Introduction to social division

Social division: When human differences become socially significant.

What meaning systems might serve to explain unequal distribution?

Luck? Biology? Fate? Individual differences.

Are these too simplistic?
We use categories such as female and healthy or sick that may at first appear to be
purely biological. However, they are actually social labels which we attach a meaning to
which has cultural significance.
Some people will try to relate a persons individual shortcomings to their own fault. This may
make sense if, for instance, one out of 100,000 people are unemployed. However, if there is
a trend of unemployment then it makes more sense to look for social factors.

Social division and social stratification seems to be universally present, but its essence will vary from
society to society.
Social divisions are distinct from social differences because they lead to hierarchy- one position is
more favourable than another.
Social Stratification: Older term referring to systematic structures of inequality (often based on
economic differences which result in social hierarchy) Social stratification is not a natural outcome of
differences- it is a characteristic of society. We impose systems that create a hierarchy. But why does
this persist throughout generations?

Those at the top of the hierarchy may well have a vested interest in claiming that
inequalities are due to things like fate and luck rather than social systems.
Those with restricted choices (lack of power) have less opportunity to choose their own
path. They are subordinate to those who can choose, and therefore they lead unpredictable
lives because they are subject to the changes that others impose.
Uncertainty about what others may do is what leads to people feeling insecure and
therefore less powerful. However, the beaurocracy have the power to affect the actions of
the lower class, therefore reducing their own uncertainty and increasing it in the other class.
Those at the top of the power hierarchy also have the most influence over things like the
media meaning they can influence peoples views about inequality.
Economic growth benefits the richer rather than the poorer, and therefore it exacerbates
inequality rather than eradicating it.

The implications of the term social stratification has been criticised for putting too much emphasis
on economic inequality rather than other factors.
Social structure:

Human beings are both individual entities and social creatures.

We each feel unique, and our experiences are the result of a unique set of interactions and
events. However, we also live a social life. It is impossible to exist in isolation from each
other.

We share a social identity and certain attitudes with our culture and this influences our
action.
The categories that we are sorted into affect our everyday lives (for instance, a trip to the
shop). However, social divisions do not just affect us on a personal basis; we may also
consider ourselves part of much larger communities such as nations or genders. These are
imagined communities, because we will never actually meet everyone within them.
Social divisions will affect our unconscious choices of mates, friends etc (eg most marriages
happen within the same social class- partly just because the people we meet tend to be part
of similar categories). Our social interactions are restricted by rules and boundaries.
There are certain ways we feel that certain people should act- the rich man in his castle,
the poor man at his gate etc. There are certain things that elderly women or young men
dont do.
These caterories are perhaps less rigid than they used to be (women get jobs outside the
home etc) but they still have an effect. With the media, global economy and the
homogenisation (westernisation) of culture we are more connected and have more choices.
However, modern culture has also had the effect of restricting us even more. Consumption
can now be used to define your identity, but the poor/disabled etc are cut off from certain
types of consumption (eg a disabled person will find it hard to navigate a shopping mall, a
poor person cant go skiing). This means that, even in a society where we can technically
mobilise ourselves, social divisions will prevent us from doing so.

Social divisions: Social organisation between two or more categories.

Usually sustained by dominant cultural belief, organised social institution and everyday
interaction.
Dominant cultural beliefs are often maintained by stereotypes which directly affect the way
people act and react to each other.
This is because the powerful have influence over public ideology (eg they may inflict the
belief that poor people are lazy). As Marx said, ideas as well as resources are controlled by
the elite. This is very gradual and develops over a long period of time.
These are socially constructed, not natural. They have arisen over the course of time from
previous social interactions.
Lead to unequal access to resources of different kinds (social inequalities).
We are deterred from breaking these stereotypes, although it is technically possible to do
so.
Movement between categories is rare. Those in the same category tend to share a sense of
identity.
Every social division encompasses all members of society- everyone is on one side or
another. We are all members of multiple social groups that lead us to be similar in some
ways and different in others.
Often which side we are on will have an effect on how we see ourselves and our own
identity.
Not being part of a social group may be just as important for your identity as being a part of
one.

All social divisions involve power relationships based on unequal control and access to
resources. Those in better categories have more control over their own lives.
They do not exist independently, they interact with each other. There are certain
combinations which can have specific knock on effects (eg a black, elderly, sick, working
class woman is in a worse position than a white, elderly, sick, working class woman and is at
a very big disadvantage to someone who is white, male, middle class and healthy)
We may want to consider why these social divisions exist with so much stability. Why are we
not at war? Why have we not destroyed them? What keeps them the way they are?

