The Bases of Social Inequality - Research Paper Example

?The Bases of Social Inequality Social Inequality: Effects and Perspectives Social inequality is a problem that continues to plague many countries ofthe world. This issue is one that affects only the developing or the underdeveloped countries but also the large industrial nations as well. While the degree or severity may differ, the fact remains that the peoples of these countries do continue to bear the burden of the effects of social inequality. In fact, after a series of global financial crises that occurred in the 1990s and the first decade of the millennium, the world’s largest economies, which includes the United States and Japans, saw social inequalities in their respective societies worsened. Even the welfare states of Europe, which have always presented themselves as adherents to egalitarian principles have seen the same problem becoming more serious. It is obvious that there is a need to control the worsening inequality in every society. History has shown how this has prompted the emergence of other more serious problems such as the strife and civil war. When there is so much inequality, those who are deprived would naturally react to the sight of those who have in excess. They would then go to the extent of recognizing the government as having been negligent in ensuring that the members of society enjoy the same rights and privileges. From this point, it becomes convenient for them to accuse the government for maintaining the status quo, especially if they consider the leaders and politicians to be part of the economic elite. Once this occurs, there would be a breakdown in the people’s trust and support for the government. They become susceptible to agitation that may lead to uprisings, which could turn violent as soon as the government decides to employ its security forces to quell it and to restore order. In countries that declare themselves to be democracies, the general tendency of the governments is to introduce steps that would cushion the impact of social inequality. However, it is also apparent that the steps being taken do not thresh out the root causes of the problem and introduce fundamental changes in society as a consequence. Instead, the efforts that are carried out are essentially palliatives. These are measures that seek to alleviate the conditions of the marginalized sectors in society but do not liberate them totally from the clutches of social inequality. Social welfare projects are prime examples of this. The private sector also contributes to the effort. They also establish charitable institutions, with funds coming from entities and individuals that belong to that part of the population who are economically powerful. These palliative solutions, without a doubt, do not solve the problem of social inequality. These may lessen the sufferings that people experience under such setup but these do not eradicate the conditions that favor it. As a result, two perspectives could develop in the process. One is that people would come to believe that social inequality is a historical inevitability and, hence, it could never be avoided or resolved. Because it is predestined, the only option left would be to ensure that the actual effects on the people are made less severe. The state, in cooperation with the private sector, may take the lead in this respect. This perspective is one that may be adhered to by those who are in the upper rungs of the economic ladder. The other perspective that could evolve when social inequality exists is that democratic society is a meritocracy. This means that only those who have been able to succeed in their careers or who have been good at steering their businesses are the ones who deserve certain rights and privileges in society. Such perspective is normally acquired by those in the middle class who, due to their education, have better opportunities than those who are part of the working class. Both perspectives mentioned here are conservative in nature because these essentially believe that social inequality is natural. Unless the bases of social inequality are not determined, it is very possible that all the actions undertaken by the government, the private business sector, and even the grassroots organizations of the marginalized may just be influenced by the two conservative perspectives regarding social inequality. Therefore, no efforts at all would be made to absolutely solve the problem. However, it is already clear that social inequality must indeed be addressed. The usual chain of effects and reactions that ensue are compelling reasons why this must be dealt with accordingly. Social inequality breeds social injustice and oppression. Once injustice and oppression is experienced by the people, the next thing that may happen is a breakdown of peace and order. Driven by discontent, people may begin to launch an uprising. It must be made clear though that revolts and revolutions resulting from serious economic disparity and oppression are not totally wrong. Not only are these reactions; these may also be considered as solutions to worsening social inequality because these may radically alter the conditions in society that breed it. Social Inequality by Money and Property The most obvious signs that social inequality does exist are when there are individuals or families that have so much wealth at their disposal while there are others who barely have the means for subsistence. In the United States for example, one can easily the great disparity on the very streets of the major cities. New York is where Wall Street is located, a district in which the giants in business transact and accumulate profits in billions of dollars. On the other hand, the city also has one of the highest poverty incidences in the country, with districts like Harlem suffering issues such as unemployment and homelessness. A study that was published in 1999 exposed the fact that “since 1984, at least, about 24 percent of all city residents have been classified as poor” (Abu-Lughod 306). The economic disparity that could be seen in New York only reflects a reality in American society, one that highlights the great contrast between those who have money and those who do not. Money is indeed an effective indicator of social status. In a stratified society, the general tendency of people is to determine one’s status by virtue of his possession and control of money and other assets or properties. This is because of the prevalent concept that when one has money, he can have everything he wants. Of course, when one is wanting financially, he also does not have the means to obtain whatever it is that he needs. Apparently, people do not have similar conditions when it comes to finances. However, this disparity is not inherent. There are material causes for