Weebly



The following are a list of sample essays on Inequality. PLEASE NOTE that some of them (particularly the first 20 mark response) are far longer than you would be expected to write within the time constraints of an exam – I’ve done this intentionally, just to highlight the range of information you could include. Overall, these essays are really intended to help guide you in terms of the sort of things you should be including, and how to apply some of the concepts and theories we’ve studied, alongside using some contemporary ideas and some evidence from your own research. There are hundreds of ways you COULD answer each question – your job in the exam is to present the evidence/argument that you feel best addresses the question, using the examples, concepts and theories that you believe most important/relevant.Outline the evidence that some ethnic groups are disadvantaged in the contemporary UK [20]Over the last few decades, UK society has reached the level of super-diversity (Vertovec; 2007). This means that, due to globalisation and factors like international travel, the UK’s population is more complex and diverse than it has even been before, particularly in terms of ethnicity. However, this has potentially created a new series of problems for UK society, as there is much evidence that some ethnic groups experience more disadvantage than others.A study by Modood & Berthoud (1997) found that some ethnic minority groups were at a significantly higher risk of living in poverty in the UK, with Pakistani and Bangladeshi households being the most likely to experience poverty. Pilkington (2005) found that these ethnic minority groups were also more concentrated in deprived areas, often in overcrowded accommodation. A truly multicultural (or even ‘super-diverse’) society should see different ethnic groups living side-by-side, enjoying equality of opportunity and with the differences between them being celebrated. Any correlation between ethnicity and poverty casts doubt on the UK’s status as a multicultural society and such patterns continue throughout other areas of social life.Some of the clearest evidence for ethnic disadvantage is found in the workplace. Sociologists such as Heath & Li Cheung (2006) refer to the concept of an ethnic penalty, meaning the disadvantage faced by ethnic minorities in gaining and maintaining employment. Employment statistics and national surveys offer evidence for this ethnic penalty: 14% of black men are unemployed compared to only 5% of white men (Cabinet Office Report; 2004), 70% of Bangladeshi/Pakistani women are socially inactive compared to 25% of white women (Social Trends Survey; 2006); fewer than 35% of black, Pakistani and Bangladeshi men occupy the highest two social class groupings (Labour Force Survey; 2000). Even for those in steady employment, there are potentially huge differences in salary: A 2000 Cabinet Office Report showed the white men earn twice as much as Bangladeshi men. Problems in the workplace might be closely tied to problems in education. According to the ONS (2004), less than 40% of black and Pakistani boys gain 5 or more GCSE A-C grades, which would have an obvious impact on their potential for gaining employment. Other studies have suggested that these same ethnic groups are also more likely to engage in truancy and the formation of anti-education subcultures.However, these findings and statistics on their own do not offer definitive evidence of disadvantage. They could be explained through cultural attitudes to education or to work-ethics, for example, or simply that some ethnic groups are not yet fully established in the UK, meaning differences and inequalities will disappear throughout subsequent generations. It is also worth noting that such differences do not apply to all ethnic minorities (for example, Chinese and Indian people living within the UK are more likely than white people to occupy the highest two social class groupings, and outperform white people in the UK education system). Heath & Li Cheung accept this, but claim that even when factors like age, education and country of birth are removed, there is still an ethnic penalty – albeit one that is greater for some ethnic minorities over others - and that the root cause of it is discrimination. Mason (2003) concurs that discriminatory attitudes of employers in the UK is the biggest contributor to the disadvantage faced by ethnic minorities.Evidence of discrimination leading to disadvantage for some ethnic groups can be found in many areas of social life and within some of the UK’s most influential institutions. For example, the Macpherson Inquiry (1998) into the racially motivated murder of Stephen Lawrence found evidence of institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police Force. When those who protect our society are found to actively discriminate against certain groups because of ethnic origin, disadvantage will inevitably follow. It has certainly be demonstrated in the UK that some ethnic groups (particularly young, black males) are far more likely to be stopped and searched by the police and subsequently more likely to end up in