Development of social divisions in contemporary society:

Medieval Europe, for instance, had an estate system. Peasants were dominated by the
nobility, who owned the land. Landowners were dominated by Lords who were dominated
by the Monarch.
Some societies display elements of a caste system, which is described by Plummer &
Macionis as a closed system where youre born into your position in the hierarchy. This
can only persist if people only marry within their own caste, but this can be inflicted in
certain cultures. Indias traditional Hindu villages had a clear cut caste system and Apartheid
South Africa is another obvious example.
Industrialisation meant that culture was less focused on agrarian lifestyles. This allowed the
formation of the class system, which technically allows people to move around more
(though mobility is surprisingly infrequent).
Over time, traditional ways of life are replaced with new ones. Peoples sense of identity can
now draw on a much wider range of social factors and is less rigidly determined.

Social inequality: disproportionate access to resources.

This has a knock on effect eg children from poor families are less likely to gain access to the
immaterial resources which allow them to go to university. This prevents them from getting access
to both cultural and economic resources.
Why is society structured in this way?
Davis and Moore

Argued that stratification is essential to the running of society, and this is why it is found
everywhere. There are certain jobs that no one will do without an incentive. Some are
laborious, where some require special skill. By distributing unequally, you are making
citizens aspire toward something which makes them more useful as individuals.
This system is called meritocracy. While it has its advantages, the theory fails to consider the
fact that we sometimes operate in groups. We dont judge our family and friends by how
useful they can be to society.
Another problem is that it is hard to assign worth to certain jobs. Is it right that a footballer
be given more merit than a school teacher?
There are some stratification such as race and gender that dont seem to serve this purpose.
A black person cannot aspire to be white, nor would it help anyone if they did. Also,
someone very clever from a lower class background may not be able to utilise their talents.

As Wilkinson and Pickett have shown, social inequality causes social problems. So it isnt
always good for society to have stratification.

Marxism

The idea that stratification is maintained by the elite because it is beneficial to those at the
top of the hierarchy.
Marx proposed a type of egalitarianism from each according to ability, to each according to
need. But does he need to consider the idea of meritocracy as motivation to perform to the
best of your ability?

Do we shape society, or does society shape us?

Why does society change?
What is the relationship between personal and social issues in society?

Poverty, Wealth and Inequality

According to the ONS, 1% of the wealthiest UK citizens own 21% of the wealth and the wealthiest
50% own 93%.
Economic inequality almost always leads to other types of inequality.
Eg When benefits are cut, women are impacted more than men.
Women are more commonly in carer positions (they may rely on DLA, for instance) and are more
likely to work in public sector.
The Very Rich

90% male.
80% middle aged.
70% live in London and South East.
60% work in finance, accountancy, property and law.

Absolute Poverty vs Relative Poverty

Absolute: limited or no access to basic human resources.
Relative: Limited access to resources and amenities which contribute to standard of living in
comparison to the majority in own society.
Poverty has grown to become something more than this, a social status from which it can be hard to
break free. It is not just having a certain amount of money.

The poor will become isolated in society if they dont meet a certain standard of living
approved by society or cant participate in activities of the majority.

Poverty leads to class distinction under which the poor suffer.

Poverty can be used as a motive to keep conforming to avoid being poor and its effects.

Income inequality
Low income= 60% less than average household income per year.

This is 115 week for a single adult or 279 per week for a couple with two children.
In 2007/8 13.5m lived in a low income household.
The UK has a higher proportion in relative low income than most other EU countries.
The gap between rich and poor is very large in this country, and austerity makes it grow
larger.
Rowntree found that 26% of people in the UK lived in relative poverty. (DSS stats 1999) With
4million people not properly fed.

Measuring income equality

Gini coefficient
Robin Hood complex.

Gini Coefficient:
0= complete equality (ie everyone has the same)
1= complete inequality (ie one person has all the wealth)
This coefficient allows us to compare different countries with each other.
e.g the UK is 0.345 while Denmark is 0.248 so we can tell that Denmark is more equal than the UK.
Robin Hood Complex
Calculating how much needs to be taken from the rich to achieve various degrees of equality.
Can indicate how wealth and income is distributed.
Poverty: who is to blame?
Those nearer the bottom of the social ladder are more prone to experiencing the social problems
themselves.
There are two suggestions as to why this is

The circumstances in which they live cause problems.

The problems they experience stop them from advancing up the social ladder.

If we were arguing for the latter, it is possible that we could offer an individualist explanation for
why those at the bottom come off worse. Experiencing a social problem (eg getting pregnant as a
teenager, being obese etc) may hold you back. This works with social problems such as reduced
health. The less healthy are less likely to be able to get a higher income.

This may serve to show that social mobility is difficult- and therefore show why the problems persist
at the bottom.
However perhaps causation in fact runs the opposite way. Factors such as obesity (unless it has
caused a disease) or living in an area with more violence shouldnt directly affect your employability.
Individualism also does not explain why more unequal societies have more overall problems. This
cannot be down to the individual.

