SOCIOLOGY FINAL LETS GOOOO
What, according to McNamee and Miller, is "lookism," and how does that undermine the popular belief in meritocracy?
"Lookism" is the discrimination that occurs in america and has affected every age range. People are more likely to help attractive individuals, even if they don't like them, and are less likely to ask good looking people for help. Basically people want to please the good looking person in school, work, social life, and virtually every aspect of life. This undermines the popular belief in meritocracy because even though somebody could be a much better business student and work much harder, a better looking individual who is less qualified is likely to get the job or better treatment in the interview process.
If you wanted to critique the argument of McNamee and Miller using evidence and arguments (not just anecdote and opinion), what would your strongest criticisms be? Where, if anywhere, do you think their argument weakest?
(feel free to write your own or not even read, im probably gonna freestyle this on the test) Personally, I think that, while the information that McNamee and Miller present in their book is undeniably true as far as statistics go, their argument that there is the power of one's own actions are minimal in the grand scheme of things in life, and moving "up" or attaining success. (for example lets assume a random "John") Although it is true in some instances such as modeling, I would argue that "lookism" is not a correct thing to argue against meritocracy with. While it is beneficial in media oriented occupations such as acting, nobody cares or even actually knows what a lot of voice actors look like, or, to provide some other examples, looks do not really matter for inventors or when scientists make breakthrough discoveries. Also, as for the overall theme that somebody cannot work their way to the top, I think that is the single most defeatist way to look at life, and not only is that type of thinking perpetuating these very authors in that "lower" class of society, but more importantly it is just not true. Although it is definitely harder from different wealth level starting points, if somebody were to wake up every day, go out and work their asses off physically, drill educational ideas into their brains, and start to search for jobs, there is no doubt that this would result in failure. Also, somebody could join the military service, free education and free everything, to be primed in arguably a better setup for jobs and "high wealth" afterwards, than nearly every college or education system in the country. Lastly, I think their idea lacks the addressing of two crucial matters: 1. what everybodys respective definition of "success" is/did they achieve it and 2. the toughness/mental discipline/experience that comes from the level/number of obstacles you overcome due to your starting block, that can greatly lead you to success. (wealthy spoiled kids hardest task is deciding what iphone case to buy). McNamee and Miller argue that people have little control and ability to alter their social class. They state that education is a large contributor to maintaining the structural classes of people - that those who have parents that have higher education tend to have similar schooling opportunities. One critique is that there can be a universal education system where there where everyone has equal opportunity of education. ******** it... i lost it.
In what significant way or ways have your assumptions, perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, understandings, and/or behaviors in or about life been influenced or changed as a result of what you have learned in this course? (answers are confidential)
**** YES!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU JUST KNOW HES GONNA ASK ONE OF THESE TYPES OF QUESTION **** YES **** YES **** YES!!!!!!!!!! It's aided this very very big transition in my life (college). Grew up going to the same school from age 2-3 (daycare at the school/church) all the way till I was almost 19.....had generally the same friends, adding a couple here and there that would adjust to us, not really to them that much. The image that comes to my mind is the giant snowball rolling down a snowy mountain, picking up objects and more snow.
Describe in some detail the specific beliefs that McNamee and Miller say go into the larger ideology of meritocracy (chapter 2).
Key individual factors usually associated with the meritocratic formula for success are innate talent, hard work, proper attitude, and playing by the rules. Innate talents and abilities such as being naturally intelligent, athletic, and artistic are often associated with social mobility thinking that these things can propel somebody from rags to riches, with examples being celebrities like Oprah and Floyd Mayweather. Having the right attitude is associated with qualities like ambition, energy, and motivation which are all qualities that propel one by merit to success, while having the wrong idea consists of laziness, unreliability and disruptiveness, as qualities. Hard work is often cited as a huge reason for success in the formula of meritocracy, as well as high moral character and the idea of "integrity".
What is "social mobility" and how is it normally measured and analyzed by social scientists?
Social mobility is the movement of individuals or groups from one group of social stratification to another, relating to their socioeconomic status. It is measured and analyzed by differences in social class, income, and occupation between parents and children. One can socially mobilize by having a larger income, typically done by acquiring better jobs through higher education.
What is the "random walk" hypothesis, what does it have to do with lightning, and how does it support McNamee and Miller's larger argument about meritocracy?