these. In the effort to resolve social inequality, these causes should, therefore, be the focus of attention. But this is not the case. In fact, the prevalent tendency is to merely accept the fact that there are people who do have money while there are also those who simply have less. Instead of treating the issue of money being the superficial manifestation of economic disparity or social inequality, it is recognized as the cause. This shallow analysis or rash conclusion would naturally result in the creation of the wrong solutions. The palliatives, for example, are such solutions. If the concept is that social inequality is caused by the disparity in the possession of money and other properties, then it is automatic that the solution would be to provide assistance to those who are financially in want. Such assistance may include grants or loans. It is clear though that these never result into the end of social inequality. The best that it could do is to douse cold water on the rising emotions of the disadvantaged as they witness how others in society have more while they do not. Money is not just a gauge for economic disparity. It is also a factor that contributes much to the political and cultural inequality as well. In a democracy like the United States, political equality has always be trumpeted as a key feature in a society that should be upheld and promoted by everyone. However, in society with glaring economic inequality, politics too is stratified. In a democracy, elections play a very important role in the determination of leaders. Parliamentary lobbying too is where citizens and interest groups to assert their democratic rights to be heard, providing them the opportunity to influence the decisions of the policymakers in government. In both aspects, money could be a deciding factor. During elections, it is usually the candidates with the biggest campaign contributors who could win. Apparently, electoral campaigns are costly. A candidate with the most resources, therefore, has better chances of winning. Verba et al explain that “despite the fact that all are more or less equally free to participate, however, there are sharp disparities in the rates of activity across groups defined by their income or education, disparities that obtain for many different kinds of political acts” (637). Due to the fact that money is a huge factor in politics, it is clear that the much vaunted political equality in a democracy is difficult to realize. Indeed, everyone has a write to participate in electoral exercises and in the formulation of laws and other state policies. However, it is those who have money that have the edge and the better chances of having but their interests secured. Money has the same effect on culture as in politics. Avenues that promote culture are controlled by business-oriented entities. These are companies that have capital that could be used to propagate cultural forms that sell. Most radio and TV broadcast networks, newspapers, and the movie industry, for instance are all run by profit-driven entities. Since the underlying purpose of supposedly entertaining people or delivering information to them is profit, it is only clear that the kind of messages forwarded to them could be anything but those that seek changes in the status quo. The disadvantaged, for their part, are mere audiences. They are the targets of intense cultural manipulation through the mass media, the educational system, and religion. However, they do not have the means of being able to express themselves and become an influential factor. This inequality in culture is actually advantageous for those who belong to those who belong to the upper strata in society. Through cultural manipulation, they are able to instill in the minds of the marginalized the concepts that would support the status quo. These include fatalism, submissiveness, and individualism. The first two encourage the marginalized to just accept their fate and not to struggle to achieve equality. The third inspires them to strive for individual success; to take advantage of social inequality and make it to upper strata even if the possibilities are actually slim. Social Inequality by Name When a society is stratified or when there are clear delineations between those that are very wealthy, those who have enough money, those who could barely survive with their income, and those who are totally impoverished, there is always the tendency for prejudice to arise. In relation to this, property or wealth becomes part of a person’s name. If, for example, one is related by blood to owners of big businesses or has the same family name, he is accorded to certain privileges that many others could not enjoy. This discrimination by name results into the emergence of groups, formal or otherwise, that are often considered as the elite in society. Apparently, these groups are exclusive, which means that only those who have the economic and political statures are admitted. This brings about another major issue that is inevitable when there is social inequality, prejudice. There is prejudice when “great numbers are seen as less deserving, slaves, paupers or just ‘average’, a minority can describe their own behavior not as greed but as simply receiving higher rewards because they are different kinds of human beings, who deserve to be put on a pedestal above those they view with prejudice (Dorling 22). This point clearly indicates that the reason why there are members of society who are locked out of certain groups is because they do not possess the same distinctions as those who are already part of it. In a stratified society, names are considered both as property and investment. A name can be used to obtain material wealth or to maintain possession. This is the reason why people have become very conscious about their reputation. When a person is involved in a scandal or when he is put to shame, his name naturally goes down with him. Any attempt at using his identity to gain favors, whether economic or political, could become difficult, or even fruitless. On the other hand, are revered, respected, or feared name could serve as ticket to acquire privileges. A politician, for example, only needs to have his name mentioned for him to overtake the others in a queue, while the ‘nobody’s’ would just have to wait for their turns. A well-known businessman, even if his financial capabilities has dropped severely, could have his request for bail-out loans approved by the government, while the owners of small businesses have are forced to declare closure and bankruptcy because of their inability to seek fresh loans from the banks. Apparently, the power of names is at play in both circumstances. Those who do not have names that could be associated with the wealthy and powerful would get special privileges while those