The Implications of the Intersection and Interaction of Gender and Ethnicity as Social Divisions - Essay Example

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE INTERSECTION AND INTERACTION OF GENDER AND ETHNI AS SOCIAL DIVISIONS Introduction: Social Divisions in Britain Social divisions are prevalent in Britain. It is always present in any society in different forms, even in post-industrial ones. The relationship between social class and gender-based forms of stratification is one of the first problems encountered when studying these divisions in modern industrial societies like Britain. Despite the economic and social progress that goes along with industrialization, post-industrial societies like Britain are in as much as the same with the rest of societies in drafting a social order laden with divisions and social inequities. Differences in productivity, social roles, and social statuses are said to be the causes of these (Duncan 1995). Except for primitive communism in which Neanderthal, Paleolithic, and Neolithic men existed, all societies are class societies thriving in social class continuum that relegate certain people according to class, gender, roles, and status. Further scrutiny of these occurrences has been surged by various social scientists, specifically taking Marxist stances in investigating them. This paper is particularly concerned with determining the effects of the intersection and interaction of these social divisions, particularly on the notion of gender and ethnicity in Britain. Gender as Basis of Social Division in Britain Relationship between social classes and gender-based forms of stratification are important constructs in studying gender stratification in Britain, which, being a modem industrial society is specifically characterized with diverse gender-based division than pre-capitalist societies. In pre-capitalist societies in which the concept of patriarchy is very important in understanding power structures, modern industrial societies like Britain have a diverse form of gender-based divisions. The relative significance of gender and class has a myriad of related dimensions, such as occupation as a primary indicator of an individual's position in the stratification system, which usually refers to what is called "conventional" analyses of social stratification in modern societies. This has traditionally tended to mean the dominance of male occupation with female partners being designated to either a dependent position (i. e. as housewife) or a subservient position (i. e. as a lesser wage earner within a family group) (Kilbourne et al., 1994). A derived class position, that is, a class position determined by the position of their partner or husband is how women have tended to be classified in the British stratification system. Feminists have long challenged the popular assumption that the primary or the solely determinant of positions within a stratification system is economic class, but while economic class is important, gender inequalities need consideration in understanding the true nature of social stratification (Kilbourne et al. 1994). Similarly, the assumption that holds that the family group which acts as a primary units of analysis, where the status, power, and class of the subservient partner (female) is conveniently considered as statistically-equivalent to the dominant partner, has been challenged vis--vis the consideration of gender inequalities as a basis of social stratification (Grusky 2001). Many feminist writers have shown how both women and ethnic minorities in industrial societies like Britain have great commonalities in terms of their treatment (Esping-Andersen 1993). The argument that one may greatly consider is the extent to which the experience of being female and the experience of being black are two sides of the same coin, when one speaks of minority status groups (Grusky 2001). This parallel gives an interesting position sociologically, since the relation between gender and ethnicity has given a marked pattern of similarity in British society. Although class stratification still plays the dominant part in status continuum, gender stratification remains a significant concept that exists in the social order of industrial societies like Britain. The basic argument to this significance is seen in the class position of a married/cohabiting couple, which is defined by the class position of the most occupationally active partner, usually the male. While in a number of occasions, this would mean the female partner, the structure of occupation activity in the British society normally points out to mean that the male occupation is still considered of primary significance (Luhaorg and Zivian 2005). Further, in the British society, single people -male or female- are assigned a certain class position based on their occupation. The domination of males in the gender stratification is due to their involvement in the labour market than females, specifically their likelihood to obtain full-time continuous employment, which is specifically applicable in marital households (Goldthorpe, 1980). It is apparent that the pattern of employment of a wife can be largely determined by the class position of her husband, implying that there is a positive correlation between the married female's patterns of employment and the corresponding social class of her husband (Goldthorpe, 1980). It must be noted that contemporary marriages in the British society are largely homogenous in relation to class. This is particularly illustrated in the fact that people tend to marry someone of the same, or very similar, social class. A marriage between two people of widely differing class is so rare that it has become statistically irrelevant in this context (Livesey n. d.). When both are in full time work, husbands and wives tend to possess the same general class of occupation, such that it is very rare to see a male manual labourer to be married to a female company manager. This signifies the non-widely differing classification between men and women in terms of employment. Female status carries with it several added obligations compared with the males in various