The "random walk" hypothesis was developed by economists to account best for who ends up with the right idea, the right product, or the right service. The argument is simply that striking it rich tends to be like getting struck by lightning: many are walking around, but only a few get randomly struck. Large fortunes tend to be made quickly, taking early advantage of market shakeups which only have very narrow/quick windows for opportunity to strike it rich. This hypothesis backs up the argument about meritocracy because it suggests that rather than hard work and self ability, being successful or making money is more about timing and being lucky.
What do McNamee and Miller mean by the idea of a "staggered start" in the "race to get ahead," and how does that inform their critique of meritocracy in America?
A common metaphor for the competition to get ahead in life is the foot race. The imagery is that the fastest runner - "the most meritorious" - will be the one to break the tape at the finish line. But in terms of economic competition, the race is rigged. If we think of money as a measure of who gets how much of what there is to get, the race to get ahead does not start anew with each generation. The most meritorious are the ones who start ahead or the race - children born into wealthy parents start at or near the finish line, while those born into poverty start behind everyone else. The poorest of the poor need to traverse the entire distance to get to the finish line on the basis of merit alone.
What is McNamee and Miller's argument about the relationship between the supply of jobs and the supply of qualified workers to fill those jobs, and how does that argument contribute to their larger argument about meritocracy?
A lot of people pride America on the huge supply of jobs and opportunities resulting, but often ignore the even larger demand for them. While individuals do have some control over how skilled they are, they do not have control over what kinds of jobs, or how many there are, or how many others are seeking those same jobs. Trends in the American economy frequently shift and as a result, certain jobs have less of a demand than before, regardless of how many very qualified workers there are to fill these jobs. If this is the case, no matter how hard the individual works for his own merit, if the job demand is completely filled by others, the surplus qualified workers for those jobs, will take their "overqualified" talents to less suited jobs. This same effect can also happen with currently employed people, and if their current job has a lowered need/demand, people will get fired and be added to the surplus of those skilled in that area. McNamee and Miller argue that there is not a big enough supply of jobs to the number of qualified workers to fill those jobs. Some people spend many years preparing for a job that which demand either never materializes or declines. Americans tend to focus on the "supply" side of jobs (available spots for the job) and less attention is paid on the "demand" side (number of jobs actually needed). This relationship contributes to the larger argument about meritocracy - more Americans are getting more education in hopes of socially mobilizing upwards, but the economy is not producing as many high-powered jobs as the society is producing highly qualified people to fill them.
What demographic group(s) do(es) government income transfers most benefit, considered as reducing their levels of poverty? Why has/does it work/ed that way?
According to the slide he emailed us: The demographic group that has benefited the most from government income transfers is 65 years and older. The reason for this would be medicare, disability benefits, and social security policies passed to benefit them. Because they participate in politics more than younger adults, politicians now focus a lot of their attention to their votes. They are able to get certain laws and programs passed that will continue to improve their lives.
Describe some of the differences between blue collar/working-class versus white collar/professional-class Americans, as portrayed by the video "People Like Us."
Appearance distinguishes blue-collars from middle class. Such examples are hair styles (rich people part their hair); clothing (rich people wear colors that stand out); and even mannerisms (such as the way people talk in conversations, or the way they walk upstairs). Also, blue-collar/working-class people have different hobbies from white collar/professional-class Americans. Blue-collar people love attending festivals, going to bars, and bowling; whereas white-collars have extravagant parties, go horseback riding, and go sailing. Lastly, blue collars and white collars have different views of success. Generally, white collars see that college and education is the main path toward success. In contrast, blue collars believe that staying at home to tend to family matters is best (like the Girl in Morgantown who wanted to become a journalist in NYC).
Considering all you have learned in this course, what would you say of importance and value (if any) do you think the sociological perspective and imagination has most to offer developing college students (like yourself) and broadly educated people more generally? What specifically is the particular value (if any) of sociology in a liberal arts education?
BULLSHIT: heres my stab at it: 1. ive learned that you cant really blame people too much for the way they act, because there is only really a certain amount of wiggle room/mobility/ability to change how they act/are. use examples on campus.
What is "cultural capital" and how do differences in its possession help to maintain class systems of social inequality, according to McNamee and Miller?
