Sociology 1101 Test 2

Emergent Properties

new attributes of a whole that arise from the interaction and interconnection of the parts

4 Major Trends in US family

1. Marriage Fewer adults are getting married in US today Average age at marriage has increased. People are getting married later. But % of never-married adults has also increased Decline of marriage is highest among low status people who more often cite financial instability as a reason 2. Divorce The decline in number of married people is NOT due to a rise in divorce Divorce increased (especially 70s-90s), but since the 90s, there has been a DECLINE IN DIVORCE Risk factors of divorce (things that increase likelihood that you will get divorced): -Marriage under 21 -Divorced parents -Having a previous divorce -Having a child prior to marriage -Childless marriage -Financial hardship -Partners from different social class, race, age, religion 3. Cohabitation More people living together w/o a marriage license 1960: 2.9 million 2016: 18 million Some trend of this in other wealthy countries too Who? Highest rate is among 25-34 year olds (14%) Rate has also increased among those 50+ year olds (many divorced people) Successful trial? Does cohabitation reduce the risk of divorce later on? No - it slightly raises the risk Main reason: selection effect Selection Effect: Those who cohabit have characteristics that also predict divorce Ex. Less religious people tend to cohabit. Less religious people are also more likely to divorce. Cohabitation may also breed a more casual attitude toward marriage. (People might think "we're already living together, we're already practically married, nothing will change when we get married." And then they surprise themselves and things change and they get divorced). In US and 17 European countries, children born to cohabiting parents 96% more likely to have their parents split up by age 12 4. 1 Parent Families 1960: 9% 2016: 27% These households are increasing while 2 parent households are decreasing!!! Does it matter? Some say yes, some say no. % of children born to an unwed mother: 1960: total: 5% white: 2% black: 20% % of children born to an unwed mother: 2014: total: 40% white: 29% black: 71% About 40% of unwed mothers today are cohabiting And some will either later cohabit/marry Still, a high % of kids who are born to unwed moms (50%) end up growing up for some/all of their childhoods in 1 parent households -Most children in 1 parent households live with mother (80%) McLanahan and Schwartz: They find that kids from intact 2 parent families, on average: Complete more years of education find and keep better jobs more often avoid single parenthood or crime, themselves 90% of kids from 2 parent households and 80% from 1 parent households complete high school -can be seen in 2 ways: 1. A 10% diff in completion (80% vs 90%) 2. A 100% (double) increase in non completion (10% vs 20%) -Divorce undoes the good of having 2 parents (in general) Remarriage does not undo the effects of divorce. Kids in step families don't do any better. Kids of cohabiting parents: not enough information to tell Most 1 parent families are poorer than 2 parent families Money is not the only issue Other factors: loss of parent: loss of social support less parental attention/supervision, so it's harder to do concerted cultivation

Network shape also known as...

Structure/topology. the location depends on your connection to others.

Challenges and Benefits of Upper Class

You can see the power of inequality by comparing the top to bottom Challenges of upper class: people want to take what you have. Life is competitive. You must strive to keep up. Must be aware of thieves and swindlers. Only one way your status can change: down. Study: most children born into the top quintile stayed there as adults. Or were within one quintile down. But 9% fell to the bottom quintile. 5 good things about being rich (apart from money) 1. You have admirers -You are not invisible -People are interested in you, talk about you (gossip) Movies and books are about people like you People assume you are more competent and intelligent People want to marry you (Putnam), have sex with you People want to be around you and help you. Ex. Coin: people more likely to give a coin to someone dressed nicely. 2. You have more say -You are more assertive in conversation People listen to you, pay attention, agree with you Juries: upper class views tend to win out more. Also witnesses who speak in high status style. You are more credible Even you jokes are funnier (everyone laughs at the bosses jokes) Your taste is better People follow your example more (ex. more likely to jaywalk when you see a high class person doing it first) You participate and vote more often (politics) 3. You have more privacy You don't get searched, drug tested, etc. Contrast: Ehrenreich: the indignity of being searched when you are poor (people never trust you). More personal space Larger and more houses, offices You can put barriers to access: people have to go through others to meet you Even celebrities have more privacy given the amount of interest in them. Have bodyguards Few sociological studies of the wealthy. Lots of studies about the poor. -Also, there are more studies about lower level police than high level police. 4. You have more trust People assume you are a good person. This gives high stats conmen an advantage. Ex. Bernie Madoff: wealthy man, used the trust of others to create a pansy scheme. Experiential Evidence: people donate more money to people of higher status. Contrast: Ehrenreich: people were suspicious of her. Chambliss: School had 2 groups of deviant students: Saints and Roughnecks: one wealthier, one poorer Both groups broke the law, through somewhat diff ways Wealthier: more vandalistic acts Poorer: acts of thievery, violence Yet the poorer kids likley to be caught and brnaded as delinquents. Wealthier kids bennefited from greater privacy (ability to hide deviance), and an assumption that they were law abiding. This assumption is common in society: wealthy people don't "fit the profile" of a criminal. Faster labeling of lower income individuals as deviants can lead to long term failure (reinforcement). School-to-prison pipeline for poor and minorities. This paper is really about the transmission of class from one generation to the next. 5. You are healthier Phelan Et Al: wealthier people have better health and live longer Wealthier and more educated people (high SES) less likely to contract diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension Life expectancy increases with income Gaps in life expectancy by income increased 2001-2014 but no change for individuals in the bottom 5% Causes of many diseases that affected poor people more in the past disappeared. Ex. Typhoid fever, etc. due to overcrowding and poor sanitation. YET, SES disparities persist even in countries with universal health care Phelan et al: social conditions are fundamental causes of health disparities. Higher SES have more resources to achieve better health. Money, knowledge, power, social connections. They can employ these resources flexibly: change of behavior in response to new findings. Take advantage of new discoveries. Ex. Invention of screening for breast and cervical cancer. Higher SES screened more. Higher SES individuals have more resources to engage in good health behaviors. Higher SES contexts also favor health. Safer, cleaner neighborhoods. Jobs with good health care benefits Culture of healthy diet, exercise, screening, etc Ex. Columbia school of Public Health: serves healthy snacks (because people are educated to know it is the healthy alternative) Health inequalities persist because new intervening mechanisms emerge over time Ex. New information about bad effects of smoking. So the rich smoke less. Ex. Hormone replacement therapy leads to breast cancer. So the rich stop the therapy. Higher SES people reacted to this info High status people resist changes to the status quo -Agrarian era survived for 5,000 years -Elite put down peasant revolts brutally -High class resisted the rise of the middle class -In the modern era, civil rights movement encountered great hostility -Erosion of white dominance causing conflict -Wealthy resist raising taxes, etc. Conclusion: Inequality has increased in US since 1980 Unequal societies have more violence, addiction, family disruption, economic imobility, poorer health Individually: position in class hierarchy

societal effect of inequality.... personal effect of inequality....

homicide rates go up who you will marry

strong ties....

influence what we do, what we believe (politics, religion)

Why the increase in inequality?

Briefly, reasons include: 1. Globalization: unskilled jobs less rewarded today. Factories move away from US because it's cheaper to have them in other countries. So unskilled workers in US must compete with cheap workers in other countries. 2. More Dual Earning Couples (both partners work). And people marry those like themselves. 3. Decline in top tax rate (91% to 40%). Now, the wealthy are paying less in taxes than they used to. Still, the highest quintile (Q1, the wealthy) does pay the most taxes. 4. Large increase in single parent households 5. Big decline in union membership 6. Immigration from poor countries drives low wages lower

Class boundaries now way less rigid than in agrarian societies. more movement. and yet, a lot of stability. most poor remain poor. most rich remain rich. WHY?

Class Transmission

Class Transmission

Class Transmission Class boundaries now way less rigid than agrarian societies. More movement between classes. Yet, there is a lot of stability. Most poor remain poor. Most wealthy remain wealthy. Why? Sociologists ask: how does this happen, given that: 1. Talent, ambition, intelligence, etc. are roughly randomly distributed. 2. There are no formal rules prohibiting the poor from rising or rich from falling. -In fact, things like public school are provided to help the poor rise. So why? Because of Transmission Class Transmission begins before school! In the home and family Lareau: studied parenting styles of middle class and working class parents. Interviewed, and observed some in daily life. Kids aged 8-10. Small sample (88) but lots of detail about each family. Parenting style varies by social class. Note that many parents will have a mix of the 2 styles. Concerned Cultivation: -middle class parents: professional, managerial, high income -see children as a project ("coming along nicely) -parents try to develop talents and skills, organized activities, close supervision of schooling, reasoning skills, question authority, negotiate, customize preferences Accomplishment of Natural Growth: -Working class parents work hard to feed and clothe children -Assume they will grow and develop naturally -Parents give directives, provide less supervision, kids "hang out" more with friends and cousins, watch more TV. They tell kids what to do and the kids do it without question authority! These differences hold across race. White and black middle class mostly concerned cultivators. White and black working class mostly natural growth. School: -Class differences get reinforced in school -Wealthier kids more likely to achieve, because... Parents educated and involved with the school Money for tutors Money for college visits Everyone these kids interact with are also on academic track Elite colleges targeted Job: -Wealthier kids tend to land better jobs because... More qualified Better networked (internships) Better softer skills: they know what to say, how to dress, how to present yourself Better first job tends to lead to a better career More satisfying work More money Marriage: Better job: more likely to lead to marriage And their kids born into higher social class... Who receive more intense parenting, themselves. Class is thus transmitted from one generation to the next. Cultural Capital: -A lot of transmission occurs because of... -Cultural Capital: the knowledge, taste, and behaviors that signal status -Pierre Bourdie (1930-2002) introduced this... -Includes etiquette -Attire and self presentation -Taste in music, books, and movies Class Transmission: A lot can go wrong in class transmission For individuals: illness, addiction, good and bad luck, etc. But most people tend to stay either in the same quintile as their parents or within one quintile up/down Conclusion: Social class boundaries hard to pinpoint But income affects how we behave and how others treat us Consequently, social class tends to get transmitted through cultural capital to the next generation via the home, school, workplace, marriage market, etc.

How much a family needs for a secure yet modest living standard....

In different parts of the country (it varies. think about diff counties we looked at)

Properties of unequal societies

Inequality has increased in US since 1980 unequal societies have more violence, addiction, family disruption (divorce, separation, death), economic immobility, poorer health individually: inequality affects your position in class hierarchy

Independent vs Dependent Variables: Inequality

Inequality: our dependent variable: what we were trying to explain: effect Now we move on to how inequality affects other things: inequality as an independent variable: the cause Inequality has all kinds of effects Societal and personal Societal effect example: homicide rates go up Personal example: who you will marry When you think about your future life partner, you almost certainly think: -what personal qualities she has? outgoing, high energy, ambitious, pretty? -but your choice is also influenced by social stratification -most marriages are within the same social class -endogamy: marriage within your class -Putnam: as inequality increases, endogamy increases

Music! Lecture

Intro: We've been looking at the effect of relationality on beliefs and behavior (ex. health, happiness, politics, religion) today, we look at a theory that links: relationality (independent variable) and music styles (dependent) variables: a relational variable (intimacy/solidarity) will be: independent variable (cause. the explainer) musical style/code (restricted vs elaborate): dependent variable (effect. the thing explained) independent and dependent: homicide rates increase with inequality -independent: inequality -dependent: homicide rates young marriage raises the risk of divorce: -independent: young marriage -dependent: divorce living alone is more frequent in wealthier countries: -independent: living alone -dependent: living in wealthier country Music: musical styles change over time why? natural evolution of taste? or are there social causes at work? African American Musical Styles: Albert Bergesen presents a relational theory of styles of African American music From Spirituals in Slavery to soul music in civil rights Bergesen: builds on the work of Basil Bernstein (who himself built on the work of Emile Durkheim) Durkheim - Bernstein - Bergesen Bernstein (1971) English socio-linguist: how people use language varies Language: some language is restricted: meant for insiders. (ex. logon working class, high school students) -generally low/working class, but not always some language elaborated: meant for strangers. (ex. london middle and upper class, teachers). Restricted: small vocab simple grammar group references "we," "us" slang for insiders Elaborated: large vocab complex grammar individual references "I," "me" articulate (no slang) Why? Bernstein - not social class (these differences are not because of social class. ex. doctors. high class doctors still use restricted language that only they understand). but instead, these differences are BECAUSE OF INTIMACY/COMMUNAL SOLIDARITY elaborated language use is a product of more distant relationships and communities! Bergesen extends this analysis to a diff form of communication: music Bergesen: Bergesen: music is a form of language musical language should respond to changes in group intimacy (group intimacy causes musical language) African American Musical Styles: slavery - intimacy/solidarity - restricted style -spirituals - harmonies, symbols, hidden messages migration - distance/low solidarity - elaborated style -blues (provide troubles; flexible) -jazz (abstract; individualistic) -jim crow laws (segregation) civil rights - intimacy/solidarity - restricted style -soul (collective, joyful) -also seek social change (protests, etc) -jim crow laws start to go away Additional Points: very few pure examples of each style intimacy/solidarity are not the only factors that explain the evolution of musical styles ex. commercialism probably causes more elaborated styles but see data at the end of B's paper. He is right. Post-Soul Music: How does hip hop fit into B's theory? Since the 60s: African American community LESS COHESIVE. Solidarity went down. so we are now living in a period of intermediate intimacy/solidarity. Suburbanization: growth of middle class. Black people start to move to the suburbs. 1970-2014: % of black families earning at least $75,000 (2014 dollars) more than doubled to 21% But many were still left behind in poverty 1970-2014: % of black families making less than $15,000 declined, but only from 26% to 22% Now: So, inequality has grown within the black commnity BUT, blacks share a common history, and... The experience of being black in a white dominated society so now seems to be a period of intermediate (medium) intimacy/solidarity hip hop reflects this some of both: restricted and elaborate Hip Hop: restricted: slang (including the use of N word) common suffering: poverty, drugs, police, etc common settings: clubs, parties, etc insider status symbols that only insiders can understand regular, thumping rhythm frequent use of harmonies sampling from other artists (community of artists) Hip Hop: elaborated personal troubles boasting: me, me, me manipulative attitude toward the sexes music a vehicle for individual advancement individual styles of rapping Recent Black Activisim: recently, we have seen the growth of black activism BLM (black lives matter), NFL protests, etc. if this spreads throughout and unites the black community, B's theory predicts: more restricted musical styles should emerge

Is it better to be more central or not (in a network)?