prison.The Mass Media is perhaps the area that most shapes and influences our views in the 21st Century UK. Many sociologists have claimed that the media has helped create prejudice towards ethnic minorities in the UK, which has in turn helped create the disadvantage many experience today. For example, Moore (2005) identified five stereotypes used to portray black people in the media: As criminals, as a threat, as abnormal, as unimportant and as dependant. Studies by Hall (1995) and Van Dijk (1991) have offered further evidence of this, showing how potentially racist language is (unconsciously) used by areas of the mass media (e.g. when a crime is committed by a black men, his ethnicity is always pointed out; quotes from ethnic minority experts are often ignored in favour of testimony from white people). Specific television programmes have occasionally been highlighted as problematic: For example, Eastenders have faced criticism for often falling back on ethnic stereotypes (e.g. every Asian family has to go through an ‘arranged marriage’ storyline), whilst Midsomer Murders was criticised for showing no ethnic diversity whatsoever. Even in areas of the media where there is considerable diversity, it is often not positive: For example, as identified by a recent BBC Panorama investigation (2013), black male role-models in the media tend to be either rappers or footballers rather than people working ‘everyday’ jobs, creating false (and often negative) aspirations for young black males that often almost dismiss the need for education.It would certainly not be true to say that every ethnic minority group/individual experiences the same levels of disadvantage in the contemporary UK. In work and education, some ethnic minority groups could be argued to actually experience advantage over the majority ‘white’ population and, further to this, The Times Rich List demonstrates that many of the richest people resident in the UK (including the vast majority of the ‘top ten’) are ethnic minorities. This suggests that, as a society, we are not ‘racist’ and that being in a minority group does not automatically result in disadvantage. However, the evidence does seem clear that some ethnic minority groups are at a significantly higher risk of disadvantage than others and that there are elements of prejudice and cultural difference that need to be understood and addressed in order that this disadvantage be removed.Outline and assess Marxist explanations of ethnic inequality [40]Marxists recognise that ethnic minorities in capitalist societies experience long-term disadvantage and inequality. They claim that being an ethnic minority in a capitalist society automatically makes a group/individual working-class, because it means being subjected to the same exploitation as the broader proletariat at the hands of the bourgeoisie.Cox (1948) claimed that capitalist societies require ethnic inequality and are therefore inherently racist. Many Marxists would agree that racism has always served the needs of capitalism, because it has encouraged the treating of some groups as ‘less than human’, which in turn has justified paying them low wages and forcing them to work in appalling conditions. It could be argued that, historically, using ethnic minorities as slave labour was essential for the development of capitalism. In the contemporary UK, slavery is obviously long-abolished, but Marxists would argue the same principles still apply. For example, Castles & Kosack (1973) claim racism is used to justify treating ethnic minorities as a reserve army of labour, supporting the capitalist system by being maintained in a semi-permanent state of unemployment, easily ‘hired and fired’ to suit the needs of the economy. Further to this, Marxists claim that racism also helps maintain a false-class consciousness by dividing the working class, which in turn makes them easier to rule. If the ruling classes can turn the working classes against each other (e.g. by encouraging racial prejudice), they are less likely to ever unite and revolt against the unfair capitalist system. One way in which they can achieve this is through scapegoating ethnic minorities for the problems that capitalism creates e.g. lack of housing, unemployment. Policing the Crisis by Hall (1995) showed how young black males were depicted as criminals by the media during the moral panic surrounding ‘mugging’ in the 1970s. Hall argues that this was a case of society scapegoating a minority group to conceal the socio-economic problems caused by a failing capitalist system in the UK at the time.Critics of these views claim that the Marxist perspective is reductionist, attempting to reduce all inequalities to economic factors at the expense of other issues (e.g. cultural differences). Neo-Marxists such as Miles (1980) have taken some of this criticism on board and offer slightly different explanations. For example, they disagree that all ethnic minorities are working-class. Miles used the concept of racialised class factions to show that ethnic minorities are found in all social classes, but they are still treated differently because of their ethnicity, possibly due to a