Heads Up Sociology

by DK

  Hard to move up Sociologists disagree about whether people can break out of the social class into which they were born. Some believe hard work and talent will be enough but many others think such opportunities are rare.

  A bigger problem

  One of the reasons why many people in modern society like to focus on an individual’s responsibility for their success or failure is that this hides society’s role in the process. Perhaps it is easier to blame the individual than it is to look at how people might be disadvantaged by the systems in society.

  select schools

  Surveys show that the executives of the leading multinational companies tend to have graduated from the same small group of elite schools and universities. These universities include Oxford and Cambridge universites in the UK, Harvard, Berkeley, and Stanford universities in the US, and the HEC Paris, France.

  The wages of the average worker in the US have not increased over time, they will buy the same today as they did in 1979.

  See also: KARL MARX | Who holds the POWER? | Super-RICH! | What is CULTURE? | PIERRE BOURDIEU

  The development of racism follows one of the most bloody and barbaric pathways in human history. beliefs and ideas born in the slave-worked plantations of 18th-century european colonialists remain embedded in society today. racism has changed over time, but still affects the lives of minority groups in many parts of the world.

  Looking at racism

  The first African–American to gain a PhD at Harvard University, sociologist W.E.B Du Bois, made the observation in 1897 that black people feel “…a two-ness – an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body”. He was reflecting on African–Americans’ experiences of racism and how it was to feel not fully part of society. Du Bois was also interested in how racism developed in the United States. Part of his studies looked at how the Atlantic Slave Trade was central to the creation of modern-day racism.

  Moving on We need to rid ourselves entirely of the shackles of racism, so that societies can move on and develop in better ways.

  Colonial power

  The historical and social origins of modern racism lie in the expansion of European colonialism and the emergence of capitalism in the 17th and 18th centuries. At that point, many European nations, typically the British, Spanish, Portuguese, and French, were expanding their empires, founding colonies as far apart as Africa and the Americas.

  One of the reasons for this upswing in colonialism was the immense potential wealth to be made from the cropping of sugar, tobacco, and cotton. But there was a problem for the expansionists: there were not enough people to work in the enormous plantations where the money-making crops were grown. The solution to this labour shortage was slavery.

  Human cargo

  The practice of owning people as property had existed for thousands of years. Slavery was common in Ancient Rome and Babylonia, and long established in Africa, with Africans enslaving their fellow countrymen. But the slave trade of the 18th century was on a far vaster, industrial, and more brutal scale than anything ever known before. Around 12–15 million African people were forcibly shipped across the Atlantic. This was part of a system called the “triangular trade”. Ships left England stocked with goods, such as rum and textiles, to trade with slavers in West Africa. They then sailed to the Americas, with a cargo of slaves who were treated as mere “goods”, without human rights, and sold on arrival. The ships returned to England with cotton, sugar, and tobacco grown on the slave-worked plantations.

  Inventing inequality

  How could the slave traders morally justify themselves? In the early days, religious reasons had been used: Africans were not Christian, therefore could be enslaved. But what if slaves became Christians, as many did? The more brutal justification arose, that black Africans were somehow inferior to white Europeans and so it was permissible to treat them without care or dignity. Such ideas, begun on the plantations, spread to Europe, where so-called scientists such as Frenchman Arthur de Gobineau in 1848 published work supposedly proving racial inequality.

  Today, the idea of white superiority has largely (though not completely) vanished, to be replaced with something more subtle. British sociologist Paul Gilroy, in his studies of the 1980s, noted that modern racism was expressed not in biological terms but cultural terms. He also saw that society must stop regarding race as a way of identifying people.

  underground railroad

  On the plantations of the southern US in the 19th century, slaves were seen as possessions, not people. Their only chance of freedom was to flee north. A secret network called the Underground Railroad may have helped as many as 100,000 slaves to escape. Harriet Tubman (right), an escapee herself, was the most famous of the Railroad’s “conductors” who led people to safety.

  The United Nations estimates that today 21 million people work in a form of modern slavery.

  See also: Does RACE matter? | ELIJAH ANDERSON | Identity | Crime and health | Why haven’t DEVELOPING countries developed yet? | BOAVENTURA DE SOUSA SANTOS

  why is it that some countries are still not able to catch up with the developed economies of western europe and the USA? sociologist immanuel wallerstein believes that it is not because these countries are not capable of succeeding but because there is a world system in place that discriminates against them.