It depends on what is flowing through the network when you are central, you are more affected by what flows through the nwtrok if diseases are flowing, you don't want to be cenral if happiness, you do

current view on 1 parent families

Most kids from 1 parent families do fine But MORE kids from 1 parent than from 2 parent families are unsuccessful

Networks

Networks When people are brought together and discuss, their views become less extreme When they are polarized, views become more extreme Network: a group of 2 or more things LINKED TOGETHER, connected -brain neurons -computers -airlines -people (a social network) Networks can be diagrammed as points and lines Social Networks: most social networks arise naturally out of contact between people but some are created (ex. facebook: a way of keeping in touch with a wide circle of friends) Direct vs Indirect Ties: network ties can be direct or indirect direct tie: A connected to B indirect tie: A is not connected to D. A has indirect tie to D, through B and C. A and B, A and C, have 1 degree of separation (connection). A and D have 2 degrees of separation. Strong vs. Weak Ties: ties vary in strength strong ties: family, close friends weak ties: acquaintances strong ties lend support and companionship but weak ties are surprisingly advantageous Strength of Weak Ties: Mark Granovetter: did research on how managers find jobs found that when managers heard of jobs through personal contacts, it was through weak ties, not strong weak ties provide access to more distant people and opportunities "The Strength of Weak Ties:" his book, rejected at first, bt became a success his second time around The Human Network: humanity forms a single network but how connected is it? we each live in our own relatively small networks, but... Average of 6 degrees of separation (connection) between everyone in the world (7.7 billion people). It's a small world: 1967: Stanley Milgram had people in Omaha send a letter THROUGH FRIENDS to a man in Boston Letters arrived in approximately 6 steps Since then, better research by Duncan Watts and others based on email messages sent around the world shows that the entire world is, on average, 6 degrees of separation apart weak ties create a path which connect distant parts of the network Christakis and Fowler: World has 6 degrees of connectedness (separation) But how many degrees of influence/contagion? 3 degrees of influence/contagion. Their research: Christakis: former MD, worked with people who were dying Spouses were the most contagious Analyzed records of the Framingham Heart Study, 1948-present Past relationships of 12,000 people with 50,000+ ties Find that obese people tend to be friends with each other But obesity spreads further by contagion/influence Contagion: Is your friend's friend's friend becomes obese And lives 1,000 miles away You are more likely to become obese And if that 3rd degree contact loses weight, you are more likely to lose weight Emotions are contagious too Happiness: person 15% more likely to be happy if directly connected to a happy person 10% more likely at 2 degrees of separation 6% more likely at 3 degrees Once you get to 4 degrees, no effect Contrast: earning an additional $10,000 increases average happiness only 2% Even people who are 3 degrees removed from you, who you have never met, have more influence on your happiness than $10,000! Obesity: peope had even greater % effects than happiness Also: quitting smoking, loneliness, suicide Why? Probably several reasons but most likely because of: Social acceptance of behavior: what's normal Ex. A stops exercising and gains weight That influences her friend, B's, thinking about what is normal weight So B is less likely to urge C to not gain weight Thus, A has influenced C's weight gain Centrality: some actors are more central in networks than others when they have more ties to people who have more ties, they are in the center when all your contacts know each other (high transivity), you are in the center the more central you are, the more affected you are by what flows through the network happiness, health, or... suicide, disease Greater than us: Our ties to others form a network that is greater than any one of us And the shape of which we cannot know Yet, it influences us for good or evil Superorganism: C and F see us as belonging to a superorganism Similar to a flock of birds No central director controlling flight Yet all fly in the same direction Delinquency: strength of ties affects other behavior as well ex. crime one theory holds that crime occurs among those who have stronger ties to criminals than non-criminals ex. juvenile delinquency research: the higher the % of a teen's friends who are delinquent, the more likely a teen is to be delinquent Summary: networks are systems of ties, direct or indirect, stronger or weaker stronger ties helps explain what people do and believe (politics, religion) weak ties connect different parts of network, reducing the average degree of separation

the most likely reason why you're affected by contagion is...

Social Acceptance of Behavior - your perception of what is normal when person A gets obese, person B more likely to think THAT is a normal weight

Social Class

Social Class We tend to deny that classes exist. This is a mistake, because differences are clear. Class: a large group of people who occupy a similar economic position in society. Some characteristics: 1. Classes: large and impersonal (not showing feelings): based on money and job 2. Class position in industrial societies is partly achieved: not simply ascribed at birth -Contrast with the agrarian caste system/ slavery 3. Class systems are fluid: boundaries are not clear cut -hence, no consensus on how to divide classes -upper, mid, lower, or more categories -One table organizes it like a pyramid: underclass, working poor, working class, lower middle class, upper middle class, upper class BUT, there are clear differences between, say, Palm Beach wealthy and Appalachian poor -Class is a convenient shorthand term for these differences

Restricted more often low/working class and elaborated more often middle/upper class, BUT....

The differences between restricted and elaborated ARE NOT caused by social class. THE CAUSE is intimacy/solidarity. -ex of how this is proven: high class doctors still use restricted language that only they understand.

Sociologists mainly study...

The distribution of wealth (inequality, stratification)

The greater someone's religious capital...

The less likely they will reaffiliate/convert. Religious capital is someone's attachment to a particular religion.

Walker

The person who Bergesen references about the actual data research to prove he was right about the changes in solidarity causing the changes in music codes (restricted vs elaborated)

poverty can mean one of two things:

absolute poverty: about income: you can't afford basic necessities relative poverty: about inequality: you have way less money than everyone else

social network

an organied set of people that consist of 2 kinds of elements: human beings and the connections between them.

Why Do conservatives and progressives sometimes believe the opposite of what their names imply?

because politics has become very tribal most people believe what their political tribe believes:

Nicholas A. Christakis, MD, PhD James H. Fowler, PhD Connected The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and how they shape our lives

began by being interested in simplest social network: pair of people: a dyad husbands and wives all kinds of dyads connected (not separated) by backyard fence dyads form huge webs of ties stretching far into the distance social influence does not end w the people we know we began by studying health effects it was to the ties that we turned out focus our interest in these topics contrast to interests of many scholars the nodes in OUR networks are thinking human beings! networks: the person on the street thinks about them too, especially because of the appearance of the internet, which gives everyone a notion of how people are interconnected as we studied social networks more deeply, we began to think of them as a kind of human superorganism we lose some power over our own decisions just as brains can do things that no single neuron can do, so can social networks do things no single person can do 2 camps: those who think individuals are in control of detinies, and those who believe social forces (lack of public education, corrupt gov) are responsible 3rd factor missing: our connections to people matter most. link the study of individuals to study of groups In mountain village of Levie, Corsica in 1840s, anton killed his wife. caused her brother to kill his nephew. brother of nephew killed his brother. it gos on and on. kimmy, exotic dancer, beat up the friend of the person who stole her purse violence can spread through social ties. directed fashion or generalized fashion violence tends to be public initioal step accounts for most of the violence in our society social network also includes those who might save your life an amazing ten links long took place between unrelated kidney donors "violence interruptors." try to stop the killing by breaking the cycle of transmission. rush to bedsides of victims or to homes of victims, encouraging them not to seek revenge. bucket brigades and telephone trees: bucket brigade: your hundred neighbors form a line from river to your house, passing full buckets of water toward you house and empty to the river Group: defined by an attribute (women, democrats) or as a specific collection of individuals we can point to. A social network is altogether different. While a network, like a group, is a collection of people, it includes something more: a specific set of CONNECTIONS between people in the group. These ties are more important than the individuals themselves. telephone tree: designed to spread info to many people simultaneously, creating a cascade set off a chain of events just as person who donated the heart that was transplanted into John Lavis inspired his family to donate their organs, saving 8 more lives allows a single swindler to cheat thousands of people. in ponzi schemes, money flows up a structure like a telephone tree. bernie madoff had swindled 50 billion from thousands of investors. bucket brigade: 100 people, 99 ties every person (except first and last) connected to 2 people by mutual tie (non directional), buckets pass in both directions telephone tree: 100 people, 99 ties everyone (except first and last in tree) is connected to 3 people. person who called them and the 2 they call. no mutual ties. flow of info is directional and so are the ties. 100 soldiers: groups of 10. eahc member knows every other member of the squad, so each person has 9 ties. 100 people, 450 ties. not 900 ties because each tie counts once for the 2 people it connects. lines w arrows indicate a directional relationship. otherwise, ties are mutual network community: people who are much more connected to one another than they are to other groups of connected people gound in other parts of the network. the communities are defined by structural connections, not necessarily by any particular shared traits. social network: an organied set of people that consist of 2 kinds of elements: human beings and the connections between them. organization not impoed from the top those who are more interconnected in the center and those who are less interconnected at periphery when your friends and family become better connected to each other, increases your level of connection to the whole social network (centralizes you). we can also measure centrality by counting not just the number of your friends, but also the number of your friends' friends, and so on. unlike bucket brigade where everyone feels their position is the same, here, people are located in diff kinds of places within network refer to picture: A's 4 friends are more likely to know one another (their are ties between them), whereas none of B's friends know each other. A has greater TRANSIVITY. also, even thoughC and D both have 6 friends, C is more central because C's friends have many friends themselves network shape, also known as structure or topology, is a basic property of network Perhaps some groups of buttons will be connected to each other but separated from other groups. these groups (even those that consist of a single unconnected button) are called components of the network. when we illustrate networks, we represent only the largest component (in this case, the one w the most buttons). if we were to select one button from one component and pick it up off the floor, all other buttons attached to it, directly or indirectly, woud also be lifted into the air. topology would be exactly the same. each button has the same relational position to other particular buttons that it had before. its location on the network is the same. organic networks have a structure, complexity not found in organized networks. rules of life in the network: 2 fundamental aspects of social networks first, there is connection (separation). particular pattern of ties that connects the people involved, the topology. ties are complicated. second, there is contagion (influence), which pertains to what, if anything, flows across the ties. rules regarding connection and contagion (structure and function) principles explain how ties can cause the whole to be greater Rule 1: we shape our networks humans deliberately make and remake their social networks all the time homophily: the conscious or unconscious tendency to associate with people who resemble us but we also choose the structure of our networks in 3 important ways: 1. we decide how many people we are connected to 2. we influence how densely interconnected our friends and family are to each other 3. we control how central we are in the social network we found the average american has just 4 close social contacts, with most having between 2 and 6 core discussion network size decreases as we age no overall difference between men and women network size those with a college degree have core networks nearly twice as large as those who did not finish high school If you know Alexi and Alexi knows Lucas, and Lucas knows you, we say this relationship is TRANSITIVE, the 3 people form a triangle those with high transivity are usually near the center, are usually deeply embedded within a single group those without transivity act as a bridge between diff groups typical american probability that any 2 of your social contacts know each other: 52% it's a small world Rule 2: our network shapes us our place in the network affects us, in turn mere number os coail contacts can affect you 1st born children score a few points higher in terms of intelligence than second born children transivity can affect everything transiivity ex.: divorce. if a child's parents are married (connected), they talk to each other, but if they are divorced (disconnected), they do not how many contacts your friends and family have. if they have a lot, you become central. becoming central maeks you susceptible to whatever is fowing within the network. ex. gossip or disease Rule 3: our friends affect us people typically have many direct ties to a wide variety of people students with studious rooomates become more studious Rule 4: our friends' friends' frienda affect us people we dont even know can influence us illustration of hyperdadic spread, the tendency of effects to spread from person to person (3 degrees) contagion: if one person has something and comes into contact with another person, that contact is enough for the second person to get it if you are told a piece of info, anottehr person telling you the same thing does not add much some things require a more complex process that involves reinforcement by multiple social contacts Stanley Milgram experiment: decisions of passerby to copy a bhevaior were influenced by the size of the corwd exhibitin it. while one person looking up influenced 42% of passerby to look up, 15 people looking up influenced 86% of passerby to look up Rule 5: the network has a life of its own study the group and its structure, not isolated individuals examples include the notion of culture ppeople can exhibit complicated shared behaviors without coordination or awareness one that flips from one state to another (like a tree that is either on fire or not) depends on what others are doing around it (are nearby trees on fire?) ex. flock of birds. there is no central control of movement. but the group manifests a collective intelligence. property of groups. social networks obey rules of their own, rules that are distinct from people who form them emergent properties are new attributes of a whole that arise from the interaction and interconnection of the parts 6 degrees of separation and 3 degrees of influence: people are all connected to one another by an average of 6 degrees of separation. your firend 1 degree away, your friends' friend 2, so on. stanley milgram experiment with letters Omaha to Boston (and another experiment w emails around the world) found it took roughly 6 steps on average 3 degrees of influence 3 possible reasons our influence is limited 1. Intrinsic Decay Explanation: like little waces, the influence we have on others may eventually peter out. 2. network instability explanation: influence may decline because of an unavoidable evolution in the netowkr that makes links beyond 3 unstable. ties in networks do not last forever. friends stop being friends. people die. if any of the 3 ties are cut, you lost at least 1 pathway between you. 3. Evolutionary Purpose Explanation: evolutionary biology. humans have evolved in small groups in which everyone would have been connected to everyone else by 3 degrees or less. we have not lived in large groups long enough for evolution to have favored people who can extend their influence beyond 3 degrees. in our human past, there was no one who was 4 degrees removed from us. each of usreach about halfway to everyone else on the planet connection and contagion are the structure and function of social networks Connected: social networks help us to achieve what we could not achieve on our own not always positive magnify whatever they are seeded with creative. and what these networks create does not belong to any individual. it is shared by all those in the network if you are happier or richer or healthier than others, it may have a lot to do with where you happen to be in the network, even if you cannot discern your own location. and it may hve a lot to do with the overall structure of the network. the process feeds back to the nwtrok itself. a person with many friends becomes rich and then attracts more friends. reinforce different kinds of inequality in society: situational inequality (some are better off socioeconomically) and positional inequality (some are vbetter off in terms of where they are located in the networks). lawmakers have still not yet considered consequences of positional inequality. still, undertsnaiding the way we are connected essential in implementing public policies it is about individuals AND groups, and about how the former actually becomes the latter if we do not understand social networks, we cnanot hope to fully undrstand eithe rourselves or the world we inhabit

