Chapter 9 sociology

By what means did Marx believe that social stratification could be largely eliminated?

Marx thought societies could eliminate social stratification by abolishing private ownership of productive property.

The U.S. had a racial caste system for most of our history. In the South, it persisted until the 1960s. Years after the end of slavery, under Jim Crow, whites avoided contact with blacks, requiring blacks to use completely separate (or separate areas of) hotels, restaurants, schools, water faucets, toilets, swimming pools, parks, etc. White people expected black people to move aside when they encountered white people on the sidewalk and to otherwise defer to white people.

TRUE

social mobility

a change in position within the social hierarchy.

Know that many poor people in the U.S. could not survive without welfare or charity and that most of the adults on welfare are single mothers with young children. Know that research shows the following to be myths (untrue beliefs) about welfare:

"1.) People on welfare tend to have lots of kids. "2.) Most people on welfare are African American. "3.) Welfare payments are high. "As mentioned above, estimates are that about 10% of the poor end up homeless at some point. Know these characteristics of the homeless in the U.S.:" "1.) Most of the adults are unemployed." "2.) One of the fastest-growing groups is families with children. 3.) Most homeless adults are not mentally ill." "4.) Most homeless adults are not alcoholics or drug users." "5.) Most homeless people receive no government benefits of any kind. 6.) People remain homeless for an average of 6 months. (Many cycle i" "elessness.)"

As Macionis notes, "The expectation of upward social mobility is deeply rooted in U.S. culture," and he points out that "through much of our history, the economy has grown steadily, raising living standards" (p. 269). He notes that despite the fact that there are many millionaire households in the United States, "not all indicators are so positive" (p. 269). Understand the four "disturbing trends" (p. 269) he identifies.

1. For many workers, earnings have stalled 2. More jobs offer little income 3. The recent recession brought economic decline 4. Young people are remaining at home

Macionis notes on page 253 that despite Marx's prediction of a worker's revolution overthrowing capitalism, capitalism is still alive and well. What four reasons for capitalism's survival does Ralf Dahrendorf offer?

1. Fragmentation of the capitalist class. Today, tens of millions of stockholders, rather than single families, own most large companies. 2. A higher standard of living. A century ago, most U.S. workers were in factories or on farms in blue-collar occupations. Today, most workers are in white-collar occupations, higher-prestige jobs that involve mostly mental activity. 3. More worker organizations. Workers today have the right to form labor unions and other organizations that make demands of management, backed by threats of work slowdowns and strikes. 4. Greater legal protections. Over the past century, new laws made the workplace safer, and unemployment insurance, disability protection, and Social Security now provide workers with greater financial security.

Know the following characteristics of the poor in the U.S.

1. Most poor adults are not currently employed. Of those who are employed, most have a part-time job rather than a full-time job. (But keep in mind that even working full-time can leave your family below the poverty line, depending on the minimum wage in your state.) 2. Many live in areas of chronic high unemployment, such as depressed rural regions or decaying urban neighborhoods. 3. Groups especially likely to be poor are children, females, and racial and ethnic minorities. 4. Single-mother families are especially likely to be poor. They are more than twice as likely as single-father families to be living in poverty, and about five times more likely than married-couple families to be living in poverty. 5. Most poor people manage to avoid homelessness (approximately 10% of the poor end up homeless).

Understand the "four important principles" about social stratification on pages 207-208. All of these points will be discussed in some detail in this chapter.

1. Social stratification is a trait of society, not simply a reflection of individual differences. 2. Social stratification carries over from generation to generation. 3. Social stratification is universal but variable. 4. Social stratification involves not just inequality but beliefs as well.

Macionis has pointed out that wealth, income, and power are all unevenly distributed in the U.S. Prestige (social honor) is also unevenly distributed. Although people can gain prestige in various ways (for example, by being a well-known religious leader like the Dalai Lama or the Pope, by being a hero, by inventing something wonderful, by winning the Olympics, etc.), occupation is the main source of prestige in the U.S. and many countries. Sociologist James Henslin has pointed out that high-prestige occupations tend to have the following four things in common

1. the jobs are associated with higher pay than most other jobs 2. the jobs require either extensive education or a prolonged training process 3. the jobs typically involve more autonomy for the worker (freedom to control one's own time and freedom from constant supervision) 4. the jobs involve primarily mental labor rather than physical labor

people Know that the following are the major social causes of homelessness in the U.S

1.) low wages 2.) lack of low-income housing and limited amount of housing assistance for poor people 3.) decreased availability of welfare 4.) declining value of welfare payments today compared to in the past

A class system, Macionis notes,is "social stratification based on both birth and individual achievement" (p. 244). He notes that "class systems are more open than caste systems, so people who gain schooling and skills may experience social mobility" (p. 244).

