Social Inequalities - Literature review Example

Social Inequalities Number: Introduction The chosen pieces of literature to be used for this discussion are Grace Kao and Jennifer S. Thompson’s Racial and Ethnic Stratification in Educational Achievement and Attainment, Paula England’s Gender Inequality in Labor Markets: The Role of Motherhood and Segregation and Michael Hout’s Social and Economic Returns to College Education in the United States. These journal articles are essential in this study since they discuss how socio-cultural factors underpin the distribution of economic values in the society. These journal articles have been designated for analysis by the virtue of helping figure out answers to puzzling questions such as: why some races are predominantly rich; why some races such as the Hispanics and the African American have higher affinity to particular crimes; and the most appropriate corrective measures to be administered as the best panacea to these seemingly racially-instigated disparities. Brief Summary of the Readings Chosen Grace Kao and Jennifer S. Thompson’s Racial and Ethnic Stratification in Educational Achievement and Attainment, is very key to this discussion, in that it in it, Kao and Thompson discuss the demographic composition of the American youth among white Americans, the people of color and American immigrants. From this juncture, Kao and Thompson discuss the rate or extent of accessibility among these groups of American youth. This lays the ground for Kao and Thompson’s work which explains the disparity in the distribution of socio-economic values along races and classes. The idea herein is that Kao and Thompson are assuming that there is a direct correlation between education and the distribution of socioeconomic values (Kao and Thompson, 2006). In Paula England’s Gender Inequality in Labor Markets: the Role of Motherhood and Segregation, an overview and sustained discussions on gender disparity in the American labor market are clearly presented. The pillars that are used to support England’s motif are occupational segregation, trends in force participation and the remunerations gap. The social context of the discussion is the US, and the discussion maintains that the gender gap in the US stems from: effects of women’s responsibility for childbearing and gender segregation in jobs distribution. England’s motif or theme is that in America, the two forces (women’s responsibility for childbearing and gender segregation in jobs distribution) are unrelated since the latter does not trigger the former. England opines that because of societal constraints, women prefer mother-friendly occupations which heighten their emoluments but give trade-offs on higher learning, on-the-job training and steeper wage trajectories that are needed for professional or career development (England, 2005). Michael Hout’s work, Social and Economic Returns to College Education in the United States presents an interesting piece which is important to this discussion. Just like Kao and Thompson, Hout argues from the standpoint that education strongly correlates with the distribution or realization of important socioeconomic outcomes such as family stability, economic success, health and social connections. Hout discusses the theories of stratification and selection and the viability of education as a tenable option for economic empowerment. Hout discusses the manner in which management of education (for instance, college and university selection systems) unfairly undercuts other subcultures and cultures and thereby, undermining the empowering essence of education. Hout’s standpoint takes a different and more holistic approach when he asserts that education affects profoundly, the uneducated, more than (and not only) the educated. Likewise, he asserts that the benefits of education are pervasive enough to suffuse states, nations, and the rest of the demography (Hout, 2011). Comparison and Contrasts There are points of similarities between Kao and Thompson’s work and Hout’s work, in that both teams see education as having a profound sway on the distribution of socioeconomic values. To both parties, the inability to access education is racially consistent and can profoundly subject race or socio-cultural ethnic group to poverty. The only differences between the two works are the specifics and the perspectives that Kao and Thompson and Hout take on the matter. Kao and Thompson particularly quote the provisions of the Census Bureau which stated that in 2000, 34% of the American youth aged between 15 and 19 hailed from the minority group. Kao and Thompson follow this age group up to their test scores and grades to produce academic results that are dismal. At the same time, Kao and Thompson show that the rate of transition of this same group to colleges and universities remain lower than 50%. Kao and Thompson attribute this sad state of affairs among the African American, the Latin American and the Native American to the inordinate distribution of quality education- to the advantage of the white American children. This in turn undermines competency and the degree of skillfulness among these minority groups, so that accessing jobs becomes very challenging. Hout sees education as a value that is being distributed according to social stratification so that the rich are able to access the best education and the less privileged, lower standards of education. Hout continues that education is the key in ensuring the accessibility of health, family stability, social connections and economic success. The inability to access sound health (services), stability in families, economic success and social connections creates an unstable society. Hout’s charge is that the sickness of this society instead spreads to the rest of the larger society (the nation) taking on the form of crime such as drug