fragile families

cohabiting people raising children together

weak ties...

connect diff parts of network AND reduce average degrees of separation

What do national disasters do?

national disasters can bring a country together (WWII, or 9/12, the day after 9/11, was one of the most unified days in nation's history) but once the disaster ends, divisions reappear if Bishop is right, they will not go away soon divisions are built into the polarized communities we have created get used to the shouting!

Sara McLanahan and Dona Schwartz: Life Without Father: What Happens to the Children?

over half of all children born in US today will, if current trends continue, live apart from at least one of their biological parents (usually the father) before they reach adulthood. A substantial proportion (about 1/5) will never live with their fathers. Ethnic minorities are common. (ex. more black people than white people grow up in 1 parent houses) 1960s: most people viewed divorce as leading to delinquency, school failure, and social problems 1970s: pendulum swung in opposite direction. leading sociologists argued that single motherhood was just another lifestyle reflecting women's growing economic independence and freedom to leave unhappy marriages. 1980s and on: although most children of divorced parents do alright, growing up without a father increases risks of undesirable outcomes disadvantaged. more likely to drop out of high school, less likely to attend college, less likely to graduate college. girls more likely to be sexually active. boys have trouble finding jobs. this phenomenon: similar for all socioeconomic backgrounds. white/middle class kids actually do worse because they lose more! children of widowed mothers fare better. eligible for social security, and a child is less likely to feel rejected by a parent who dies than one who left.. children in stepfamilies fare no better and sometimes worse. cohabitation: we know little about these effects lack of established societal guidelines in stepfamilies. parents and children in stepfamilies negotiate over their rights. some researchers claim that biological parenthood benefits children more for GENETIC reasons. we know that conflict is bad for children, and parents who divorce experience more conflict. however, conflict is not the whole story, and neither is income. other outcomes: -due to flaws in character/gene of one or both parents. ex. alcoholism/depression. can cause family instability AND poor outcome for children. -those who grew up in states with easy access to divorce obtained less education and had lower incomes as adults, compared to children who grew up in states that discouraged divorce. Compare children who have the same parents but experience diff family structures. Sibling differences can occur if parents divorce after 1st child grows up but before last child leaves home. in families like these, both parents fare bad. problem is with the parents, not the divorce itself! 3 general factors account for disadvantage associated w/ father absense: 1. economic deprivation 2. poor parenting 3. lack of social support 1. parential income determines quality of educationn half of families headed by single mothers live below poverty line, as opposed to 10 percent of 22 parent families 2. many men respond by diengaging from children father's absense may also affect quality of mother-child relationship depression and psychological distress, interferes with good mothering undermines discipline some single mothers become too lenient and others too strict 3. loss of social support sustaining web of facilities, programs, people, and care providers that back of parent's efforts is likely to decline whn families are forced to move the longer a family resides in the same community or neighborhood, the more likely the parent is to know about opportunities for the child even children who do not move may lose touch with people and other vakueable resources. ex. many children lose access to their father's family and friends The US is not the only country that has experienced increased in divorce. more common in scandinavian countries. but conditions are different. poverty rates are diff. most of difference is due to welfare policies. in US, barely any gov assistance pafirst, we ca make sure that parents are infomrmed about the potential risks associated with the father's departure from the family second, we can make sure that social policies do not discourage marriage -gov contains marriage penalties. they give ore money to people whoare alone third, we can insist that fathers support their children even when they live elsewhere -insist that fathers support their children even when they live elswhere child support enforcement is a win win policy, which is one reason it is supported by both parties in congress since welfare benefits are reduced by one dollar for each dollar of child support a mother receives, child support conditions do not improve the economic status of children in welfar ehousehods. real joint custody is hard to sustain what does seem to help is a close father child relationship, which depends on parents' abilit to minimize conflict after divorce some states mandate parent workshops and counseling at time of divorce to inform parents of benefits to children of maintaining a positive coooperating relatioshiip we should be doing more for fragile families (cohabitating families: unmarried [arents raising a child together). policies can support republican and democrat wants/needs

homophily

the conscious or unconscious tendency to associate with people who resemble us

tendency to interact only with like minded people is compounded by....

the internet

hyperdadic spread

the tendency of effects to spread from person to person (3 degrees)

Chambliss "The Saints and the Roughnecks" is really about...

the transmission of class from one generation to the next (transmits society to the teens, the way they brand them, affects their futures)

selection effect

those who cohabit have similar characteristics to those who divorce (ex. aren't religious).

Inequality is a better predictor of behavior than income is. true or false?

true

Barbara Ehrenreich: Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America

undercover journalist had certain low paid "unskilled jobs" 6 jobs required concentration new skills none of these things came easy to me each job had a self contained social world physically demanding she had: punctuality, cleanliness, cheerfulness, obedience but the real question is how she did at life in general, which includes having a place to stay/eating it was uniformly assumed that a job was the ticket out of poverty and the only thing holding back welfare recipients was their reluctance to go out and get one. wanted to see if this was true i made some mistakes, but they were the same mistakes other people were making. working at walmart better than a better paying job, living in residential motels WAGES ARE TOO LOW AND RENTS ARE TOO HIGH problem of rents: its a market when the rich and the poor compete for housing on open market, the poor don't stand a chance poor have necessarily been forced into housing that is more dilapidated, far from work poor people must live in city (cheaper housing) and commute to work in suburbs (where the rich live) official poverty rate is 13% or so, but this is not correct. more people are poor than this things are the same for the rich. but rents are going up for the type of housing that the poor can afford wages are not sensitive to market forces "labor shortage" yet wages for people near the bottom of the labor market remain fairly flat and stagnant. employers do not want to raise wages in fact, wages have risen, or did rise, anyway, between 1996 and 1999 poorest 10% of american workers saw their wages rise but the increases that seem to have mollified many economists DID NOT IMPRESS ME they have not been sufficient to bring low wage workers up to the amount they were earning 27 years ago of all workers, the poorest have made the least progress back to their 1973 wage levels while wages at bottom ARE going up, they are NOT going up very quickly productivity (which is connected to wages) has been rising a lot, so workers should be getting much more than they are most obvious reason why they aren't is that employers resist wage increases many employers will offer almost anything (free meals, transportation, discounts) rather than raise wages. extras can be shed more easily. advantage is that it seems like a gift and can be withdrawn without explanation. so why don't employees demand higher wages/seek out better paying jobs? after all, the assumption behind supply and demand is that workers will sort themselves out, gravitating toward better paying jobs. "economic man" is supposed to do whatever it takes, within certain limits, to maximize his economic advantage. why didn't they just leave for better paying jobs? -humans experience friction. poorer you are, the more constrained your mobility is. ex. you don't have a car. also, at new job, you would have to start all over, clueless and friendless. -also, for laws of economics to work, players need to be informed about their options -but there aren't any palm pilots, cable chanels, web sites to advise low wage job seeker. she only has help wanted signs. -"money taboo:" a major factor preventing workers from optimizing earnings. no one wants to reveal what they earn or how they got it. tabooo operates most effectively among lowest paid people. some employers keep workers from discussing and comparing wages. national labor relations act of 1935 makes it illegal to punish people for revealing wages to each other, but the practice persists anyway. why don't more people take a stand where they are, demanding better wages/conditions? -some companies convince workers to feel like "associates" and team members -surrendering one's basic civil rights and self respect. ex. examine a worker's purse. drug testing and personality testing. rules against gossip and unionizing. punishments, such as having schedules and work assignments changed, or being fired. low wage workers WORK AT WILL, meaning at will of employer, and are subject to dismissal without explanation. If you are constantly reminded of your lowly position in social hierarchy, you start to believe it yourself and accept your unfortunate status, avoiding fighting in self defense. part of what keeps wages low. if you're made to feel unworthy enough, you come to think what you're paid is your actual worth. these people experienced management as an obstacle to getting things done as they should be. left to themselves, they devised systems of corperation and work sharing. vicious cycle at work: extreme inequality for reasons that have more to do with class, prejudice than with actual experience, they tend to fear/distrust the category of people from which they recruit their workers. hence the perceived need for repressive management and intrusive measures like drug and personality testing. and these things cost money, so the cost of this repression results in even more pressure to hold wages down. never ending cycle. reinforcement. condemns us to deeper inequality, and in long run, no one benefits but the agents of repression themselves but whatever keeps wages low, the result is that many people earn far less than they need to live on employers will look at 30,000 figure (considered bare minimum to live), which is over twice what they currently pay workers, and see nothing but bankruptcy ahead impossible for private sector to provide everyone w/ adequate standard of living most civilized nations compensate for inadqeuacy of wages by providing relatively generous public services such as child care, housing, transportation. but in US, for all its wealth, still leaves citizens to fend for themselves it is common, among the non poor, to think of poverty as a sustainable condition. "they get by somehow" they are emergency situations of subsistence. And this is how we should see the poverty of millions of low wage americans summer of 2000: returned to her customary place in socioeconomic spectrum to go from bottom 20% to top 20% is to enter a magical world where needs are met, problems solved top 20%: professional managerial class decision makers, politicians, opinion sharers, culture creators, professors, lawyers, executives, entertainers, judges, writers, producers, editors when they speak, they are listened to if they complain enough, someone far below them in wealth and influence will be fired

the 6 degrees of separation (milgram) experiment was made possible by...

weak ties

TRANSIVITY.

when your friends and family become better connected to each other, increases your level of connection to the whole social network (centralizes you).