Do we blame the victim or the system?

Individualist explanation: Is it the individuals fault that they are in poverty?

In a society where large amounts of people are very poor, this seems unlikely.
Why would that many people be responsible for their own poverty when it is such an
undesirable position to be in?
What about the disabled?
Social attitude toward those who claim benefits such as DLA tends t be that they are
lazy/scroungers etc.
In fact, only 0.2% of disability benefit claims are false.
This attitude is partly due to the media publicising atypical scenarios.

Other social devisions

Women throughout history (and still in many contemporary societies) will work very hard at
things that are undervalued and underpaid or unpaid such as housework.
61% of the sick and disabled live in poverty (Rowntree 2000)
In contemporary Britain, women are still subject to the Glass Ceiling and despite the Equal
Pay act still earn less than men for the same work.
Poverty is more common among young people, single pensioners, young people, children
(due to large families being at risk) and those who left school before turning 17.

Structuralist explanation: Poverty is the result of unequal structure of society.

Those who benefit from social inequalities tend to be in a position of power which may lead them to
maintain inequalities or promote practices that perpetuate them.
The Spirit Level: Wilkinson and Pickett

Social problems that are more common among lower socio-economic groups are also more
common in more unequal societies.
Wilkinson and Pickett studied income inequality and used this as an indicator of inequality in
society.
They showed this both in a study of countries across the world and states in the USA which
compared income inequality and combined social problems and showed them to be linked.
All statistics used were provided by reputable organisations such as WHO, UN etc.
They did the same with child wellbeing using UNICEF stats- showing that children are
generally worse off in countries where income equality is higher.

They also showed that the social problems which are the ones that show up more in the less
well off are also the ones which are affected by income inequality.
It is important to note that societies which are less well off are prone to more social
problems, but it is not the actual income of these societies that makes the difference. A
town where people are generally poor will be more prone to social problems, not because of
inequality within the town, nor because of their income, but because in relation to wider
society this town has a low income.
Societies experience social problems depending not on their income, but on their income in
relation to wider society. Those with a lower income but more equality do better than higher
income but a more unequal wider society.
There is a common view that social problems are directly caused by the level of poverty in
society, but some of the richer countries seem to have worse problems with these issues
than relatively poorer countries.
Societies that had low income distribution have more social inequality and therefore are
more prone to social problems overall.
This means that even richer countries and richer people suffer as a result of income
inequality.
The more inequality there is in society, the more common social problems are.
This could be due to psychosocial effects- and a range of other factors.
Where income differences are bigger, social distances are bigger and stratification is more
salient and more important.
So inequality is everyones problem.
More unequal societies are more hierarchical so there is greater social distance between
different income groups and social stratification is more important.
It is worth noting that although there are similarities between, for instance, the US and the
UK, there are fewer between, for instance, the US and Singapore. The only relevant factor
that these two share when it comes to social performance is their level of inequality. The
exact came can be said for closely equal countries such as Japan and Sweden. Not very much
of their policies are the same- they approach social problems in different ways (ie Sweden
has a very strong welfare system whereas Japan devotes little to public social expenditure),
but they have similar levels of equality.

Social problems which arise from inequality include low level of trust, mental illness and addiction,
life expectancy and infant mortality, obesity, murder, crime, imprisonment, teenage pregnancy and
reduced social mobility. All these can be related to income equality in certain countries.
Reduced social mobility means that these inequalities persist and equal opportunity is reduced.
Trust
In the more equal states of the USA, only 10-15% felt they could not trust others compared to 3540% in the more unequal states.
The same results have been found on an international scale.
These statistics were taken from the

Education
Children who achieved 5GCSE A*-C:
Eligible for free school meals: 35.5%
Not eligible: 62.9% (dept for children, school and families)
Note: this is children who are eligible for the meals, not just those who actually applied for them.
Teenage pregnancy
2010: 40 pregnancies for every 100 girls aged 15-17.
There is a relationship between pregnancy and relative areas of deprivation.
UK has the highest % teenage pregnancy in Europe.
JFR study
Obesity
Poverty is a predicator of obesity in the UK.
Link between social class and adult obesity.
Link between obesity and relative deprivation (inequality).
The social gradient of obesity is more marked among women than men. This suggests that relative
deprivation contributes to social problems- women are more relatively deprived than men.
Role of the state in addressing poverty
This depends on political ideology (eg interventionalist or laissez-faire )
The state may provide a safety net to ensure basic needs are met.
Policy makers tend to treat social problems as though they are separate from one another, providing
individual services for each one.