A class system

How are ancestry, race/ethnicity, and gender related to social position? I am not looking for any statistics, just general findings.

A class system rewards individual talent and effort. But nothing affects social standing as much as birth into a particular family, which has a strong bearing on future schooling, occupation, and income.

Understand the main idea of the Marxist Political-Economy Model.

A third approach to understanding U.S. politics is the Marxist political-economy model, an analysis that explains politics in terms of the operation of a society's economic system. Like the power-elite model, the Marxist approach rejects the idea that the United States is a political democracy. But the power-elite model focuses on the enormous wealth and power of certain individuals; the Marxist model goes further and sees bias rooted in the nation's institutions, especially its economy. Karl Marx believed that a society's economic system (capitalist or socialist) shapes its political system. Therefore, power elites do not simply appear out of nowhere; they are creations of the capitalist economy.

Understand the difference between relative poverty and absolute poverty.

All systems of social inequality create poverty, or at least relative poverty, the lack of resources of some people in relation to those who have more. A more serious but preventable problem is absolute poverty, a lack of resources that is life-threatening.

Know that "White people in the United States have always been in a more privileged position than people of African or Hispanic descent" (page 268). Have African Americans and Hispanics made any progress since the 1970s when looking at their family income as a percentage of white family income? (I am not looking for any numerical data here.)

But overall, the real income of African Americans has changed little in three decades. African American family income as a percentage of white family income has fallen slightly from 61 percent in 1975 to 57 percent in 2013. Compared with white families, Latino families lost more ground, earning 66 percent as much as white families in 1975 and 58 percent as much in 2013

Macionis notes that China also once claimed to be a classless society. He points out that "after the Communist revolution in 1949, the state took control of all farms, factories, and other productive property," and this takeover of the means of production by the state did greatly reduce the amount of economic inequality in that country. But, he says, "as in the Soviet Union, social differences remained. The country was ruled by a political elite with enormous power and considerable privilege" (pp. 248-249). Over time, the state "loosened its hold on the economy, allowing a new class of business owners to emerge" (p. 249).

CHINA isn't really classless but once claimed to be

As Macionis points out, "Defining classes in the United States is difficult" (p. 261). Why is this true?

Defining classes in the United States is difficult because of the relatively low level of status consistency. Especially toward the middle of the hierarchy, people's social position on one dimension may not be the same as their standing on another. For example, a government official may have the power to administer a multimillion-dollar budget yet earn only a modest personal income.

Which factors were mentioned that contribute to upward social mobility? Which ones contribute to downward social mobility?

Earning a college degree, landing a higherpaying job, or marrying someone who earns a good income contributes to upward social mobility; Dropping out of school, losing a job, or becoming divorced (especially for women) may result in downward social mobility. Over the long term, though, social mobility is not so much a matter of individual changes as changes in society itself.

Macionis notes on page 274 that "there is a rising level of debate about income inequality in the United States." He notes that "the reason for the increasing controversy is simple." What is this reason?

Economic inequality has reached levels not seen in this country since 1929, just before the Great Depression.

Macionis notes on page 270 that "underlying the shifts in U.S. class structure over recent decades is global economic change." He points out that there are far fewer high-paying manufacturing jobs in the U.S. today compared to 1960; many of these jobs have been moved overseas where people are paid much lower wages. He notes that in the place of these manufacturing jobs in the U.S., the economy "offers service work, which pays far less" (p. 270). But he notes that "the global reorganization of work has not been bad news for everyone" (p. 270). Which kinds of people are doing well in this new economy?

Families with money to invest.

Macionis notes on page 254 that "some observers claim that Marx's analysis of capitalism is still largely valid." Understand the five points these observers make.

