background. This has been touted as one of the more democratizing traits of the Internet—that it can transcend, even obliterate, the real-world physical traits associated with categories like race, gender, or age that normally define us. It is such aspects of embodied identity (the way we are perceived in the physical world) that have historically been used as the basis for discrimination. These same steadily, from just 0.4 percent of all married people in 1960 to 10 percent in 2015; the share climbs to 17 percent among newlyweds, who have had perhaps the most diverse dating pool of any generation (Livingston and Brown 2017). These figures do not yet reflect same-sex partners or unmarried cohabiters, groups that would certainly add to the trend. The prevalence of intermarriage varies by demographic group and at the intersections of race, gender, age, and education. While the data point to a marked rise in intermarriage across all the major ethnic and racial groups in the United States, intermarriage is most common among Asians (29 percent of newlyweds) and Hispanics (27 percent), followed by blacks (18 percent) and whites (11 percent). The data are somewhat complex. For instance, if we also consider the variable of gender, Asian women marry outside their race far more often than Asian men do, while African American women marry far less often outside their race than African American men do. Finally, interracial marriage is somewhat more common among those who are college educated (Livingston and Brown 2017). Since the time of the Loving case, society’s attitudes about mixed-race relationships have radically changed, becoming much more positive. In 2017, 39 percent of Americans said that marrying someone of a different race was good for society. More Millennials say this is a good trend than do Gen Xers or Baby Boomers (Livingston and Brown 2017). The decline in disapproval rates over time is even more dramatic: The number of nonblack adults who said they would be opposed to a close relative marrying a black person declined from a high of 63 percent in 1990 to a low of 14 percent in 2017. Disapproval for interracial marriage to Hispanics or Asians is just 9 percent, and for whites it was 4 percent. ways of knowing about others through embodied characteristics are not necessarily available to those interacting online. While the Internet has the potential to minimize race and other visible traits, that’s not always desirable. It depends on the context. Sometimes we go online and want to display our racial identity, but that can be challenging when all we have are words. In the case of online communities that are based on racial identity, race must still be “done” interactionally. To sound authentically African American online, for instance, you have to include what sociologist Byron Burkhalter (1999) calls “racially relevant” content and language—for example, referring to other African American women as “sisters.” The Big Sick In this romantic comedy based on his own life, Pakistani comedian Kumail Nanjiani falls in love with an American graduate student. His traditional Muslim parents don’t approve of the match. Stigma, prejudice, and restrictive racial stereotypes, as well as entrenched negative beliefs on the part of some people, all remain persistent challenges to creating a more widely accepting, multicultural, and multiracial society. Nonetheless, the growing number of interracial marriages, while still relatively small, is an indication of significant social change. One researcher said that this trend “reflects an important shift toward blurring a long-held color line in the United States” (Frey 2014). How do you feel about interracial relationships? There’s some likelihood that you or someone you know is already in one. Or just look around—there are more interracial couples now than ever. Responses also help establish racial identity: It’s not just what you say, but how others receive it. In some discussions, the African American identity of participants is accepted, but in other cases that status is contested, in what Burkhalter calls “identity challenges.” Identity challenges are usually accusations that one is not “really” black or not black enough. Burkhalter argues that race is not irrefutably identifiable even in face-to-face interactions and that we must establish it interactionally both on- and off-line. We can’t always tell by looking what race someone belongs to and how that person might define his own racial identity. We may make mistakes of attribution. Stereotypes can come into play in either Theoretical Approaches to Understanding Race 235 Table 8.1 Theory in Everyday Life Perspective Approach to Race and Ethnicity Case Study: Racial Inequality Structural Functionalism Racial and ethnic differences are a necessary part of society. Even racial inequality has functions that help maintain social order. The functions of racial inequality and conflict for society could include the creation of social cohesion within both the dominant and minority groups. Conflict Theory Racial and ethnic differences create intergroup conflict; minority and majority groups have different interests and may find themselves at odds as they attempt to secure and protect their interests. Some members of majority groups (whites and men in particular) object to affirmative action programs that assist underrepresented groups. This can create conflict among racial groups in society. Race and ethnicity are part of our identity as displayed through our presentation of self. Some individuals (white ethnics and light-skinned nonwhites