Sociology Notes - Nicholas Pedriana PDF

Preview

Summary

Nicholas Pedriana...

Description

1/24 Three Levels of the Social World: ● Structural/institutional (macro-level) ○ Durable, routine patterns of activity based on acknowledged social positions and roles in a given social context ○ We are always part of a social structure ■ We’re all unique individuals but when we go to lecture we all become part of the student social structure, after lecture we become part of another social structure ● Cultural (macro and micro-levels) ○ A system of shared beliefs, values, practices, and normatives expectations ○ Rarely are you consciously aware of your culture ■ How you deal with pain and stress (for example) are largely rooted with your culture ● Interactive/interpersonal (micro-level) ○ As socially recognized categories, race and ethnicity operate simultaneously at all three levels Three Sociological Perspectives: ● Symbolic interaction theory ○ Society is created, maintained, and reproduced at the micro level of social interaction ○ Reality is “socially constructed” through the shared meanings and interpretations we attach to people, behavior, objects, and events ■ Society collectively believes and agrees that money is valuable despite it being a piece of paper - nothing is inherently real about money ■ Different hand positions in different society ● Middle finger in japan is thumbs up in america ○ Social realities are imagined realities ○ Race and ethnicity are social constructions and imagined realities; neither is objectively “meaningful” or “natural” ○ We routinely interpret the social world through the lens of race and ethnicity ● Conflict theory ○ Society is fundamentally a struggle over scarce resources (wealth, power, status) ○ Emphasis on power, domination, and inequalities bw the “haves” and the “have nots”

○ Focuses on inequalities based on ■ Social class ■ gender/sexual identity ■ race/ethnicity (the “other”) ● Functionalist theory ○ Society is made up of interrelated parts, each with a particular role or function ○ Emphasis on social order, stability, and cohesion ○ Old version: too much cultural (racial and ethnic) diversity can fragment society rather than unifying it ■ Cultural assimilation maximizes overall social stability ○ New version: cultural diversity is the reality of modern, global society ■ Integrating race and ethnic diversity into modern institutions is more functional than cultural assimilation

1/29 The Psychological and Moral Foundations of “Us” vs. “Them”: ● Why do some people embrace expanded immigration, greater racial and ethnic diversity, etc.? Why are some people less enthusiastic or outright opposed? ○ So convinced that we’re right, must be something wrong with opposing side ○ Can’t even imagine or understand their way of thinking ● Why do some define “us” broadly, while other define “us” narrowly? ● Why are race and ethnicity so central to these questions? ● Because conflicts over race/ethnicity are fundamentally MORAL conflicts ● And human beings are motivated by different moral foundations/principles ● Moral Foundations Theory (Haidt 2012) can help us better understand why people disagree so strongly about issues concerning race and ethnicity ● Moral intuitions come first, moral reasoning comes second ○ Our moral sentiments are built from a combination of INNATENESS and SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT (nature AND nurture) ○ Innate does not mean genetically or biologically predetermined!! ■ More as a first draft that continually gets revised through experience, socialization, and learning ○ We do not reason our way to our moral sentiments; they instead emerge as intuitive flashes of gut-level judgements (normally at the subconscious level)

○ Then we apply reason, evidence, conscious thought, etc. to explain and justify our gut-level intuitions ○ Beware of confirmation bias when trying to prove your morality ● Our fundamental moral foundations ○ Human beings are the ultimate social species ■ Successfully form cohesive groups ○ “Individualizing” foundations ■ care/harm ● Treating others with compassion and kindness ● Our ability to empathize with the suffering of others ● Makes us fundamentally human - it’s part of who we are ■ fairness/cheating ● The golden rule ○ Nearly all cultures and most religions have the golden rule ● Reciprocity ● Equality ● Rewards/punishments should be proportional to effort or wrongdoing ○ “Binding” foundations ■ loyalty/betrayal ● Our tendency to support and defend our in-group members against out-groups (tribalism) ● Patriotism and political party identification, for example ■ authority/subversion ● Our tendency to accept legitimate hierarchies and to obey people in higher positions ○ “Because I told you so” ■ sanctity/degradation ● Feelings of sacredness, reverence, and awe ● Elevation of sacred things that transcend our individual interests or desires ● Religion or environmentalism for example ○ Every person has a different way that they dial up the different foundations ■ Think of it as stereo dials ■ Why every person is different and diverse ● Liberals and conservatives differ in their moral intuitions (on average)! ○ Liberals and progressives rely predominantly on the two individualizing foundations