cultural racism in the UK. Gilroy (1987) affirms this, pointing out that black people are still seen as culturally different even if they were born in the UK, and therefore are seen to threaten the cultural unity that has made Britain strong in the past – hence their differential treatment, leading to inequality.A logical conclusion of the Marxist view is that ethnic inequalities are entirely created by capitalism and would therefore disappear in a communist society. This is questionable – and difficult to test, as communist societies that we have seen around the world to date have not been especially diverse. As described above, Neo-Marxists have moved away from such economically deterministic views and Weberian views have moved further still away from the traditional Marxist arguments, suggesting that inequality is better explained by ethnic differences than economic ones. Through explaining ethnic inequality in relation to capitalism, Marxists do give some valuable insight into one key source of inequality, but by reducing their explanations to this single factor, they probably do not offer the whole picture, largely ignoring many other potential factors and issues. However, Marxism does recognise the persistence of racism. This is in contrast with Functionalist explanations, which tend to assume the racism and ethnic inequality is a temporary issue that is resolved once immigrant groups assimilate into a host culture and values and attitudes within that culture change accordingly. Racism in the UK – as in most other societies – does not seem to be temporary; it is something experienced by new immigrants to our society and every successive generation thereafter. The Marxist perspective does at least recognise this and offers an explanation for it, demonstrating that the persistence of racism serves the needs of a capitalist society.Outline the evidence for social class inequality in the contemporary UK [20]Traditionally, the very concept of social class would signify inequality in a society. Karl Marx believed conflict between two main social class groups – the bourgeoisie and the proletariat; the former holding all the power and wealth at the expense of the latter. Contemporary capitalist societies like the UK are probably more complex than those described by Marx, but there is still clear evidence of inequality based on class.Occupation and income are the most common ways of measuring social class (the UK government uses the NS-SEC, categorising households into one of eight class groups based on the occupation of the highest earner in the household), so it is perhaps inevitable that the ‘higher’ your social class, the higher your income is likely to be. The ONS (2006) shows that those in the highest occupational group earn – on average – more than double that of the lowest class group, despite working fewer hours. Beyond the workplace, however, there is a great deal of evidence that suggests social class has a major impact on people’s life chances and opportunities, thus creating inequality.In Education, social class has an impact on attainment. In 2002, 77% of students from the highest class group gained 5 or more A-C grade GCSEs compared to just 32% from the lowest. Obviously, these qualifications are potentially crucial in determining a person’s future opportunities. These sorts of class-based differences at school level will almost inevitably result in work/income inequalities later in life, significantly reducing social mobility. The Sutton Trust Study (2008) found that social class becomes less of a barrier to achievement at A-Level, but a student’s chances of getting into a prestigious university are greatly improved if they attended an expensive private/public school – an option that would not be available to students from poorer backgrounds.There is evidence that social class can very literally affect someone’s life chances. According to the Healthcare Commission, men in the highest social class live around 7.4 years longer than men from the lowest (the difference between women is 5.7 years) and there are comparable correlations between social class and infant mortality and on a person’s chances of surviving serious illnesses and conditions like cancer. The first Whitehall Study, by Marmot (1967) showed that lower-grade civil servants had a much higher death rate (particularly from coronary heart disease) that those at the top of the hierarchy, concluding that the most significant factor in this was workplace stress, as those lower in status felt they had less control over their work. This was a large-scale study that could be generalised to describe health issues related to class for the wider population.Social class appears to be a major source of inequality in the contemporary UK. The social class you are born into potentially determines your chances of doing well at school, which in turn determines your career potential, which in turn determines – in part - your healthy life expectancy. Because the gap between attainment by social class continues to be so huge at school level, this creates a vicious circle, limiting social mobility in the UK and ensuring that class