First, wealth remains highly concentrated, with 37 percent of all privately owned property in the hands of just 1 percent of the U.S. population (Wolff, 2014). Second, many of today's whitecollar jobs offer no more income, security, or satisfaction than factory work did a century ago. Third, many, if not most, of today's workers feel squeezed by high unemployment, company downsizing, jobs moving overseas, and job benefits being cut to balance budgets. Fourth, the income and benefits that today's workers do enjoy came about through exactly the class conflict Marx described. In addition, as the conflict between public worker labor unions and state government in Wisconsin, Ohio, and other states in recent years shows, workers still struggle to hold on to what they have. Fifth, although workers have gained some legal protections, ordinary people still face disadvantages that the law cannot overcome.

Speaking of the caste system in India, Macionis notes on page 243 that "from birth, caste position determines the direction of a person's life." In what four ways does caste position do this?

First, with the exception of farming, which is open to everyone, families in each caste perform one type of work, as priests, soldiers, barbers, leather workers, street sweepers, and so on. Second, a caste system demands that people marry others of the same ranking. If people were to have "mixed" marriages with members of other castes, what rank would their children hold? Sociologists call this pattern of marrying within a social category endogamous marriage (endo- stems from the Greek word for "within"). According to tradition— this practice is now rare and found only in remote rural areas—Indian parents select their children's future marriage partners, often before the children reach their teens. Third, caste guides everyday life by keeping people in the company of "their own kind." Norms reinforce this practice by teaching, for example, that a "purer" person of a higher caste position is "polluted" by contact with someone of lower standing. Fourth, caste systems rest on powerful cultural beliefs. Indian culture is built on the Hindu tradition that doing the caste's life work and accepting an arranged marriage are moral duties.

How does social class affect health? I am not looking for any statistics, just general patterns.

Health is closely related to social standing. Children born into poor families are twice as likely to die from disease, neglect, accidents, or violence during their first year of life as children born into privileged families. Among adults, people with above-average incomes are almost twice as likely as low-income people to describe their health as excellent. In addition, on average, richer people live five years longer because they eat more nutritious food, live in safer and less stressful environments, and receive better medical care

How does social class affect political attitudes and involvement in politics?

High-income people leaning toward Republican candidates and low-Income people favoring Democrats. But a close look shows that the pattern is complex. A desire to protect their wealth prompts well-off people to take a more conservative approach to economic issues, favoring, for example, lower taxes. But on social matters such as abortion and gay rights, highly educated, more affluent people are more liberal. People of lower social standing, by contrast, tend to be economic liberals, favoring government social programs that benefit them, but typically hold more conservative views on social issues. Another important pattern is that people who are well-off financially are involved in politics.

What is horizontal mobility?

Horizontal social mobility—changing jobs at the same class level—is even more common.

What does the "weight of sociological evidence" point toward as the "primary source of poverty" (p. 273)?

However, the weight of sociological evidence points toward society, not individual character traits, as the primary source of poverty because more and more available jobs offer only low wages. In addition, the poor are categories of people—female heads of families, people of color, people in inner-city neighborhoods isolated from the larger society— who face special barriers and limited opportunities.

Which kind of evidence supports each of the two approaches to explaining poverty?

In 1996, hoping to free people from what some saw as a culture of poverty in the United States, Congress changed the welfare system, which had provided a federal guarantee of financial assistance to poor people since 1935. The federal government continues to send money to the states to distribute to needy people, but benefits carry strict time limits—in most cases, no more than two years at a stretch and a total of five years if a person moves in and out of the welfare system. The stated purpose of this reform was to force people to be self-supporting and move them away from dependency on government. The U.S. public is evenly divided over whether the government or people themselves should take responsibility for reducing poverty (Smith et al., 2013:508). Government statistics show that 56 percent of the heads of poor families did not work at all during 2013, and an additional 30 percent worked only part time (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). To some people, such facts might seem to support the "blame the poor" side of the argument, because one major cause of poverty is not holding a job. To combat poverty and reduce the need for welfare, Wilson argues, the government must take the lead by investing in people and their communities. Such investments include funding jobs, providing affordable child care for low-income mothers and fathers, ensuring that schools teach both the language skills and work skills that will prepare them for the types of jobs that will be available looking forward, and even expanding regional public transportation to help people get from where they live to the places where the jobs are. But the reasons that people do not work are more in step with the "blame society" position. Middle-class women may be able to combine working and child rearing, but this is much harder for poor women who cannot afford child care, and few employers provide child care programs. As William Julius Wilson explains, many people are jobless not because they are avoiding work but because there are not enough jobs to go around. In short, the most effective way to reduce poverty is to ensure a greater supply of jobs as well as child care for parents who work