Cultural Capital refers to the"wealth" people have in terms of social norms, values, and beliefs. This maintains social inequality because certain classes can't achieve the same norms as others. For example cultural norms of upper class would be to throw extravagant parties and dress fancy and people in the lower class aren't able to replicate that because they don't have the money so the classes stay unequal. Cultural capital is one's cultural resources and refers essentially to the social value of what you know. Those born into privilege have friends in high places with resources and power. This "wealth" of culture maintains the class systems of social inequality because the culture is highly specific - there are expected demeanor, manners, and behavior. Those born into the upper class with high cultural capital are trained from an early age the cultural ways of the group to "fit in". This explains why it is so difficult for outsiders (such as those of lower classes) to join the ranks of the upper class, who possess a lot of cultural capital; the culture of the upper class is difficult to adjust to.
What role does the education system play in the organization and function of the American social class system, according to McNamee and Miller?
Discrimination in the educational systems invalidates the basic assumption of meritocracy in America. Throughout history, access to education has varied by class, race, and gender, such as the segregation by race apparent in the famous court case of Brown vs. Board of education. The rise of charter schools, magnet schools, and other school choice settings have accelerated the trend of white families sending their children to schools that avoid high minority enrollments. McNamee and miller also argue that where one lives and the level of their parents' education determines the social class of that individual. This trend of the rich non-minority class pursuing high level education, which is funded by several rich people, perpetuates the students in that same social class, while the less funded and lower quality public education, makes it harder for student to rise in success with inferior education at their disposal. Educational discrimination against minorities reduces their chances for academic achievement, but even if they transcend that discrimination, research consistently shows that minorities receive much lower income and occupational returns on equivalent amounts of education attainment. Higher better education only available to people who can afford to pay for them. This means the schools are really just another division of social classes because only the upper class can afford the best education while the poor cannot.
Describe the inequalities of (a) income and (b) wealth in the U.S., citing specific relevant statistics.
Income is the total flow of resources from wages, interest, and pension. Wealth is the sum total of all that one owns. Income and wealth are both very unevenly distributed U.S., but wealth is more unevenly distributed than income - wealth is accumulated between generations of families and can be passed on through inheritance. Income inequality in the U.S. is distributed geographically, largely along urban-rural lines. In the U.S. in recent decades, the rich have gotten richer, but not the poor--the benefits of any prosperity have gone to the wealthier Americans. Jobs with highest concentration of women (2000) also tend to be lower-paying incomes.
What, according to McNamee and Miller, is the difference between individual versus institutional discrimination, and how is the latter evident in occupations, politics, the legal system, education, and housing? Be specific.
Individual discrimination can happen due to bigotry towards other type of people or for economic reasons, as well as it can be unintentional with no malice by simply giving preference to people who share similar values or preference to people you know on a person to person basis. Institutional discrimination is resultant from collective individual discriminations over time that take form as actions, practices, and policies systematically embedded in the organization of society itself that discriminate. Examples of this in the past are Legalized slavery, Jim crow laws, and voter suppression, because these were all forms of unequal treatment of individuals and groups on the basis of characteristics that are unrelated to merit on the institutional level. FEMALES IN OCCUPATIONS: presidents, lower wages, nurses vs doctors, education: black/hispanic scholars;
What factors besides how much money one has go into defining and maintaining differences in social class in the U.S., according to the "People Like Us" video? Give a number of specific examples to illustrate your claims.
Influence and attitude are other factors that define and maintain the differences in social class. For example, people of the upper class tend to have many more connections with powerful people, which allow them prosper in their class statuses. In the movie, the rich host parties with only other rich people of their caliber. Similarly, attitude maintains the differences between classes - the poor look disdainfully of the rich and the rich look down on the blue-collars. Social classes tend to marry within the same social class, which retains the social class.
What is McNamee and Miller's argument about self-employment, and how does that argument contribute to their larger argument about meritocracy?
McNamee and Miller argue that besides education, self-employment is popularly perceived as a major route to upward mobility. Opportunities to get ahead on the basis of being self-employed or starting a new business have sharply declines. As a result, rates of self-employment in America have declined more and more, while many Americans still believe in the whole "doing it yourself" pride and mentality. This rapid historical decline in self-employment corresponds to the ascendance of large corporations in the American economy. The collective assets and associated economies of scale of the corporate powerhouses undercut competition from small "selfmade" businesses and discourage new entrants. The glamorous/American Dream image of entrepreneurial "self made businessmen" working hard to start their own businesses and being self-employed is distorted and entirely false in this day and age because the majority of self-employed people take the jobs of farmers and workers of manual labor, rather than working hard to climb to success.
