sociology exam 3

A. Adaptive Mode:B. Accepts society's goals:C. Accepts means to achieve goals:CONFORMITYyesyesRITUALISMnoyesINNOVATIONyesnoRETREATISMnonoREBELLIONsubstitutessubstitutes

Conformists are persons who see the society's goals for living as worthwhile, and who understand that to succeed at those goals, one must follow the established means to get there. In other words they play by the rules, pay their dues, working hard at school and at their jobs to achieve wealth and prestige. They are defined in this model as law-abiding, moral characters. Metaphorically, ritualists play the game by the rules, but care little about winning or losing. They are the classic bureaucrats who do their jobs (or live their lives generally) by-the-book without regard for outcomes. While not necessarily deviant, they are seen by most people as a source of hassle. Innovators, however, fit many people's notion of "the criminal." Innovators want all the things that come with success (money, material things, social prestige), but because of their socioeconomic position (poor neighborhood, bad schools, few good job opportunities) they don't have access to the means to achieve success via legitimate means. To achieve those ends, then, they resort to illegitimate means to achieve those ends: theft, drug dealing, prostitution, organized crime and gang activity, etc., become alternate means to fulfill the American dream. There is a problem here. It could be the case that in some communities, criminal activity, drug dealing, and gang-banging might be part of an established way of life. Therefore those who engage in those things might not be viewed as innovators, but perhaps as conformists. Additionally, Merton's model at this point is criticized for focusing too tightly on poverty as a cause of criminal innovation. It could just as well be the case that corporate executives might feel deprived when they compare their lot to that of more successful colleagues, and so would resort to illegitimate means (embezzlement, fraud, regulations violation, "cooking the books", bribery) to acquire more wealth and power. Witness the Enron debacle, or the cases of Rita Crundwell or Bernie Madoff, where affluent people engaged in large-scale criminal fraud. Retreatists are persons who, given their situation, see no reason to try to succeed. Perhaps prior experience with failure (in school, work, business, etc.) lead them to see the game as rigged against them (and maybe it is), so, in effect, they just "drop out." Drug addicts, alcoholics, and the mentally disturbed are defined by this approach as retreatists as they have "retreated", or withdrawn, from society, either via substance use and abuse, or by withdrawing into their own imagined social universe. No doubt, hermits and members of cloistered religious orders can be defined as retreatists also, though they are seen as harmless, and so non-deviant. Also, keep in mind, the mentally disturbed, the autistic, etc., while they, by definition, are retreatists, do not choose their condition, but are more typically victims of brain dysfunctions. Finally, rebels reject the ideals of-, and means for success and achievement laid out by the community/society and create their own as substitutes. The problem is that many of the substitutes are viewed as a threat to the established order; the more militant the rebellious group or movement, the more deviant the group is seen to be. Many new religious movements (most are called "cults"), terrorist groups, radical counter-cultural groups, militant separatists, etc., are good examples of this pattern. Interestingly, rebel groups who are not militant might be viewed as "quaint." Religious communities, such as he Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, or the Shakers constitute religious movements that have rejected the dominant American culture and social structure, and who have substituted their own, a rejection of the mainstream.

Sociogenic explanations of deviant behavior III. Sociogenic explanations (or Sociogenesis): All sociological explanations of deviance start with the assumption that rule violation represents the effects of social forces acting upon individuals, groups, aggregates, and social categories: The individual criminal's or deviant's action can be understood largely in the social context (i.e., social setting, macro- or micro structured situation, and cultural milieu) in which it occurs. Crime and deviance reflect societal trends, are prone to greater or lesser frequency, depending on prevailing social conditions. Sociologists usually critique the biogenic and psychogenc explanations as being too case-specific, and so not useful in explaining patterns--often manifested in macro trends-- of deviance and crime that vary across time and space. Of course, sociogeninc explanations vary by theoretical tradition, and whether one is trying to make sense of the micro- or macro- scale of the phenomenon.

-Anomie theory (Durkheim): Nineteenth century French sociologist Emile Durkheim proposed a model of social behavior centered on the idea that all societies needed to instill in their members a collective conscience, culture-based moral constraints, that once internalized by the members of a given society or group, would regulate their behavior. [This notion is very similar to Freud's concept, superego, discussed above]. Most human desires, said Durkheim, reflect socially-conditioned appetites: striving for riches, popularity, fame, power, material things, even love and respect, are necessary (functional) to the society to make people want to get up and better themselves, work hard to get ahead, etc., all with the macro- result of moving the economy and technological innovation forward. However, these appetites are limitless if left unchecked, and persons who fail to achieve the things they crave may turn to crime and other anti-social behaviors to satisfy their "wants." [This idea closely parallels Freud's id.] The socially-conditioned collective conscience, said Durkheim, acts as a brake on people's otherwise limitless desires, channeling them into appropriate behaviors, and so away from crime and deviance. But, if for some reason, the social system fails to effectively instill the collective conscience in the public, anomie becomes prevalent. Anomie is usually defined as "normlessness," or "lawlessness," but it makes more sense to describe it as a state of normative ambiguity: The key norms of society (mainly mores, taboos, and laws), which make up the basis for the collective conscience, lose their meaning or salience to people, and so lose their effectiveness in regulating or controlling their actions. It is often observed that crime and deviance rates rise in times of rapid, jarring social change. Durkheim would explain that this happens as rapidly-changing social institutions and patterns can't adjust their normative traditions fast enough to keep pace with changing conditions. As a result, people who have to operate in those institutions and social patterns become unsure about which rules and expectations count, or they become unsure about what the rules mean. In this state of anomie people really don't know how to act. In a sense, without an adequate collective conscience to establish clear limits on behavior, masses of people will pursue their appetites; failure to satisfy those appetites leaves people perpetually unsatisfied and frustrated. The behaviors that follow can be self-destructive (suicide, alcoholism, drug addiction), or a danger to others (robbery, murder, rape, drug dealing). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -Anomie/Strain theory (R. Merton): Post-war American sociology often employed variations and adaptations on traditional theories. Yale sociologist Robert Merton fine-tuned Durkheim's anomie explanation. His approach is also referred to as anomie theory, or as strain theory. Merton explains that deviance is a result of an inconsistency (strain) between socially acceptable goals for success and the culturally prescribed means, or institutionalized paths to achieve those goals. This strain is described as a goals-means gap; the particular nature of a goal-means gap can result in a predictable range of possible deviant or criminal responses, or adaptations. Keep in mind that what is described here is an outcome of structural conditions and not a matter of personal choice or free will. Here are the patterns of adaptations with my explanations:

Total Proportional Income of U.S. families, 2011 [After Mascionis, 2014; U.S. Bureau of Census, 2012): Richest quintile (one-fifth) of U.S. families: 48.8% Second richest quintile: 23% Middle quintile: 15% Fourth quintile: 9.3% Poorest quintile: 3.8% Total Proportional Wealth of U.S. families, 2005: Richest quintile: 89% Second quintile: 9.4% Middle quintile: 2.6% Fourth quintile: 0.5% Poorest quintile: -1.4% And yet another way of presenting that wealth pie:

According to Weber, property determines class standing. A class is a social category whose members' wealth and income can afford them a particular set of life chances. Weber defined life chances as "the ability [opportunity] men have to acquire the things they need for a healthy, decent life." For instance, a billionaire (think Bill Gates) can purchase the highest quality housing, food, medical care, and education for him/herself and his/her offspring. Those offspring will likely remain in good health, and having acquired a good education, and, thanks to family connections will likely end up in well-paying careers, possessing financial security similar to that of their parents. Conversely, a person who has been homeless and jobless for some period of time will not have ready access to such high quality food, housing, health, and educational chances, and very likely will lack the social connections to pass good health, educational, and career opportunities on to his or her kids. In this sense, life chances are passed intergenerationally, thereby preserving the class standing of most members of a given social category. Here's an interesting reading by sociologist Herbert Gans on the subject of poverty:

Why does deviance happen? Macro models: Conflict explanations B. Conflict theories Generally, the conflict approaches in sociology treat deviance as a product of social inequality. The ruling class makes the rules, dictating morality and law; the subordinate classes must abide by that morality and law, or suffer the penalties meted out by those in power. Moreover, those in deprived economic straits might have little choice than to resort to criminal or deviant actions just to survive. If apprehended, they will still suffer the penalty. ALIENATION AND DEVIANCE (K. Marx)

According to the Marxian approach, deviance and crime are outcomes of dehumanizing and alienating conditions associated with work (and life) in a capitalistic industrial society. How this actually occurs can be viewed as a social process described by Karl Marx.: Alienation means separation or detachment from something. Marx sees alienation as a feature of our economic situation, and this bleeds over into our psychological and social lives, with potential personally- and socially- detrimental results:

Sheldon, etc., argue that the muscular mesomorph is most likely to commit violent acts as their muscularity influences their nervous system's operation, producing an aggressive personality type. Much of this research used youths in reformatories as their data sources. Is the apparent aggression of mesomorphs a cause?, or an effect given this institutional context? How do the standard operating procedures of police, prosecutors, and judges effect these results? How might public perceptions of the body types and expectations about their possible character and behavior effect these outcomes? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ II. Psychogenic explanations (or Psychogenesis): Psychological explanations of deviance center on some aspect(s) or faults of personality, emotion, or cognition as the source/cause of deviant behavior. [Be aware that modern psychiatry makes little distinction between mind and brain, so many modern psychological models are at the same time biological explanations.] A. "Mental illness"? The key assumption here is that any deviant pattern is reflective of underlying psychological disturbance. This raises issues about the existence of mind as something quantifiable, something that can become "diseased." Radical psychiatrist Thomas Szasz has long criticized these assumptions. Follow this link to learn more: Thomas Szasz on "mental illness" (Links to an external site.) Is it possible for a "mind" to be sick if whatever it is we label "the mind" is a state created by biological processes in the brain? Brains can be diseased, damaged, or injured (remember Phineas Gage from you psych class?), and those conditions can effect the state of the mind of any individual. If the mind does not exist independently of the brain, is it therefore possible for the mind to become "ill"? B. Freudian theory? In the late nineteenth century, Viennese psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud, posited the mind was composed of a conscious self, or ego, and an unconscious mind divided into animal instincts, or id, and internalized morality, or superego. The moral constraints embedded in the superego--that emerge through the socialization and enculturation processes) mediate the demands or drives emanating from the id, that if left unchecked and left to act on those animal instincts to kill, rape, and devour, would make people behave in destructive, antisocial ways. As long as balance/equilibrium is maintained between these two subconscious forces, one's behavior is regulated. If, however, and imbalance between id and superego develops, deviance can occur. An under-developed superego might result in killer instincts, gluttonous drives, or sexual cravings going unchecked and compel a person to act on them in criminal or destructive ways. Conversely, an overdeveloped sense of morality embedded in the superego can squelch natural human drives to the point that they become suppressed. These suppressed drives might then accumulate and build to an unstable pressure point, and following some external trigger, be released in an explosion of dangerous behavior ("...I don't know. He was always such a quiet and decent guy. He just went nuts all of a sudden and killed five of the people he worked with.").

C. Frustration-aggression theory and violence? (Dollard) John Dollard, et al (1939), explains that deviant behaviors are really acts of aggression (whether outer- or inner-directed), and are consequence of frustrating experiences. For instance, a man who is refused dates with numerous women he asks out might begin to get frustrated (and angry) at the rejection. If the frustration is allowed to build, and internal tensions escalate, the man might decide to "get even", or "set some of these women straight" for rejecting him by sexually assaulting one or more women (who may be the ones who rejected him, or who represent them in his mind). In a sociological context, men may experience status frustration, or the inability or lack of opportunity to achieve important financial or career goals. This can be frustrating to those who invest their notions of manhood in such goals. These men might then substitute other things for these goals, such as a super-masculine, tough-guy persona, and a hopped-up car or motorcycle. If someone questioned his manhood, or dents his car, the perceived insult could be the precipitating slap in the face that leads him to attack the one who leveled the insult. The frustration over failure to succeed has caused a status tension, and the substitutes that gave him a sense of manhood is now being threatened, an unbearable state for many low-status men to be in . Indeed, it's probably the case that most bar fights, and a significant proportion of assaults that escalate into homicides, start out as petty arguments over a spilled beer, looking at a guy's girlfriend the wrong way, or a perceived "dis" that called into question the perpetrator's manhood.

The study of deviant behavior is one of the core areas of research and theory in sociology. Understand the structures and processes encompassing deviance in society and you understand much about that society. DEVIANCE We define deviance as behavior that violates important social norms, especially mores, taboos, and laws; designations of deviance generally involve stigmatization* (the application of social stigma, labels meant to degrade rule-breakers and their actions) of an undesirable behavior or deviant individual. While the idea of deviance is universal, few specific acts are treated that way in all places at all times. In a sense, deviance is a standard feature of society; it often constitutes behavior options and roles that are fairly regularized and predictable under certain circumstances. While most acts considered deviant are defined as wrong in some context, we can just as well argue that they are normal given their regularity and predictability. Another way to think about this is to observe that the public holds some notion of "normality," and that people who abide by that standard are generally viewed as "normal people". However, if individuals are thought to NOT be living up that standard of "normal", that their actions (or character) are somehow "abnormal"--making them appear "odd," "strange," "weird," "bizarre," "freaky," etc.-- they are then likely to be described or labeled as "deviant". Of course, the line between "normal" and "deviant" is kind of blurry--vague--and subject to change or shift over time. Crime refers to deviant acts that have been officially, legislatively defined as a violation of statutory laws. Specific punishments or penalties (including fines, jail time, curtailment of civil liberties and rights, etc.) are also prescribed by law and policy in criminal cases. ++++++++++++++++ *Talking about stigma can be a tricky thing. It's easy to see how people respond to norm-violating persons in their midst, and why they might apply stigmatizing labels to them in hopes of "calling them out" for the purpose of shaming the transgressors, or for the purpose of making an example of the rule-breaker, with the idea that others, made aware of the meaning and implications of those labels, won't want to get into trouble the same way lest they get similarly labeled. But it is sometimes the case that people get labeled not for what they've done, but for who they are. Entire social categories might be labeled as "undesirable," "sinful," "evil," "sick," "corrupt," "criminal," etc., only because that social category (race, religion, sex or gender, political party, occupation, etc.) is devalued and stereotyped for some reason (maybe for political or religious reasons). Individual persons who are different are often slapped with stigmatizing labels, again not for what they have done, but because of their physical appearance, their sexuality, their intelligence, because of what street they live on or what school they went to, or what ideas they express.

DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL

1. Alienation from process: Workers are employees who have little or no control over what they do on the job and how they do it; workers' energies only serve their employers' drive for profit and market share. For most workers, the job becomes only a means to make money to pay bills; the work itself is meaningless, boring, even degrading to the worker who has no opportunity to be creative. In another sense, the more productive the worker is, the less valuable he/she is to the employer, as the employer is able to get more work done at lower cost, thereby exploiting the worker. "It ain't fair what they pay me, and the work is lame, but I have no choice: I need the work." 2. Alienation from product: "I just make (or sell) these things, I don't use'em--I can't even afford'em. And it's not my name that goes on it. So, what should I care. Anyway, a monkey could do this job." The more powerful the product, the less powerful the worker, said Marx. By this he meant that the worker's contribution to the production of a mass market (or expensive) product is miniscule; the worker is replaceable (with a little training, anyone off the street could do the same job). This makes any individual laborer less valuable in the labor market. A worker without extensive knowledge or skill is powerless, and this adds to the meaningless of the work, and it adds the the meaningless the worker feels about some part of his own existence 3. Alienation from self (or from human nature): Marx's view of human nature held that we are fundamentally productive, creative beings. Work is the means by which we are creative and productive: Life has meaning when our work has meaning. However, these basic needs/drives are corrupted or stunted when our work is mindless and simplified to the point that "a monkey could do it." The worker is left thinking, "My job doesn't matter, what I do there doesn't matter, why should my life matter." At this point, a person doesn't see life as very worthwhile, and he/she might consider alcohol, drugs, degrading sex, or even suicide as ways to deal with a meaningless existence. 4. Alienation from society: "if my job is a joke, and what I do there is pointless, and my life has no meaning, then I guess your existence is pointless, too." If people are alienated from their very human nature, they must also become alienated from each other. At this point, people may become capable of anything: rape, homicide, assault, abuse, drug-dealing, might all be viewed as offenses where the perpetrator has no regard or empathy for his victims. This model can be applied to real-world trends. For instance, over the past century and a half, the American workforce has gone from domination by self-employed farmers, shop-keepers, and craftsmen, to one where most people work for a large corporation (or they must do business with large corporate entities), selling their labor for an economic existence. At the same time, crime rates, generally, have increased, as have rates of drug abuse, suicide, etc. A positive correlation can be shown. But critics note that this explanation hinges of what Marx has to say about "human nature" as the necessary element in his formulation. "Human nature" isn't so easy to define or quantify. Different authors claim different things are characteristic of human nature, but none can offer concrete evidence of its truth, let alone its effects on mind and behavior. This proves to be a major weakness in Marx's model. Without the corruption and alienation of our human nature driving this process, the explanation has no force. The correlation between labor conditions and crime figures is just a correlation, not a proven cause-and-effect chain of events. [Some modern variations on this model point to consumerism as the source of social alienation, with the same results. Moreover, Max Weber noted that in modern, bureaucratic society, teachers are alienated from the means of education, scientists are alienated from the means of doing research, and artists are alienated from the means of making and displaying their art. The effect, however, might arguably be the same as Marx described.]

Deviance explained Sociogenic explanations: Symbolic Interaction approaches C. Symbolic Interaction approaches 1. DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION (E. Sutherland, D. Cressey): Edwin Sutherland, a prominent American criminologist/sociologist of the 1940s and 50s, described a process of differential association as the mechanism by which actors are socialized to be either law-abiding citizens or criminals/deviants. Part Symbolic interaction theory, part Social learning theory, the differential association model assumes that criminal and deviant action does not occur in a vacuum; actors are socialized, or socially-conditioned to become norm violators through their varied relationships. His original use of this model was to describe how kids became delinquent (Easy: they fall in with a "bad crowd."), but can apply just as well to developing addictions, or becoming a white-collar criminal (a term Sutherland coined.) He described the process as follows: Premise 1. Deviant--or criminal or delinquent--behavior is a product of a deviant mindset. Premise 2. A deviant mindset is acquired through interaction with others (individuals or groups) who hold a point of view that discounts the rules. ("the rules are for fools," or "laws are made to be broken," so "why be a square?"). This is how it works, stage by stage: step A. Individuals associate with many different social groups some favor following the law, others don't. step B. Individuals will seek acceptance from those groups they admire or need or can't avoid--most. step C. More frequent and intimate associations will be the rule when one is seeking others acceptance. step D. Through frequent, intimate interaction one learns the drives, motivations (both comprise rationales), and techniques for violating the rules. (One needs to have a reason to do something, as one needs to know how to do it: "it's fun," or "this'll feel great," are often sufficient reasons; "if you don't do this, you're not one of us," or "you love me don't you" can have a profound effect in motivating people to do as their peers, friends expect.) step E. Encouragement and support from group members will trigger deviance. ("It's okay, you'll learn to like it," or "if you're not with us, you're against us" can be powerful forms of encouragement to go along with the group.) Here's a useful article that can shed some light on the differential association concept: Anderson, The Code of the Streets (Links to an external site.) Here's a different take on the theory: Differential Association

Deviance Explained: Biology and Psychology-3

HOW DOES DEVIANCE HAPPEN? Biological and psychological models It is likely that there could be countless explanations for deviant and criminal behavior, some of them based on conventional wisdom, some based upon popular myth, and others are based on the current state of the sciences. The scientific (and sometimes pseudoscientific) explanations fall under three headings: biogenic, or those based on biological models; psychogenic, or those based on psychological and psychiatric models; and sociogenic, or those based on sociological models. Below is an overview of these three approaches with a discussion of their strengths and weaknesses. I. Biogenic explanations: Generally, biogenic models of deviance are based on the key assumption that behavior patterns arise from the biological state of the organism (or biogenesis, to have a biological origin or cause). Therefore, biological dysfunctions result in behavioral abnormalities. This turns into a question of causation versus influence: To what extent does the biological factor cause (or determine-) the bad behavior, or is the biological factor only one possible variable that is correlated with the action, or only has some weak influence? This is actually an important scientific question with innumerable ramifications for treatment, rehabilitation programs, and public policy for dealing with specific cases and trends in crime and deviance. A. Genetics -alcoholism gene? A significant percentage of Americans accept the notion that "alcoholism" is an hereditary "disease." You might want to go back and take a second look at the piec on drinking norms I presented earlier, as it has serious implications for this popular assumption. Genetic influence on alcoholism? (Links to an external site.) The problem with defining the problem as hereditary lies in the fact that "alcoholism" often represents a pattern of behavior that some people find morally objectionable; this moralistic mindset toward the problem behavior gives rise to dubious treatments. The following article examines--and criticizes-- AA in this light: The Irrationality of AA (Links to an external site.) B. Biochemistry -hormones and homosexuality? Some portions of American society still consider homosexuality to be corrupt or sick in some way (are they talking about identity or behavior?) Long-popular explanations hold that LGBT folks are genetically and/or hormonally predisposed to their sexual orientations and identities. This item examines the issue: Sexuality and biology (Links to an external site.) The extent to which homosexuality can be explained biologically undermines moralistic explanations. -PMS? Since the 1970s, violent crimes committed by women have sometimes been attributed to a hormonal imbalance in the perpetrators: the underlying assumption is that, by their feminine nature (to be nurturing and caring), violence by women represents an extreme aberration; violence by women must result from emotional states unsettled by the hormonal changes that accompany women's monthly period cycle. PMS as a legal defense (Links to an external site.) -environmental lead? It has long been understood that lead poisoning interferes with brain development in children, resulting in serious emotional development and cognitive developmental problems. Does growing up in a high-lead environment then affect a propensity to crime and violence? Much recent research looks into this relationship: Nevin's research on lead exposure and crime rates (Links to an external site.) While the model shows the relationship between lead exposure and criminal tendencies, consider the sociological angle: socioeconomic status can dictate residence patterns--those who can only afford to live in high-lead areas (old, low-rent housing) will likely experience lead exposure and its accompanying neurological-developmental problems, while those who can afford to live in newer, cleaner housing will be less likely to expose their kids to lead, with the likely result is fewer cases of crime and delinquency (not to mention less school failure, fewer teen pregnancies, etc.) occurring in those more affluent populations and locales. C. Physique or body type -somatotypes [endomorph---mesomorph---ectomorph] Since the 1950s, various delinquency and crime researchers have attempted to demonstrate a link between physique and criminal predisposition. Look at this model. Which would you suppose might be most predisposed to a particular pattern of deviance or crime?: The somatotypes (Links to an external site.) This discussion considers the possible relationship between the somatotypes and delinquency and criminality:

1. NORMATIVE TRADITION 2. % WHO DRINK 3. % OF DRINKERS WHO ARE "PROBLEM DRINKERS" A. PROSCRIPTION--alcohol use is always prohibited LOWHIGH B. PRESCRIPTION--alcohol use is expected, but limited HIGHLOW C. PERMISSIVENESS--you can drink if you like (but there are no limits) HIGHHIGH These videos explain...

Is heavy drinking among the permissive crowd deviant? or normal? What makes you a deviant drinker in the proscriptive social scene? What makes you a deviant drinker in the prescriptive social scene? What are the implications of this for our understanding of drunkenness? What might be the implications of these observations for 12-step recovery programs, such as AA?

Upper-middle class: This class is comprised primarily of families headed by educated professionals (i.e., doctors, lawyers, engineers, professors, scientists, etc.), and corporate executives/upper management. Educational attainment (usually master's and doctoral degrees) are considered vital to entry into the secure, prestigious careers valued by members of this segment. Since the 1950s, the upper middle class has made up approximately 10% of US population. Lower-middle class: This SES group is made up of households whose heads hold white collar occupations; this typically includes college-educated mid-managers, federal and state agency bureaucrats and civil service clerical staff, and "quasi-professionals" (such as elementary and secondary educators, social workers, accountants). Approximately 28% of the US population, the numbers in this group have been in flux since the 1970s, reflecting a series of economic recessions and successive waves of corporate and public sector downsizing. Life chances for this group used to reflect the comfortable job and income security that came with white-collar careers; these days, however, many middle class households cannot afford to send their kids to college without assistance, and many cannot afford health insurance. Household debt is also a major issue facing this group.

Key American Social Classes Socioeconomic status Most sociologists consider American society a class-based society. The degree to which Americans themselves agree with this position varies quite a bit from poll to poll. Suffice it to say, the property, prestige, and power dimensions are salient to our daily lives in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Socioeconomic status (SES) is the term used by sociologists to sum up one's social standing in relation to those three dimensions. It combines income with educational and occupational standing to identify segments of the society that have very similar life chances and similar lifestyles. In practical terms, SES groupings are a fact of life for most of us: they can be predictors of our academic potential, job prospects, health and longevity, marital prospects, religiosity, political activity and leanings, even likely hobbies and pastimes. Take this little test to determine your family's SES: Pew: What class are you? (Links to an external site.) Mind you, this test is just one possible measure of class standing, and it could be fine-tuned quite a bit more. What follows is a breakdown of the primary SES classes in American society. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Major social classes in the American scene: Play media comment. Upper-upper class: Often called the "old rich", as these families have had substantial wealth in their families for three or more generations. They tend to come from prestigious bloodlines, and are active in politics and the arts. They are often viewed as civic leaders. Though they comprise less than 1% of US pop. they wield disproportional political, economic, and cultural power. They are not very diverse as a class; historically these were referred to as 'WASPS' (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants), though today there are some Catholics in the scene. Importantly, these people display a high degree of class consciousness, evidenced by the exclusivity of their social relations and desire to marry within the group (they are mostly endogamous). They have possibly the best set of life chances given their access to resources: the best schools and universities, the best-quality diets and medical care, best (most varied and opulent) leisure opportunities, and the best access to careers if they choose to work. Lower-upper class: Quite distinct from the old money crowd, "the new rich" (or nouveau riches) class is made up mainly of very wealthy individuals whose economic status is based on a lifetime's accumulated wealth from career or business success. Many come into their fortunes as celebrities (pop stars, professional athletes, movies stars), or as successful entrepreneurs (investors, inventors, real estate developers, founders of successful firms). This SES group is a mixed bag of individuals from very diverse social backgrounds, reflecting just about every race, ethnic group, religion, and level of educational attainment. Prior to the recent market meltdown, this segment didn't exceed 2% of the US population, but there may be fewer of them now. It is not unusual for a member of the new rich to be phenomenally wealthy at one stage of life, only to lose everything to a market downturn or to poor wealth management. Consequently, few members of this class ascend to the upper-upper class. [The old money crowd have limited interest with the new rich, viewing them as a "flash in the pan," not of "proper breeding." Only after performing some kind of public service (say, political party activity or philanthropy) a member of the new rich might be able to marry into the old money crowd. Barring economic catastrophe, his descendants will be part of the old money class.] Here's a recent survey from Pew on public attitudes about wealth: Pew: survey on attitudes toward wealth and poverty (Links to an external site.) This recent Pew study shows some interesting findings about social class, wealth, and politics: Pew: Yes, The Rich are Different (Links to an external site.) Or this from The Visual Capitalist: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Play media comment. Upper-middle class: This class is comprised primarily of families headed by educated professionals (i.e., doctors, lawyers, engineers, professors, scientists, etc.), and corporate executives/upper management. Educational attainment (usually master's and doctoral degrees) are considered vital to entry into the secure, prestigious careers valued by members of this segment. Since the 1950s, the upper middle class has made up approximately 10% of US population. Lower-middle class: This SES group is made up of households whose heads hold white collar occupations; this typically includes college-educated mid-managers, federal and state agency bureaucrats and civil service clerical staff, and "quasi-professionals" (such as elementary and secondary educators, social workers, accountants). Approximately 28% of the US population, the numbers in this group have been in flux since the 1970s, reflecting a series of economic recessions and successive waves of corporate and public sector downsizing. Life chances for this group used to reflect the comfortable job and income security that came with white-collar careers; these days, however, many middle class households cannot afford to send their kids to college without assistance, and many cannot afford health insurance. Household debt is also a major issue facing this group. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Play media comment. Working class: Working class status has historically been associated with the blue collar occupations, differentiated as skilled labor and semi-skilled labor. Skilled laborers (the "crafts and trades", such as carpentry, plumbing, electrician work, machinists, mechanics, etc.) typically make good incomes, so can afford a good set of life chances for the kids. The fact that they are skilled in trades means that there is always some demand, and that they earn fees-per-service means they usually have job- and financial security. Semi-skilled labor is associated with typical factory work, shop clerks, etc., who, lacking transferable, marketable skills, and having little or no education or training beyond high school, cannot command job security, good wages, or substantial benefits. Approximately 35% of US population can be considered blue collar, though as with the white collar folks described above, recent economic trends have put these folks--mainly semi-skilled laborers and their households-- in dire economic uncertainty. Lower working class: This SES group is made up of those defined as the poor (earning less income that the official guidelines on minimum family incomes) and near-poor; whose heads of household are considered surplus labor ("the last hired and the first fired"), unskilled workers, and uneducated or undereducated. This includes the working poor, the underclass, and homeless segments. Most able-bodied adults in this group do hold jobs, but those jobs tend to be low-wage, part-time, seasonal, low-skill jobs that offer no benefits or security. In total, this SES group encompasses approximately 25% of US population (including that 15% below official poverty line of $26,200 annual income for a non-farm family of four).