in particular) have the option to conceal their race or ethnicity in situations where it might be advantageous to do so. This may allow them as individuals to escape the effects of racial inequality but does not erase it from society at large. arena but in different directions: In face-to-face interaction, seeing racial characteristics leads to stereotyping; online, applying stereotypical templates leads to assumptions about race. The Internet is thus not a place where all the problematic distinctions disappear—they just manifest themselves in different ways. Race, Ethnicity, and Life Chances A law professor decides that it is time to buy a house. After careful research into neighborhoods and land values, she picks one. With her excellent credit history and prestigious job, she easily obtains a mortgage over the phone. When the mortgage forms arrive in the mail, she sees to her surprise that the phone representative has identified her race as “white.” Smiling, she checks another box, “African American,” and mails back the form. Suddenly, everything changes. The lending bank wants a bigger down payment and a higher interest rate. When she threatens to sue, the bank backs down. She learns that the bank’s motivation is falling property values in the proposed neighborhood. She doesn’t understand this; those property values were completely stable when she was researching the area. Then she realizes that she is the reason for the plummeting values. As Patricia Williams’s (1997) experience illustrates, membership in socially constructed categories of race and ethnicity can often carry a high price. We now look at other ways this price might be paid in the areas of family, health, education, work, and criminal justice. 236 CHAPTER 8 Race and Ethnicity as Lived Experience Family Race, ethnicity, and their correlates (such as SES) shape family life in a variety of ways. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau (2016b) showed that in 2015, of the white population over fifteen years of age, 51 percent were married, 11 percent divorced, 6 percent widowed, and 30 percent never married. Of the African American population over age fifteen, 29 percent were married, 12 percent divorced, 6 percent widowed, and 40% Percentage of newlyweds who are intermarried Symbolic Interactionism Men Women 36 30% 28 26 24 21 20% 12 10% 12 10 0% White Black Hispanic Figure 8.2 Intermarriage Rates by Race SOURCE: Livingston and Brown 2017. Asian 50 percent never married. The Hispanic population reported 43 percent over age fifteen married, 9 percent divorced, 3 percent widowed, and 42 percent never married. Thus, African Americans are more likely than whites and Hispanics to never marry or to be divorced. This means that black and Hispanic children are significantly more likely to live in single-parent homes. In 2015, for example, 74 percent of white children and 83 percent of Asian children lived with two married parents compared to just 34 percent of black children and 60 percent of Hispanic children; nearly half of all black children live with their mother only (Child Trends Databank 2015). Kathryn Edin (2005) has argued that low-income women of all ethnicities see marriage as having few benefits. They feel that the men they are likely to encounter as possible husbands will not offer the advantages (financial stability, respectability, trust) that make the rewards of marriage worth the risks. This doesn’t mean, of course, that most low-income women don’t love their male companions; it only means that they believe a legal bond would not substantially improve their lot in life. In 2015, the birth rates for American teenage mothers (ages fifteen to nineteen) varied significantly by race. The birth rate for white teenage moms was 16 per 1,000 births, while the birth rate for African Americans was 32 per 1,000; for Hispanics it was 35 per 1,000 (Martin et al. 2017). Social thinkers such as Angela Y. Davis argue that African American teenage girls in particular see fewer opportunities for education and work and choose motherhood instead (2001). Davis believes that social policies aimed at punishing teenage mothers of color will be ineffective; only by attacking the racism inherent in the educational system and the workforce will these teens be at less risk of becoming mothers. Researchers Anne Case and Angus Deaton (2015) recently found surprising new reasons to be concerned about the health of whites as well, specifically middle-aged whites without a college degree. After many decades of declining mortality or death rates among all Americans aged forty-five to fifty-four, this group has experienced a startling reversal of this trend. The mortality rate in midlife for whites with just a high school education actually increased a half percent a year between 1999 and 2014. While this group used to have death rates that were 30 percent lower than those of blacks, their rates are now 30 percent higher. While part of this increase is due to slowing progress in combating heart disease and cancer, the researchers also found evidence of a rise in what they called “deaths of despair”—death by drugs, alcohol, and suicide (Case and Deaton 2017). Case and Deaton found that the lack of steady, well-paying jobs was an aggravating factor causing pain, distress, and social dysfunction to build up over time and further exacerbate conditions. Another ongoing issue for Americans is access to healthcare insurance and medical services. Many health-care consumers rely on insurance benefits provided through their employer if they have a job with such benefits; if