McLanahan and Schwarts found that...

90% of kids from 2 parent households and 80% from 1 parent households complete high school

Since the 60s (1970-2014), inequality (money) within the black community has....

GONE UP

Robert D Putnam: Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis

Went back to Ohio but his city was gone In 1950s, a passable embodiment of American Dream, offered opportunity for all kids in town, whatever their background Half century later, life in port Clinton, Ohio, is a split screen American nightmare Sadly, typical of America Socioeconomic barriers in America (and port Clinton) in 1950s we're at their lowest: economic and education expansion we're high, income equality high, class segregation low, opportunities for kids born in low class were high Port Clinton today is a place of stark class divisions. Wealthy kids park BMW convertibles in high school lot next to hunkers that homeless classmates drive away each night to live in Kids of all races and genders denied promise of American Dream Don: White working class kid Quarterback Poor side of town Didn't know he was poor until he went to college Met everyone as an equal Minister helped don figure out college process Frank: Came from one of few wealthy families Neighbors: nice mix of everyone Interacted w classmates as a social equal Class Disparities in 1950s: Class differences not absent, bu from now they were muted Similar homes mix d in schools and churches Class contrasts that matter today were minimal then Few families were poverty stricken Few kids in town who came from wealthy backgrounds made an effort to hide it Few of our families experience joblessness Most classmates active in clubs Classmates experienced upward mobility in adulthood Obtained more education in Jan our parents 2 black students got masters degrees Comparison; children of members of this class will experience no education advance beyond their parents Even relative mobility was high then Lots of upward mobility from the bottom up Mentors encouraged us to go to college, we did Locally raised scholarships Of our class, 2/3 we're first in their families to attend college, and 1/3 were the first to even graduate high school Social history was about to reverse course, though Port Clinton in 1950s was a site of extraordinary upward mobility. Transmitters of socio colonic status that are so potent today (economic insecurity, family instability) were unimportant, the transmission process was weaker, and mobility was higher. In the depth of community support we enjoyed, we were rich Gender and race? Libby Academically, Libby's parents set high expectations for their children and Libby lives up to them Dropped out of college, returned home, got married, started a family, settled down as a civic minded housewife When the marriage ended after 20 years, proved resilient Clerk in lumeryard, writer for newspaper, head of a nonprofit group, county wide office, pastor Libby's gender was a serious impediment to her upward mobility. But her modest class origins were not Gender massively affects those who COMPLETED college No gender winnowing until college, and then extreme gender winnowing Women dropping out to get married Men were less likely to marry, and if they did, they stayed in school Would change dramatically in ensuing decades Nowadays, women are more likely to graduate college than men. On the other hand, 50 years ago, family background had very little to do with who finished college, and nowadays it makes a huge difference What about race, then and now? Jesse and Cheryl Only 2 black students Jesse focused on athletics Masters degree Principal in LA educational system Poor racially mixed neighborhood We never had problems. Everybody was trying to live and it wasn't about what color you were Backdrop was the wider society. Others would ostracize you Cheryl says she encountered little overt racism growing up What bothered her was the lack of socializing across racial lines Teaching or social work If she had some exposure, she would not have been a teacher, because there are so many other things you could do. But not in the 1960s There was much racism in port Clinton in 50s, more subtle than in other parts of America though. Port Clinton, like America, has made progress toward racial equality in last half century Class structure DID NOT prevent them from achieving upward mobility Racism and sexism, gender/race equality was high, then fell Class inequality was low, then rose Inequality in US increasingly operates through education Black parents in America remain concentrated among the poor and less educated, so black children continue to be handicapped from the start Black children live in poorer neighborhoods, experience less upward mobility So, gender and racial biases remain powerful, but as barriers to success, they would be less of an obstacle today 21 century class disparities: Almost half of us headed to college, others stayed and expected to get a job Manufacturing foundation trembled in 1970s Payroll was trimmed Layoffs Population stagnated Commutes to jobs get longer, and disparate workers seek employment elsewhere Juvenile delinquency rates skyrocket Local economic collapse Rate of unwed births explodes Child poverty skyrockets Same years have whiteness the birth of a new upper class Possible to walk in 10 minutes from wealthy estates on shoreline to impoverished trailer parks Number of residents at both top and bottom increased, and middle slumped Chelsea: Large white home Worked hard in high school Always knew she would go to college David: Father in prison Mother moved out Had hard time getting a job because of juvenile record Wants a higher education but doesn't know how to get there. Recalls no helpful guidance counselor Fended for himself Opportunity gap has widened Inequality in America: the broader picture: Equality of income and wealth: Americans not worried about it Equality of opportunity and social mobility: this is more the focus. Whether young people from diff backgrounds are getting onto the ladder at the same place We are philosophical conservatives: we think the individusl's wellbbeing rests chiefly with him or her But the 21st century surveys showed creeping pessimism about the chances for upward mobility Most Americans have believed (until recently) that equality of opportunity characterized our society (that the American Dream endures) Toward 2 America's? As century opened, inequality was high. But then 1910-1970, inequality went down (became more equal). 1945-1970: poverty rates fell, income rose, inequality dropped. Early 1970s, decade long equalizing trend began to reverse. 1980s the top began to pull away from everyone else.in first decades of 21st century, very top pulled away from the top. Even within major ethnic/racial groups, inequality rose. Average income grew more for top households Income trends especially divergent among men with diff levels of education Causes debated. Globalization, technological change, consequent increase in returns to education, de unionization, superstar compensation, changing social norms, and public policy are some explanations People are more aware of rising inequality now, though they still underestimate it Since 1980s, mortality has declined among college educated white women but has increased among white women with less than a high school degree Poor women less happy Now, fewer and fewer of us are exposed to people outside our niche Sorting of households into distinct neighborhoods by income was significantly higher in 2010 than it was in 1970. Educational segregation Since 1970s, class based school segregation Schoolchildren from top half of income distribution attend private schools or live in better districts Kids from top attend highly selective college Marriage: People tend to marry others like them The more permeable the boundary, the more likely that young people will meet mates on the other side This is happening less nowZ people just marry people in their own social class. Recent decades: increasingly religious and racial intermarriage has reflected and reinforced the lowering of religious and racial barriers in America. What about intermarriage across class boundaries? During first half of century, marrying outside your social class became more common. THEN it became less common again. People marry people with educational backgrounds similar to theirs Gap between rich and poor narrowed during first half of century, then grew again Ripple effect of endogamy, that one's kin networks today are likely to be from the same class background as themself Separate and unequal worlds, removing stepping stones to upward mobility Equality of Opportunity: Absolute mobility: overall Relative mobility: relatie to others Relative mobility accounts for only a small portion of total mobility experienced by individuals During peiods of high growth in income or education, many people from lower class backgrounds will experience absolute upward mobility In principle, a society might have both high absolute and relative mobility. My classmates benefited from both American youth now have worst of both worlds: low of both After WW2, absolute mobility is unusually high Absolute mobility has stalled since 1970s, because both economic and educational advancements have stalled Conventional method of assessing mobility compare's a child's income or education when they are in 30s and 40s with their parents income/education when they were in their 30s and 40s We've been veering further away from equality of opportunity for several decades. But if so, we won't detect that slowing of upward mobility for another decade or so Education has been increasingly important for good job and income Education a more powerful predictor of child related outcomes than income Education: upper class homes No education beyond high sxhool: low class homes

Engogamy

marriage within your class

Socialization

process of acquiring culture

Trends in US families

1. Marriage Has gone down 2. Divorce Has gone down -Divorce increased 70s-90s, but since the 90s, has decreased 3. Cohabitation Has gone up -1960: 2.9 million -2016: 18 million -highest among 25-34 year olds, and 50+ year olds who are divorced -cohabitation slightly raises risks of divorce. selection effect: those who cohabit have similar characteristics to those who divorce (ex. aren't religious). 4. 1 Parent Families Has gone up 1960: 9% 2016: 27% -these houses are increasing, while 2 parent houses decreasing! Does it matter? Some say yes, some say no. % of children born to an unwed mother: 1960: total: 5% white: 2% black: 20% % of children born to an unwed mother: 2014: total: 40% white: 29% black: 71% About 40% of unwed mothers today are cohabiting And some will either later cohabit/marry Still, a high % of kids who are born to unwed moms (50%) end up growing up for some/all of their childhoods in 1 parent households -Most children in 1 parent households live with mother (80%)

5 benefits of being rich:

1. You have admirers 2. You have more say 3. You have more privacy 4. You have more trust (people trust you) 5. You are healthier

3 general factors account for disadvantage associated w/ father absense:

1. economic deprivation 2. poor parenting 3. lack of social support

3 possible reasons our degrees of influence is limited

3 possible reasons our influence is limited 1. Intrinsic Decay Explanation: like little waces, the influence we have on others may eventually peter out. 2. network instability explanation: influence may decline because of an unavoidable evolution in the netowkr that makes links beyond 3 unstable. ties in networks do not last forever. friends stop being friends. people die. if any of the 3 ties are cut, you lost at least 1 pathway between you. 3. Evolutionary Purpose Explanation: evolutionary biology. humans have evolved in small groups in which everyone would have been connected to everyone else by 3 degrees or less. we have not lived in large groups long enough for evolution to have favored people who can extend their influence beyond 3 degrees. in our human past, there was no one who was 4 degrees removed from us.

Annette Lareau: Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families and White Families

Annette Lareau Recent decades: sociological knowledge about inequality in family life has increased dramatically 3 key dimensions may be distinguished: organization of daily life, the use of language, and social connections Concerted Cultivation: parent actively fosters and assesses child talents, opinions, skills multiple leisure activities are orchestrated by adults reasoning/directives child contestation of adult statements extended negotiations between parents and child weak extended family ties. child often in homogeneous age groupings often there's so many extracurricular activities that there's no time to visit extended family criticisms and interventions on behalf of the child. Training of child to intervene on his or her own behalf emerging sense of entitlement on part of the child Natural Growth: parent cares for child and allows child to grow (naturally, spontaneously) child hangs out particularly with kin directives: rare for child to question or challenge adults. general acceptance by child of directives strong extended family ties. child often in heterogeneous age groupings dependence on institutions, distrust of institutions sense of powerlessness and frusteration conflict between childrearing practices at home and school emerging sense of constraint (limitation) on part of the child Impact of childrearing strategies on interactions w/ institutions: middle class parents exert influence over adults. usually get what they want. people respond to that strong attitude poorer working class parents were confused and intimidated Entitlement: Alexander William's mother, like many middle class mothers, explicitly teaches her son to be informed, assertive with professionals Tremendous ease interacting w/ doctor Ms. Williams is honest w/ doctor. Doctor acknowledges her relative power and "argues for" continuation of medicine ease assertve complained customized accomodation to suit preferrences Emerging signs of constraint: cautious and constrained this unease is evidence during a physical that harold mcallister has before going to bible camp ms mcallister knowledge of development of harold's life is uneven at times, the parents encourage their children to resist the school authority children could be energetic, but they did not try to customize depends on school, even when they do not trust it professionals applaud assertiveness and reject passivity middle class parents usually got what they wanted Discussion: the evidence shows that class position influences critical aspects of family life: time use, language use, and kin ties middle class kids think they are special so crowded with activities that there was little time left to visit relatives working class family: parents establish limits. within those limits, children were free to fashion their own past times. children's wishes did not guide adults' actions frequent interactions w/ relatives rather than acquaintances or strangers created a thicker divide between families and the outside world. kids keep their distance from people in authority, and at times resist authority role of race in daily life is less powerful than expected but when they grow up, race begins to have a bigger effect it is a mistake to see either parenting style as a desirable approach middle class kids are less likely to fill empty time with creative play. leads to dependence on their parents to solve boredom.

Phelan et al reading:

A little more complex Talks about "intervening mechanisms." Variables that exist between cause (SES) and effect (health). And help explain why cause and effect are related. -Ex. One reason why poor people have worse health: they smoke more. Smoking is an intervening mechanism.

Independent variable: Relationality (social polarization; the big sort)

Dependent variable: Political polarization (tribalism) More interaction w/ like minded others causes more extreme values. (relationality causes our values, beliefs) % of people who live in landslide counties has increased signigificantly since 1970s

Economic Mobility

Economic mobility Most Americans will tolerate a good deal of inequality provided there is economic mobility (a chance for everyone to move up the ladder). US: 42% of children born into bottom quintile stay there. Europe (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, UK): only a 25-30% chance of staying there. L If you are born poor in US, you have less chance of climbing out of relative poverty than a poor person in these other countries. This is a big change OECD: "Significantly lower rates of upward mobility from the bottom of the distribution in the US compared to Nordic countries."