Part political ideology, part social theory, Marx's conceptualization of stratification was probably very relevant in the mid-nineteenth century; its relevance today is a matter of some ongoing debate. [In a modern market society, when a large part of the public own shares in corporations, who are the Bourgeoisie?] But, the general idea that one's place in relation to the economic system shapes one's life and outlook is still relevant and useful. Some contemporary Marxian thinkers posit that consumer debt is the new mode of exploitation of the proletariat. To become enslaved to credit card balances, home mortgages, auto and student loans, medical debt, etc., allows lenders to control the fate of those in debt. Meanwhile the lenders are believed to virtually own politicians and are thereby able to deflect regulatory pressures by the state; they are also able to get "bailed out" in the event of looming fiscal catastrophe. Consumers don't get the same degree of freedom or protection from the state, pointing to their relative powerlessness.

MAX WEBER The German sociologist and economist, Max Weber, identified three bases for stratification and social ranking: Property, prestige, and power. I. Property------> Life chances------> Class Property constitutes the economic dimension in this formulation. Property exists in two forms: wealth and income. Wealth ,refers to assets (or holdings), including cash in savings, investments like stocks, bonds, real estate, valuable art objects, antiques, and jewels. Most people probably think of income as earnings from their jobs (wages, salaries, commissions, piece rate pay, etc.), but can also include interest earned on savings, rents collected, profits from business enterprises, dividends from stock, capital gains from sales of property, etc. Obviously, the more wealth one has, the more income than can be generated; similarly, the more income one makes, the more monies one can have to invest in more wealth after expenses are covered. Because we can affix specific dollar values to these, property can serve as an objective, quantifiable, absolute measure of social standing: simply put, some people have more stuff than others. But, to Weber, it is what that stuff can buy that is the true measure of one's class standing. The following data indicate the concentration of wealth an income among segments of the U.S. population. Note the fact that the richest quintile (or 20%, one-fifth) of the population monopolize both wealth (assets) and income (earnings) from all sources.

What are Traditional Attitudes about Deviance?-3

Public attitudes about deviance and crime: Traditional views-- The fact is, there is no universal standard of right and wrong that informs us about what constitutes deviant or criminal action. But that never stopped anybody from being pretty sure in their own minds about what's deviant or criminal. There are numerous traditions of thought that are deeply and widely held that shape our experience of such things. I. Traditional views of deviance-- Some perspectives on deviance rely on attitudes or beliefs that are widely held or deeply embedded in culture. Such perspectives--treated as traditional views--are sometimes rooted in ideology, and dont take into account reasons or explanations for such actions or any understanding that these acts may be situation-specific. A. Experiential view Any acts that are outside one's prior experience, and seem unusual or strange, are deemed deviant. In this case there is no clear notion of morality, or of right and wrong; the designation relies on the oddity of the act, or the bizarre, unusual nature of the act. The act's bizarre nature may only be apparent to those people who have no experience with them; those familiar with such behaviors might just as well consider them normal. B. Statistical view Acts (or persons) outside the statistical norm are treated as deviant just because they are uncommon statistically. Serial murder is quite rare, and maybe for that reason is viewed as especially heinous. However, this applies sometimes to the characteristics of individuals: Persons with very high or very low IQs are statistically unusual, and so outside the norm, so consequently may be stigmatized for their difference from people of average--or "normal"--intelligence. The same can be said for people who are profoundly obese or severely underweight: as their body types differ significantly from some ideal (or, at least, the average) they are treated as abnormal. C. Absolutism Some acts are right, others are wrong, but there is no in-between. Many absolutists cannot provide rationales or justifications for why they consider certain acts as bad or wrong; for them such behaviors are prima facie deviant or criminal, so cannot be allowed or accepted under any circumstances; all those who commit such acts are stigmatized as deviants, delinquents, or criminals. An absolutist who describes himself as "anti-drugs" might not be willing to accept the notion that cannabis use can be medicinal--they would view cannabis use in any context as wrong, no matter what its possible benefits. D. Moralism Often rooted in religious traditions, moralists view acts deemed wrong as "evil," or dirty, so the added stigma of evil, or sinfulness, is attached to behaviors as well as the persons who commit them. Therefore, there are only two kinds of people: Moral, righteous, upstanding folk; and their opposite, sinful, malevolent deviants. The causes of complex behaviors and complicated situations in which they can occur are then reduced to the moral-ethical status and intentions of social actors about whom the moralists claim some certainty. To use the cannabis example from above, the moralist would view smoking pot as corrupt, sinful behavior, and pot-smokers as sinful or even evil. E. Medicalism (or, the medical model of deviance) A popular contemporary approach to making sense of deviance is the medicalization of deviance. Medicalists assume persons who commit behaviors defined as deviant are sick. They are believed to suffer from diseases, or disorders, that cause them to do things that they wouldn't do if they were well [or "normal"] (Personal pathology model). Of course, this medical model is the basis for multi-billion dollar industries promising therapy and cures for undesirable thoughts, identities, and behaviors. A popular example lies in the treatment of energetic, misbehaving children with pharmaceutical products. Diagnosing their misbehavior as ADHD, or some similar disorder, points to a medical solution, usually application of drugs such as Ritalin or Adderall. Some of the kids so labeled may indeed need medical treatment, but many such kids don't get a thorough battery of neurological and neurochemical tests to determine whether they need the specific drugs or other medical treatments on offer. Rather, the practitioners fall back on standard (stereotypical) assumptions with standard medical diagnoses and treatments. Some take a macrosocial approach to medicalism, saying that deviance is a symptom of a "sick society" (we call this the Social pathology model). The social pathology approach owes a lot to functionalist thinking on the breakdown and dysfunction of social institutions (family, education, media, religion, etc.) resulting in a failure of social controls on the actions and intentions of individuals. Social reformers from just about anywhere on the political spectrum offer programmatic cures for such social ills with the hope or intention of correcting the social pathologies that produce high rates of deviance and crime.

What are Modern Attitudes about Deviance?