○ Liberals and progressives tend to rely much lower on the binding foundations ○ Conservatives tend to rely on all 5 foundations ■ Somewhat lower on individualizing than liberals/progressives ○ Conservatives are MORE MORALLY DIVERSE than liberals/progressives ● ***I find it very interesting that bringing up certain political topics can trigger an unconscious and gut reaction about your personal beliefs (ex. the wall, abortion, racism) 2/5 The Structure and Discourse of Race and Ethnicity: ● No agreed upon definition of either and they often overlap ● Race = a group of people who share common physical traits and have a common geographic ancestry ○ More likely to be an externally imposed category (but not in all cases) ● Ethnicity = a group of people who share a common identity based on culture, language, and/or nationality ○ More likely to be identified internally and is typically more fluid than race (but not in all cases) ● Panethnicity (ethnic homogenization) ○ Ex. Asian american ○ Asian, latino - so generalized ○ Many broad ethnic categories encompass and subsume specific groups ○ Latino (geography) and hispanic (language) ■ Mexico, cuba, puerto rico, honduras, panama, guatemala, etc ○ Asian ■ China, india, korea, philippines, indonesia, vietnam, japan, etc. ○ Native american ■ Encompasses many distinct indigenous peoples ● Race and ethnic hierarchy ○ Multi-racial/ethnic societies are hierarchical with dominant and subordinate (minority) groups ○ Minority group = a group that receives (on average) significantly less of society’s valued resources and outcomes ■ Because society created these hierarchies ■ Wealth, status, power ■ Less quality education, employment, housing, health, etc. ○ This is a near-universal feature of all societies

●

●

●

●

○ Minority groups typically but not always make up a smaller share of the population ■ Sometimes makes up a larger share (apartheid south africa, for example) ● White rulers Race and ethnic formation ○ The historical process by which social, economic, and political forces determine the content and importance of R/E ○ Don’t just exist, come into existence through social interaction, war… ○ In the US R/E formation was deeply connected to two key factors ■ Labor needs ● Black slavery ● Asian (sugar plantations, railroad construction) ■ War and conquest ● Mexican-American war ● “Indian Removal” policy ○ The idea that racial categories were set prior to the slave trade is false ○ Wasn’t until the need for labor did racial categories arise ○ An idea of different groups of people to be readily identified and then correlated to a specific job ■ race correlated with jobs prevalent in society throughout history Europeans ○ Ethnic identity was central of central importance during various waves of European immigration ■ Germans, irish, italians, poles, slavs, hungarians, jews, russians, etc. ○ Many faced significant ethnocentrism and discrimination ○ Over time, ethnicity became less important ○ Ethnic formation → racial formation ○ Most european immigrants eventually assimilated and became seen as “white” The words and phrases of race and ethnic hierarchy ○ Prejudice ○ Stereotypes ○ Racism ○ Discrimination ○ White privilege ○ Reverse racism/discrimination Monopoly analogy - rules set up to disadvantage the minority

2/7 Stereotypes and Prejudice: ● Stereotypes: cultural and behavioral generalizations (positive or negative, but typically incorrect) about an entire group of people ○ Influences how we interact with individuals of the stereotyped group ● Prejudice: opinions or attitudes - good or bad - held by members of one group towards another group ● What is racism? ○ An ideology of beliefs and practices based on the perception of another race’s inferiority ■ Biologica (older) version ■ Cultural (newer) version ○ Racism exists at the individual and structural/institutional level ○ Forms and gradations of racism (how overt or intentional is it?) ■ Traditional white supremacy (slavery, segregation, etc) ■ Aversive (covert) racism ■ Laissez-faire racism ● Refusal to acknowledge that racism/discrimination still exists ● Persistent racial disparities are the result of individual failings ● Discrimination = the unequal treatment of people on account of their race or ethnicity ○ Discrimination is a behavior, actions ■ Not ideas (like racism) ○ Exists at the individual and institutional level ○ Institutional discrimination: discrimination built into normal, routine activities, and practices ■ Employment, housing, education, legal system etc. ○ Discriminatory INTENT vs. discriminatory EFFECTS ■ Motive vs. consequences (statistical disparities) ○ Colorblind discrimination ■ Can discrimination be unintentional? ■ The assumption of formal equality masks accumulated historical disadvantages ■ Maintains and reproduces R/E inequality by “locking in” the advantages and resources of the dominant group ■ Most dominant!!