areas of social life, including income, employment opportunities, income, and so on. These inequalities associated with gender inequalities are however not perceived as some as components of stratification (Livesey n. d.). The reason for this is that the allocation of social and economic rewards for a great majority of women is determined primarily by the position of the male head (Livesey n. d.). Women's' claim over resources are not primarily determined by their own occupation but by their father or husband. This view implies that the primary role for the vast majority of women in the British society is still seen to be that of mother/child-rearer, and occupation plays a secondary role. Where married or cohabiting women do work, a dual role is frequently required of them to fulfill, specifically that of a child rearer hand in hand with being a (mainly part-time) wage earner. This female child-rearer role tends to be postponed until later in life rather than eliminated altogether even among women at the higher end of the class structure (Livesey n. d.). Clearly, the inequalities that females in the British society experience are brought about by the expected roles that they should fulfill as mothers, resulting to a rather limited time and opportunities for employment, as compared to their male counterpart who can be employed full swing. The intersection of social divisions in the British society is seen in the condition of married women, in which gender inequality is largely seen as the female occupation tends to be perceived as lower in class terms than her partner's. However, in occasional cases like a woman earning higher than a man, a higher class position than her husband will be enjoyed, signifying that the female's occupational status sets the standard for the class position of the family unit, just like when the male head earns higher than the female (Livesey n. d.). There are however some instances pertaining to this that deviate from the norms, such as an unemployed male as a househusband while his wife works full time, which is considered a fairly rare example that does not invalidate nor underpin the assumptions on gender inequality. Hence, the occasional occurrences of women as higher wage earners than their partners do not automatically manifest a withering of gender inequality in British society. On the other hand, it is noteworthy to emphasize that since whoever receives the higher income is the one that determines the class of the family unit, equality between the sexes particularly in terms of occupational opportunities will establish an empowering capacity for both men and women in terms of determining their class. The condition of women in this structure of gender inequality in terms of occupational opportunities is seen in her relegation to non-paid work role within the family system to which she alone is identified. Her commitment to undertake this role forces her to take mostly part-time occupation while her husband works full time whose employment becomes the basis of the social class position of the family. In this sense, it is clear that the gender division has significant effects for women, such as a limited opportunity to land on a full-time job as those of their male counterpart, caused largely by their delegation to non-paid work, such as rearing children and fulfilling domestic chores. This shows limited women's empowerment in terms of landing in an occupation full swing, and a lesser ability to determine the social class of her family unit. Though not as severe as the form of gender inequalities in pre-industrial societies, women's condition in British society may be described as not having an equal ground with men. This is traced on occupational positions between the sexes. This may be analyzed in a manner that industrial societies tend to have more liberties enjoyed by women than pre-industrial ones, in which women's social roles, particularly those tied to household works are more definite and explicit. However, the status of women in the British society connotes remnants of this inequality that pervaded in pre-industrial societies, signifying power relations between the sexes, with that of the male being positioned in the higher status. As mentioned, this power relation is seen in occupation wherein the women's relegation to unpaid work such as child rearing limits her occupational opportunities. It must be noted that employment is one of the two interdependent structural foundations on which the present system of gender hierarchy appears to rest, the other being household division of labor(Ridgeway 1997, p. 218). Both of these foundations see women as active participants based on her social role to undertake the latter, affecting her performance on income capability and productivity. Taking the Marxist perspective, women are perceived as having a dual obligation of doing both paid work and unpaid work, which significantly ascertains her position in society. This socially accepted notion puts women in social relations in which gender inequality persists, disallowing her to measure up to societal productivity in the same manner as her male counterpart does. This condition is however not too severe as allowing only women in this role, for post-modern industrial societies like Britain already allow the males to be househusbands. However, the largely non-acceptance of this male role signifies the prevalence of social expectations of women to undertake unpaid works and wage-earning works. Thus, the persistence of gender hierarchy in the British society amidst major historical transformation in its socio-economic base is one cultural plea that society itself should heed to. The non-empowerment (or lack of empowerment) of women in the economic base is prompted in a system that advantages men over women in material resources, power, status, and authority, which has continued in one form or another despite profound structural changes seen through industrialization and women's accelerated position into the labor force. (Ridgeway 1997, p. 218). What allows gender stratification to reassert itself in new forms when its old structural forms have eroded is