  An unequal system

  US sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein set out in his 1974 book The Modern World System a bold explanation for why some countries have not acheived the same level of development as others. His central claim is that the world is locked into a system that creates unequal – even exploitative – relationships between nations. It is not that the countries themselves are incapable of developing but rather that they are held back by an economic system that creates an unequal situation similar to a class system.

  The origins of this unequal relationship lie in the colonial expansionism of European nations in the 16th century. This was when the nations of Europe, such as Holland, France, and the UK, set up trading relationships with countries around the globe, using their superior ships and military might to their advantage. The inequality continues today with the spread of globalization, which benefits the most well-off countries at the expense of the poorer nations.

  Three positions in the system

  Wallerstein’s theory puts countries into one of three positions. The most powerful countries form what he calls the “core” of the world system. These are highly developed technologically advanced countries, such as the US, Canada, and Japan. The core contrasts with the “periphery”, which includes countries that are poor, less politically stable, lacking technological industries, and reliant on providing cheap labour. Finally, there is a middle ground of the “semi-periphery” for countries that sit somewhere between the core and periphery. They are definitely not rich but have escaped the poverty of peripheral nations. They can exercise some power though not to the same extent as the core nations.

  A world system Countries occupy one of three positions according to Wallerstein’s world system: they are either on the periphery, on the semi-periphery, or at the core.

  Not a fixed state

  Wallerstein understands that the world is dynamic and countries can move between the various positions. It is therefore a matter of judgement where some countries can be placed in his theory. The US is easily at the core as are the nations of Western Europe. At the turn of this century, China would have been placed at the periphery but now it is in the semi-periphery and moving towards the core. Other nations including Brazil, Russia, and India have also developed rapidly over the last twenty years.

  British sociologist Roland Robertson has made some criticisms of Wallerstein’s theory. The focus on economics leads to a limited understanding of power, he says. Some countries can make an impact culturally and gain global prominence that way. The small country of Iceland (population 250,000) is an example, where its music culture significantly raises it
s profile.

  china rising

  Italian sociologist Giovanni Arrighi suggested in his 2007 book Adam Smith in Beijing that the US will slip further from its leading global role with the rise of China. This movement will not necessarily lead to China replacing the US but instead create a world with several dominant economic, cultural, and military powers.

  The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals target 2030 for everyone to have decent education, health, wellbeing, and housing.

  See also: Where did RACISM come from? | BOAVENTURA DE SOUSA SANTOS | Is GLOBALIZATION a good thing? | GLOCALIZATION

  Portuguese sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos is a professor of sociology at the University of Coimbra in Portugal and a visting professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the USA. He is noted for his work on democracy, globalization, and human rights. He is particularly critical of the way Western society has dominated global social and political issues, while excluding the views of the world’s poorest countries.

  LIFE in the SLUMS

  Born in Coimbra, Portugal, de Sousa Santos studied law at the University of Coimbra. While completing his postgraduate studies at Yale University in the US, he developed an interest in sociology. As part of his fieldwork, he spent several months living in the slums (favelas) of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. It was during this time that he became interested in the values and experiences of communities living in very deprived areas.

  A DIVIDED World

  De Sousa Santos has written numerous books and articles on epistemology – the study of knowledge (taken from the Greek word episteme meaning “knowledge”). He suggests that the world is divided, not only by politics and economics, but also by knowledge and ideas. He argues that the richer, more developed regions of the “global North” – the northern part of the globe – have largely ignored the views and knowledge of the poorer “global South”.

  MUTUAL RESPECT

  Much of de Sousa Santos’s writing focuses on the ways globalization has led to social inequality, government corruption, and environmental damage. Yet, in many countries where these problems are common, the ideas and experiences of local communities are overlooked. De Sousa Santos believes that global equality can only be achieved when there is “cognitive justice” – a term meaning mutual respect for different forms of knowledge.

  An ECOLOGY of KNOWLEDGE

  De Sousa Santos has campaigned widely for a global “ecology of knowledge” in which differerent countries share their knowledge and experience to deal with the problems of globalization. He argues that, for too long, the West has regarded its scientific knowledge as superior to all other types of knowledge. For an ecology of knowledge to truly flourish, the views and ideas of all cultures must have equal value and recognition.

  In 2001, de Sousa Santos founded The World Social Forum – an organization which promotes global economic and social justice.

  globalization is the process by which politics, economics, trade, industry, cultures, and communications interconnect around the world. what no one could have foreseen a few decades ago is how rapidly this process would pick up speed. sociologists are trying to explain what globalization could mean for us all.