2/12 White Privilege ● White privilege = the unearned and unacknowledged advantages that come from being a member of the dominant racial group ● Dimensions of white privilege ○ Systematic but invisible advantages in access to wealth, employment, housing, education, etc. ○ The belief that one’s advantages are due solely to individual effort rather than one’s social position in a race and ethnicity hierarchy ○ The luxury of normality (rather than the other) ■ Don’t have to frequently be aware of your race or ethnicity ○ The invisibility of interpersonal deference ■ Rarely assumed to be suspicious, dangerous, etc. during routine activities and interactions ● Critiques of white privilege ○ Unnecessarily confrontational/accusatory phrase/language ■ Makes fruitful dialogue with skeptics extremely difficult ○ Lacks nuance ■ Not all whites are privileged ■ Not all non whites are underprivileged ■ May be interpreted as saying that all whites are racists ○ White “advantage” or “structural advantage” may be less off-putting phrase? 2/19 The Civil Rights Movement ● Used as a variety of institutionalized tactics (voting, lawsuits, lobbying, congress) ● But also used a variety of disruptive, non-institutionalized tactics known as non-violent direct action ● Examples: montgomery bus boycott, sit-ins, freedom rides, birmingham campaign, march on washington ● Civil rights legislation ○ Civil rights act of 1964 ■ Illegal to discriminate in public accomodations (title ii) ■ Fund cut off for discrimination (title vi) ● If they discriminate (schools for example), govt will cut off their funds ■ Illegal to discriminate in employment (title vii) ■ But doesn’t define discrimination!

○ Voting rights act of 1965 ■ Eliminate literacy tests and poll taxes ■ The statistical trigger ■ The “preclearance” requirement ● Everything has to be cleared by federal govt ■ The trigger was eliminated in 2013 ■ You can’t discriminate anymore but we don’t trust you ■ This is why so successful ○ Fair housing act of 1968 ■ Not particularly successful ■ Illegal to discriminate in the sale or rental of housing The Economics of Race and Ethnicity: ● Capitalism and conflict theory ○ Recall that conflict theory views society as a struggle over power and resources bw dominant and subordinate groups ○ Capitalism is the driving force of economic inequality; defined by constant struggle over employment, wages, income, wealth, etc. ○ Economic elites have long exploited race/ethnic divisions as a way of further dividing the working classes ○ Economic inequality has always been strongly correlated with race/ethnicity ○ There is a historical continuity to this process right up to the present day ● Split labor market theory ○ Edna Bonacich ○ Any labor market in which: ■ Two or more racial/ethnic groups compete for the same jobs ■ Wages are lower for one group compared to another ○ This is a foundational source of racial/ethnic antagonisms and inequalities ○ Less about prejudiced feelings towards individuals; more about perceived group position ○ Examples ■ Immigrant labor ■ industrial/manufacturing jobs ■ “Scabs” or “strike-breakers” ■ Call centers ○ Problems lie with threat or belief that job might not be secure because of cheap labor… ○ Group perception! Perception of reality!

2/21 Government Policy and Economic Inequality ● 1930s New Deal Programs lifted countless americans out of poverty and provided a degree of economic security ● However, new deal programs often excluded african-americans and latinos ○ Farm/agricultural labor excluded from many benefits ○ Domestic workers and maids also generally excluded ● GI bill also discriminated against race/ethnic minorities ● Historically, attacks on “welfare” targeted government assistance disproportionately benefiting minority individuals and families ○ Welfare highly associated w race ○ Minority communities ○ Social security is basically welfare but doesn’t have minority/race association ○ Society gives meaning to words and associates them w race ■ Symbolic interaction theory! ● Welfare policies more likely to benefit white and the middle class have so far avoided major benefits reductions ● Deindustrialization ○ The transition from industrial/manufacturing to service economy fell heaviest on racial and ethnic minority groups ■ William julius wilson ○ African american communities in particular ○ Stable employment in many semi or unskilled manufacturing jobs went hand-in-hand w economic security, high marriage rates and overall social stability ○ These jobs steadily disappeared from the cities throughout the 1970s and 80s ○ Poverty increased significantly and devastated many minority communities ■ Inner city ● Discrimination: audit tests ○ Experiment: black-white differences in employers responses to job applicants (Bertrand and Mullainathan) ■ Looked at 1300 job ads ■ Sent applications identical in qualifications ■ Half had white sounding names and half had black sounding names ■ Applicants with white names 50% more likely to be called back ■ Could be subconscious black sounding name less appealing