through an invisible hand that rewrites gender inequality into new socioeconomic arrangements, as prior socioeconomic based for gender hierarchy are replaced (Ridgeway 1997, p. 218). Ethnicity as Basis of Social Division in Britain Just like gender, ethnicity is seen to pertain primarily to the cultural realms as class is to material or economic realms. The two constructs of gender an ethnicity tend to entail worth, value, honour, deference and differential treatment, usually expressed in the notion of status (Anthias 2001). It is assumed that whilst other relations are also important elements in social relations, the divisions based on ethnicity and gender lies at the heart of the social realms since they constitute salient constructions of difference and identity as well as hierarchization and unequal resource allocation modes (Anthias 2001). This hierarchization implies the colonization of the social by cultural, alongside the displacement of identities, classes, and states (Anthias, 2001) currently mirrored in how ethnic groups are treated in the British society. Ethnicity and class, when joined together to form a basic analysis of the existence of ethnicity in Britain, have led to a problem of reductionism in which ethnicity is disguised for the symbolic manifestation of class. False consciousness is how Marxist approach treats it, where the real divisions of class, such as the construct of ethnicity, take on symbolic forms (Hechter 1987). On the other hand, the symbolic form of ethnicity as highly connected to class is not openly manifested socially since ethnicity is treated as a dependent phenomenon, while class is viewed as a real-source claim. Treating one as the effect of another is a facet of this phenomenon, accruing to particular ethnic positions caused by old social patterns of prejudice, racism, and discrimination. Black groups who suffer racial disadvantages are seen to occupy a particular class position or fraction of the Marxist variant in the British society (Phizacklea and Miles 1980). Ethnicity is reinforced by the notion of class, in which the two may be termed "mutually enforcing (Myrdal 1969), and takes the economic position of the Black people as being linked to racial constructs and economic processes. Racism as an ideology is in fact a causal factor of this relation. This depiction of the Black people as an underclass in the British society supports the heterogeneity of employment characteristics of different 'racialized' groups, such as Asians, Afro-Caribbean immigrants, and other colonial migrants. The class bases of ethnicity is seen to gloss over material construct, in which one cannot fully say that ethnicity is invariably detached to material realms, since there are certain economic implications that ethnicity causes its group. The Marxist perspective on ethnicity however, points out that it is part of a holistic and multidimensional manner of viewing the construct of class, premised on the epistemological primacy of material/economic needs and social organizations that affect the human life. Social division is then seen as a heuristic tool and the pillar of the stratification system in which ethnicity is seen as both a material and a symbolic notion in theorizing social stratification (Anthias 2001). It is interesting to note that racism has not at all bid goodbye to Industrial societies like Britain, though not as severe as it used to be in pre-industrial societies. The implications of ethnicity in the British society is seen in occupation differences between the whites and the blacks, and even among colonial migrants and other ethnic groups who seem to receive lower income due to their ethnicity (Anthias 2001). This illustration is again a clear-cut scenario of power relations in which one group is held superior to another and has the control of economic and social influences over the perceived lower groups in the social order. Moreover, lack of empowerment is an implication seen in the position of ethnic groups in the British society. This lack of empowerment is founded in limited economic opportunities like occupation and variations of earnings due to differences in racial statuses and social roles. Limited employment opportunities await ethnic minorities and immigrant groups in Britain, alongside the experience of lower employment rates and wages as compared to those of white natives, a condition particularly pronounced for women (Dustmann et al 2003). The unconditional participation of minority immigrant women remained below 60 percent between the period 1981 and 2000, while that of white native women increased steadily from 66 percent to 76 percent, illustrating the difference between native groups and ethnic minorities (Dustmann and Fabbri 2005). The probability of certain ethnic groups such as black African, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi women pertaining to being out of the labour force is mounted between 15 and 22 percent higher than the statistics found for white British native women (Dustmann and Fabbri 2005). Analyses of household level labour supply and economic activity have been emphasized as being related to poverty and inequality (Gregg and Wadworth 2004). Thus, experiencing a lower standard of living is another implication of this social division caused by racial discrimination and social prejudice. This position draws connection to the fact that economic activity may obscure the true extent of unequal treatment encountered by particular groups in the labor market (Dustmann and Fabbri 2005). This is further illustrated by the thinking that the availability of jobs for ethnic groups is better than not having one at all, since what they earn in Britain is a lot better than they used to earn back home. Employment rates between native British citizens vary with those of ethnic groups, particularly that native British citizens have an employment rate of 84 percent while among ethnic minority immigrants, employment rates are only 47 percent (Dustmann and Fabbri 2005). The study of Dustmann and Fabbri suggest that ethnic minority females work the longest hours, on an average of 33 hours a week, while white