inequality continues. This means that to reduce class-based inequality, the education system is perhaps the place to start, so we would need to entrust our politicians to solve this... ...Unfortunately, politics is another area where social class inequality is evident. According to a study by the Smith Institute (2010), 34% of current MPs were privately educated (compared to 7% of the UK population as whole – and an incredible 54% of Conservatives went to private school). Additionally, an increasing majority of MPs in all parties are from higher occupational (social class) backgrounds. Two-thirds of the current cabinet are millionaires, including Michael Gove, the current Secretary for Education, Jeremy Hunt, the current Secretary for Health and Iain Duncan Smith, the current Secretary for Work & Pensions.Politicians are essentially the ‘ruling class’ of the contemporary UK, and if a majority are from wealthy or powerful origins, the Marxist view of society suddenly does not look so outdated in the contemporary UK. A Marxist would suggest that inequality serves the interests of the bourgeoisie ruling classes, and therefore perhaps it is no surprise that there is so much evidence for social class inequality in our society to this day.Outline and assess functionalist explanations of social inequality [40]Durkheim, the founder of the functionalist perspective, believed that social inequality was inevitable and functional for any complex human society – and this is a view shared by the majority of subsequent functionalist theorists. Inequality is inevitable because it is found in every complex society; there has yet to exist a human society free of inequality – and even though Marxists claim a communist society would/should practice complete equality, forms of inequality have emerged in the communist societies that have existed.Social inequality is functional because it is necessary in order for a society to function effectively. For example, Durkheim believed it helped maintain social order and prevented anomie. This is because it creates a system within which people know their place. Parsons (1940) agreed, claiming that any social system had to be hierarchical in order to be healthy. Within a clear hierarchy, everyone knows their role and the norms and expectations of that role. Without this, no-one would know how to behave or who to follow, and society would collapse into normlessness and cease to function.Functionalists invariably see a healthy society as being a meritocracy. This means that the people who work hardest, demonstrate the most talent and fulfil the most important roles receive the highest rewards. Davis & Moore (1945) believe that pay should always be relative to talent and ability. This ensures that the most talented and able people gain the most important and highly-paid jobs, which ensures society runs smoothly. In untalented, incapable people got the best jobs, society would not work. This inspires the wider population to work harder, gain more qualifications and skills in order to increase their chances of high pay. This means societies become increasingly competitive, which further ensures the best people reach the top and gain the most important positions. Lazy, talentless people remain at the bottom of society, working in jobs that are not important in return for not much money. This creates inequality, but shows that inequality is needed.The functionalist view of social inequality is therefore relatively simple and common-sense. However, in practice, it is also highly questionable. For example, in the UK, is it really the case that the most important jobs are the most highly paid? Footballers, actors, models, city traders, lawyers and musicians are some of the highest paid people in society – but few would claim that these represent the most important jobs in our society. It may be true that the most highly paid people in these professions are those who have shown the most talent and competitive spirit, but it is also highly probable that society would be perfectly healthy and functional without most of them. At the other side of the spectrum, nurses and teachers receive relatively modest incomes, but are trained professionals who are vital for a healthy society. If the functionalist view of society was credible, then surely nurses should be millionaires whilst modelling would be a minimum wage job. Tumin (1963) questioned functionalist views, by pointing out that it was difficult to discern what is meant by a ‘functionally important’ role within a society.A functionalist might argue that the key thing about these highly-paid profession(al)s is that they inspire people to make the best of themselves. For example, a multi-millionaire like Simon Cowell is probably not required for UK society to function, but he – and others like him – inspires the rest of us to work hard and develop our talents and abilities in order that we might achieve similar wealth and status. In reality, however, stratification – and the huge gap between rich and poor – is just as likely to frustrate, anger and de-motivate people as it is to inspire them. Does a cleaner in a hospital working 