As Macionis points out, "In Marx's view, social stratification is rooted in people's relationship to the means of production. People either own productive property ... or sell their labor to others" (p. 253). Who were the opposing classes in feudal Europe? Who are they under industrial capitalism? Why did Marx think class conflict was inevitable? Know that Marx believed that the "working majority would overthrow the capitalists once and for all" through revolution (p. 253). Why, in Marx's thinking, would capitalism "bring about its own downfall" (p. 253)? Understand the concept of alienation. Understand what Marx imagined would replace capitalism.

In feudal Europe, the aristocracy and the church owned the productive land; the peasants toiled as farmers. Under industrial capitalism, the aristocracy was replaced by capitalists (sometimes called the bourgeoisie, a French word meaning "town dwellers"), people who own and operate factories and other businesses in pursuit of profits. Peasants became the proletarians, people who sell their labor for wages. Capitalists and proletarians have opposing interests and are separated by a vast gulf of wealth and power, making class conflict inevitable. Capitalism would bring about its own downfall, Marx reasoned, because it makes workers poorer and poorer and gives them little control over what they make or how they make it. Alienation--the experience of isolation and misery resulting from powerlessness.

As Macionis notes on page 255, sociologists typically treat social stratification as a "macro-level issue." On a micro level of analysis, how does people's social standing affect their everyday interactions? What is conspicuous consumption?

In most communities, people interact primarily with others of about the same social standing. This pattern begins with the fact that due to social stratification, people tend to live with others like themselves. Sociologists use the term conspicuous consumption to refer to buying and using products because of the "statement" they make about social position.

Why does Macionis, the textbook author, mention the Titanic? (What's the general point he's trying to make here?)

Looking back on this terrible event with a sociological eye, we see that some categories of passengers had much better odds of survival than others. Onboard the Titanic, class meant more than the quality of accommodations; it was a matter of life or death. The fate of the passengers on the Titanic dramatically illustrates how social inequality affects the way people live—and sometimes whether they live at all. Mostly men and lower class people died. Mostly upper-class women and children lived because they were higher up on the boat and in an area where the lifeboats were accessible.

As Macionis notes on page 242, "sociologists distinguish between closed systems, which allow little change in social position, and open systems, which permit much more social mobility." He points out that "closed systems are called caste systems, and more open systems are called class systems."

Macionis notes on page 208 that "a caste system is social stratification based on ascription, or birth. A pure caste system is closed because birth alone determines a person's entire future, with little or no social mobility based on individual effort. People live out their lives in the rigid categories into which they were born, without the possibility for change for the better or worse."

As Macionis points out, "Social-conflict analysis argues that rather than benefiting society as a whole, social stratification benefits some people and disadvantages others" (p. 252). He points out that social-conflict analysis "draws heavily on the ideas of Karl Marx, with contributions from Max Weber" (p. 252). Macionis points out that "as Marx saw it, the Industrial Revolution promised humanity a society free from want" (p. 252). What "glaring contradiction" (p. 253) did Marx try to explain?

Marx set out to explain a glaring contradiction: how, in a society so rich, so many could be so poor.

Macionis notes on page 259 that "the wealth of average people is not only less than that of the rich but also different in kind." How so?

Most people's wealth centers on a home and a car—property that generates no income—but the greater wealth of the rich is mostly in the form of stocks and other income-producing investments.

how many homeless a year

No one knows exactly how many people experience homelessness in the U.S. during each year because it is extremely difficult to locate them all to count them. Estimates run from approximately half of a million to several million.

Please know that although most of the poor people in the U.S. are white (because white people greatly outnumber people from other racial categories in the U.S.), whites have the lowest poverty rate of all the racial groups (that is, the percentage of all whites below the poverty line is lower than that of any other racial group). Know that American Indians and African Americans have the highest poverty rates.

OK

Know that each year the federal government in the U.S. sets an official poverty line (poverty threshold) for families of a certain size. Know that in 2017, the weighted poverty threshold for a family of four was $24,600. (Please understand that this means that if a family of four made at least that amount of money, they were not included in the number of poor families in the U.S.)