For instance, they provide a service for health, a service for housing, a police force etc.
However, this approach fails to recognise that by promoting equality we may be able to
bring down the social problems altogether.
It would be cheaper and easier to keep people in good health, for instance, if we could
eradicate the factors that led them to be more likely to have a disease in the first place.
The same can be said for crime: it would be much cheaper to have people not commit
crimes than it would be to lock them up.

Social evils:
Beveridge identified 5 social evils:

Ignorance (lack of education)

Want (lack of money)
Idleness (unemployment)
Squalor (lack of housing)
Disease.

These were used as the foundation for the welfare state.

In Injustice: Why Social Inequality Exists Danny Dorling presented 5 sets of believes which
undermine the commitment to eradicating the evils.

Elitism (not caring about others)

Exclusion (isolating the poor)
Prejudice (believing that some deserve poverty)
Greed (and the idea that it is okay)
Despair (feelings of powerlessness)

Race and Ethnicity

What is race?

There needs to be a distinction between the way we use race in everyday language and the
way we interpret the term theoretically.
The study of race and ethnicity has broadened in scope due to increased communication
between countries and globalisation.
It is unwise to see race merely as a biological concept.
An ethnic group is as ambiguous a term as a racial one, if not more so. An ethnic group
could refer to a small community living within a city, or every member belonging to a certain
background or an entire country.
We may relate ethnicity to culture, perhaps in conjunction with nationalist attitudes.

Race is a contested concept- there are still terminological debates among sociologists.
It can sometimes be used to categorise people with biologically similar traits, but in the context of
social divisions, our definition must include:

How it operates as a functional principle of material exclusion and how it exists as a crucial
source of social meaning and as part of the power structure in society.
Race is socially constructed, and is shaped not by biology but by historical and cultural
context and experience.
When we refer to different races, we are not necessarily talking about empirically visible
biological differences; we are referring to a historical difference. Different races have
experienced different histories, been ranked in different work and are given different social
status.
Science being used as an excuse for exploitation and to justify a social distributive order.

This, however, does not mean that race does not exist. It very much exists because it has
such an effect on the way we live.
Racialisation: ranking people according to presumed race. Race is a product of racism,
because it is socially constructed in itself. Therefore a racialised group have been ranked
according to race.
Identities as a result of race are not necessarily imposed by society, they may be shaped by
culture, context and experience.

Ethnicity generally refers to shared cultural background, and doesnt have to have a biological
basis.
People often avoid the topic of race and use alternative terms.
The working definition:

A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group
by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality,
or geographic distribution.

Race in contemporary society

Racial debate has been prominent in the media and other political contexts as the issues of
multiculturalism arise.
New racism- focuses on protecting country from effect of immigration. But does this
actually just spring from a deep-rooted belief in biological inferiority?
Originally, racism may have sprung from the idea of a geographical other. But even after
mass transnational movement, the concept still seems deeply rooted.

Race and other divisions

White feminist rallying meant that black women were excluded from the benefits of the
feminist movement.
Parmer (1982) described cases of women being subject to vaginal tests and x rays before
leaving the airport at Heathrow.
Limiting illness in the working age is more common among South Asian and Muslim
communities (likely due to poor living standard) Ratcliffe 2004.

The demise of the scientific concept of race

There is very little biological difference between different races and ethnicities
However, consequences of scientific advances (like genetic screening) have shown that
some types of ethnic groups may be more likely to contract certain diseases.
The idea that there is has been used to justify exploitation, genocide, slavery etc.
Even if we do not believe that there is a direct biological difference, we may still think of
race as something which is genetically transmitted. We see someone as part of a certain
socially constructed race- but this race is then passed down through generations. Even if to
be black is a social construct, it is still one which runs in the family.

Social and political concept of race

-

Essentialism: the idea that there are innate differences between people of different races. (
eg Classing people into categories due to skin colour when there is nothing innately different
about them.)
Culture racism: Basing essentialism on culture rather than biological features (eg certain
religions)

What is racism?
Racism: Belief in the hierarchy between ethnic groups.

Can change form quite quickly depending on social view.

Often based on ideas, people, practices, organisations and structures in society.
Can be taken for granted/taken as fact.
Unconscious racism: embedded prejudice.
An ethnic minority is generally what we call an ethnic group that is at a disadvantage. This
does not consider the individual, but a group which will share a collective identity and will
be, on average, subordinate to the majority as a whole.
Racism often extends from prejudice- people will generalise certain ethnic groups. This will
often be according to stereotypes. They will think they know something about Africans or
Asians in general.
Discrimination is a manifestation of prejudice.
In a way, prejudice can be a self fulfilling prophecy. Races which people are prejudiced
against often will not be as successful within society. While they arent innately inferior, they
may be socially inferior. This can reinforce beliefs about the inferiority of certain ethnic
groups.