Public's attitudes about deviance: Modern, relativistic perspectives-- II. Social relativity Another take on the public's view of deviance is relativistic: It rejects absolute, moral, and medical notions of deviance as too time- and place specific. Rather, definitions of what constitutes deviant action--and whether or not stigma are applied--are fluid, changeable, and likely to vary according to: A. Historical period- At one point in history act X is considered deviant or criminal, though at another point in history it can be considered normal. As a classic case in point, in 19th century America, heroin, cocaine, and cannabis were over-the-counter medicines available to almost anyone. Indeed, abuse and even addiction were common, but these substances' distribution, possession, and use were legal. Today these drugs are controlled substances and their improper distribution and possession are defined as criminal offenses, and their use--and users--are often subject to official and unofficial stigmatization. Despite widespread opinion, crime rates have been going DOWN for a number of years: Pew: 5 facts about crime (Links to an external site.)(3/12/21: Sorry, The Pew Center recently revised this article, adding a couple items and also changing its title. Still works, though.) Why do these facts contradict public perception of the "crime problem"? Why does much of the public believe crime is more prevalent than it really is? Also, why do you suppose that fewer that 50% of violent crimes are reported? This is a confusing fact about violent crime, but has been always been true. B. Geographical place or culture- In one society, region, or nation, behavior X is considered deviant or criminal, while in another society, the same act is defined as normal. In this country, animal blood sports--dog fighting, bullfighting, cockfighting, etc.--are felonies in most states; overseas, many of these same activities are forms of popular entertainment. I noted previously that drinking behavior varies A LOT by culture and region. C. Social setting- In one social setting, or situation, behavior X is considered deviant or criminal, while in a different situation is is viewed as normal. For example, a student arriving at class in the nude might be considered confused or mad, and could be arrested for indecent exposure; meanwhile, it is perfectly permissible to lounge around one's own home in varying states of undress. This example underscores the private/public dichotomy that is often applied to a range of potentially sensitive behaviors: One sometimes cannot do in public that which is okay in private. Homicide in peacetime civil society is usually defined as a crime (murder or manslaughter); homicide in combat, in a declared war, might be considered necessary and possibly heroic. The guy who walks into a fast food joint, armed to the teeth and armored, and proceeds to shoot and kill a dozen patrons might well be in the same frame of mind as the soldier who kills a dozen enemy combatants: It is the setting that matters how the public react to the act and the actor. D. Social status of actor- Person A commits act X, and, because of his/her social status, the act (and the actor) is defined as deviant or criminal; The same act committed by person B (of different status than A) is treated as normal (or at least as acceptable). For instance, a street junkie might be condemned or institutionalized for his habit, while a celebrity who admits to drug addiction might show up on a popular afternoon talk show, confess her sins, and be applauded by the audience for her bravery in facing her habit. The recent discussion of police shooting of unarmed civilians points to this: Officers who kill citizens rarely face serious criminal investigation or charges; the citizen who kills an officer, however, is likely to receive the most serious criminal penalty. The distinction between high consensus deviance and low consensus deviance is based in large part on this fact: i. High-Consensus Deviance--The public is in agreement that these things are serious offenses, they demand the authorities "do something". "Nuts, sluts, and preverts"-type deviance (that phrase, attributed to sociologist, Victor Liazos) "Crime in the streets", encompassing Violent crimes, such as assault, rape, murder and robbery Property crimes, such as arson, auto theft, vandalism, and burglary *also incl. addictions, mental disorders, and sexual deviance. *there is much public consensus that there is a problem, especially from moralistic and absolutistic points of view. *there is much media attention. *the acts are frequent and intense topics of discussion. *induces fear over perceptions of impending threat ("they're in your town!", "they will corrupt your kids!"). *deviant persons easily identified given their race, religion, or socioeconomic status. *deviance associated with "the kind of people they are", stereotyped by race and class. *usually highly stigmatized/condemned--AND possibly over-blown--by media pundits, politicians, religious leaders (any of whom we might refer to as moral entrepreneurs), and by the public. ii. Low-Consensus Deviance Elite Deviance "Crime in the suites": These are violations of criminal codes and regulations--which are indeed crimes--committed by prominent people in business and government, including White-collar crime--criminal acts committed by professionals, executives, managers, and businesspeople. Customers, patients, and clients are the usual victims. Corporate crime--criminal acts committed by corporate enterprise, resulting from standard business practices. Consumers and investors are the key victims. Governmental deviance--criminal acts involving federal, state and local officials. Taxpayers, public employees, and citizens are the victims. *there might be minimal public perception that there is a serious problem (even when pain, suffering and death, or immense financial losses are involved), usually because there is little high-profile news media attention/coverage, except in spectacular cases (Rita Crundwell or Bernie Madoff are the rare exceptions to this). *there is also little public perception of immanent threat as most of the victims might be unaware that they have been ripped-off or injured by the actions of an executive in a corporate office hundreds or even thousands of miles away, or by their family physician, a law firm, or even a respected local businessperson. Look at it this way: When your home is burgled and valuables stolen, or if you have been attacked and mugged late at night in a parking lot, you, the victim, certainly know that you've been victimized. There is a palpable sense of harm, injury, loss, insecurity, fear, etc. But, on the other hand, when a city official embezzles millions of taxpayer dollars and spends it on a bunch of ponies, there is no immediate awareness that a harm was committed--the facts of the offense could take years to come to light; even when it becomes known that the public was wronged, or ripped-off, the sense of harm seems like more of a distant, abstract notion. It produces less fear and loathing. *the deviant actors are not so easy to identify as such (they are wealthy, important people, celebrities, politicians, etc.), and don't fit the profile--a stereotypical class, racial, or age profile, I mean--of "criminals". *those actor's deviant motives are short-circuited by appeals to public sympathy, and are generally associated with "upstanding citizens" and "community leaders" who "just made a mistake", or whom, at worst, can be accused of faulty judgement. *there is little serious- or lasting stigma attached to such acts: punishments tend to be light (if they happen at all), and the offenders might actually benefit from more celebrity (think Martha Stewart, Roger Stone, or even Donald Trump). ========================================================== III. Power view: Some conflict-oriented sociologists propose that no act is inherently deviant, but some are subject to being labeled as evil, sick, criminal, etc., based on the prerogatives of persons in positions of power and authority ("He who rules makes the rules"). The intent is to subjugate the powerless, whether they be individuals or entire social categories (social undesirables; "the criminal element"; "those un-American, pinko, Commie, atheistic preverts"). This approach holds that deviance or criminality are in large part labels used by powerful elites to stigmatize members of certain social categories (such as minorities), and to control the less-powerful masses by means of attention-shifting mystification (or as when the elites induce mass fear of the 'other').

What is Social Control?

SOCIAL CONTROL To maintain order and social solidarity, groups and societies have mechanisms of social control, formal and informal means by which pressure is applied to individuals to behave within the bounds of acceptable action. *Formal social control Application of legal sanctions or organizational rules meant to produce conformity and uniformity, formal social controls exist primarily in a bureaucratic setting, and are enforced via its authority structure. Threats of imprisonment, fines, school course grades or expulsion, a pay raise as opposed to work suspension, or being fired from job are some common examples. *Informal social control Subtle and not-so-subtle pressures to conform coming from members of a community or group constitute informal social controls. These include: scolding, gossip, "peer pressure," labeling, or the internalized constraints that result from the socialization/enculturation process (associated with the production of the generalized other and conscience). The attitudes and reactions of peers, family members, neighbors, coworkers, etc., have to be respected or appreciated for such pressures to be effective at controlling behavior, as there are no formal sanctions, and no official authority to ensure conformity and compliance. Traditionally, many sociologists would argue that the more social controls are effectively applied, understood, and accepted, the less likely deviant behavior is to occur. Conversely, when the rules are vague, misunderstood, or seen as irrelevant, deviant behavior will be more common (in a state of anomie). However, modern sociologists would posit that social control often works in the direction of actually producing, or perpetuating, patterns of deviance as those actions can represent conformity to some groups' expectations. Extrinsic social control refers to forces or agents outside of--or external to--the actor which produce a controlling effect on the actions of individuals. For instance, drivers spotting a police cruiser at a street corner usually produce instant compliance with the traffic ordinances; a judge's sentence (a fine or jail time) leaves no ambiguity about one's status in the eyes of the law. For that matter, a parent cutting off their offspring's allowance (or threatening to do so), or even beating and grounding them for some transgression ("If you're gonna live under my roof, you're gonna live by MY rules!") would count as an "everyday" example of extrinsic controls in the family/household setting. 'Unfriending', or 'cancelling' a former 'BFF' for offensive behavior (or at least threatening to do so) is another common sort of example. Intrinsic social controls involve the effects of internalized normative expectations upon individuals. If one takes the rules and laws to heart as significant and meaningful guidelines for behavior, those rules are likely to be respected and observed thereby mitigating any consideration of doing the contrary. However, this can take two forms: fear, or the perceived threat of immanent apprehension and punishment, probably stays the hand of many would be rule-breakers; conscience, on the other hand, represents a deep understanding of right and wrong, making consideration of doing the wrong thing repugnant, if not virtually unthinkable. The effects of conscience fit our notions of moral constraint, while fear does not, but the outcome is the same: the deviant act is prevented. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CULTURAL NORMS AND "PROBLEM DRINKING" Let's apply these ideas to the issue of "problem drinking." This model describes a range of norms meant to regulate alcohol consumption, and their effects on drinking behavior. The question is, How well do these normative traditions function in controlling drinking alcoholic beverages? But that leads to another question: Do these norms prevent "problem drinking," or do they have the potential make the problem worse (are they dysfunctional)? Note how I put "problem drinking" in quotes; The definition of problem drinking, and the specific alcohol-linked behaviors, are culture- and group-specific.