OK Know that the poverty rate for 2017 in the U.S. (the percentage of Americans living under the poverty line that year) was 12.3%. This translates to 39.7 million poor people in the U.S.

Macionis points out that "the richest nation on Earth [the U.S.] contains tens of millions of poor people, a fact that raises serious questions" (p. 271). In answer to his own question of "Why is there poverty in the first place?", Macionis gives two opposing explanations (p. 271). Understand these two approaches to explain poverty.

One View: Blame the Poor One view holds that the poor are mostly responsible for their own poverty. Throughout this nation's history, people have placed a high cultural value on self-reliance, convinced that a person's social standing is mostly a matter of individual talent and effort. According to this view, society offers plenty of opportunities to anyone who is able and willing to take advantage of them, and the poor are people who cannot or will not work due to a lack of skills, schooling, or motivation. Another View: Blame Society A different position, argued by William Julius Wilson (1996a, 1996b; see also Mouw, 2000), holds that society is primarily responsible for poverty. Wilson points to the loss of jobs in our inner cities as the primary cause of poverty, claiming that there is simply not enough work to support families. Wilson sees any apparent lack of trying on the part of the poor as a result of little opportunity rather than as a cause of poverty. From Wilson's point of view, Lewis's analysis amounts to blaming the victim, that is, saying that victims are responsible for their own suffering.

Understand the two criticisms of Marx's approach to social stratification that were mentioned in the textbook.

One of the strongest criticisms of the Marxist approach is that it ignores a central idea of the Davis-Moore thesis: that a system of unequal rewards is needed to place people in the right jobs and to motivate people to work hard. Marx separated reward from performance; his egalitarian ideal was based on the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" A second problem is that the revolutionary change Marx predicted has failed to happen, at least in advanced capitalist societies.

Understand the main idea of the Pluralist Model.

Pluralist model an analysis of politics that sees power as spread among many competing interest groups. No single organization can expect to achieve all of its goals. Organizations therefore operate as veto groups, realizing some goals but mostly keeping opponents from achieving all of theirs. The political process relies heavily on creating alliances and compromises among numerous interest groups so that policies gain wide support.

Make sure you understand what is meant by structural social mobility (this kind of mobility has been very common in the U.S., along with many other countries).

Rapidly expanding industry and government drew many poor rural peasants into factories and offices. This trend illustrates what sociologists call structural social mobility, a shift in the social position of large numbers of people due more to changes in society itself than to individual efforts.

How does social class affect family life? I am not looking for numerical data here.

Social class also shapes family life. In general, working-class parents encourage children to conform to conventional norms and respect authority figures. These parents set boundaries for their children, providing clear directives that are to be obeyed. In families with higher-incomes, by contrast, parents pass along a different "cultural capital" to their children. These parents are more flexible with their kids, reasoning with them rather than telling them what to do. The goal here is to develop children's special talents, and parents do this by placing children in many organized activities and encouraging them to express their individuality and to use their imagination freely.

Macionis notes on page 267 that "sociologists distinguish between shorter- and longer-term changes in social position." Understand the difference between intragenerational social mobility and intergenerational social mobility.

Sociologists distinguish between shorter- and longer-term changes in social position. Intragenerational social mobility is a change in social position occurring during a person's lifetime (intra is Latin for "within"). Intergenerational social mobility, upward or downward social mobility of children in relation to their parents, is important because it reveals long-term changes in society that affect everyone (inter is Latin for "between").

Understand the concept of status consistency. Which kind of society has high status consistency? Which kind has low status consistency?

Status consistency is the degree of uniformity in a person's social standing across various dimensions of social inequality. A caste system has little social mobility and therefore has high status consistency. A class system has greater social mobility and therefore has a low status consistency.

Two examples of recent caste systems are the Hindu caste system in India and the system of apartheid in South Africa. The caste system in India, in existence for more than 2000 years, was officially abolished in 1949, but it still persists, especially in rural areas. The system of apartheid in South Africa was officially dismantled in the early 1990s, but the lingering effects of it on the life chances of black people there are still very profound.

TRUE

How does social class affect values and attitudes?