What are "power," "authority," and "influence"? How are they similar to and different from each other?
Power is the ability to get people to do what you want even if it is against their will. Power derives from the capacity and readiness to exact costs or hurt onto others. An example of power would be just sheer brute strength, because in theory you could force somebody's hand just by the literal force. Authority is "legitimate" power - most people believe in and submit to those in authority. An example of this is if a police officer would be able to fine you for speeding, causing you to have to pay (even though you dont want to) because their power is legitimated by the government. Influence is different from power and authority because it is the ability to persuade others, and there is nothing "forcing" those persuaded to do so. Power does not always come from legitimate sources, but it can be taken by force - e.g. Fidel Castro taking over power in Cuba by force.
How has the growth of prosperity in the U.S. been distributed across different levels of income earners since the 1970s?
Prosperity has been unevenly distributed between income earners in the recent decades. The rich have continued to get richer while the poor have not. All the prosperity has been going to the wealthier americans. Since the 1970s, the growth of prosperity has been unevenly distributed across different levels of income earners. Economic growth has slowed and the income gap has widened. Income growth for households in the middle and lower classes has slowed sharply, while incomes at the upper classes has grown strongly. The middle and lower classes have seen a sharp decline in prosperity and the upper classes have accumulated more and more wealth.
What are the four sources of the individualism at the heart of the "American dream" that helps define the American belief in meritocracy, according to McNamee and Miller?
Religious origins - the Protestant Reformation called upon people to become "instruments of God's will on earth to transform the world" and to "remake it in God's image". Protestants (especially the Puritans that came to the Americas) worked hard for the glory of God and for self-enhancement - which slowly became secularized into the American values of self-reliance, independence, and responsibility. Puritans emphasized on the individual relationship with God rather than a communal relationship through prayer and reading of Bible. Political origins - emphasis on individualism emerged from American revolution; Declaration of Independence proclaimed the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" - American emphasis on freedom: political freedom from tyranny and economic freedom to achieve one's own merits. Economic origins - absence of feudal past, abundance of land, and periodic regional as well as local labor shortages enhanced opportunities of the democratic free-market capitalism Cultural origins - the "pioneer spirit" of striking out on one's own and staking a claim of land and the absence of formal government on the frontier contributed to feelings of independence and self-reliance
What is the difference between "class" and "caste" systems of social stratification? What are examples of caste inequalities operating in the U.S. in the recent past and today?
Social class is the combination of education, income, occupational status that stratifies people in hierarchical categories. Members of the same social class share a similar socioeconomic status, but also often share similar cultural values, norms, and practices. The caste system of social stratification is based on predetermined/unchangeable things such as race, gender, ethnicity. The main difference between these two is that the class system is achieved and the caste system is predetermined. There are different examples/types of caste systems, but one that a lot of people are familiar with is the Caste system of India with the untouchables. In America, there was a caste system based on race in the days of slavery, deeming black skin color a determinant factor of being inferior. GENDER IS A MODERN USA CASTE THAT IS INFORMAL IN OCCUPATIONS
Explain some of the social and cultural factors that make moving between different social-class levels in the U.S. (e.g., from poverty to working class, from working class to upper-middle class, from anything below it to upper class) difficult, according to the video "People Like Us."
Social judgments from people of different classes impede the mindset of those who want to move to better social classes. Example: Woman whose dad bought a cadillac, but she was embarrassed to show her school friends see it for fear of being seen differently. Families who are born in upper classes tend to stay in the upper class because of the culture to marry into the same social class or higher/or to associate themselves with people of the same class. Example: Burger king worker who wants the best for her kids, but probably won't make a difference because of minimum wage job - can't find connections with people to changer class. Social structures of towns and their social beliefs discourage people to mobilize. For example, in Morgantown, people are expected to stay and buy a fishing boat (which is the respectable route of life) and continue their lives and future generations there. Only two or three high school students leave Morgantown annually.
What is a more social-structural approach to explaining poverty in the U.S.? What are some specific, important structural causes of or reasons for poverty in the U.S.?