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION The concept, Social Stratification refers to the grouping and ranking of persons on the basis of their differential access to socially valued or scarce resources. Small-scale, simple societies and communities tend to be relatively unstratified. For instance, most Amish folks do the same kinds of work, and fall within the same narrow range of financial wherewithal as the other members of their congregations. On the other hand, large, modern societies (think of Los Angeles or Chicago), tend toward pronounced differences in access to the valuables with some people profoundly impoverished or homeless while others live opulent lifestyles. Most Americans seem to believe that our social system is open, or at least flexible in respect to individuals' chances to move within our system of social rank: hard work is believed to be the path to wealth, power, and fame. To some extent, this is true, especially when compared to a closed, or caste, system of stratification, such as that found in India. But the fact is that most Americans, despite all efforts, don't improve their lot over that of their parents (only about 3% of us do substantially better than our folks). Our general health and welfare, longevity, interests and lifestyle, religious orientation, and politics, are to some degree shaped, if not determined, by our position in the class hierarchy. This points to the power of social rank in our everyday lives.

Stratification Marxian perspective KARL MARX Karl Marx argued that the nature of a society's economic institution determined the shape of the social hierarchy. The nature or form of the means of production dictates that a small class of persons owns and controls the means of production (farmland, factories, tools, investment capital, etc.), while other, larger classes of persons, owning little, must sell their labor for their survival. The owners of the means of production in modern, capitalistic, industrial societies Marx termed the Bourgeoisie, who actually do no direct labor to produce anything of market value; they simply monopolize the capital necessary to maintain economic production. The bourgeois class, however, depend upon the exploitation (usually defined as underpayment combined with strict, oppressive managerial supervision) of labor performed by the Proletariat class, workers who have no choice than to sell their labor. The fundamental social dynamic in this arrangement is conflict over the productive resources (capital) controlled by the bourgeoisie. The shared plight (experienced as economic exploitation) of workers, and their collective need to be in control of the fruits of their own labor, combined with their need to be politically self-determining, would lead them to develop a shared sense of class consciousness, and through that, wrestle control of the means of production away from the bourgeois class, thereby creating a society without class distinctions of wealth and power.

2. LABELING THEORY: (Edwin Lemert, Howard Becker): Another American tradition in explaining deviance and crime is Labeling theory, described by Edwin Lemert in the 1950s, initially in his research on mental hospital patients. It is derived mainly from interactionist theory, as the symbolic application of names, and the resulting identity shift, represent a pattern of emerging self-development Deviant Identity is a product of social labeling. The thinking here is that stigmatizing words "stick" to people after they've done something that others find morally offensive. Once labeled, others react to, and interact with the actor according to their assumptions about him/her based on the label ("you're a criminal," or junkie, drunk, pervert, lesbian, pyscho case, etc...).

The Labeling Process 1. Primary deviance: Many people engage in behaviors innocently, perhaps out of naivete, that someone else might find morally offensive. This action is called primary deviance. Such actions might happen once only, or they may be repeated. If the actor is found out, the second step, labeling, can occur. 2. Label applied: Someone in authority (a parent, a doctor, a police officer, a teacher, a judge, maybe peers, etc.) learns of the acts committed as primary deviance. At this point, an official or unofficial label may be applied: "delinquent," "pervert," "sex offender," "mental patient," "addict," "alcoholic," etc., all carry intensely negative social stigma. At this point the one who has been so labeled can "opt out" of the behavior ("I'm not one of those"). The behavior ceases, and the likelihood of additional labels diminishes. On the other hand, some people, post-label, continue the same behavior, increasing the likelihood of future apprehension and additional labels. Then the probability of secondary deviance increases. 3. Secondary deviance: During secondary deviance, the previously labeled action is repeated, and the chances of getting found out and labeled again increase. 4. Labels reapplied: Through secondary deviant action, additional labels are applied and reapplied. Other authorities, peers, family, neighbors, coworkers, and others pick up on the behavior and the labels that people use to talk about the one violating the rules. The label, and the stigma that accompany it, become self-reinforcing. In other words, if everyone around you is calling you X, then you might come to accept X as descriptive of your character and identity. ("Everybody says I'm a drunk, so, I guess I am a drunk. Here's to 'ya. Bottoms up!" ). This can lead to the actor developing a sense of self centered on the label itself. 5. Deviant identity: At this point, the actor actually considers the label to be the basis of his/her master status: "I am a criminal," "I am an alcoholic," or "I am a junkie, " turn into statements about personal identity, possibly to the exclusion of other identifiers. It is interesting to note that some labels can stick, and serve as the basis for one's identity even after the original behavior ceases. Many members of Alcoholics Anonymous identify themselves as "alcoholics" even though they may go without alcohol for long periods, or might even abstain from booze for the rest of their lives. Some labels, like "convict," or "mental patient," follow people around even after any problem behavior is in the distant past, still acting as the basis for the way they are expected to interact with, or be understood by others.