not, they must buy individual insurance policies in order to meet their medical needs, and many Americans cannot afford basic health-care coverage. In 2016, 6 percent of whites didn’t have health insurance, along with 8 percent of Asian Americans, 11 percent of blacks, and 16 percent of Hispanics (Figure 8.3). The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA, or Obamacare) was designed to address such inequities by providing something like universal health-care coverage, but the law has remained an area of contention. Under the Trump Health 25% Health is an area in which we find widespread disparity among racial and ethnic groups. Although whites have typically fared better in health matters than minorities, this is not always the case. Recent findings reveal a more complicated picture of the nation’s health when intersections between race, class, and gender are taken into account. One way of measuring health is to look at life expectancy. White male children born in 2015 can expect to live to be around 76 years old, while white females can expect to live to 81. African American males’ life expectancy is 71 years, and African American females’ is 78. While whites still live longer than blacks, these figures represent an important narrowing of the black–white gap in life expectancy. In 1980, this gap in life expectancy was almost 7 years for men and nearly 6 years for women; it’s now 4.5 years for men and 3 years for women. Notably, Hispanic men and women have the highest life expectancy, higher even than whites: 79 years for Hispanic men and 84 for Hispanic women (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2017b). 20% 16.0% 15% 10.5% 10% 7.6% 6.3% 5% 0 Whites Asians Blacks Hispanics Figure 8.3 Americans without Health Insurance by Race/Ethnicity, 2016 SOURCE: Barnett and Berchick 2017. Race, Ethnicity, and Life Chances 237 administration, lawmakers have proposed repealing the ACA and replacing it with a different plan. Disparities in access to health care can adversely affect members of a racial group. This may partially help to explain the gap in life expectancy rates for men and women of different races. Minorities are also often disproportionately exposed to other factors that affect life span, such as dangers in the workplace, toxins in the environment, violence, and stress. 60% 55.9% 50% 40% 37.3% 30% Education One of America’s cultural myths is that everyone has equal access to education, the key to a secure, well-paying job. However, by looking at those who actually receive degrees, we can see that the playing field is not that level. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2017a), the high school graduation rate in 2015 was 90 percent for Asians, 88 percent for whites, 78 percent for Hispanics, and just 75 percent for blacks. The reasons for dropping out of high school are complex, but the highest rates are associated with those from economically disadvantaged and non–English-speaking backgrounds. In 2015, Hispanics had the highest high school dropout rate of all racial groups at 9 percent. Victor Rios (2017) spent five years in schools and community centers documenting what happens to Latino youth in what has been called the school-to-prison pipeline. Rios traces a pattern in which some Latino youth encounter negative experiences with teachers and other school authorities who misunderstand the students’ cultural cues and background. This can result in those students being labeled as “bad,” “deviant,” or “at risk,” further stigmatizing them within the school system. There may be greater scrutiny and punishment of Latino youth, sometimes leading to suspension or expulsion from school. This process serves to criminalize Latino youth, sending them on a path away from education and mainstream society. At the same time, these youths are also surveilled by police in their communities, where they may experience similarly negative interactions and consequences. In higher education, there are similar disparities of achievement at each level. In 2016, 56 percent of Asian Americans over age twenty-five, 37 percent of whites, 23 percent of blacks, and 16 percent of Hispanics had a bachelor’s degree or higher (Figure 8.4). Further, 24 percent of Asian Americans, 14 percent of whites, 9 percent of African Americans, and 5 percent of Hispanics had advanced degrees (master’s, professional degrees, and doctorates) (U.S. Census Bureau 2017c). Thus, Asian Americans and whites enjoy more success overall in the U.S. educational system than African Americans and Hispanics do. The reasons for the disparity are again complex, involving both economic and cultural factors. Claude Steele (2010) has identified something called “stereotype threat,” a social-psychological mechanism at play among minority college students that hinders their academic performance. Steele discovered that negative 238 CHAPTER 8 Race and Ethnicity as Lived Experience 23.3% 20% 16.4% 10% 0 Whites Asians Blacks Hispanics Figure 8.4 Americans over Age 25 with Bachelor’s Degrees by Race/Ethnicity, 2016 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2017c. racial stereotypes may adversely affect African American students when they are in highly demanding situations in which they might risk confirming those stereotypes. In competitive, high-stakes academic conditions (such as test-taking), stereotype threat can cause sufficient anxiety in those students to effectively harm their abilities. In less stressful situations, when no negative stereotypes are invoked, these students perform as well as peers of other races. Steele suggests