Socialization and emerging Social Structure

Transcription

1 Socialization and emerging Social Structure Identifiable Social Structure exists in all societies. The big questions are: 1) What is the structure? 2) What forces underlie the structure? 3) How do individuals become part of and fit into the structure (or not)? 4) How may the structure and the underlying forces be best understood and then controlled / manipulated to better society? There are multiple concepts of how socialization occurs: 1) Individual aspects -- gender, age, unique individual experience 2) Social aspects (agency) -- work, family, school, peers, media Exploration of multiple forces behind social structure explored by Marx (economics), Durkheim (norms) and Weber (integrated forces 1 of 5

2 materialism and norms). Weber s constructions extended to new levels -- levels that required understanding of the meanings of social forces such as economics and norms; and that ACTIONS exemplify the combined meanings. The integration of material (economic) and ideal (normative) interests is fundamental to Weber s approach. Symbolic Interactionists (Mead) have best take on socialization: ACTIONS, however motivated, lead to organized layering of social interaction;term commonly used is Stratification. Stratification is a simple and old issue which is really nothing more than recognition of the fact that our society is made up of members that are different AND the differences between the members have become "institutionalized," or based on formal structures. Based on the stratification individuals, depending on where they (and their group) fit, have different chances of reaping the rewards (money, prestige, power, etc.) the society has to offer. Is social stratification real? Consider historical perspective... Why is there social stratification? 2 of 5

3 Answers to how and why stratification exists depends on who you want to listen to Introduction to Sociological Perspective on Class and Status: Marx said that stratification was very real (remember, his conflict theory was (still is) based on economics and the premise that we do most things for economic reasons). And, Marx said stratification exists based on economically based class. Max Weber, the other dead German, questioned the reality of stratification based solely on economic forces, feeling that levels of power, influence and reward were structured more in a culture based on the perceived value of an individual to the society. This is the basis for Weber s concept of status. What are these two really saying? Well, Marx felt that class, which is stratification based on economics, was the core issue. This is the basis for Marxian conflict theory -- the notions that social interaction and process is based on economic forces and the 3 of 5

4 conflict experienced between groups struggling for ownership and/or control of the means of production. Weber, on the other hand, felt that status, based on perceived individual worth was more important. What measures do we apply that lead to social structure in millennial America? Class is measured by income and, to a large degree, all the things that income will buy you. Marx felt that money really "talked." Does it continue to talk today? Discuss American consumerism -- clothing, cars, houses, etc, etc. Status is measured more by how you are perceived by others and money doesn't necessarily enter into the picture. For example, your job may give you status even if it doesn't pay very well. An example: Your minister or rabbi enjoy high status but generally aren't very well paid. There was, in the mid 20th century some disagreement among modern sociologists (two in particular) over this issue of stratification. 4 of 5

5 Kingsly Davis felt that stratification was based on functionalism; i.e. that the elite structures that resulted from stratification were "useful" to society and were, in fact, inescapable. Ben Tumin felt that was not the case and that there was, in fact, disjunction between what was necessary to maintain an elite structure as part of stratification, and what was necessary to maintain the society in general. In essence he felt that the conflicts that were necessary for the maintenance of the elite structure, and that always emerged in the process, were avoidable. The real issue, though, is of the necessity for a "control system" of some sort for society. Davis felt stratification was the functional and working control system. Tumin felt there were other options that might reduce the conflict. Thus we think of Davis' perspective as being "functionalist" and Tumin's as being "conflict theory" oriented. Something to think about: If, in fact, airline pilots and bus drivers both require specialized training, expensive equipment, long working hours, are much in demand, and have responsibility for the lives of many other people, why do pilots have more status? What could instill in us the idea that pilots deserve higher status? 5 of 5