Social structural explanations include things like poverty-level minimum wage and health insurance gaps as well as deindustrialization and shortage of jobs. As a major shift in to a new economic era post 1970s, there were a lot of people trained for certain jobs that had a rapidly declining demand, making there a large surplus of workers, and not enough jobs in different fields=poor wbiotches. A more social-structural approach to explaining poverty in the U.S. is through "post-materialist" liberalism. "Post-materialist" liberalism recognizes the lifestyles of individuals, not just wages and benefits. Wages and benefits are not the only factors that contribute to one's socioeconomic status, but identity and feelings must also be accounted for.
What do Tables 3.1 and 3.2 in McNamee and Miller tell us about wealth distribution and its transfer across generations in the U.S.?
Table 3.1 shows that the top 5th of income accounts for 54.6% of total income, the 4th accounts for 19.1, and the remaining three continue to decline in percentage, despite the almost entirely inverse relation to population it represents. Table 3.2 in the book shows how this same, uneven total wealth amount is distributed in a related way. Children from the top 5th of wealth, are the highest at 36%, that end up in the top 5th when they are older, and they end up being only 7% of the lowest 5th. Across table 3.2, the children from lowest wealth background, are most likely to end up in the same as their parents, and the same is true for the middle wealth quartiles, as well as the richest quartiles. Together, this shows that not only is wealth distribution disproportionate to population, but that it is also very consistently reproduced from generation to generation.
Name and describe the three main valued social goods that are distributed unequally in systems of social inequality.
The three main valued social goods that are distributed unequally in systems of social inequality are wealth, power, and prestige. Wealth is the the accumulation of material possessions and medias (handout says medias)of exchange such as money. Power is the ability to get others to do what you want even if it is against their will, power is also a capacity and readiness to exact costs or hurt on others. Prestige is social honor, and it an especially odd social good since it is intangible. Many people go to great lengths to gain prestige, but unlike wealth and power, it is dependent on other people giving it away. The possession of one of these does not guarantee the accumulation of these other. E.g. just because you are wealthy does not necessarily mean that you are powerful.
Describe the American social class system in terms of distributions (percents of different classes) and characteristics (education, occupation, etc.) of its major groups or categories.
There are three major categories of classes that have sub-classes within them that considered when looking at American class structure, and in order from highest household income to lowest they are (as of 2000): Privileged Classes: Capitalist (1% of households): Occupation/source of wealth: Investors, heirs, executives Education is usually selective college or university avg. house income: $2 million Upper-Middle (14% households): Occupation/source of wealth: upper managers, professionals, medium size business owners Education: college, often post-graduate study avg. house income: $120,000 Majority Classes: Middle (30%): Occupation/source of wealth: lower managers, semi-professional, nonretail sales workers Education: at least high school, often some college avg. house income: $55,000 Working (30%): Occupation/source of wealth: Operatives, low-paid craftsmen, clerical workers, retail sales workers Education: high school avg. house income: $35,000 Lower Classes: Working Poor (13%): Occupation/source of wealth: most service workers, laborers, low-paid operatives, and clerical workers Education: some high school avg. house income: $22,000 Underclass (12%): Occupation/source of wealth: unemployed or part-time workers, many dependent on public assistance and other government transfers Education: some high school avg. house income: $12,000
Name and describe three individual-focused approaches to explaining poverty discussed in class. What, arguably, is inadequate or wrong with each of them?
not sure here if question is only referring to #1 on this list of 4 categories on the notes or if it is referring to all of them, because the next question moves past them individual: poverty is a result of the distinct features of poor people as individuals, their weaknesses, general laziness, and by failings. Some argue that this is inadequate/wrong because this ignores structurally unequal opportunities, discrimination, and institutional structures as a potential cause. Biogenetic: poverty is a result of having bad genes (lower IQs), and just being overall less intelligent. Others will pose argument against this saying that intelligence itself is as much an OUTCOME of social-structural and socio-economic differences as a cause. Human capital theory:poverty is a result of plain and simply just lacking education, proper skills, work experience, and so as a result are less productive and are less valuable, as most economic explanations would back up. Some would argue with this as well saying that there are different "starting-lines" in labor markets, limited number of jobs, as well as ignores who you are individually or who you know personally.