○ Experiment: black-white differences in employer responses to job applicants with a felony drug charge ■ Whites with a felony more likely to be called back than blacks without a felony ○ This is consistent with BOTH conflict and symbolic interaction theory ● Functionalist arguments about race/ethnic and economics ○ Human capital: race/ethnic economic discrepancies may reflect differences in credentials rather than discrimination ■ Human capital = credentials ■ Education ■ See data on race/ethnic earnings by education level ○ ethnic and racial enclaves ■ “That’s the italian part of town” ■ Many communities are served by small businesses and entrepreneurs that target and largely serve a particular ethnic or racial group ■ Creates order and solidarity within those communities by providing economic services and resources ■ “Model minority”: often based on the success of Asians in education and wealth as a model for other ethnic groups ● Inaccurate cause it’s actually a panethnicity 2/26 Education: The Great Equalizer? ● Conflict theory: history and law? ○ race/ethnic minority groups historically faced education discrimination ■ Illegal to educate slaves ■ Asian children not allowed to attend white schools in Cali ■ Native American boarding schools pressured students to assimilate ■ Latinos pressured to learn and speak english only ○ Law explicitly required or allowed segregated/unequal schools until 1954 ■ Brown vs board of education struck down de jure (of the law) segregation (but not de facto segregation) ■ Emphasized the psychological damage done to the segregated group ● Conflict theory: wealth, residency, and the persistence of educational inequality ○ Family wealth and educational attainment: the “status attainment” model ○ School attendance typically based on the neighborhood where students live

○ Common to fund schools w property taxes ■ What are the effects of these “color blind” policies? ○ Schools began to steadily integrate in the 70s and 80s ○ Evidence that schools are resegregating? 3/5 Affirmative Action: ● The 14th amendment ○ “No person shall be denied the Equal Protection of the Law” ○ Used to strike down segregated schools in Brown ○ Racial classifications are presumed unconstitutional ○ What if racial classifications are used to remedy past discrimination or to promote integration rather than to oppress or segregate? ○ Are these legally equivalent situations? ● School Busing ○ Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District (1971) ■ race/ethnic based pupil placement designed to integrate public schools and overcome racial imbalances were constitutionally permissible ■ Addressed both intentional and “color blind” forms of discrimination ■ Was seen as a temporary remedy until integration was achieved ● College admissions ○ University of CA-Davis v. Bakke (1978) ■ UC Davis set aside 10% of spots for minority students into its medical school ■ Bakke (white) argued that he didn’t get in even though his credentials were better than black applicants who did get in ● “Reverse discrimination” ● First major reverse discrimination case ● Is it possible to discriminate against the majority? ■ Supreme court then ruled that quotas were unconstitutional under the 14th amendment ■ However, court hinted that race/ethnic considerations in admissions might be legal if they were flexible and not the only consideration AND… ■ Designed to promote the “educational benefits that come from a diverse student body” ○ Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) ■ Michigan Law School considered an applicant’s race/ethnicity as ONE factor among many in the applicant process

■ Goal was to seek a “critical mass” of those from minority backgrounds to promote student diversity ■ Another reverse discrimination case ■ Supreme court ruled in 2003 that michigan’s approach to affirmative action was ok ● Housing ○ Race and ethnicity plays a role in where we live and how we grew up ○ Conflict theory ■ residential segregation: the sorting of different race/ethnic groups into distinct neighborhoods ● Southern and northern phenomenon ○ In some ways, north has worse residential segregation ● Racism and discrimination deeply rooted ● Closely tied to patterns of wealth and education opportunities ● A historical process ○ Racial violence 3/7 ● Housing… ○ Federal housing policy ■ Nobody could afford mortgage payments before policy ■ Able to have little money down to buy a home w low monthly payments ■ Still overt discrimination against people of color ○ Real estate and banking practices ○ Racial violence ■ Numerous historical incidents of white violence against blacks in major cities ● Common discriminatory practices in housing ○ Redlining: the purposeful practice of denying loans for those in primarily non white neighborhoods (outline in red on a map) ■ Basically created inner city/ghetto ■ Don’t give loans to those who live in red area (black people majority) ○ Blockbusting: real estate speculators would intentionally sell homes to non-whites in white neighborhoods ■ Designed to accelerate white flight w fear of dropping property values
<...