The purpose of racism

Relationship to capitalist system- slavery etc, Marx: sets people apart in order to keep them
in check under a capitalist regime or distract their attention.
Socioeconomic problems are often blamed on the minority rather than the ruling class.
Some rational people may resort to racism as a way to find something to direct their anger
towards (eg blaming immigrants for unemployment).
Racism used to justify invasion of territory (maybe due to lack of resources). For instance the
invasion of Africa may be justified by placing African natives in inferior category. Same can
be said for Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians.
Racism can be used to explain scarcity of resources (eg immigration) which are more likely
the result of the ruling class (distribution problems etc).
Despite the multiculturalist movement, hate crimes and prejudice are still a serious issue
today.
Attitudes towards race are a product of very gradual development over several centuries.
This means that we cannot ignore race as a construct, because it is clear that some beliefs
from the eighteenth and nineteenth century will have had a deep-rooted impact on how we
see race. Racism continues to have an impact.

More recent racist assertions have taken the form of nationalism- defending ones nation
from other rather than holding specific negative beliefs about the other.

Identity

Not only racists will use the concept of race to distinguish certain groups. The groups may
also use it to distinguish themselves and shape their identity.
This means that minorities are sometimes also found to refer to their race in a biological or
inherited context rather than just a socially constructed one, defining their own identity as
different from another racial identity.
Immigration and multicultural society has led identity to the forefront of debate. Where do
minorities belong? We cant treat them as totally the same as us, but we dont want to treat
them as other.
We all live with a variety of different factors that contribute to our identity (especially
concerning which side of various divisions we are on).
The idea of identity may lead to further exclusion. For instance if black women and white
women begin to see themselves as separate they will lose what would have been a sense of
collective identity and instead will stand on two separate sides of a new division.
It seems that identity and politics are often too quickly related to one another. It is thought
that a black person should have certain views; a white male should have different views
from a white black male etc.
This concept is problematic because identity and politics shape each other it is not a one
way connection. Your experiences politically shape who you are just as much as other
factors such as race.
This means a problem arises with the idea of someone being politically black- different
minorities have different experiences.
Identities are formed by stereotypes. You cant identify as English without some preexisting notion of what Englishness is.
The problem is that certain groups have more power to establish their own identity (or
what it means to be them than others.
Sometimes all a minority can do is try to reclaim their identity as a minority culture, which
doesnt serve to bring them any resource benefits. This means that sometimes cultural
identity can be just as hard to break free from as a biological concept of race.

Racism and the state

The state has power both to promote and to combat racism (eg nazi germany, apartheid
which promoted racial segregation through the law)

Immigration

Non-white immigration treated as a problem.

They are taking our things.
Violence in Notting Hill and Nottingham 1958 after the recruitment of labour often from
colonies with black citizens meant that people began blaming the immigrants themselves for
unrest.

Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 meant that immigration began to be regulated.

1983 Nationality Act could deny settlement rights to some people, and meant that even
some people born in the UK werent immediately entitled to UK citizenship. Britishness was
getting narrower.
Until 2002, asylum seekers had to pay for food using vouchers, which was a source of shame
and stigmatisation.
Immigration becomes code for raceyou can be anti immigration without being racist.
Paul Gilroy: Agreed that people still associate British-ness with being white.
We still use words like Asian-British or Black-British, even if the Black-British presence has
been around for centuries and may as well be called British.

Multiculturalism

Challenges dominant hegemonic culture

Demands recognition of cultural differences- you do not need to blend in with a dominant
culture to live within a society.
Values cultural diversity as something that can promote progress.
State recognition of multiculturalism varies (eg you cant wear religious symbols in France,
there is no recognition that you can be culturally different)
Has multiculturalism failed? Is it an illusion?
Pluralism: values the existence of lots of distinct cultures in society.
Assimilation: when minorities simply adapt to fit the majority culture. We can argue that this
is what globalisation is about.
Multiculturalism requires that we reconceptualise citizenship and national membership.
Nationalism is still an issue when it comes to the rights of minority ethnic groups.
Multiculturalism is in some forms an attempt to combat this by changing what it is to be part
of a nation.
Multiculturalism generally refers to a type of coexistence, but it is up for debate whether it
also entails equal rights to everything not just equal rights to identify with a certain nation.
Multiculturalism may not necessarily mean equality of cultures.
We cant expect other cultures to simply blend in. Culture and ethnicity are vital to
immigrant settlement.
Although we do make certain exceptions in some laws (you can wear a turban instead of a
safety helmet, you can engage in halal meat slaughter) there are some tensions which
cannot be resolved such as female circumcision.)
So multiculturalism could be seen as the right to cultural difference without it leading to
exclusion.
Minorities in Britain are questioning whether they are included (and represented) as part of
the concept of British which we seem so ready to defend.
Can we use difference to improve society rather than see it as a threat to what we already
value? (pluralist).