The "old rich" have an unusually strong sense of family history because they have one or more ancestors who made a lot of money and their position is based on wealth passed down from generation to generation. Old money people differ from many "new rich" people who engage in conspicuous consumption, or what we call "bling," using homes, cars, and even airplanes as status symbols to make a statement about their social position. Affluent people with greater education and financial security are also more tolerant of controversial behavior such as homosexuality. Working-class people, who grow up in an atmosphere of greater supervision and discipline and are less likely to attend college, tend to be less tolerant. Social class has a great deal to do with an individual's self-concept. People with higher social standing experience more confidence in everyday interaction for the simple reason that others tend to view them as having greater importance.

According to the functionalists Davis and Moore, why do societies have stratification? How does stratification benefit society?

The Davis-Moore thesis states that social stratification has beneficial consequences for the operation of a society. The Davis-Moore thesis suggests the reason stratification exists; it does not state precisely what rewards a society should give to any occupational position or how unequal rewards should be. It merely points out that positions a society considers crucial must offer enough rewards to draw talented people away from less important work. Therefore, Davis and Moore explain, the greater the functional importance of a position, the more rewards a society attaches to it. This strategy promotes productivity and efficiency because rewarding important work with income, prestige, power, or leisure encourages people to do these jobs and to work better, longer, and harder. In short, unequal rewards (the foundation of social stratification) benefit society as a whole. to limit the supply of physicians and thereby increase the demand for their services. Furthermore, do rewards actually reflect the contribution someone makes to society? Second, Tumin claimed that Davis and Moore ignore how the caste elements of social stratification can prevent the development of individual talent. Third, living in a society that places so much emphasis on money, we tend to overestimate the importance of high-paying work; how much do stockbrokers or people who trade international currencies really contribute to the well-being of people in our society? Finally, by suggesting that social stratification benefits all of society, the Davis-Moore thesis ignores how social inequality can harm society and even promote conflict.

Know that, despite some claims to the contrary, no societies exist that are completely free of social inequality. What does the story of the former Soviet Union show about social inequality? What was elite standing and political power in the former Soviet Union based on?

The Soviet Union's story shows that social inequality involves more than economic resources. Soviet society may not have had the extremes of wealth and poverty found in the United Kingdom and the United States. But an elite class existed all the same, based on political power rather than wealth.

What is meant by the term feminization of poverty?

The United States has experienced a feminization of poverty, which is defined as the trend of women making up an increasing proportion of the poor.

Understand the main idea of the Power-Elite Model.

The power-elite model, based on social-conflict theory, is an analysis of politics that sees power as concentrated among the rich. The term "power elite" was coined by C. Wright Mills (1956), a social-conflict theorist who argued that the upper class holds most of society's wealth, prestige, and power. Mills claimed that members of the power elite are in charge of the three major sectors of society: the economy, the government, and the military. The power elite is made up of the "super-rich" (corporate executives and major stockholders); top officials in Washington, D.C., and state capitals; and the highest-ranking officers in the U.S. military. Further, Mills explained that these elites move from one sector to another, building power as they go. Power-elite theorists say that the United States is not a democracy because our economic and political systems give a few people so much power that the average person's voice cannot be heard.

What percentage of the wealth in the U.S. is owned by the richest 20% of families? What percentage is owned by the richest 1%?

The richest 20 percent of U.S. families own roughly 89 percent of the country's entire wealth. 37%

Why did Weber doubt that social stratification would be eliminated in socialist countries?

Weber doubted that overthrowing capitalism would significantly lessen social stratification. It might reduce economic differences, he reasoned, but socialism would increase inequality by expanding government and concentrating power in the hands of a political elite. The popular uprisings against socialist bureaucracies in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union show that discontent can be generated by socialist political elites and thus support Weber's position.

Today, Macionis says, "a new class system is emerging [in China], a mix of the old Party hierarchy, a new business hierarchy, and a new 'aristocratic' class of well-connected people" (p. 249). He notes that 4"economic inequality in China has increased as members of the new business and political elites have become millionaires and even billionaires" (p. 249).

economic inequality in china exists in large numbers

Understand the difference between income and wealth. Make sure you look at Figure 9-3 (on page 259). Which is distributed more unequally in the U.S. -- income or wealth?

income is earnings from work or investment wealth is ones total value of money and assests Wealth is distributed more unevenly.

Understand the concept of meritocracy. Please note that, as Macionis points out, "a pure meritocracy has never existed" (p. 244).

social stratification based on personal merit. has never existed but if it did it would depend entirely on ones performance, reflecting both on ability and effort.

