Social Divisions in Modern Society - Term Paper Example

Valerie Pryor – P2464553  TMA 06  June 2009 Introduction A society is briefly described as composition of a population with different characters and various backgrounds. Members of this society are however expected to have something in common that draws them together. Woodward (p, 6) says that the members have an organised pattern of relationship. However, the intricate and complicated relationships involved, divisions are common that set to put different relations out of the common. Societal context, sharp divisions exist where individual members group themselves according to their beliefs, cultures and languages among other societal characteristics. In some societies, these differences have brought about major challenges that led to the further disintegration of the society. While this may be the evidence to show how divided the modern society is. Goldblatt (p, 21) quotes Popper who says that “evidence alone cannot conclusively verify or prove a claim….. under all circumstances.” Therefore, while a lot of evidence exists to show that the modern society is different that the society fifty years ago, in that it is more divided, there is need to go beyond evidence of division and show that in some areas the modern society has remained rigid. Guided by the argument presented by Popper, this paper will seek to show that social divisions are now much less significant than they were fifty years ago. Globalization has become a crucial ingredient towards the breaking of social barriers and opening up the society. This concept is built on the notion that societies can access resources they do not have by cooperating with other societies while ensuring fair distribution of these resources in their society. Comparing a particular society by geographic regions as a body, we can borrow what Goldblatt (p, 23) writes about Foucault. He says that human bodies are directly involved in a political field where power relations are very significant. The state plays a major role in influencing how society, acting as a single body limited by geographic area, is divided or rigid. Therefore, it means that changes in government, state authority and increased or decreased role of government in the society has played a major role in determining the rigidity of the modern society. However, how do we judge a society is fluid or rigid? Foucault says that past experience can only guide in judging a society. He says that the same way people experience good health in order for them to understand ill health, so does the society experience a rigid session in order to appreciate being fluid. On the other hand for the modern society to be compared with the society existing fifty years back, it would be wrong as we separate the natural from the social. Hinchliffe and Woodward (p 21) consider the example of cloning a person in order to have a replica of the same person. However, to obtain the suggested Replica of Ryan Giggs as professional footballer for the Welsh Team, many issues will come into play. Most significant as shown in the paper is the social contest given that there would be genetic or rather natural similarity between the clone and the player himself. Similarly there are many social issues that would come into play in determining whether the modern society is similar or different in terms of being rigid or fluid to the society fifty years back. Therefore the fact that globalization is evident as shown by globalized trade in the modern society where there is free movement of labour, finance and investments is not solely enough to label the society fluid. Conversely, there are no scientific experiments capable of disapproving the claim as suggested by Popper. In addition to the issue of nature and social factors, it would be wise to revisit the issue of evolution and natural landscape. While man is gradually evolving from the historic man to the more technology savvy modern man, nature has had its contribution in the process while man himself has had his contribution in changing the natural landscape of the world. Essentially, the experience in change between man and nature has been interdependent over time. Hinchliffe and Woodward (2004) identify the relationship of the natural world and the social world at the Snowdonia National Park by showing how the activities of man in his social world have impacted on the natural world. Correspondingly, the natural world has shaped mans social world. In the same manner, society as a single entity over time has interacted with nature at various levels. Consequently, nature has played a vital role in determining how fluid or rigid the modern society is as compared to the one five decades ago. Changes in nature have led to man and society to experience change in his social world. How, the most evident is proper farming methods as result of harsh weather conditions. While it has been said that man has greatly led to extreme weather condition through his activities in the social world as shown by Hinhcliffe and Woodward (2004) in the Snowdonia National Park Upon, man has reacted in response to changes in the natural world. Kelly, Goldblatt and Hughes (p 11) say that man beliefs that the weather, the same way as crime is going from bad to worse. In response, man and society are always in a “change” mood to help them fit in with new developments both in their social world and the natural world. In this realisation, societies have adopted a more unified form of approach to issues irrespective of the barriers that existed between the individual members towards the attainment of a common social goal. Individual members had a role to play in ensuring the achievement of these social objectives. In the modern day world, issues have ceased being based on traditional roles by gender, class or race. Climatic and weather issues were ever significant to the individual folks but companies, but the outlook has since changed. While the individuals in the society will experience the changes in climate, they are not directly responsible damage brought about by changes in nature. Hinhcliffe and Woodward introduce this element as externality. They say that it could be argued that in the case of non-renewable natural resources, the hitch of externalities is caused by the absence of a market. They propose that nature would be better conserved if natural resources such as air were privately owned. In effect, this would mean that use of air was charged and hence air pollution would be kept at the minimum while the owners would ensure purity of air in order to keep the business going. Crime has in man’s history been discouraged at any lengths. However, the modern society seems to have moved from the “traditional” way of perceiving crime into incorporating it with other issues. Kelly, Goldbatt and Hughes write that crime in the modern UK society is viewed as news and stories. While the traditional society would discourage criminals at all costs, the modern UK society is indirectly glorifying crime. Why? They say that robberies and other serious crimes receive prime attention in the media houses thereby, though unknowingly creating heroes for the young generation. While this may be contested as to say that punishments to such criminals are also given attention, empirical evidence indicates otherwise. Fifty years, the punishments for such offenders were more hash and even the living conditions at district jails were far worse as compared to today. Does this imply that the modern society is growing more lenient towards offenders and criminals? Kelly, Goldbatt and Hughes show that crime rates in the UK have been on the rise. For instance 900 000 crime cases were reported in 1960 as compared to over 5 million reported cases in 2000. This is indicative of the fact that crime has moved from necessity to fun for some. In the modern world, social divisions are rampant just like they were fifty years ago. In today’s society, the nature of social divisions has changed and has become more complex thus making it more difficult to understand the rampant social divisions. Uncertainty has taken centre stage in the modern world which has resulted to individuals becoming self-centred. Individual members choose to deploy any means possible to protect their interests from unforeseen future changes or events. This has disintegrated the society further to the individual level where they strive towards ensuring their well being over and above the other members of the society. Power has been preserved for the wealthy in most societies where individuals in lower social classes have to impress those in the higher end to win their support. Most of the wealthy individuals who access positions of power utilise their position to increase their wealth an act that Kelly, Goldbatt and Hughes label as theft. The common citizens continue being oppressed and as a result of their frustration they revolt against the government. This has seen the increased formation of militia groups which aim at accessing power by force so that they can provide for their people who they suppose to have been sidelined by the present administration. Conclusions Empirical evidence provided by these sociologists suggest that the modern society is less rigid and more accommodating to change than it was fifty years back. Most of them tend to view that technology has played a crucial role in changing the society’s outlook that has created many interactions within the society that has gradually eliminated the pre-existing divisions. It can be noted that in the modern society, roles have been less specified based on gender, race or any other personal attribute. Suitability for the social roles has been capped on the individual ability to perform the task and merit. Although power has for a long time been preserved for the wealthy, in modern times it is evident that even individuals in the lower classes are able to rise to assume leadership positions. With the technological advancement in the modern era, information can be easily accessed and individuals irrespective of their social status can use it to benefit themselves or the society in large. It can therefore be concluded that the modern day society is more fluid and more receptive to change than the society living fifty years back. Word count: 1689 References David Goldblatt (2004), Knowledge and the social sciences, (London: Open University) Hinchliffe, S. and Woodward, K. (2004), The natural and the social, (London: Open University) Kelly, B., Goldblatt, D. and Hughes, G. (2004), Introductory chapter: tales of fear and fascination: the crime problem in the contemporary UK, London: Open University) Woodward, K. (2004), Questioning identity, (London: Open University) Read More