This means that we, as human beings, are endowed by nature with the capacity of communicating our emotions and feelings, and is the reason why we are social by nature, and our purpose can only be reached by living in the polis. In other words, humans have the capacity of debating about politics. In addition, political activity is the fullest expression of nature; you become a valuable member of society when you start participating in politics. Some people just have the natural capacity to talk about politics, the same as others are naturally qualified to be slaves; for Aristotle, slavery is necessary and natural. Necessary because while citizens are doing politics, someone has to take care of things, and natural because some people are born to be slaves, and it is what they do best.
For instance, the size of your home, where you live (Beverly hills or a homeless shelter) can all be classified as status symbols that in the eyes of society represent who you are which can allow or deny an individual of certain rights. Both statuses are equally important. They offer a different view of life that explains why stigma, bias, and lack of opportunity exist. To understand why the powerful, remain in control and the poor and working class struggle. we must not lose focus on the key issue which is how there is an existing belief and understanding which implies these two groups are not in
In the wake of critical scrutiny from the polemic works of Bauman (2004), Beck (2000), and Giddens (1992), the relevance of class analysis in understanding the expression of inequalities in contemporary society has been called into question. The concept of class analysis postulates that “individuals’ interest, tastes, attitudes, and dispositions, are linked to their social economic class positions” (Eidlin, 2014, 1), and that this position in turn relegates conditions of social, cultural and political relations. The foremost criticism level at traditional disciplines of class analysis is its advocacy of the primacy of class over other forms of social structure (Wright, 2000, 115) thereby producing a rigid and inflexible framework of analysis.
Gender Inequality Gender inequality is a characteristic of social structure according to which different social groups (in this case men and women) have certain differences resulting in unequal opportunities. Gender inequality is associated with social construction of masculinity and femininity as oppositional categories with unequal social value (Ferree, 1999). One of the main problems in gender theory is the problem of dominance. Together with race and class gender is a hierarchical structure that could to provide both opportunities and oppression (Ferree, 1999). Gender inequality can exist in different forms, depending on culture, region, religion and other factors.
Social classes are a form of social stratification that refers to the existence of structured inequalities between individuals and groups in society. A social class is a group of people of comparable status, power and wealth which are usually classified as upper class, middle class, and lower class. For each class, there are some specific opportunities available that influence their social life. We can understand about the particularity of the chances through unequal distribution of these opportunities between individuals in social classes. In here belonging to a social class seems to be an obstacle for some individuals to obtain equal opportunity, unlike upper class people.
With respect to this, social class is perceived in the sociology as the combination of economic and political characteristics that identify the belonging of a person to a definite group. The most common approach to the differentiation of classes is the stratification “according to their relations to production and acquisition of goods” (Textbook, p. 193). This idea was suggested by Karl Marx and offered the basis for his division of the society into the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. However, Max Weber pointed out the weakness of Marx's theory referring to its foundation on economic indicators only and offering a wider perspective including the introduction of status groups that are stratified “according to principles of their consumption of goods as represented by special 'styles of life'” (Textbook, p. 193).
These include inequality based on access to the available opportunities and inequality based on conditions accorded to different classes and positions within the society. Inequality on the basis of the existing opportunities in the society can be explained by the society’s existing unequal distribution of chances that can enable an individual to succeed in the society. Important measures that can illustrate a society’s inequality of opportunities include the ways different people within the society are treated by the criminal justice system, health status of different social classes in the society, and the level of education attained in different classes in the
Beteille (1983) made a useful distinction between two aspects of inequality – the relational and the distributional aspects. The sociologist is mostly concerned with the first kind, whereas the economist is with the second. In the first case, inequalities are seen as built into the social structure in the form of relations of superordination and subordination, i.e. the patterns of rights and obligations. The economist, on the other hand, sees inequality in the distribution of wealth or income, or, following Sen, in the distribution of certain ‘outcome indicator’ like health or educational status. Why has the economist been rather less concerned about inequality across racial, ethnic or caste groups?
The substructure forms the base of society. It includes the means of production and the relations of production which relates to the relation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The superstructure includes philosophy, culture, religion, etc., the factors that do not belong to the economic system. As the superstructure is based on the means of production, the substructure forms the superstructure. Marx thought that social stratification is created by the unequal access to the productive properties.
Every individual has a different view and definition of what social class remains as. In the sociology, world there are three main theorists that contributed to the makeup of the interpretation of the word “class”. First, is Karl Marx’s conflict theory, basing it on a capitalist mentality, that there will always be someone above someone else. In this example, the two groups the Bourgeois (working class) and Ploteriaterian (laborers), Bourgeois
The underlying causes, ideology, and history surrounding crime and social classes lie within social constructs in society that deliberately deny people freedom and liberty for the privilege of others. The law defines what actions are harmful and this gives direction to the powers created that make the judicial system function. Therefore law and order can be used as an oppressive mechanism employed to protect privilege of other unequally or it can be the call of conscience reminding us that we should establish equality for everyone. One of the concepts that intersect in all of crime is social class along with others like race, gender, age, etc. One prevailing ideology of the 20th century was Marxism which asserted that all of human history
1. How does information technology affect socioeconomic disparities? Explain your answer. Information technology affects socioeconomic disparities because minorities are eliminating socioeconomic disparities rather than reinforcing it by implementing the new technology. Overtime the cost of technology has decreased because of all the advancement, making it easier for minorities to get access to new technology with them being more economically efficient and affordable.
Inequality, by definition is the difference in size, degree, circumstances and lack of one. Income and wealth inequality is currently a major phenomenon affecting the lives of many, including Australians. We aussies love to relish on our beliefs, specifically by perceiving our nation as egalitarian. We’ve deemed our country as an income and wealth friendly country, in which everyone receives suitable amounts of income/wealth depending on their occupations. However, all of these remarks are not necessarily correct and in this feature article I will aim to identify, illuminate and discover the current issues of inequality in income and wealth within Australia.
The term “American dream” was coined by renowned writer and historian, James Truslow Adams, who considered America as a place where life will be better and richer. Since then, the United States of America has been considered as the land of equal opportunities and growth. However, the changes in the social and economic status of the population indicates that there is existence of social disparity in our society. Social inequality can be defined as the existence of an unequal distribution of various resources and opportunities among the social groups in a population. While the United States of America trys to be a pioneer nation in promoting social equality, the leading research, based on various parameters and asset groups indicate that the
Inequality has been around since man first started to gather in groups. Since the time of the hunter gathers into the middle ages. Today in the United States inequality is worse than it has ever been, even with the significant dip between the 1940s and the 1970s. The increase in inequality is not limited to the United States but it is happening the fastest here. We have to look at the different factors that have played a role in the increase which are: technology, the decline in manufacturing and increase in globalization, and government policy.