The first of the three dimensions of inequality that Weber identified was economic inequality, what Weber referred to as class position. (Today sociologists typically study this dimension of inequality in terms of inequalities in income and wealth.) What are the other two dimensions (types) of inequality that Weber identified?

status (social prestige) and power

Social stratification

structured social inequality, the ranking of categories of people according to how much wealth, power, prestige, and privilege they have.

What does the phrase "survival of the fittest" refer to? Who coined this phrase? How did early sociologist Herbert Spencer feel about the poor? What did he think about social welfare programs?

that the best survive and the rest are left behind Herbert Spencer He believed that poor people were genetic failures and deserved to be poor He didn't like them because he believed they hurt society's best people and benefited their worse (the poor)

Make sure you read the Thinking About Diversity: Race, Class, and Gender entry on page 265. What is the point of this story?

to show us her perspective as a lower class citizen

As Macionis points out, "Historically, a widespread view has been that there are not class differences in the United States" (p. 257). Despite this belief, he says, "U.S. society is highly stratified" (p. 257).

true

As Macionis points out, "In line with Weber's thinking, sociologists use the term socioeconomic status (SES) to refer to a composite ranking based on various dimensions of social inequality" (p. 254). Typically, the following are taken into account when determining a person's SES: their income, wealth, occupational prestige, and educational attainment.

true

As Macionis points out, "Max Weber agreed with Karl Marx that social stratification causes social conflict, but he viewed Marx's two-class model as too simple. Instead, he claimed that social stratification involves three distinct dimensions of inequality" (p. 254).

true

As Macionis points out, "such widespread concern about economic inequality suggests serious problems" (p. 275). The first problem is that "people doubt that the highest-paid individuals are really worth the money they are paid" (p. 275).

true

Like income and wealth, power is unevenly distributed in the U.S. Macionis notes that in the U.S., "wealth is an important source of power. The small proportion of families that controls most of the country's wealth also has the ability to shape the agenda of the entire society." Know that other categories of people besides the wealthy who are very overrepresented in positions of power in the U.S. are males and white people.

true

Macionis notes that "a major reason that social hierarchies endure [sometimes for many centuries] is ideology, cultural beliefs that justify particular social arrangements, including patterns of inequality" (p. 250). The ideology that justified the caste system in India was the Hindu religious belief of reincarnation. According to this ideology, if you didn't perform your caste duties well, you would be reborn in your next life into a lower caste (including possibly being born as a nonhuman animal). The ideology that justified the feudal system in Medieval Europe was the divine right of kings -- the idea that the commoners (especially the serfs) had a religious duty to obey the monarch (and the nobility who helped the monarch rule) because the monarch ruled for God on earth. The ideology that justifies the stratification system in the U.S. today is the idea that the U.S. is a pure meritocracy -- that one's social position is entirely a result of one's abilities and efforts to succeed. In other words, the idea is that anyone can be rich and successful if he or she just works hard enough, and that if people are poor it is because they are lazy and unwilling to gain the skills and abilities needed to be rich and successful.

true

Macionis points out that most people in the U.S. today are concerned about economic inequality and believe the income differences are too large.

true

Macionis points out that the "second problem that accompanies inequality... is rising doubt that people who are willing to work hard can get ahead" (p. 276). Macionis predicts that "should the trend toward greater economic inequality persist, and should the loss of confidence in our system of social inequality continue, the demands for basic change to our society are sure to intensify" (p. 276).

true

Macionis says on page 276 that "looking back in time, we see that today's corporate CEOs are earning more now than ever." He notes that "in 1970, the compensation of top CEOs was about 40 times what the average company employee earned" (p. 276). That ratio has increased dramatically since then. In 2017 (updated from your textbook), the CEO-to-average employee pay ratio was 361:1. (In other words, the compensation of top CEOs is currently about 361 times what the average company worker earns.)

true

Weber, unlike Marx, didn't identify distinct classes, but rather thought of class position as being on a continuum.

true

Your textbook notes on page 255 that "economic inequality has been increasing in the U.S." Understand that "although some people favor Weber's multidimensional hierarchy, others think, in light of this trend toward greater economic inequality, that Marx's view of the rich versus the poor is closer to the truth" (p. 255).

true

Macionis notes that China is currently "the world's second-largest economy" (p. 249). The U.S. is the largest.

we are the largest