Blackness and Whiteness

The colour line- people with certain skin colour being disadvantaged.

Political blackness used to mean people who arent white.

Whiteness- ambigious because everyone is of many different cultural descents.
British culture claims to be multi-ethnic (people like to think you can be both black and
British). However, the idea of British culture is still very much based on whiteness.

Why race matters

Stop and search- more likely to get stopped for driving licence etc
Police violence towards ethnic minorities, refusal to see minorities as victims.
Stephen Lawrence: police behaved in a racist fashion towards family and the murder was
not appropriately investigated.
Very loose definition of a racial hate crime leads to few of them resulting in convinction.
Mistaken identity- innocents being convicted.
More deaths in police custody
Immigrants being put in poor housing. Although segregation is lesser now, so called ghettos
are still present in an unofficial capacity. This may affect access to education and welfare do
to the postcode lottery. This leads to class distinction and reduced social mobility!
Reduced access to higher education means that social mobility is harder (universities are still
predominantly white and Africans are under-represented. There are certain universities
which are thought of as black or white.
Caution and charging (minorities charged more harshly)
Sentencing (minorities get more severe sentences)
African-Caribbean youths are often viewed as having chip on their shoulder which Ratcliffe
suggested may be due to the fact that early immigrants spoke patois.
Over-representation of minority in prison.
Immigrants not being granted equal access to welfare and employment has led to minorities
commonly dominating the lower class. This is because even the children and grandchildren
of immigrants typically dont do as well due to the difficult nature of moving up the social
ladder.
Individualist explanations of poverty: some will sometimes (even unconsciously) draw on
race as a given reason for being part of a lower class without actually explaining why it
would make a difference (since there is no actual biological divide as we have seen).
Lower income: Bangladeshi men earned between 45% and 52% less than their white
counterparts in 1994 and 2000 (Cabinet Office Report, 2003)
Combination with other social divisions: eg black women are often in lower paid jobs and
less access to work even if they achieve in education.
Racist attitudes towards immigrants and asylum seekers. The government justifies harsh and
discriminatory treatment towards them and the media shows them in a very bad light.
The effect of racism, argues Mason, is not just to do with economic implication. Racial
discrimination can lead to changes in the way that people begin to define themselves. There
do not have to be rigid and obvious class differences in society for us to identify racial
discrimination as a problem.
Unemployment: Department for Education and Employment (2000) found that
unemployment was 3 times higher for non-white men and 4 times for non-white women
compared to that of white men and women.

Example: Barack Obama

His mistakes viewed through prism of race.

His citizenship challenged (had to produce his birth certificate)
Been criticised for race-neutral politics.

Religion, belief and meaning

When considering religion we have to consider the belief itself, the practices arising from the
belief and the social organisation of religious tradition. (Kurtz, 2007)
Religion can both challenge and justify the status quo and therefore inequalities and social
divisions.
Truth or falsity of religion is not generally a concern for sociologists.
Can be viewed from different perspectives depending on the culture.

The founding fathers of religious sociology:

Durkheim

Religion is not a delusion- it is real for those who believe in it. We have to take it seriously.
Division made between the sacred and profane (everyday). We set them apart and see them
as separate. Eg Muslims removing their shoes before entering a mosque.
Sacred entails rituals, especially when crossing from one realm to another.
Religious rituals facilitate movement between the two.
The sacred may be representative of society itself- perhaps it is people trying to control the
uncontrollable.
Religion is functional for the operation of major society. It promotes social cohesion (makes
people join together), promotes conformity and provides meaning and purpose to peoples
lives which avoids despair and keeps them contributing.
We are experiencing both increasing unity and increasing diversity.
But- we can criticise this analysis because religion causes conflict.

Weber

Interested in part played by religion in transforming society and how religion can be a force
for change.
Also in the tension between religious faith and modern Western rationality.

Marx

Religion part of ideological superstructure.

Religion is a delusion (only the material is important in society).
Ideological superstructure is constructed to justify the way society works within the
economic structure.
The ruling class use the delusion of religion to control people.
Opium of the people

However, we can criticise that religion actually sometimes helps to abolish stratification eg
religious movement against slavery.

Secularisation theory

Decline in membership of religious organisation.