  Out of control

  According to British sociologist Anthony Giddens, globalization is like a “runaway juggernaut”. Once, the juggernaut’s driver (human enterprise) was in control. But now the juggernaut (globalization) has gathered speed and a momentum of its own. The driver has lost control. The best anyone can hope for is that there is not a planet-sized catastrophe, such as irreversible environmental damage through over-industrialization.

  Positive capitalism?

  Economic theorist Immanuel Wallerstein is among those who believe that the unrelenting pursuit of profit has led to the spread of capitalism on a global scale. Crucially, when people in one country want to expand their businesses in other parts of the world, they are thinking not about globalization, but new markets and increased profit. Any local impact their business may have is largely unintended.

  US sociologist Milton Friedman sees globalization positively. International and national capitalist trade will, he says, lead to better living standards, fairer distribution of wealth, and higher levels of material comfort for all. But not everyone agrees.

  The power of TNCs

  According to Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, globalization, together with the spread of capitalism, does not lead to rising living standards for most people. It leads instead to greater financial insecurity, higher unemployment, and unhealthy competition. In Bauman’s view, a key development in this state of affairs is the growth of transnational corporations (TNCs). These vast operations straddle the world, deciding where to build production plants, distribution points, and retail outlets in dozens of countries. The power of TNCs undermines the power of national governments to control their own economic and political fortunes.

  Full tilt Globalization is beyond the control of any individual or nation. It is a powerful force that is reshaping the world, but sociologists do not agree on whether this is a good or a bad thing.

  “The space of flows”

  The globalization of internet-based technologies is the focus of Spanish sociologist Manuel Castells. He calls the online world “the space of flows”, a space in which people, goods, and information keep moving – or flowing – around the globe. An ever-growing number of transactions takes place in the space of flows, including relationships via social media such as Facebook, blog sites, and dating websites, as well as online activities such as booking holidays, purchasing goods, e-banking, and so on.

  At first, Castells saw the space of flows as something that worked only for elite groups wealthy enough to own internet-based technologies. But he acknowledges that the internet has now opened up to less privileged people. Ironically, these people see the space of flows as an important arena for raising awareness of, among other things, the damaging effects of globalization on the world’s ecosystems.

  fair trade

  In the developing world, producers of goods for the global market often do not receive a fair price for their products or labour, or make enough profit to keep their families. In the 1960s, the Fair Trade movement was pioneered with the aim of helping traders in poorer societies to earn fair wages and improve their working standards. The “Fairtrade” label was first seen in the 1980s on coffee produced in Mexico.

  The materials to make a pair of jeans may come from 10 or more countries.

  See also: Why haven’t DEVELOPING countries developed yet? | GLOCALIZATION | ANTHONY GIDDENS

  The way nations link up and trade with each other (globalization) is not just a topic for academics and politicians to talk about; It affects all of us. some people fear we are in danger of losing national diversity. But others believe that by mixing global and local values, a process called “glocalization”, we create new cultural forms.

  Making connections

  The key to understanding globalization is what is called “connectivity”. According to British sociologist Anthony Giddens, globalization is the increasing interconnection between different peoples and cultures. Giddens thinks that today we are communicating more often and within ever-widening networks. This closer connecting of people and nations, through the internet, budget air travel, and greater mobility, is largely seen as something positive. It leads to the freer flow of goods, services, and information. At the same time, however, there is growing concern about what globalization may be doing to the diversity of the world’s cultures.

  “Cultural imperialism”

  Many people believe that globalization is diluting the ideas, values, and ways of life that make one human culture so distinct from another. Some sociologists take the Marxist-inspired view that sees globalization as “cultural imperialism”. This term refers to a process driven by powerful Western European and North American transnational corporations, or TNCs: for example, the giant media production companies, financial houses, and commercial organiza
tions whose names are familiar in most parts of the globe. As these TNCs reach new markets, the local cultures with which they come into contact are taken over and brought into line with Western capitalist models. Whether we are in London, New York, or Beijing, we find the same brands of soft drinks or sports shoes close at hand.

  Global meets local

  The work of British sociologist Roland Robertson challenges the idea that a crushing imperialist force is wiping out local individuality. He developed the term “glocalization” to demonstrate that, in reality, many people experience globalization as a mixture of “global” and “local” elements. Adapting global ideals and consumer goods to meet local needs and tastes can result in new goods and services tailormade for a specific market.