William J. Chambliss: The Saints and the Roughnecks

Saints: 8 promising young men (children of good, stable, white middle class families) were some of the most delinquent boys at Hannibal high school not one was officially arrested for any misdeed during 2 years i observed them Roughnecks: 6 lower class white boys. constantly in trouble w/ police and community even though their rates of delinquency were equal Saints: avg number avoiding school on days I observed them: 5 went to a pool hall on one side of town or cafe on the other drinking heavily, driving drunk, vandalism, pranks viewed themselves as having a little fun, and who was hurt by it? no one officially hurt, but it is unlikely that in 2 years of drunk driving and vandalism that no one was injured In school: successful group B average almost all boys popular, held offices, played sorts teachers saw no problem, thought they'd make something of themselves teachers may have been understanding, gave them benefit of the doubt one exception to gang's generally good performance: Jerry: C average, did not graduate high school on time Police: local police saw them as good boys wamong the leaders of the youth community the boys always pled for mercy. polite. as in school, they received the mercy they asked for Roughnecks: theft and violence everyone agreed that the not well dressed, not well mannered boys were heading for trouble constantly involved w/ police. some picked up for stealing community's impression was distorted. mainly engaged in 3 types of delinquency: theft, fighting, drinking community thought drinking and fighting were the primary things. mistakenly didn't think the theft was that common. it was more serious than anyone realized theft for profit, not thrills jack had tendency for violence they all stole cars for joy rides ron tried to burglarize a gas station, got shot by owner, recovered, served 6 months community's perception of drinking as prevalent stemmed from the fact tat it was the most obvious delinquency the boys engaged in there was a high level of mutual distrust and dislike between roughnecks and police. the boys felt very strongly that the police were unfair and corrupt the police would harass the group police knew they engaged in criminal acitvities over the period that the group was under observation, each member arrested at least once 2 were sentenced to 6 months didn't hang around together at school most attended school regularly, took it with minimum effort one threatened to beat up a teacher incapable of meeting academic standards group of boys had GPA slightly above a C 2 boys were good football players: Jack and Herb 2 Questions: Why did community react differently to 2 groups? Why did the 2 groups have different careers after high school? In number of illegal acts: saints more delinquent -saints did things more regularly in expensiveness of acts (amount stolen or broken) and in violence: roughnecks more delinquent. Visibility: one gang was infinitely more visible than the other saints had a better economic standing: better access to automobiles to go far from community's sight roughnecks had to walk downtown. crowded area sants also went far to Big City: another city Roughnecks much more visible Demeanor: sants apologetic to police roughnecks were hostile to police Bias: visibility, demeanor, and bias are surface variables which explain the day to day operations of the police police's experience w/ middle and lower class (ex. parents of middle class assured the police that pranks were innocent, things like that) made the police biased Adult Careers of Saints and Roughnecks: Community underestimated degree to which these youngsters would turn out "good" or "bad" 7 of 8 members of saints went on to college immediately after high school. 5 of the boys graduated from college in 4 years. 3 went on for advanced degrees. 1 finished law school and is now active in state politics, one finished medical school, one is working for a PhD. The other 4 college graduates entered manager training with large firms. Only saint who didnt complete college was Jerry. Jerry took a job as a used car salesman, got married, and quickly had a child. Jack and Herb got athletic scholarships to college Herb stopped hanging out with roughnecks so much. Jack got more violent Jack attempted suicide Survived. He and Herb graduated college and are both teaching and coaching, have wives and families 2 of the boys never finished high school. Tommy arrested for murder. Al arrested for murder. Wes is a bum and gambler and bookmaker. no one pays attention to him. No one knows anything about Ron. Reinforcement: the community responded to roughnecks as boys in trouble, and the boys agreed with that pattern of deviancy was reinforced once the boys acquired an image of themselves as deviants, they affirmed that: with their growing alienation came freer expression of disrespect and hostility for representatives of the ligitimate society. This disrespect increased the community's negativism. In either case, the process will perpetuate itself unless some event occurs: a change. In the case of one of the saints, jerry: his parents' divorce and his failing to graduate: changed things Herb and Jack: their outside intervenetion (getting athletic scholarships) worked to their advantage Herb and Jack, the outside intervention (change) worked to their advnatage. For Jerry, it was his undoing. Selective perception and labelling means that visible, poor, nonmobile, outspoken kids will be noticed, whether their actions are delinquent or not kids like saints will be invisible in this way when it's time to leave adolescence, most will follow the expected path, settling into the ways of middle class BUT for people like the roughnecks, its more likely that their noticeable deviance will have been reinforced by police and community that their lives will be effectively channelled into careers consistent with their adolescent backgrounds

Judges

if there is a panel of judges, and they are mostly republican, and they are talking to each other, their ideas are going to be reinforced, and become even more extreme, and they will vote in conservative ways.

Network community

people who are much more connected to one another than they are to other groups of connected people gound in other parts of the network. the communities are defined by structural connections, not necessarily by any particular shared traits.

poverty brings social invisibility, with one major exception:

Chambliss: School had 2 groups of deviant students: Saints and Roughnecks: one wealthier, one poorer Both groups broke the law, through somewhat diff ways Wealthier: more vandalistic acts Poorer: acts of thievery, violence Yet the poorer kids likley to be caught and brnaded as delinquents. Wealthier kids bennefited from greater privacy (ability to hide deviance), and an assumption that they were law abiding. This assumption is common in society: wealthy people don't "fit the profile" of a criminal. Faster labeling of lower income individuals as deviants can lead to long term failure (reinforcement). School-to-prison pipeline for poor and minorities. This paper is really about the transmission of class from one generation to the next.

situation inequality vs positional inequality

situational inequality (some are better off socioeconomically) and positional inequality (some are vbetter off in terms of where they are located in the networks). lawmakers have still not yet considered consequences of positional inequality. still, undertsnaiding the way we are connected essential in implementing public policies

Jo C. Phelan et al (and others, such as Bruce G. Link, and Parisa Tehranifar): Social Conditions as Fundamental Causes of Health Inequalities: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Interpretations Social Conditions (inequality) causes health/mortality, through the use of mechanisms

Link and Phelan (1995) developed theory of fundamental causes to explain why the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and mortality has persisted despite radical changes in the diseases ad risk factors that are presumed to explain it SES embodies an array of resources: money, knowledge, power, social connections... that protect health no matter what mechanisms are relevant at a given time we encourage medical and other health promoting advances while at the same time breaking or weakening the link between these advances and socioeconomic resources society's poorer and less privileged members live in worse health and die younger age adjusted risk of death for those in lowest socioeconomic level is double to triple that for the highest level strongly related to education major diseases and risk factors that appears to the account for the inequalities seen in earlier periods (deadly infectious diseases like dipheria, measles) have been eradicated. Rather than disappearing, socioeconomic status inequalities in mortality have persisted and now reflect new major causes of death including cancers and cardiovascular illnesses, fueled by risk factors such as poor diet, inadequate excursuses, smoking that are more common in lower SES groups fundamental cause theory developed over last 15 years rooted in Lieberson's concept of basic causes fundamental social cause of health inequalities has 4 essential features: 1. influences multiple disease outcomes. 2. affects disease outcomes through multiple risk factors. 3. involves access to flexible resources that can be used to avoid risks or minimize the consequences of disease once it occurs (high class). 4. association between fundamental cause and health is reproduced over time with the REPLACEMENT of intervening mechanisms (links between cause and effect). Because these resources can be used in diff ways in diff situations, we call them FLEXIBLE RESOURCES high social class: those with flexible resources (technology, knowledge) can easily find out about mechanisms (links). Ex. can develop screening method (resource) that will show link between SES and cancer (mechanism): smoking Screening rates for cervical and breast cancer are associated with education and income flexible resources that are central to fundamental cause theory operate at both the individual and contextual levels. At individual level, flexible resources can be conceptualized as "cause of causes" or "risk of risks" that shape individual health behaviors by influencing whether people know about, have access to, can afford, and receive social support for their efforts to engage in health enhancing behaviors groups: groups explicitly push for better health conditions status groups do not explicitly advocate for health cultural practices health knowledge generally leads to healthier lifestyles in higher status groups ex. in a high class school, more common to have fruit not donuts. it is not as if the people who order these snacks explicitly consider the health impact of their choices each time a decision is made. instead, cultural practices over time shape them to order the conventional. stuff happens over time, and automatically (people unaware) gives the rich an advantage. Inverse association between SES and mortality Low SES related to a multiplicity of diseases and other causes of death. Smoking, sedentiarness, and being overweight. Stressful life conditions. Crowded and unsanitary living conditions, unsanitary water, malnutrition Lutfey and Freese describe this component: MULTIPLICITY of mechanisms should be found CENTRAL to fundamental cause theory: the idea that resources are critical to maintaining a health advantage SES-health/mortality association was stronger for PREVENTABLE causes of death Other situations in which resources may be unhelpful or even harmful sometimes occur. Ex. situations when a medical reccommendation is discovered to be harmful. 4th essential feature of SES: replacement of mechanisms: true because of 2 sets of observations 1. SES-mortality association persisted over time despite the decline of mechanisms 2. New, previously weak or absent mechanisms currently link SES and mortality (smoking, exercise, diet, cardiovascular disease) New mechanisms arise followeing the development of new knowledge For the causes of death where little had been learned about treatment or prevention, mortality rates stayed steady, and the degree of inequality based on race and SES stays steady By contrast, for the causes of death where gains in treatment and prevention had been significant, overall mortality rates decline, while race and SES gradients shifted in the direction of relatively higher mortality for the less advantaged group. Gradients: increases, decreases That study found the decline in breast cancer incidence limited to white women aged 50 and older, who were residents of high income countries discovery of a causal link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, and eventually led to a strong socioeconomic gradient in smoking additionally, people of higher education were less likely to start smoking and more likely to quit, thereby generating a strong SES gradient in smoking behavior connections between particular developments in knowledge and technology surrounding specific diseases, on the one hand, and changes in SES related health gradients predicted by the theory, on the other educational gradients became larger for diseases where greater innovation had occured. evidence has accumulated that is consistent with each of the 4 components of fundamental cause theory. empirical testing of the theory is accelerating. fundamental cause theory's basic principle: a superior collection of flexible resources held by higher SES individuals and the collectivities to which they belong, allow those of higher SES to avoid disease and death in widely divergent circumstances... Leads to the prediction that, at any given time, greater resources will produce better health, and consequently, as long as resource inequalities will persist, health/mortality inequalities will persist. new knowledge and medical development about a disease will lead to a shift in the disease gradient in favor of high SES individuals and groups. not all knowledge will have identical impacts on the disease gradients. another reason for long term stability in SES-mortality association is that old mechanisms want to be replaced by new ones. Our aim is not only to strengthen the theory, but to understand how it may be possible to weaken new mechanisms connecting SES to disease/mortality/health, and how old ones may be undermined.

Economy

Wealth and it's distribution

The Human Reality: Putnam

Human Reality Gender and race inequality has declined But class inequality has increased Rich and poor now live in very different worlds Family, education, job, life quality Consequences: This inequality: 1. Increases undesirable behaviors (ex. Crime, addiction, obesity. The US has a lot of these things). 2. Undermines a cherished American ideal: equality of opportunity. -equality of outcome: everyone would have the same income. People don't care as much about this. People WANT equality of opportunity, and this is being taken away. 3. Reduces economic growth -more unemployment -now, gov has to pay for things like addiction therapy that come from undesirable behaviors 4. Weakens democracy -now, more people hate/distrust politicians -less voting participation now

Differences (what's a better measure than what)

Income is a better measure of poverty than wealth. Inequality is a better predictor of social behavior than income Education a more powerful predictor of child related outcomes than income

To see HOW the inequality has increased, we can look at....

Income quintiles. 20% slices. From 1979-2014, as economy grows, every quintile's wealth increases. BUT the rich's wealth increases much more!

Economy - inequality - summary

Summary 1. Incomes have risen for every quintile since 1980. All quintiles have more money now. 2. But the higher the percentile, the greater the increase of income. 3. Since most of income gains have gone to the wealthy, the gap between rich and everybody else has increased significantly. 4. Ant the US has less upward mobility for the poor than some European countries.

Who are the highest income earners?