Explaining stratification Functional and conflict perspectives Why is Society Stratified? I. Functionalist view Structural-functionalists view social stratification as a natural means of organizing a society's members to assure that various functionally-useful tasks get done. A. Davis & Moore Hypothesis-- Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore posit that differential rewards must be allocated to individuals on the basis of their relative functional usefulness. In its gross interpretation this would seem to mean that doctors earn more that trash collectors because they are more useful to the society, and that's why doctors earn higher income than trash collectors. However, no number of physicians would do us any good if no trash men were available to pick up refuse; our streets would be piled high with garbage, to be infested with vermin, spreading disease. The doctors would have to pick up the trash to aid the public health!. So why don't garbage men earn the same (or more) than doctors? Davis and Moore note that it is far easier to become a trash collector than to become a physician. Anyone can be trained to do the trash man's job in a short while; the trash man makes no sacrifice of time and money to develop his skill at picking up refuse. On the other hand, to become a doctor requires years of expensive training and delaying other interests. The rewards for this sacrifice should be commensurate with the degree and expense of the sacrifice, therefore higher pay (and higher social prestige) goes to the physician for his/her sacrifice. -Principle of replaceability-- Davis and Moore's explanation is dependent on the notion that it is easier to replace some workers than others. Those that are easy to replace (such as trash men, janitors, or fast food workers) deserve minimal rewards as the expense and sacrifice of attaining such employment is minimal; difficult-to-replace workers (physicians, professional athletes, engineers, or scientists) deserve more compensation for their societal usefulness, as well as their knowledge, skill, and sacrifice in pursuit of their professions. II Conflict views-Conflict sociologists see stratification as the result of one group monopolizing and managing social institutions to maintain their status and dominance. Any society develops a "ruling class" who steer the economic and political order to their satisfy their desires. Subordinate classes are "kept in their place" via the manipulations of the ruling class over the job market, education curricula, and access to capital. A. Marxian model (see above) -Domination by elites (bourgeoisie over proletariat) -class conflict -class consciousness/false consciousness

This chart shows the trend in social mobility in the USA over several decades, measured as improvement over one's parents' SES.. Note how the general trend has been in the direction of LESS mobility. What does this say about life chances and individual opportunity? (Source: The Visual Capitalist) Here is a global map describing the social mobility potential for each nation of the world: Note the USA's position relative to other Nations. This is based on access to health care, educational opportunities, etc., all factors associated with life chances. I think it is fair to say, based on such ratings and calculations, that the USA is not the best place to "make it" or "get ahead." This has implications for the class or caste argument.

Key American Social Classes Socioeconomic status Most sociologists consider American society a class-based society. The degree to which Americans themselves agree with this position varies quite a bit from poll to poll. Suffice it to say, the property, prestige, and power dimensions are salient to our daily lives in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Socioeconomic status (SES) is the term used by sociologists to sum up one's social standing in relation to those three dimensions. It combines income with educational and occupational standing to identify segments of the society that have very similar life chances and similar lifestyles. In practical terms, SES groupings are a fact of life for most of us: they can be predictors of our academic potential, job prospects, health and longevity, marital prospects, religiosity, political activity and leanings, even likely hobbies and pastimes. Take this little test to determine your family's SES: Pew: What class are you? (Links to an external site.) Mind you, this test is just one possible measure of class standing, and it could be fine-tuned quite a bit more. What follows is a breakdown of the primary SES classes in American society.

Upper-upper class: Often called the "old rich", as these families have had substantial wealth in their families for three or more generations. They tend to come from prestigious bloodlines, and are active in politics and the arts. They are often viewed as civic leaders. Though they comprise less than 1% of US pop. they wield disproportional political, economic, and cultural power. They are not very diverse as a class; historically these were referred to as 'WASPS' (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants), though today there are some Catholics in the scene. Importantly, these people display a high degree of class consciousness, evidenced by the exclusivity of their social relations and desire to marry within the group (they are mostly endogamous). They have possibly the best set of life chances given their access to resources: the best schools and universities, the best-quality diets and medical care, best (most varied and opulent) leisure opportunities, and the best access to careers if they choose to work. Lower-upper class: Quite distinct from the old money crowd, "the new rich" (or nouveau riches) class is made up mainly of very wealthy individuals whose economic status is based on a lifetime's accumulated wealth from career or business success. Many come into their fortunes as celebrities (pop stars, professional athletes, movies stars), or as successful entrepreneurs (investors, inventors, real estate developers, founders of successful firms). This SES group is a mixed bag of individuals from very diverse social backgrounds, reflecting just about every race, ethnic group, religion, and level of educational attainment. Prior to the recent market meltdown, this segment didn't exceed 2% of the US population, but there may be fewer of them now. It is not unusual for a member of the new rich to be phenomenally wealthy at one stage of life, only to lose everything to a market downturn or to poor wealth management. Consequently, few members of this class ascend to the upper-upper class. [The old money crowd have limited interest with the new rich, viewing them as a "flash in the pan," not of "proper breeding." Only after performing some kind of public service (say, political party activity or philanthropy) a member of the new rich might be able to marry into the old money crowd. Barring economic catastrophe, his descendants will be part of the old money class.]

II. Prestige------> Lifestyle------> Status Group Basing notions of stratification solely upon economic status is seeing only part of the overall picture, argued Weber. There is also a significant values dimension to social ranking, usually revolving around one's social reputation and esteem. We refer to this esteem--or status honor--as prestige. For our purposes, there are three essential sub-dimensions at work here: prestige based on occupational status, educational attainment status, and family (ancestral) status. Combinations of these sub-dimensions are often treated in many circles as the basis for one's worth as a person. Of course, all this relies on comparisons and reputations, and is largely a matter of perception. Such a formulations does not represent the real-, or absolute worth of people or groups. a. Occupational prestige--We tend to evaluate the relative worth of people [at least in part] on the basis of their job title. Generally, the dirtier, the more unskilled, and lower-paying jobs tend to be judged as less worthwhile (as are sometimes the people who perform them). Cleaner, higher-skilled, autonomous, and well-paying jobs tend to be viewed as "better."

b. Educational prestige--The amount, kind, and location of one's educational experience can be the source of social esteem. Do/did you go to the "right" schools or colleges? Attaining an advanced degree is usually held up as a laudable achievement, worthy of respect; dropping out of school connotes failure, or a poor work ethic, and so is treated as worthy of little respect or esteem. Additionally, some schools' reputations are "better" than others.' If you attend(ed) a prestigious private East Coast academy or prep school, of if you attend(ed) an Ivy League university, your perceived standing surpasses those who attend public schools. c. Familial prestige--Who are your folks? Do you come from the right side-, or the wrong side of the tracks? Are you of good breeding? Ancestry, family name, and family ties often serve as a means of sorting and ranking persons. Every town has those families who are considered the leaders of the community; conversely, every town has a few families who are scorned and derided, who come from "the wrong side of the tracks." Of course, there are some family names with national recognition and reputation: clans like the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Bushes, DuPonts, etc., are well-known, wealthy for several generally wealthy and highly-respected, and historically have been active in politics and civic affairs. Weber described a status group as a segment of the population who hold similar status/prestige, and who live similar lifestyles. For instance, people in blue-collar occupations tend to live near one another in similar kinds of housing, send their kids to public- or church-run schools, have similar religious orientations, share similar tastes in music and entertainment, etc.; Professionals (physicians, attorneys, scientists, etc.) tend to be more educated, would have different tastes, live in more exclusive neighborhoods apart from blue-collar people, probably send their kids to more prestigious schools, and even display different worship preferences than blue-collar folks. III. Power------> Authority------> Party Weber defined power as "the ability of a man, or group of men, to exercise their will over and against the will of other men." Weber simply means that one with power can force people without power to do as he wishes, despite the interests of the powerless. As a rule of thumb, the wealthy and prestigious can decide the fates of large numbers of persons by deciding who gets jobs, credit, even political freedoms, as the powerful control the markets, and to some extent, the governmental system, whether directly of indirectly. Notions of Status consistency are based on the observation that one's degree of prominence across the three P's represents a coherent whole: That is, it's common to know of a person or family who have high social reputation, a lot of money, and are politically connected. Conversely, Status inconsistency occurs when there is some kind of disconnect between one's standing across the three P's. A pop star or top fashion model might have a great deal of cash (at least for a little while), but they are unlikely to be perceived to come from "good families," or to have attained much education.