British Household Panel Survey beginning 1991 showed that younger generations were less
religious and that religion declined over time. The correlation between belief and practice
was fairly consistent in this study.
Therefore a decline in social influence of religious groups.
Religion excluded from public life and privatised (eg government taking on roles that the
church used to have).
Decline in religiosity- or how peoples identity is shaped by religion and the importance of
religion in a persons life. How often they take part in rituals, how their religion affects the
way they act etc.
Only 21% Britons have no doubt that God exists (Social Trends 1997)
Could be partly to do with science- people now see things such as death in more biological
terms. The explanations religion offers arent satisfactory anymore. (Religious
fundamentalism aims to challenge this).
Cultural amnesia (Karner and Aldridge, 2004). People pass on less and less religiosity as
generations unfold.
Voas and Crockett observed from the BHPS data that in a household with one religious
parent, there is a 22% chance the child will follow this religion. If both parents are from the
same denomination, the chance is still only 46%.- EXACTLY equal to the likelihood that they
will become non-believers and list their religion as none.
Especially if parents dont regularly engage in active participation in religious organisation,
children have been shown to be much less likely to do so themselves.
Bauman (2001): Mortal humans manage to do without immortality and do not seem to
mind.
Religious organisations talk less about other-worldly matters (such as life and death) and
more about disease and poverty.
Globalisation and other cultural shifts have meant a politicalisation of religion.
This trend has been present for a long time. Sociologists of the 19th century predicted the
demise of religion. So why is religion still so present and influential?

Religious revival

In contrast to secularisation, there has been a revival in religion in a significant minority.

Risk society (Beck)- people feel increasingly powerful in political/economic/environmental
issues and may turn to religion for comfort.
As we seem to become increasingly separate from one another, we might also argue that we
need the original sense of belonging back.
We may also argue that religion has not disappeared, but rather it has changed. People still
have faith but it does not take the same form because of the way society is now structured.

Consumerism means that we need something to make us feel unique that we didnt
purchase. We feel as though we need something outside of the system.
People feel unstable, they are anxious about their own lives.
Religion provides a sacred canopy (Peter Berger, 1969) which provides security by giving
answers to almost all questions in an increasingly confusing time in peoples lives.
Berger (1969) thought that religion was a matter of world construction. We use it to make
sense of our universe. How we see it, then, in a way, affects how it is.
People are separated among individuals.
They feel increasingly isolated from each other.
Religion can be a way of belonging.
Religion is still central to our society eg marriages and religious festivals. Its hard to imagine
living without it.
BUT we can argue that there is no longer a sacred canopy because of the pluralism in
society due to globalisation and the arising of a religious marketplace.

Globalisation, the ease of communication + movement of ideas causes religion to become less rigid.
Pluralism and immigration

Religious tolerance is something that we tend to associate with the British due to our
multicultural society and pluralism.
However this is a complex term, because if you promote pluralism you will not want to
tolerate a religion that is not tolerant of rival faiths or wants a monopoly.
Perhaps tolerance and the depoliticalisation of religion is actually due to globalisation: we
can no longer restrict information from being exchanged even if we want to.
This would explain why communities that are cut off from globalisation of the modern era
are more controlling over religious practice.
Immigration has led to the introduction of many new religions, which in a way has forced
people to become more tolerant of alternative ideas.
The level of immigration also means we have what Vertovec called super-diversity meaning
that minority cultures can no longer arrive in the country and find their own minicommunity. They have to interact with culture as a whole because people are more
dispersed.
We grant exception when it comes to halal slaughter; you are allowed to wear a turban
rather than a safety helmet.
On the other hand, we seem to expect other religions to practice in a private capacity. We
cant have school holidays for every religious festival and we may expect people to conform
to social norms which originated in the Church.
We also choose to ban certain practices such as female circumcision that we see as
abhorrent.
Culture is important. It can be very hard to distinguish between religious and cultural norms,
which can make it hard to decide how multi-faith societies should be run.
Religious groups are faced with contrasting priorities. On the one hand they will feel at odds
with a religion they disagree with, but it is also important that religious groups cooperate in

case the religious demise becomes a problem. In a lot of ways, different religions want the
same things.
Pope John Paul 2 argued that the true challenge to religion is not true atheism but indifference.
People dont think about religion or see it as important.
The focus is increasing in a small minority, but decreasing in wider society.
The spiritual supermarket

More ideas available.

People dont inherit religion anymore.
You can pick and choose beliefs.
Is this superficial? People can pick what suits them and change at any point.
If we think of religion as a marketplace, we need to consider ideas of supply and demand.
Extreme religion may be available for those wanting to challenge the majority; strict religion
is there for those who need more structure.
Cyber-churches and Church summer camps etc provide an experience as though they are
catering to more capitalist ideas.

Religion and social control

Religion can be used to protect the privileged and power and keep people in their place.
The rich man at his castle, the poor man at his gate hierarchy is an important aspect of
religious practice.
Rigid estate order in Europe used to exist on the basis that to challenge oppression of the
poor or try and move up the system was to defy Gods teachings.
With the industrial revolution this changed some, and people began to think that Gods will
was that everyone who worked hard should be rewarded for it. The class system was meant
to reflect this belief.
Religion may be used to justify injustice- eg the colonial empire.
Religion is an efficient way of social organisation sometimes (eg funerals and weddings). It
has worked in the past. In a sense, no one sees the need to change it.
However, when social conditions change, we may need to consider changing the ritualistic
processes by which we deal with them.