Top 0.01% have a mean income of 35 million dollars. Who are they? 1. Top corporate executives -In 1978, the average CEO earned 26 times more than the average worker. By 2012, CEO earned 271 times more. 2. Financial Services -hedge fund managers, investment bankers 3. Entertainment (sports, music, movies, etc) Highest paid entertainer 2018: Taylor Swift: 185 million (Forbes) Highest paid NFL player 1980: 0.5 million Highest paid NFL player 2018: 35 million

Political Segregation: The Big Sort: Bill Bishop and Robert G. Cushing The Economist

political polarization leads to social polarization (big sort), which lead to more political polarization (or tribalism). Self reinforcement. Relationality is the cause (independent variable) of political beliefs New community in texas w/ 100% ron paul supporters. mr paul is a libertarian and republican presidential candidate. desire to segregate themselves is not unusual. americans are increasingly forming like minded clusters. conservatives are choosing to live near other conservatives and liberals near liberals. jimmy carter. close race, but some 26.8% of americans were in landslide counties, where he either won or lost by 20 percentage points or more. clustering is how americans move house often, usually for practical reasons perhaps unconsciously, they are drawn to places where they expect to fit in where you live is partly determined by where you can afford to live. but the big sort does not seem to be driven by economic factors. income is a poor predictor of party preference. cultural factors (relationality) matter more (better predictor). choice between several diff neighborhoods that are economically similar but culturally distinct GroupThink (tribalism) because americans are so mobile, even a mild preference for living w like minded neighbors leads over time to severe segregation over time, this means americans are ever less exposed to contrary views americans were the LEAST likely of all to talk about politics with those who disagreed with them intriguingly, the more educated americans become, the more insular they are. richer, so they have more choice of where they live. more mobile. 45% of americans w college degree moved state, whereas only 19% of those w high school degree did. when a group is ideologically homogeneous, its members grow more extreme. even clever, fair minded people (ex. judges) not immune. and the home schooling movement, which has grown rapidly, shields more than 1 million american children from any ideas their parents dislike "we now live in a giant feedback loop, hearing out own thoughts bounced back to us by the television." (filter bubbles) Shouting at Each Other: voters in landslide districts tend to elect more extreme members of congress republicans who never meet democrats tend to assume that democrats believe more extreme things than they actually do, and vice versa. this contributes to nasty tone of many political campaigns.

Lofland, Stark, and Finke said that culture...

culture consists of the sum total of human creations the things each new generation must learn religion is a cultural phenomenon

Capital:

Capital: how much we are willing to spend/risk!! -if we conserve/maximize social/cultural/religious capital, we stick with what we know -if we have lots of strong social/cultural/religious ties to the religion we already have, it would be expensive to change. so the more capital we have, the less likely we are to change/convert/reaffiliate -if not, cheap

3 characteristics of social class

Class: a large group of people who occupy a similar economic position in society. Some characteristics: 1. Classes: large and impersonal (not showing feelings): based on money and job 2. Class position in industrial societies is partly achieved: not simply ascribed at birth -Contrast with the agrarian caste system/ slavery 3. Class systems are fluid: boundaries are not clear cut -hence, no consensus on how to divide classes -upper, mid, lower, or more categories -One table organizes it like a pyramid: underclass, working poor, working class, lower middle class, upper middle class, upper class BUT, there are clear differences between, say, Palm Beach wealthy and Appalachian poor -Class is a convenient shorthand term for these differences

Barbara Ehrenreich "Nickel and Dimed" reading:

Ehrenreich: a well known journalist w/ a PhD in good health, had no children to worry about bought herself an old car said she was a divorced homemaker re-entering job market but no one really cared or noticed her said she had completed 3 years of college could she survive on the wages? she decided she would not sleep in her car (this was the limit) worked 5 jobs, including - waitress in Florida, maid in Maine, Walmart employee in Minnesota How did she do? struggled to survive month to month on low wages exhaustion, worry BIGGEST PROBLEM: HOUSING WAGES TOO LOW, RENTS TOO HIGH since she wrote, rent increases have outpaced wage increases one consequence: MORE EVICTIONS Surviving working poverty: involved constant efforts to make ends meet (make enough money to meet your expenses) cutting back buying (food, clothing, etc) getting a second job seeking help from family/friends taking out loans Why no wage increases? When E worked (1990s), jobs were plentiful, yet wages stagnated. Why? Employers didn't want to raise wages. Dignity: Does E minimize the advantages of even a low wage job? Dignity: in one's own and others' eyes. She still had her dignity as long as she was trying, and having a job. Still, dignity won't pay the bills Re-Entry When E. resumed her old life, she re-entered a different world, one where: Money solves many problems And there are non-monetary benefits too People listen to you and respect you You are not invisible Invisibility: Athens, GA: 34% poverty (way higher than official national average of 12%) Even if students at home or in their own apartment are exluded, poverty rate is high (23%) Yet most of us never see this poverty Same is true of poor individuals TV, movies, etc. More rich people in movies. Stage artist (violinest) was noticed at performance, but when he put on the poort clothes of a busker and performed in a hallway the next day, he was invisible. Summary: Very tough to make ends meet as a low wage individual today As a family, it is almost impossible Poverty brings other negatives as well Social invisibility

Pierre Bourdiue

French Sociologist Pierre Bourdiue coined the term: Cultural Capital: to identify investments or sunk costs that culture represents to each individual people protect their cultural capital. if one is already proficient in french, they maximize/conserve cultural capital by remaining within a french speaking country. same with religion. if you know catholicism, you maximize religious capital by sticking w what you know. (main point: cultural capital: people conserve it) Cultural Capital: -A lot of transmission occurs because of... -Cultural Capital: the knowledge, taste, and behaviors that signal status -Pierre Bourdie (1930-2002) introduced this... -Includes etiquette -Attire and self presentation -Taste in music, books, and movies (main point: cultural capital: it helps class transmission to occur)

Gini Index

Gini Coefficient: 0 to 1 Named after Corrado Gini: really a statistician, but you can think of him as an Italian soccer star 0: everyone has same amount of wealth (complete equality) 1: a single person holds all the wealth (complete inequality) The larger the Gini coefficient, the greater the inequality/stratification Gini coefficients from countries range from about 0.25 (Scandinavia) to 0.65 (Southern Africa). Can also be a 0 to 100 scale, countries ranging 25 to 65. US Gini Index: 1979: 0.346 2000: 0.404 2016: 0.415 Inequality/stratification in US is going up Changes in Gini coefficient tell us how much the inequality in US has increased But not HOW it has increased

To see HOW MUCH inequality has changed, we look at ________. To see HOW inequality has changed, we look at __________.

Gini Index Quintiles

How do we measure inequality?

Gini Index Gini coefficient: 0 to 1 Named after Corrado Gini: really a statistician, but you can think of him as an Italian soccer star 0: everyone has same amount of wealth (complete equality) 1: a single person holds all the wealth (complete inequality) The larger the Gini coefficient, the greater the inequality/stratification Gini coefficients from countries range from about 0.25 (Scandinavia) to 0.65 (Southern Africa). Can also be a 0 to 100 scale, countries ranging 25 to 65. US Gini Index: 1979: 0.346 2000: 0.404 2016: 0.415 Inequality/stratification in US is going up Changes in Gini coefficient tell us how much the inequality in US has increased But not HOW it has increased -ex. Poor can stay same, rich get richer. Rich stay same, poor get poorer. Poor get richer, but rich has a GREATER increase in wealth. Poorest 4/5 of pop stagnated while everyone else flourishes. There are many diff ways inequality can increase, and Gini index alone cannot tell us how. Can only tell us how much increase. To see what happened (how), we can look at income quintiles. 20% slices. -ex. Table of Household income by Quintile, 1979-2014. Horizontal axis shows year (1979 in one column, 2014 in the other). Vertical axis shows upper limits of each quintile (Q5 is lowest/poorest, Q1 is highest/richest). Good news is that from 1979-2014, as economy grows, every quintile's wealth increases. BUT the Rich's wealth increases much more! As you go up, each gap is wider and wider between each quintile. (Gap between 5 and 4 is small. Gap between Q1 and the top 5% is WIDE. Great inequality). Patterns The highest 0.01% earned 0.5% of total income in 1979. In 2005, it earned a whole 5%!!! Top 0.01% starts at 19 million dollars.

difference between group and network

Group: defined by an attribute (women, democrats) or as a specific collection of individuals we can point to. A social network is altogether different. While a network, like a group, is a collection of people, it includes something more: a specific set of CONNECTIONS between people in the group. These ties are more important than the individuals themselves. network: people connected by structure of network, not by traits.

Wealth Inequality in the US

Has increased since 1980 Gap between rich and poor has widened Story within story: gap between rich and very rich has widened Measuring inequality: 2 ways: wealth and income Wealth (ex ownership) hard to obtain info on, and fluctuates (ex stock market). So most studies look at income Income: earnings from work, rent, investments, welfare, etc. Income Inequality in the US: Inequality of income has declined since the agrarian era on But what about more recently (past 40 years)? 1940-1979 national income grew greatly, and inequality hardly changed Since 1980, we have had a "great divergence" in income inequality

Instead of trying to define poverty, Economic Policy Institute (EPI) developed a different approach:

How much a family needs for a "secure yet modest living standard" in diff parts of the family. Basic Family Budget: Includes food, housing, health care, transportation, child care, taxes, other expenses (ex. clothing, entertainment) "Other expenses:" 25% of food and housing No savings, restaurant meals, or emergency funds Assumes all adults are working. First child: age 4. Second child: age 8. Third child: 12. Average Budget (amount needed to have secure yet modest living) for a 2 parent, 2 child family in Fulton county: 78,246. In NYC: over 100,000. -This is more than 3 times the federal figure! People need MORE money in order to get by than the government thinks. poor has diff definitions in diff countries and diff parts of the country

Putnam: The Human Reality

Human Reality Gender and race inequality has declined But class inequality has increased Rich and poor now live in very different worlds Family, education, job, life quality Consequences: This inequality: 1. Increases undesirable behaviors (ex. Crime, addiction, obesity. The US has a lot of these things). 2. Undermines a cherished American ideal: equality of opportunity. -equality of outcome: everyone would have the same income. People don't care as much about this. People WANT equality of opportunity, and this is being taken away. 3. Reduces economic growth -more unemployment -now, gov has to pay for things like addiction therapy that come from undesirable behaviors 4. Weakens democracy -now, more people hate/distrust politicians -less voting participation now BODE

Poverty

Poverty The Low End: The low end of income/wealth distribution is occupied by the poor But how much/little money makes you poor? Poverty can mean one of two things 1. Absolute Poverty: about income: You can't afford basic necessities. -Ex. world bank: poverty is having less than $2 a day to live on. Extreme poverty is less than 1.25 a day. 2. Relative poverty: about inequality: you have way less money than everybody else. -Ex. Average income in America: $50,000. -Gov might define "poverty" as earning less than 1/4 of that (12,500). -The point: the definition is relative to (or depends upon) what others earn. -So if average income increases to 100,000, poverty threshold will increase as well Inequality is a better predictor of social behavior than income Hence, it makes more sense to define poverty relatively BUT, instead of doing this, since the 1960s, the US gov adopted an ABSOLUTE definition, an equation based on: the cost of an economy food budget (times 3) 2019 Federal Poverty Lines: You are poor if your pre-tax cash income is less than: 12,490 for one person. 25,750 for a family of 4. How many people are under the poverty line in USA? Around 40 million (12% of population). The lines are controversial. In reality, probably more people live in poverty. Controversial: Some say this equation over counts for the poor -ex. does not include non-cash benefits such as food stamps and subsidized housing. Some say it under counts for the poor -ex. does not include cost of housing, child care, medical coverage, transportation It's just one simple equation: cost of economy food budget (times 3) A Different Approach: Instead of trying to define "poverty," the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) calculates: How much a family needs for a "secure yet modest living standard" in different parts of the country: Basic Family Budget: Includes food, housing, health care, transportation, child care, taxes, other expenses (ex. clothing, entertainment) "Other expenses:" 25% of food and housing No savings, restaurant meals, or emergency funds Assumes all adults are working. First child: age 4. Second child: age 8. Third child: 12. Average Budget (amount needed to have secure yet modest living) for a 2 parent, 2 child family in Fulton county: 78,246. In NYC: over 100,000. -This is more than 3 times the federal figure! People need MORE money in order to get by than the government thinks. Getting out of poverty: Traditionally, to get out of poverty or have a secure modest living standard: Get a job To see if this is still true in our globalized economy, Barbara Ehrenreich became a low wage worker

most people believe what their political tribe believes. how does it happen? The big sort: politicians? but politicians reflect constituent beliefs the media? very divided. but the media have to appeal to the public. limited ability to brainwash people.

Relationality Bishop, The Big Sort: Americans are increasingly sorting themselves into communities of like-minded people.