that stereotype threat may help explain some of the achievement gap between racial groups. Jennifer Lee and Min Zhou (2015) have identified an inverse phenomenon that they call “stereotype promise.” Because there are positive stereotypes associated with the academic performance of Asian Americans, those students may reap benefits in similarly stressful situations when they might confirm such stereotypes. Earning an education is extremely important in American society. Not only does it translate to greater success in the workforce, but it also confers social status and cultural capital that can prove valuable in other arenas. Work and Income In 2016, African Americans made up 12 percent and Hispanics 17 percent of the total workforce (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2017f). If jobs were truly given to people regardless of racial or ethnic identity, we would expect to see these same distributions across occupations. However, that is not the case. For example, in 2016, African Americans constituted 9.1 percent and Hispanics 9.3 percent of all management, professional, and related occupations ON THE JOB Diversity Programs: Do They Work? any workplaces—academic, government, and corporate—are experimenting with different programs in an effort to increase the diversity of their workforces. A quick look at the numbers and it is clear why these programs are necessary: In 2016, there were five African American CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and twenty-one female CEOs, representing 1 percent and 4.2 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs, respectively. With companies like Bank of America settling huge race-discrimination lawsuits in recent years, the stakes are high, but what do we know about these different diversity initiatives and their ability to truly increase diversity? Sociologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev (2016) analyzed three decades of data from more than 800 U.S. firms, and interviewed hundreds of managers and executives, to learn what works—and what doesn’t—when it comes to diversity programs. First, Dobbin and Kalev found that top-down approaches to diversity, including diversity training programs as well as tools like hiring tests and performance ratings, are generally not effective. They found that the positive effects of diversity training typically faded after just a few days, and some companies experienced adverse effects. Part of the problem, they found, is that companies often make these training programs mandatory, evoking anger and resistance from participants. Companies saw much better results when they made the training voluntary. Companies that instituted voluntary diversity training programs saw increases of 9 percent to 13 percent in women and black, Hispanic, and Asian men in management positions after five years (Dobbin and Kalev 2016). But the most effective diversity programs, Dobbin and Kalev found, are not the ones that come from above but rather those that engage managers in solving the problem, increase managers’ contact with female and minority workers, and promote social accountability. These programs include mentoring and college recruitment programs. For example, five years after implementing a college recruitment program targeting women, companies saw their share of white, black, Hispanic, and Asian women in management increase by an average of 10 percent. Diversity task forces and diversity managers were also found to be successful, namely by increasing social accountability. When managers knew their hiring decisions were going to be reviewed by a diversity manager, they were more likely to consider all qualified applicants (Dobbin and Kalev 2016). A growing number of organizations, from the Veterans Administration to Fortune 500 companies and community colleges, have established new internal offices or centers whose sole directive is M infusing diversity, equity, and cultural competency into the workplace culture, policies, and environment. Of course, there may be some backlash to such organizational changes. A recent study found that high-status groups such as white men interpret pro-diversity messages as unfair and as threatening to their status position. The experiment found that when an organization mentioned being prodiversity, white male applicants were more likely to express concerns over discrimination and overall performed less well than white men applying to a company that didn’t mention diversity (Dover, Major, and Kaiser 2016). There may be those individuals who argue that promoting workplace diversity through training and employee-support programs is neither necessary nor a worthwhile use of organizational resources. Everyone has an equal chance of making it to the top, they say, and women, blacks, Latinos, gays and lesbians, the disabled, and other workers should all just “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.” The debate over whether historically disadvantaged groups should receive any kind of special attention has been with us for decades and will continue to rumble for as long as inequality persists in our society. But think about it this way: If you were the CEO, president, or director of an organization, wouldn’t you want to make sure you were doing everything you could to create a diverse, inclusive, and equitable workplace that benefits from the contributions of everyone working for you? And that you weren’t overlooking the skills and talents of potential employees for baseless reasons like their gender, race, or sexual orientation? Diversity Training Sociological