immigrants and white native females work for lesser hours, 31 and 29 hours respectively. Moreover, husbands of ethnic minority women work at lesser hours than husbands of white women (Dustmann and Fabbri 2005). Aside from the difference in employment rates, a difference in observed weekly hours is noted by the study, in which foreign-born ethnic minority women work an average of 15 hours with their husbands working 30 hours a week whereas white immigrant and native women work 20 hours a week with their husbands working 36 hours (Dustmann and Fabbri 2005). Other than these differences in observed working hours, differences in employment rates also add to the lower incomes caused by the limited number of hours that ethnic groups experience. The immigrants' perception of their situation in the context of socio-economic backgrounds alongside their motives for migration and ideology or myth of return are essential in understanding the existence of external constraints that affect their capability for a higher income, such as racial discrimination (Cohen 2003). Closely related to the motives of the immigrants (i. e. Pakistani) in migrating to Britain is the ideology or myth of return, in which they intend to return to their motherlands in the near future, with high hopes that they will enjoy the fruits of their labor in retirement, making themselves be considered transients instead of settlers (Cohen 2003). This intention of returning mirrors their willingness to endure hardship in both work and living conditions while emphasizing savings for remittances to their families (Cohen 2003). The experience of ethnic groups in Britain exhibits how social division and social stratification work in post-industrial societies like Britain. Although originally a social construct, ethnicity plays a vital role in the mirroring of the maneuver of social classes, which cannot be made solely irrelevant to the notion of class to the correlation of the concept to material and economic notions. Hence, the apparent implication of the existence of ethnicity in Britain as a basis of social division is seen in limited income opportunities due to some racial construction and prejudice. Unlike the women whose experience of inequalities is based primarily on gender roles, ethnic groups experience a diverse implication of inequalities founded on racial differences. It connotes a lesser ability for empowerment, both socially and economically, made as such by their ascribed statuses in the class continuum. Due to this ascription, which the British society expends on ethnic minorities, a corresponding lower income status results, significantly made as basis for the social class status of ethnic minorities. As a result of this denial of certain economic opportunities, which society primarily allocates to the white native British citizens, ethnic groups turn out to be the poorer groups in the British society and tend to experience more economic hardships. Conclusion The social inequalities in the British society are still thriving despite the economic and social position of the country as a post-industrial state in which civil liberties are much improved. Although one may consider that the post-industrial Britain does not pose severe social inequalities that harshly disparage certain groups in society, gender inequalities and economic and social inequalities experienced by ethic groups are however noteworthy. The prevalence of social stratification in the social strata of people and groups cannot overlook these inequalities as belonging to the realms of social and cultural notions. Rather, a close link with the social class construct is apparently established as to why certain inequalities exist, ascertaining the existence of certain inequalities through material and economic differences in which these groups are often at a disadvantage. Ending the inequalities in gender and ethnicity hence, calls for empowering women and ethnic groups economically, socially, and politically, which also sees large possibilities for ending a stratified position among these groups. References Anthias, Floya, 2001. The material and the symbolic in theorizing social stratification: issues of gender, ethnicity, and class. British Journal of Sociology. Vol. 52, Issues 3, pp. 367-390. Routledge Journals, Taylor and Francis Ltd. Cohen, Abner, 2003. Urban ethnicity. Routledge. Duncan Simon, 1995. Theorizing European Gender Systems. Journal of European Social Policy, Vol. 5, No. 4. Esping-Andersen, Gosta, 1993. Post-Industrial Class structures: An Analytical Framework. In Changing classes: stratification and mobility in post-industrial societies (Esping-Andersen Gosta, ed.). SAGE Publications. Goldthorpe, John H., 1980. Social mobility and class structure in modern Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gregg, P. and Wadworth, J., 2004. Reconciling workless measures at he individual and household level: theory and evidence from the United States, Britain, Germany, Spain and Australia. Center for Economic Performance DP no. 0635. Grusky, David B., 2001. Social stratification: class, race, and gender in sociological perspective. Westview Press. Hechter, M., 1987. Nationalism as group solidarity. Ethnic and racial Studies. Vol. 10 No. 4. pp. 415-26. Kilbourne, Barbara, England, Paula, and Beron, Kurt, 1994. Effects of individual, occupational, and industrial characteristics on earnings: intersections of race and gender. The University of North Carolina Press. Livesey, Chris, A-level Sociology teaching notes. Retrieved on July 31, 2008 from [http://www.sociology.org.uk/sigender.pdf] Lorber, Judith, 1994. Paradoxes of gender. Yale University Press. Luhaorg, Helen and Zivian, Marilyn T., 2005. Gender role conflict: the interaction of gender, gender role, and occupation. Springer Netherlands, Vol. 33, No. 9-10. Myrdal, G., 1969. An American Dilemma. New York: Harper and Row. Phizacklea, A. and Miles, R. (eds.), 1980. Labour and Racism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Ridgeway, Cecilia, 1997. Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: considering employment. American Sociological Review, Vol. 62, No. 2. Read More