45 hours a week for minimum wage feel inspired when they see a professional footballer getting paid millions of pounds a year to play a match once or twice a week?It is perhaps no surprise that Marxists criticise functionalists for underplaying the conflict and division caused by social class inequality. Another criticism of the functionalist view is their assumption that we need to see the success of others in order to be inspired to work harder and better ourselves. In reality, surely many people don’t need such inspiration, and work hard and undergo training, education and self-improvement because it is fulfilling to do so. For example, a nurse or carer – earning relatively little money – might work hard and train in order to be better at their job because they want to help people, and to help society, not because they have been inspired to want to be rich, competitive and successful.A further criticism is that functionalist theorists tend to be white males from wealthy or middle-class backgrounds. The concept of a meritocracy would be appealing as an explanation of inequality to someone who is already wealthy; to a poor, deprived person, the concept of a meritocracy would be a dismal explanation, as it would suggest they are lazy or untalented. So the class position of functionalists probably influences their explanations for social inequality.Given all the criticisms of the view, combined with the fact that the functionalist view is very dated, it might be easy to write off their explanations for social inequality as irrelevant to contemporary societies. However, some New-Right theorists like Saunders (1994) have revived functionalist views on inequality, and the basic idea that social position is a reflection of hard-work and talent is one that still – often controversially – remains in place in many 21st Century societies.Outline the evidence that patterns of gender inequality are changing in the contemporary UK [20]Since the late 19th Century, the UK has seen two waves of feminism and since the 1990s has been experiencing a third, with each targeting particular perceived inequalities for women created by our allegedly patriarchal society. As well as this (or perhaps as a result of it), UK governments have recognised that gender inequality is an issue and have introduced legislation to tackle it (e.g. the 1970 Equal Pay Act; the 2006 Equality Act). This demonstrates that attempts have been made to change patterns of gender inequality in the UK – but have they succeeded?Within the workplace – always one of the most visible areas of gender inequality – there have been clear changes. In 1971, 56% of women were employed (compared to 92% of men), but in 2005, this had risen to 70% of women (though a decline, for me, to 80%). This shows a clear change in the pattern of gender inequality. There is still a difference in employment rates for women compared to men, but the gap is closing (and, in part at least, at the expense of male employment). However, these figures alone do not prove that inequality is disappearing: For example, women remain far more likely to work part-time than men (42% of women compared to 10% of men) and are still paid less than men (earning 82% of the average male wage). There also remains evidence of a glass ceiling for women, blocking them from the ‘top jobs’: For example, there is a significant underrepresentation of female directors in the FTSE 100.More evidence from changing patterns of gender inequality can be found in education: In the contemporary UK, girls outperform boys at every level of compulsory education, as well as at A Level and degree level. This is a significant change as, historically in the UK, certain subjects were not available to girls and there were fewer expectations on females to attain at school. Cultural changes in our society, combined with changes in the labour market, have probably led to the dramatic change in female attainment at school. A study by Sharpe (1976, 1994) showed how the priorities of girls had changed from love and marriage in the 1970s to jobs and careers in the 1990s. The decline of male-dominated manual labour and the rise of the service-sector was probably a major factor in this, although feminists such as Mitsos & Browne (1998) claim that it is also due to the work of feminism in raising women’s self-esteem and challenging patriarchal traditions. The increasing employment of women is inevitably linked to better female performance in education, but the fact that a glass ceiling remains, combined with evidence for horizontal segregation (gendered jobs) and vertical segregation (lower pay/conditions for women), suggest that there is still some way to go to completely remove gender inequality.There is also evidence that, despite some improvements in patterns of gender inequality at work and school, traditional expectations of women in the household still persist. The role of home-maker is still primarily associated with women, and feminists like Oakley would argue that gender-role socialisation continues to condition girls to aspire to domestic/caring roles. Even though women are more active in the labour