Religion and social conflict

Can also inspire hope and resistance against oppression.

Encourages demand for social justice.
Can be used to fight against poverty.
Can provide organisational support and bring people together in common cause.
BUT conflict can arise and have devastating consequences.
Extremism may be seen as a direct response to globalisation- the opposite of tolerance.
People see the liquid times as a threat.

Religion and gender

Helps perpetuate and justify gender inequality.

Claims that it is a natural hierarchy, supports the patriarchy.
Important leadership roles always filled by males.

Sexuality

Religion seems to focus a lot on sex.

Tries to exert control over peoples sexuality.
Supports and maintains normative heterosexuality.
Sex is only legitimate within normative heterosexual marriages. Makes other relationships
invalid as well as wrong.

Religion and class

Relationship between religion and class is declining.

Though certain Christian belief is still often associated with middle class white population.
West Indian people often worship in separate churches.

Religion and race/ethnicity

Different ethnic and racial identities are associated with different religions.
Religious practice sometimes highlights the divisions between the groups.
Religious difference adds further challenge to a multicultural society (eg faith schools will
create ethnic division by default)
Your cultural and ethnic identity is likely to be tied in with your ethnic identity, either
because you (or others) see them as interrelated or because your culture is shaped by
religious practices which deviate from the majority culture in which you live.

Religion as a social institution is a reflection of the class gender and race inequalities.
Religion in contemporary society

Despite secularisation theory, religion is still very much present in public debate. (eg
whether you can wear religious symbols etc)
Our culture is still shaped by the Church. Traditions of Christianity still deeply embedded.
Churches still have a place in the lives of many people, even if they do not shape the
everyday actions of people as much as they used to.
People continue to have religious funerals and weddings.

Believing without belonging- Grace Davie

Different measures of religiousness- people dont necessarily commit to religion in the way
they used to.
There is no longer such a strong link between belief and practice.

Davie makes the point that religious institutions have declined, but so have other activities
of a similar nature (which involve gathering). Political parties, trade unions etc dont
behave in the way they used to but people still have beliefs regarding them.
Some (such as Steve Bruce) have argued that eventually without the belonging aspect the
belief will also fade.
However, some beliefs are becoming more common such as belief in afterlife.
Consumerism has also meant that religions can more easily coexist. You no longer need
religion to be a unifying aspect of society. Consumerism does this for us. It is the new
opium of the people.
2001 census revealed over 70% of population of England and Wales were Christians.
However, what were they claiming? Were they claiming to be Christian and not secular, or
were they claiming to be Christian and not Muslim?
The new age and self-spirituality sheds light on a new era of religion. Religious
membership and practice is no longer necessary. Even if you are religious you can now live
your social life in a secular capacity.
The rise in self-spirituality may be because we need religion for a different reason. We used
to need it for aspects of our social organisation and social norms- but now we need religion
to offer comfort and meaning and a spiritual canopy.
We may question whether the rise of self spirituality poses a threat to religious institution
by making it unnecessary or whether it in fact keeps spirituality afloat in society.

Vicarious religion

Church leaders perform rituals on behalf of others, and to an extent churchgoers believe on
behalf of others. We expect churches to be there should we want to attend them.
We expect religious professionals to behave in a certain way.
Churches may offer space for debates which we cant find another place for like
homosexuality. They can offer guidance on what we should think even if we arent actually
religious.

Obligation, consumption and pluralism

Religion is not inherited as much- it is more a matter of choice.

Media offers access to more choices by providing communication and access to alternative
ideas.
To an extent this makes religious practice more of a statement as opposed to a norm.
Spiritual supermarket- we can pick and choose.
The idea is that you now opt in to religion rather than opt out.
Immigration has added to the number of religions present in society so that there is no
longer just one way to be religious.
However, we may argue that Britain is still very undemocratic in the favour that it gives to
the Church.
Religion more seen as a private matter, with outward action such as wearing headscarfs
coming under controversy. Is this a result of pluralism rather than atheism?

A pluralist society means that religious and secular elites must work together (eg Muslim
and Christian religious professionals working out how to do interfaith marriages.)
Secular people still in a sense view religion as a rational world view as part of pluralism.
However, there is still extreme religious conflict all around the world. Globalisation, in a
sense, means that there is now more than one truth. Following one religion now also
means denouncing another. And now we also have science to contend with. (But could this
bring different religions together?)
The very thing that can hold a community together can also tear it apart- Kurtz 2007