Albert Bergesen (talks about music): expands on work of Basil Bernstein (socio-linguist sociologist, talks about language): who expands upon work of Emile Durkheim, a French founder sociologist Spirituals, Jazz, Blues, and Soul Music: The Role of Elaborated and Restricted Codes in Maintenance of Social Solidarity

Relationality (high vs low group solidarity/intimacy): independent variable Music (restricted vs elaborated): dependent variable at heart of durkheim ian understanding of religion: role of ritual ritual has been extended to social practice beyond religion witch hunts, cleaning up, collecting violence, etc another language: music more complex than our written language: progresses both horizontally (melody) and vertically (harmony) Relationship between solidarity of group and kind of code. 2 kinds of codes: restricted and elaborated restricted: more restricted the code, the smaller the pool of lexes and syntactical alternatives. syntax in restricted codes more simple and rigid. restricted codes, like slang, use more condensed symbols and phrases that only group members can understand. also use more collectively oriented words like "we" or "us." more collective than individual sentiments are communicated. hence, the restrictive code reaffirms the substance of collective reality. act more like a ritual as we traditionally understand it. elaborate: syntax more complex and flexible. articulate symbols. less slang. more emphasis on individual feelings. More "I" and "me." not predicted on group assumptions. allow individual too be person. greater range of linguistic material available, so individual can combine and recombine material to represent individual thoughts. restricted code: mechanical solidarity. high solidarity. elaborate code: organic solidarity. low solidarity. when we speak of an increase in solidarity, groupies, corporateness: we speak of increased presence of a ritual! when we consider the ritual dimensions of language, more ritual means a change in linguistic structure, shifting to more restricted codes! presence of restricted code can have a direct effect on the collective sentiments of the community, independent of its effects on the individual carrier. language affects society not just through the individual but directly to society. restricted codes cannot make sense eon its own activates group assumptions, brings group to life but an elaborate code contains enough info to be intelligible and does not require extra understanding and, hence, does not activate the group culture as restricted codes do codes and group solidarity are casually linked. the greater the group solidarity (independent variable), the more the code is restricted (dependent variable). the more collective info it carries, the more it acts to reaffirm group life. more restricted musical codes should have rhythm, harmony, and melody structure and should employ more collective SYMBOLISM performed in groups social occasions (parties, groups) elaborate codes: you go home and listen with the headphones on and the lights off, to try to understand it. you may hear something diff every time complex and flxibe individual intent and feelings wide range of musical sounds articulate. less slang performed by ijndividuals 3 diff periods: slavery: high degree of group identity and cohesion. high solidarity next period has lower solidarity, centers on mass migration of blacks from rural south to urban north. dissipation of cohesiveness!! last: civil rights movement. increase in solidarity/cohesiveness/intimacy. collective violence, group consciousness, wanting to further collective goals. during slavery, restricted musical codes appear during early 20th century, we see lower solidarity. elaborated music codes w jazz and blues finally, civil rights movement of 50s and 60s, solidarity: soul music. this does not mean that established forms of music disappear. spirituals evolve into gospel music, and gospel in turn has strong effects on soul music. blues and jazz persist. spirituals: spirituals represent those gospel hymns and religious songs rely on collective images, and image of chosen people highly condensed SYMBOLS collective information codes of the most obvious sort limitation laced upon the range of syntactical alternatives available to construct music regular beat embodies group spirit harmony submerging of many diff voices in one harmonic tone can be compared to the submerging of individual purposes in the collective purpose of the group. harmony creates a new sound, the composite of all the individual sounds.s music that emphasizes harmony has strong collective orientations lower solidarity, and elborated codes: the migration north and jazz less occasion for blending and harmony group is more dispersed and on the move early decades o2 20th century: there appeared 2 distinct forms of black music elaborated: jazz and blues jazz: musical tradition can be traced to new orleans 1900 -without lyrics without lyrics, even this minimal activation of common group membership (language) is avoided more flexible use of one's lexical pool ultimate elaborated musical codes ultimate characteristic: no music depends on the individual so much as jazz personal intention and statement in spiritual and soul music, one is the agent of music, but in jazz, one is the creator individual can do what he wants when he wants personal statement each performance is unique. each performance might be different from the last. essence of jazz doesn't reside in the song as it is written, but in how it is played flexible with lexical elements and syntac Blues: personal problems disssapoinemtn of life: love lost or anger, anguish, depression personal and literal things of everyday life spiritual was filled with mythical images. blues is filled with concrete, personal images of real life. even though there was personal suffering, greater importance of group during slavery was collective images of spirituals. and even though there were large scale social problems during early 20th century, because of decline in black solidarity, resulted in elaborated, literal, and ego centered images of the blues feelings and emotions although the blues are not as elaborated a code as jazz, there is a great deal of flexibility in manipulation of sounds more restrictions in blues than jazz, but still, blues if flexible most well known source of flexibility is the blue note flexible approach to musical syntax, and a ride range of vocal devices elaborated code Higher Solidarity, and Restricted Codes: The civil rights era and soul music modern soul music began about 1955 light and breezy like spirituals, associated w social occasions like dances and concerts. generate and rejoice general theme of LOVE positive: more of an affirmation (believing something simple that was already believed... you don't have to think about it too hard or go home and listen w headphones) symbolization of group experience in general like spiritual music, soul music: origins of music are unknown and irrelevant, since power comes from representing the collective concerns of the group 1960s focus on issues of black pride, solidarity, and struggle for civil rights. group pride, consciousness, and advancement. format is simple kept heavy individual voices stay secondary to overall sound harmonizing important subordination of individual tones to the emergent sound of the group as a whole rigid organization of music repetition of verses can be seen as symbolism of the permanence and ongoing quality of group life repetition of verses can be seen as symbolism of the permanence and ongoing quality of group life. both spirituals and soul music have a repetitive and cyclic quality. this can be contrasted w/ blues: LINIAR quality Some data: Walker was interested in rise of black solidarity after WW2 (w/ civil rights movement and soul music) songs were coded as having a collectable orientation if they met any of one or more of the following 5 criteria: lyrics contain references to ethnic group to social class group to large personal groups (people, children, etc) moral/ethical commentary references to positive social change/imporvment (or the need for it)? protest against existing social conditions? freedom, liberation, reform, revolution increase in collective orientations during 1960s and early 70s: reflects increase in restricted codes during this period w/ passing of civil rights era (moving into 70s), there appears to be a decrease in the collective orientation (solidarity) of black music lyrics, names of artists, symbols. these things grew in 60s and then declined in 70s. this gives him 4 categories of music: spiritual, blues, rhythm and blues, and soul Conclusion: rituals is more than the large scale ceremonies we are traditionally accostomed to. there is a ritual aspect to language and music sounds are not random, but structrued and ordered when one speaks or makes music in restricted code, one is contributing to the solidarity of the community, whether one is conscious of it or not. if language is ritual, then it must be true that other symbol systems also have ritual aspects. music is one of the more obviosu examples. the quest for ritual and deciphering of symbolic forms must be extended to other less obvious areas.

Relationality as an independent variable

Relationality as an independent variable: our social environment (in particular, with whom we interact) causes what we believe and what we hold to be true and right -relationality as the cause -talks about close ties Relationality causes what we believe Religion and politics First, consider religious beliefs Religion: we see the effect of what others believe on our beliefs most profoundly in religious conversion Conversion: conversion is a major shift in belief you see the world in an entirely new way conversion vs reaffiliation Theology? the common view: people convert because they are convinced by the new theology that is how people describe their own conversion when they look back But is this how it happens at the time? Lofland and Stark: first converts were 3 friends who got to know Dr. Kim Attempts at conversion w/o a strong personal tie were unsuccessful all conversions were by personal contact friendship (strong tie, relationality) first, conversion second "social networks make religious beliefs plausible" Balance of Ties: not all strong ties resulted in conversion strong ties to nonmembers who didn't approve of the group: no conversion Stark and Lofland: people convert when they have stronger ties to members than to nonmembers THEN, the theology convinces we tend to align our beliefs to those around us and those we are closest to (close ties) Implication: converts will typically see and talk about their conversion in theological terms they are not being dishonest: they just are reconstructing their past in light of their present but it does show that people are not always the most valid source of information about themselves. We do not really know what motivates us to do something. Politics: we can see the strong effect of who we are close to on our political beliefs as well US politics sharply divided between progressives and conservatives but both terms are confusing Visitor from Mars: progressives want to progress but why don't they oppose environmental regulations that hinder business and economic progress? conservatives want to conserve but why don't they care more about conserving ancestral lands, forests, and rivers, and support the EPA? Why? Do conservatives and progressives sometimes believe the opposite of what their names imply? because politics has become very tribal most people believe what their political tribe believes: consider health care: progressives: health care is a right 40 million uninsured if market doesn't provide, the gov should gov runs other things (ex. the military) successfully Europe has universal health care coverage conservatives: health care a privilege system is the best in the world if the market doesn't provide, we just can't afford it gov makes a mess of everything it runs Europe is a second rate region now in decline Political Debates: the same sharp divide exists on gun control, climate change, abortion, immigration, taxes knowing a person's stance on one of these issues, you can often accurately guess his/her stance on other issues most people believe what their political tribe believes. how does it happen? The big sort: politicians? but politicians reflect constituent beliefs the media? very divided. but the media have to appeal to the public. limited ability to brainwash people. Bishop, The Big Sort: Americans are increasingly sorting themselves into communities of like-minded people. One group likes health food stores, farmers markets, yoga studios, bike lanes, foreign films, liberal politics One group likes hunting, churches, trucks, the family, the military, conservative politics Like minded communities: the result is communities (neighborhoods, churches, clubs) of the like minded people only interact with those with whom they already agree: don't want to be the only republican/democrat ex. Boulder vs Colorado Springs ex. Athens vs. Oconee county Filter Bubbles: tendency to interact only with like minded others is compounded by the internet. -ex. facebook tracks what we like and filters more of THOSE ads to us, so we only see what we ALREADY like/agree with Election Results: political polarization: social polarization: political polarization -political polarization leads to social polarization (big sort), which lead to more political polarization (or tribalism). Self reinforcement. % of people who live in landslide counties (where one candidate wins by 20% or more) has increased significantly since 1970s Research: More interaction w/ like minded others breeds more extreme values. (relationality causes our values, beliefs) ex. one study found students who were more conservative joined fraternities. and then become more conservative over time. similarly, those who did not join fraternities became more liberal over time. same is true of people who are trained to be neutral: judges: more interaction w/ people w/ certain values breeds more extreme values, biased decisions over time in politics, we get a self reinforcing pattern The Mueller Investigation: because of tribalism, we get odd alliances conservatives criticizing the FBI and intelligence agencies, and advocating friendly relations with Russia -opposite of what we'd expect progressives siding w/ the FBI and intelligence agencies, and being suspicious of international cooperation w/ Russia -opposite of what we'd expect What's the future? national disasters can bring a country together (WWII, or 9/12, the day after 9/11, was one of the most unified days in nation's history) but once the disaster ends, divisions reappear if Bishop is right, they will not go away soon divisions are built into the polarized communities we have created get used to the shouting! What you can do: join a tribe or you can listen to the other side, and burst your own bubble Summary: our social ties profoundly influence what we believe most deeply and strongly the more we interact w/ people w/ similar beliefs, the more extreme our views become