market, they still spend more time on domestic tasks than men – as found in a study by Savage (1997), using time-diaries. This leads many women to adopt a dual-role, combining domestic tasks with paid work.In conclusion, patterns of gender inequality in the contemporary UK do appear to be changing. However, gender remains a source of inequality, even if it is to an increasingly lessening extent.Outline and assess the view that patriarchy is the main cause of gender inequality [40]Feminists would claim that gender inequality is caused by patriarchy, meaning that our society is dominated by males, who will routinely protect their own interests at the expense of females. Freidan (1963) claims that gender inequality persists because it has been historically unchallenged. Certainly, it might not be in the interests of a patriarchal society to challenge gender inequality – although the work of feminist movements over the past hundred years has made significant attempts to challenge and question the causes of such inequality.Marxist Feminists, like Benson (1972), argue that capitalist societies are inevitably patriarchal and that gender inequality is essential for these societies to develop and thrive. For example, gender inequality ensures that women provide unpaid domestic labour and childcare; looking after the current generation of workers and raising the next one, in return for nothing. This additionally creates a reserve army of labour; masses of ‘unemployed’ women, who can be called upon to fill in gaps in the labour market when required, but are left to work for free at home when not – serving the needs of a ‘boom and bust’ capitalist economy. Equality for women would mean losing this valuable reserve and would lead to having to pay women to do the jobs they would otherwise do for free, which makes no economic sense for a capitalist society. Therefore, Hartmann (1981) claimed that feminism and Marxism had to unite in an ‘unhappy marriage’ in order to explain and tackle this inequality and campaign for major changes in the social structure.Liberal Feminists like Oakley (1974) claim that it is the dominance of the ‘mother-housewife’ role in patriarchal societies that is to blame. The weight of expectation on women to fulfil this role (and the fact that they are socialised to fulfil it from childhood) restricts the opportunities for women, meaning that inequality persists. Functionalists such as Parsons (1955) demonstrate exactly the sort of thinking that Oakley criticises, as they claim that innate differences between men and women mean that women are more suited to expressive roles (e.g. taking care of others). The work of Mead (1932) offers a challenge to this; Mead found examples of tribal societies in which it was men who fulfilled this so-called expressive role and women who fulfilled a more instrumental role, which upsets the very idea that gender roles are innately ascribed.Radical Feminists like Walby (1990) argue that most societies are patriarchal and that within such societies, men will always seek to control women (even though cultural differences between societies means they can’t always do it in the same way). Firestone (1971) claims that the source of inequality is biological, suggesting that – in patriarchal societies – men have used the fact that it is only women who can bear children as a way to justify gender inequality. For example, it is women who are expected to take time off work to have and raise children. This is reaffirmed by some Functionalists, who use the concept of Human Capital Theory to explain gender inequality. They claim that because women take more time off work than men (mainly due to pregnancy/child-rearing), they are less valuable to employers and less committed to their work. Men, on the other hand, don’t take such career breaks and so gain much more human capital (through experience, training, qualifications etc). Functionalists claim that this means gender inequality is ‘fair enough’, whereas feminists would argue that it is just an excuse used by men and that, in reality, these expectations on women should be removed. Biological reasons aside, men could still contribute much more to child-rearing, reducing the amount of time women have to take off work.The feminist and functionalist theories discussed blame the structure and culture of patriarchal societies for gender inequalities. Hakim (2004) offers an alternative view, through her controversial preference theory. Hakim claims that the reason for gender inequality is not patriarchy, but is actually down to the preferences of women and the choices they make. She claims that women choose whether to be adaptive (combining work with domestic roles), work-centred or career-centred. The fact that relatively few women choose to be career-centred is the sole reason for inequality. In other words, it is women themselves who create gender inequality, not society. Hakim’s theory evidently conflicts with feminist ideas, but perhaps highlights that the cause of gender inequality is probably very complex and cannot to attributed to a single factor. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download