dealing, juvenile delinquency, homicides and gang related crimes. One can therefore readily see that Hout and Kao and Thompson see the issuance of education to the society as being characterized by a consistent pattern of segregation and thereby resulting to inordinate distribution of socio-economic values. Paula England’s work relates with those of Hout and Kao and Thompson in that all the three parties see the consistent application of segregation in the distribution of socioeconomic values as being the foundation for inequality. Nevertheless, England’s work parts ways with Hout, Kao and Thompson’s works in that England sees the segregation as taking place in labor relations and practices, against women, while Kao and Thompson and Hout see the segregation as taking place in education, against the minority group. To England, the inequality is brought about by women’s responsibility for childbearing and gender discrimination. To Hout and Kao and Thompson, inequality in all areas of life in the society is heralded by segregation in educational policies and sectors. Relation with Other Materials from Outside Class The standpoints that Kao and Thompson, Hout and England take are readily acceptable and marry readily with ideas of renowned social scientists such as Siddique. Just as Kao and Thompson, Hout and England, Siddique is categorical that America remains unequal because of the policies which unequally distribute economic values and social services along racial, class and gender lines, so that the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen. To underscore his standpoint, Siddique explains that racial differences in the health insurance and pensions coverage predominantly favor white Americans, while wage gaps in the US are analyzable along class lines. Siddique explains through statistical provisions that at the low end of the gap are the African American, the Native Indian, followed by the Latin American (Siddique, 2008). Some Questions That Need Critical Evaluation Kao and Thompson, Hout and England have tried to answer questions such as: why some races are predominantly rich; why some races such as the Hispanics and the African American have higher affinity to particular crimes such as gang related crime and drugs and substance abuse and peddling; and the most appropriate corrective measures to be administered as the best panacea to these seemingly racially-instigated disparities. Kao and Thompson, Hout and England analyze relations among subcultures and cultures to explain the sentiment that throughout America’s history, social services and economic values have been distributed discriminatively in a way that is characteristic of racial and gender bias. Given that America got its independence in 1776 with the white American having great influence over factors of production (land, capital and labor), it became easier for him to seize political power and to use that power to perpetuate his interests from one generation to another. Thus, other races, especially the African American found it very hard to resist the legal structures and corporate barriers that had been instituted. Misery and criminality would soon open the path to a myriad of other social ills. The best way of solving these socio-economic drawbacks is making legislations which foster equitable (not equal) distribution of important values such as education, affordable healthcare services cover and providing an environment that encourages and sustains entrepreneurship. Personal reflection It is personally hard to fully buy England’s standpoint that the two factors that dissuade women from actualizing their potential in career or profession and subject women to the persistent gender gap are effects of women’s responsibility for childbearing and gender segregation in jobs distribution. This is because, in her postulation, England unwittingly falls for the defeatist myth that women cannot excel in parenting and domestic affairs and corporate life, simultaneously. The flipside of England’s standpoint is that she subjects women to the dilemma of having to choose between their career and home life. The standpoint that women’s responsibility for childbearing inhibits the sealing of the gender gap has been successfully disapproved by top female leaders such as Brenda C. Barnes (b. 1955). One of America’s leading CEOs, Barnes does not only have six children, but she also harbors strong family values and commitment for the same. At an instance, Barnes resigned as the CEO of PepsiCo to give her family attention for a full year. She later returned to the corporate world as the President and CEO of Pepsi Cola, North America and remains one of the most respected female CEOs in the US. The current CEO of Sara Lee, Brenda Barnes therefore discounts the notion that the responsibility of childbearing inhibits the sealing of the gender gap. Taking on the responsibility of childbearing may inhibit the sealing of the gender gap, but not ultimately. Conversely, it is highly debatable if gender segregation has an exceedingly significant role since the US has ratified for policies such as shattering the glass ceiling for over four decades, as a way of creating a more egalitarian society. References England, P. (2005). Gender Inequality in Labor Markets: The Role of Motherhood and Segregation. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 12 (2): 264-88. Hout, M. (2011). Social and Economic Returns to College Education in the United States: Social and Economic Returns to College. Annual Reviews of Sociology, (37): 1-45. Kao, G. and Thompson, S. J. (2006). Racial and Ethnic Stratification in Educational Achievement and Attainment: Race, Ethnicity and Education. Annual Reviews of Sociology, (29): 417-442. Siddique, Z. (2008). Ethnicity Race and Gender in the Labor Market. New York: ProQuest Information and Learning Company. Read More