Relationality

Relationality: The connections between social actors Family, community, and social networks Over time, 2 major shifts in relationality 1. Fewer communities, that are more interconnected HS and Horticultural communities: many small communities, largely isolated from each other Over time, communities got larger and connected through trade, travel, communication 2. Shift of responsibilities: from the family and community to the market and state We become individualistic Ex. Care of young and elderly used to fall to family and community. Now, we pay people or rely on the gov. The Family: But family still remains important Our image of a family: one or two parents plus kids living in same house But historically that is very rare About 70% of human societies have been polygamous Diverse Family Forms: Many different forms of marriage (ex. women marrying women - Nandi of western Kenya) Frathouse Arrangement: warlike societies: married men eat and sleep separately from the wife and child Extended families common US Family: Has also taken diverse forms Continues to change Ex. Sam sex parents 4 major trends in US family: 1. Marriage Fewer adults are getting married in US today Average age at marriage has increased. People are getting married later. But % of never-married adults has also increased Decline of marriage is highest among low status people who more often cite financial instability as a reason 2. Divorce The decline in number of married people is NOT due to a rise in divorce Divorce increased (especially 70s-90s), but since the 90s, there has been a DECLINE IN DIVORCE Risk factors of divorce (things that increase likelihood that you will get divorced): -Marriage under 21 -Divorced parents -Having a previous divorce -Having a child prior to marriage -Childless marriage -Financial hardship -Partners from different social class, race, age, religion 3. Cohabitation More people living together w/o a marriage license 1960: 2.9 million 2016: 18 million Some trend of this in other wealthy countries too Who? Highest rate is among 25-34 year olds (14%) Rate has also increased among those 50+ year olds (many divorced people) Successful trial? Does cohabitation reduce the risk of divorce later on? No - it slightly raises the risk Main reason: selection effect Selection Effect: Those who cohabit have characteristics that also predict divorce Ex. Less religious people tend to cohabit. Less religious people are also more likely to divorce. Cohabitation may also breed a more casual attitude toward marriage. (People might think "we're already living together, we're already practically married, nothing will change when we get married." And then they surprise themselves and things change and they get divorced). In US and 17 European countries, children born to cohabiting parents 96% more likely to have their parents split up by age 12 4. 1 Parent Families 1960: 9% 2016: 27% These households are increasing while 2 parent households are decreasing!!! Does it matter? Some say yes, some say no. % of children born to an unwed mother: 1960: total: 5% white: 2% black: 20% % of children born to an unwed mother: 2014: total: 40% white: 29% black: 71% About 40% of unwed mothers today are cohabiting And some will either later cohabit/marry Still, a high % of kids who are born to unwed moms (50%) end up growing up for some/all of their childhoods in 1 parent households -Most children in 1 parent households live with mother (80%) McLanahan and Schwartz: They find that kids from intact 2 parent families, on average: Complete more years of education find and keep better jobs more often avoid single parenthood or crime, themselves 90% of kids from 2 parent households and 80% from 1 parent households complete high school -can be seen in 2 ways: 1. A 10% diff in completion (80% vs 90%) 2. A 100% (double) increase in non completion (10% vs 20%) -Divorce undoes the good of having 2 parents (in general) Remarriage does not undo the effects of divorce. Kids in step families don't do any better. Kids of cohabiting parents: not enough information to tell Most 1 parent families are poorer than 2 parent families Money is not the only issue Other factors: loss of parent: loss of social support less parental attention/supervision, so it's harder to do concerted cultivation Summary: The rise of 1 parent families has been very controversial -lots of strong opinions Most kids from 1 parent families do fine But MORE kids from 1 parent families are less successful, compared to kids from 2 parent families -exception: kids in widowed familiess: they do well More research: maybe 1 parent families have other strengths maybe they are truly exceptional kids ex. those who survive a 1 parent household will be tougher and do better overall, in our society, kids from 2 parent families fare better

2 major shifts of relationality over time

Relationality: The connections between social actors Family, community, and social networks Over time, 2 major shifts in relationality 1. Larger and Fewer communities, that are more interconnected HS and Horticultural communities: many small communities, largely isolated from each other Over time, communities got larger and connected through trade, travel, communication 2. Shift of responsibilities: from the family and community to the market and state We become individualistic Ex. Care of young and elderly used to fall to family and community. Now, we pay people or rely on the gov.

Rodney Stark and Roger Finke: Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion Religious Choices: Conversion and Reaffiliation -John Lofland did the research with Stark

Rodney Stark and Robert Finke: religious choices: most obvious of these is whether to be religious at all conversion: shifts across religious traditions -long distance shifts in religious allegiance Reaffiliation: shifts within religious traditions -nothing as dramatic as conversion -join a new group within their prior tradition, as when baptists became catholics or sunni becomes shiite reaffirmation far more frequent and less disruptive neither of these things happen much most people remain within the religious tradition into which they were born fewer than 1% of americans convert dramaticc and generate conflict social and cultural upheaval Doctoral appeal: dominated social science until recently assumption that people convert primarily because they are attracted to particular new doctrines both social scientists and religionists have relied on doctrinal appeal to explain spontaneous, mass conversions religionists attribute mass conversions to an effective prophet or preacher in early 1960s, john lofland and rodney stark were the first social scientists to actually go out and watch people convert converts pair deprivation with ideological (or theological) appeal wanted to watch conversion, not simply reaffiliation or an increase in commitment wnted a group that was small grou of a dozen young adults who had just moved to san francisco from eugene, oregon. Dr. Kim and her yung followers were the very first american members of the unification chrch, who later came to be known as the "moonies." although the unificationists assert that they are fuly within the christian tradition, many of their teachings are based on new revelations received by the reverend Sun M. Moon. Among these doctrines concerns the role of Moon as the lord of the second advent, as the new messiah. A new, heretical religious tradition, and christians who join qualify as converts. all of the current members were united by CLOSE TIES of friendship predating their contact w dr kim first few converts were old friends or relatives of members who came from oregon for a visit. then, people who formed close relationship w members of the group the only ones who joined were those whose interpersonal attachments to members OVERBALANCED their attachments to nonmembers SOCIAL NETWORKS (relationality) MAKE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS PLAUSIBLE conversion is about BRINGING ONE'S RELIGIOUS BEHAVIOR INTO ALIGNMENT WITH THAT OF ONE'S FRIENDS AND FAMILY MEMBERS Control Theory: people conform when they believe they have more to lose by being detected in deviance than they stand to gain from the deviant act. Some people deviate, while others conform, because people differ in their stakes in conformity. A major stake in conformity consists of our attachment to others. Some people lack attachments. Their rates of deviance are much higher. becoming a unificationists todya is an act of deviance, as was becoming a christian in 1st centiry many people who spent some time w/ unificationists and expresed considerable interest in their doctrines, but never joined. they had strong attachments to nonmembers who did not approve of group of those who did join, many were newcomers to san francisco whose attachments were to people far away act of conformity for those whose most significant attachments were to unificationists Choice and Capital: people attempt to make rational choices people attempt to maximize gain maximization usually involves capital and the attempt to acquire the most while spending the least social capital: consists of interpersonal attachments our relationships w others are investments of time, energy, emotion, and material how much are we willing to invest into social relationships when people base their religious choices on preferences of those who they are attached, they conserve (maximize) their social capital in making religious choices, people will attempt to conserve their social capital under normal circumstances, most people will neither convert nor reaffiliate social crisses can greatly alter social networks. ex. the 2 great plagues that swept roman empire left large numbers of people unattached, theit families an close firneds having died or fled. this made conversion to christianity not only less expensive in terms of social capital, but profitable for those who replaced their lost social ties to new ones w christians. to the extend that people have or develop stromer attachments to those committed to a different version of their traditional religion, they will reaffiliate to the extent that people will develop stronger attachemnts to those committed to a diff religion, thy will convert marriage and migration are major factors producing shifts in attachments. newcomers must make friends. marriage tends to attach each spouse to a new kinship network. age also playsa role. people more apt to marry.migrate when they are young, and many shift social network upon leaving parents' home. reaffiliation and conversion will be more prevalent among the geographically mobile, teenagers and young adults, at marriage, and following a divorce. religious capital: culture consists of the sum total of human creations the things each new generation must learn religion is a cultural phenomenon process of acquiring culture is known as socialization. and when we are being socializied into our culture, we are investing in it French Sociologist Pierre Bouriue coined the term: Cultural Capital: to identify investments or sunk costs that culture represents to each individual people protect their cultural capital. if one is already proficient in french, they maximize/conserve cultural capital by remaining within a french speaking country. same with religion. if you know catholicism, you maximize religious capital by sticking w what you know. religious capital consists of the degree of attachment to a particular religious culture religious capital has 2 parts: culture and emotion culture: how and when to make sign of cross, when to say amen through practice, one infuses religious culture with emotions effects of reliigious activities such as prayer build up over time, strengthening emotional ties to culture it is impossible to transfer all of one's religious capital. this is what gives stability to religious life in making religious choices, people will attempt to conserve their religious capital the greater the religious capital, the less likely people will reaffiliate/convert the more they have invested in a faith, the more they have at risk should they change faiths. the more actively and the loger people practice a religion, the stronger their preferences for that religiion Unificationists quikcly learned they were wasting their tiem at church socials or frequenting denominational student centers. they did far better in places where they came in contact with the uncommitted coverts recruited from the ranks of those lacking a prior religious committment the same holds for reaffiliation. thus, in US, the single most unstable religion is "no religious preference" whereas the great majority of those raisied with a religious affiliation retain that affiliation, the great majority of those who say that their family ahd no religion join a religion as adults lack of prior religious committment makes it inexpensive (in terms of religious capital) to take up a new faith converts very seldom are religious seekers, and conversion is rarely culmination of conscious search. most converts do not find a new faith; new faith finds them. people put stress on theology Lofland and Stark knew better, because they had met them well before they had learned to appreciate these doctrines, before they had learned how to testify to their faith, back when they were not seeking faith at all, when most of them regarded the religious beliefs of their new set of friends as quite odd doctrine retrospectively (when people look back) becomes the "central factor in conversion" but that doesnt prevent outside observers from recognizing that converts typically havea great deal still to learn about doctrines after their initial profession of faith Capital: how much we are willing to spend/risk!! -if we conserve/maximize social/cultural/religious capital, we stick with what we know -if we have lots of strong social/cultural/religious ties to the religion we already have, it would be expensive to change -if not, cheap

Because of tribalism, we just believe whatever the rest of our party believes, even if it doesn't make sense with what the party's ideology is supposed to believe. We get odd alliances. Example:

The Mueller Investigation

Social Capital

consists of interpersonal attachments our relationships w others are investments of time, energy, emotion, and material how much are we willing to invest into social relationships when people base their religious choices on preferences of those who they are attached, they conserve (maximize) their social capital in making religious choices, people will attempt to conserve their social capital

Absolute Definition of poverty (developed by US) based on:

cost of an economy food budget (times 3)

Absolute/Relative Poverty Equality of Opportunity - Related to Absolute/Relative Mobility (moving up the ladder)

US Gov measures poverty w/ absolute definition. It would be better to measure poverty w/ relative definition (like the EPI's definition of the budget needed to have a secure yet modest standard of living IN DIFF PARTS OF THE COUNTRY). Basic Family Budget: Includes food, housing, health care, transportation, child care, taxes, other expenses (ex. clothing, entertainment) "Other expenses:" 25% of food and housing No savings, restaurant meals, or emergency funds Assumes all adults are working. First child: age 4. Second child: age 8. Third child: 12. Average Budget (amount needed to have secure yet modest living) for a 2 parent, 2 child family in Fulton county: 78,246. In NYC: over 100,000. -This is more than 3 times the federal figure! People need MORE money in order to get by than the government thinks. This is diff from absolute/relative MOBILITY. Putnam. Equality of Opportunity: Absolute mobility: overall Relative mobility: relatie to others Relative mobility accounts for only a small portion of total mobility experienced by individuals During peiods of high growth in income or education, many people from lower class backgrounds will experience absolute upward mobility In principle, a society might have both high absolute and relative mobility. My classmates benefited from both American youth now have worst of both worlds: low of both After WW2, absolute mobility is unusually high Absolute mobility has stalled since 1970s, because both economic and educational advancements have stalled Conventional method of assessing mobility compare's a child's income or education when they are in 30s and 40s with their parents income/education when they were in their 30s and 40s We've been veering further away from equality of opportunity for several decades. But if so, we won't detect that slowing of upward mobility for another decade or so Education has been increasingly important for good job and income Education a more powerful predictor of child related outcomes than income Education: upper class homes No education beyond high sxhool: low class homes

Mark Granovetter

did research on how managers find jobs found that when managers heard of jobs through personal contacts, it was through weak ties, not strong weak ties provide access to more distant people and opportunities "The Strength of Weak Ties:" his book, rejected at first, bt became a success his second time around

poverty: 1 parent vs 2 parent houses

half of families headed by single mothers live below poverty line, as opposed to 10 percent of 2 parent families

Converts will typically talk about their conversion in theological terms. They're not being dishonest; just reconstructing past in light of their present. what is the implication?

it shows that people are not always the most valid source of information about themselves. we do not really know what motivates us to do something

major factors that cause shifts in attachment to a religion.

marriage, migration, age marriage and migration are major factors producing shifts in attachments. newcomers must make friends. marriage tends to attach each spouse to a new kinship network. age also playsa role. people more apt to marry.migrate when they are young, and many shift social network upon leaving parents' home. reaffiliation and conversion will be more prevalent among the geographically mobile, teenagers and young adults, at marriage, and following a divorce.

Trends in 1 parent houses

over half of all children born in US today will, if current trends continue, live apart from at least one of their biological parents (usually the father) before they reach adulthood. A substantial proportion (about 1/5) will never live with their fathers. 1 parent houses are increasing Ethnic minorities are common. (ex. more black people than white people grow up in 1 parent houses) the phenomenon of increasing of undesirebale outcomes: similar for all socioeconomic backgrounds. white/middle class kids actually do worse because they lose more!

Control Theory

people conform when they believe they have more to lose by being detected in deviance than they stand to gain from the deviant act. Some people deviate, while others conform, because people differ in their stakes in conformity. A major stake in conformity consists of our attachment to others. Some people lack attachments. Their rates of deviance are much higher.

Challenges of inequality (when you're rich):

people want to take what you have life is competitive you must strive to keep up must be aware of thieves and swindlers only one way your status can change: down