who do not would have to work harder to earn it. This is a reality that does not just exist in countries that are ruled by despots or dynasties. In fact, it is very dominant in the US, which has always been considered as the world’s most powerful democracy; a country that boasts continues to boast of being a land of equal opportunities. It is clear though that while names do have their power to acquire advantages over the others these have to be supported by something more material. The top businessmen and politicians may have names as ordinary as that of people who work for more than eight hours a day just to get the minimum income. However, since they are influential and wealthy, their names alone are movers. Social Inequality and Class Money and name may be considered as determinants of a person’s status in society. These are also the means by which the degree of social inequality could be defined. However, it must also be pointed out that these are not the causes of social inequality. At the core of a society that is stratified is the fact that people are divided into classes. An ardent Marxist who led a revolution to serve the aim of establishing a classless society, V.I. Lenin defined classes as “large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it” (Lorimar 143). This perspective goes to explain further the basis why social classes emerge. Apparently, it is not enough that social inequality is determined if it exists or not by just taking into account the reality that there are people who have money and reputation while there are others who do not have these. If a solution has to be developed, going to the root cause of inequality is important. The Marxist theory on social classes may be considered as major attempt towards such direction. Marxist theory explains that the emergence of social classes is not a historical accident. It is a product of a historical process in which a certain group of people were able to acquire the means of production for them. In a stratified society, the distinction between those who own the means of production and those who do not becomes the basis for defining social classes. The owners of the means of production or the ‘bourgeoisie’ dictate production and the market. Those who do not own any means to establish a business, the ‘proletariat’, on the other hand, are compelled to make use of the only productive aspects that they possess; their labor and knowledge. There is clearly a relationship between both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat but it is one that is characterized by the exploitation of one over the other. Engels wrote how the “bourgeoisie exploits the proletariat in every conceivable way for its own benefit” and how “the single bourgeois maltreats the proletariat upon his own account” (281). At the core of such unequal relationship in production is greed for profits. Profits are derived from the surplus value created through the labor of the workers or the proletariat. These are acquired by the bourgeoisie or the capitalists by virtue of their being the owners of the means of production. The relations in production between groups of people are then manifested in their statuses in society. The bourgeoisie are the elite; the wealthy and the property owners. The proletariat, on the other hand, only has enough income from their jobs to provide themselves and their families the basic necessities, including education. However, there are also classes between the big business owners and the workers. These are the middle class. The middle class are made of individuals who earn bigger incomes compared to the workers, usually by virtue of the higher education and skills that they have achieved. While they may develop the same individualist tendencies as the wealthier classes, they do not belong that mold. From the perspective of the big bourgeoisie, they are still lower classes and, therefore, do not deserve to be part of their elite circle. As a result, the middle class are also deprived of the opportunities and privileges that they may desire to have. However, when compared to the lower classes, especially the proletariat, they are relatively well-off and enjoy more privileges. In a country with a capitalist system, such as the United States, social classes based on the relations of production as described by Marx, Engels and Lenin exist. These lay the basis for social inequality. It is not just in production or in the economic sphere that social class and its dynamics could be observed. In fact, the most unpopular the effects could be observed in the political sphere too. As mentioned earlier, money could influence politics. It has the ability to manipulate policymakers into promoting the vested interests of those who possess wealth as against those who do not have the same advantage. This is the precisely the reason why legislators in a country may have the tendency to formulate laws that are biased towards the elite while they remain deaf to the demands of those who marginalized economically. Conclusion The principal basis for social inequality is the existence of social classes. Since social classes are not historical accidents as asserted by Marx, it is clear that social inequality is not inevitable. This is caused by the fact that there are certain sectors in society that continue to take advantage of natural and human resources while depriving others of it. Since this is the case, it is therefore possible to eradicate social inequality by striking it at the roots. Unfortunately, radical changes in the social system in order to eradicate inequality are not easy to realize. In a society that has been stratified for centuries or eras, sectors of the population who have enjoyed being on the top layers would not be expected to relinquish a good part of their economic, political, and cultural privileges in order to achieve social equality. However, social equality could still be achieved through a lengthy process of political and economic reforms or through the more abrupt and radical revolutions. Works Cited Abu-Lughod, Janet L. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles: America’s Global Cities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1999. Dorling, Daniel. Injustice: Why Social Inequality Persists. Portland, OR: Policy Press, 2010. Engels, Friedrich. “Attitude of Bourgeoisie towards the Proletariat.” The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844. Ed. Florence Kelley Vischnewetzky. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Lorimer, Doug. Fundamentals of Historical Materialism: The Marxist View of History and Politics. Sydney, Australia: Resistance Books, 1999. Verba, Sidney et al. “Political Equality: What do We Know About it?” Social Inequality. Ed. Kathryn M. Neckerman. New York, NY: Russel Sage, 2004. Read More