Social Inequality and Social Policy - Essay Example

Inequality and Social Cohesion Name Course Lecture Date Introduction There are many different ways of describing what social cohesion is. One of the most widely accepted and comprehensive definition of social cohesion is by Jensen (1998). Jensen asserts that social cohesion can be described across five dimensions: 1) belonging vs. isolation, 2) inclusion vs. exclusion, 3) participation vs. non-involvement, 4) recognition vs. rejection and 5) legitimacy vs. illegitimacy. The Canadian Council of Social Development (2000) defines social cohesion as a society that respects all ethnic groups and ensures all citizens actively participate in decision making. Jensen (1998) considers social cohesion as the existence of social controls and social order. According to Gee and Handford (2012), social cohesion has a perceived and an objective perspective. The objective perspective is concerned with the closeness of members of a social grouping, while the perceived perspective is concerned with how member think they are regarded in a social group. Wilkinson (2006) sums up social cohesiveness as the set of attitudes that include trust and sense of belonging. Also willingness to participate in society and their behavioural manifestations are factors of social cohesiveness. This paper discusses the effects of social inequality on society as outlined in The Spirit level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. It uses the framework developed by the two authors to show the negative effects of social inequality on social cohesiveness. Social inequality in the Spirit level The Spirit level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett is an attempt to link social equality with the quality of life in global society. The Spirit levels argues that it is costly to ignore the question of equality in favour of economic growth. On social cohesion, the book shows that societies that are more equal are more cohesive. On the other had societies that are less equal experience social polarization on various dimension including ethnic, class and age. According to Sampson (2012), the argument against economic growth at the cost of jobs for millions is a brave point of view by the book. Wilkson and Pickett (2009) claim that it is futile to have economies where growth is constant but the quality of life of every citizen does not increase correspondingly. Wilkson and Pickett (2009), point at a number of social evils in the most unequal societies among 23 of the world’s richest countries. According to the two, inequality leads to people living shorter, unhappier and unhealthy lives, leads to a rise in imprisonment rates, teenage pregnancy, violence, drug addiction; it drives a wedge between individuals within the same society but in different social classes; it depletes the earth’s resources as it is a driver of consumption. True to the author’s argument, the USA, the most unequal society among developed countries displays all of the social problems discussed in the book. The black population in the United States for example have a lower life expectancy than their white neighbours. Top of Form Bottom of Form The credibility of the authors’ arguments is increased by the fact that Richard Wilkson is a renowned researcher on how social inequalities affect mental and physical health. Through this background the authors are able to build an almost foolproof case against inequality in developing countries. Wilkson and Pickett (2009), use data from the US census, the world bank, the UN and Who to illustrate the dire effects of inequality on society. Through Scatter-graphs, Wilkson and Pickett (2009) model the relationship between social inequality and social problems in the sampled countries. According to Sampson (2012), strong correlation between the level of social inequality and negative social outcomes is apparent from these graphs. In Japan and the Scandinavian countries where social inequality is low social cohesion, quality of life and wellness of society is recorded. On the other hand, countries like Portugal and the United States score poorly in the three social outcomes while continental Europe, Canada and Australasia come in between. Interestingly, the book seeks to separate lack of social cohesiveness and the associated social problems with low per capita income and lower total wealth of a nation’s population. While the USA has the highest Per Capita income, life expectancy is lower than any other developed country. A high crime rate an important indicator of low social crime rate is highest in the USA among the countries selected for analysis by the two authors (Wilkson 2004). Wilkson and Pickett (2009), most of the crimes in American society are committed by young men who are not upwardly mobile. Denied an economic or educational route to attain higher social status these young men target those they perceive as oppressors, they become enraged and disillusioned with their unequal society. The Spirit Level overall argument holds that the mortality and social health of a society is more accurately defined by how wealth is distributed within the society in question. According to Wilkson and Pickett (2009); ‘the more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society’. A comparison of infant mortality between the two countries at the far ends of the inequality scale show that infant mortality rate in the USA (most unequal society) is twice as high as Japan (most equal society). Most interestingly, the mortality rates are an average across all classes of the society. According to Wilkson and Pickett (2009), these figures show that ill health effects as a result of inequality affect everyone within the society. In their views, increased inequality has benefits for every occupational class in society. Wilkson and Pickett (2009) discuss a number of social ills that are caused by inequalities that also indicate lower levels of social cohesion within a society. Drug and substance abuse are likely to increase in societies with a larger social inequality gap (Wilkson, 2006). Where drug abuse is high rates of violent crime will also be very high. In such as society polarization also occurs as those who take drugs form a social grouping separate from mainstream society. On the other hand, mainstream society discriminates against addicts and causes their stigmatization. Higher rates of homicide are also recorded in more unequal societies. High murder rates can be associated with the bitterness individuals in the lower social rungs feel with their inability to climb the social ladder. In response, they target those who are higher in the social ladder in the hope of obtaining social power. Another indicator of social cohesiveness in society is fighting and bullying among children. According to Wilkson and Pickett (2009), fighting and bullying among children is higher in more unequal societies. While children are supposed to be innocent and unaware of class polarization this is not always the case. In most cases, rich kids are bullied by poor kids or social formations of poor kinds or vice versa. Bullying in school is an example of system where the wealthier may be attempting to exert their social power over their poorer companions. Bullying of rich kids on the other hand is an attempt by the poor to gain social power that they have been deprived by society. Mutual trust among citizens is another dimension of social cohesion is discussed by Wilkson and Pickett. According to Coburn (2000), increasing inequality in society corresponds with increasing rates of mutual suspicions among different social classes in the society. This is clearly indicated in the zoning of city areas for particular social classes as they prefer not to mix with people of lower social standing. The increased cases of rich people living in gated fortresses, aptly named gated communities show that trust is eroded between the rich and the poor. According to Wilkson (2004), inequality also erodes trust between people in the same social class. In the views of Wilkson (2004), poor people mistrust each other more. While violence against the rich is more pronounced in unequal societies it is even greater among the poor, who attack each other more frequently. According to Wilkson (2006), inequalities are socially corrosive. Inequalities erode the perceived cohesiveness of an individual to society. Individuals are unlikely to identify with a society where they rank very low in the social ladder. Furthermore, an individual’s inability to go up the social ladder leads to frustration with the particular social system and indeed the erosion of belongingness to the society. Furthermore, Coburn (2000) shows that inequality weakens social networks and lowers the degree of trust and empathy among social actors. Wilkson and Pickett (2009) developed a mechanism that links social ills and erosion of social cohesion to social inequality. The authors say inequality affects individuals by profoundly affecting their psyches and in turn their mental and physical wealth. Consequently, this manifests itself as social and health problem driven by change in attitudes and behaviour as a response to inequality. According to Wilkson and Pickett (2009), the greatest weakness in a socially unequal system is that people are being constantly evaluated by others. The effect of not living up to what people expect of a person leads to psychological stress, and in turn physiological effects. For example more of the Cortisol Hormone that perceives threats and emergencies is released. People who perceive higher threat levels within society will obviously mistrust other members of the society. With lower degree of trust among members of a society, social cohesiveness is affected negatively. Conclusion Wilkinson and Pickett (2009), link a number of social ills to social inequality. Through this link it is possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt the harmful effects of social inequality on social cohesiveness. This essay shows how inequality creates a situation where people’s behaviour and attitudes are changed by perceived or actual inequality, and in turn social cohesion is negatively affected. First, social inequality is associated with slow social mobility and consequently involvement in social vices by individual whose path up the social ladder is blocked by income and educational inequalities. This may explain the polarisation of American society along the white/black divide and higher crime rates among the black population. Secondly, high inequality is linked with drug and substance abuse and consequently violence within a particular society. As discussed the stress of being ranked lower in the social ladder may lead one to become involved in addictive drugs in the quest to overcome psychological stress. As a consequence, drug users become separated and excluded from mainstream society a clear illustration of another way, social inequality affects social cohesiveness. Thirdly, erosion of trust as people feel more threatened by their neighbours leads to segregation of people along social classes; rich people move to gated communities to protect themselves from a society that is becoming increasingly violent. References Coburn, D 2000, Income inequality, social cohesion and the health status of populations: the role of neo-liberalism, Social Science & Medicine, 51(1), 135-146. Gee, J. P., & Handford, M 2012, The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis, Routledge, London Green, A, Preston, J, & Janmaat, JG 2006, Education, equality and social cohesion, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Highlights.’ Paper SRA-542, 2000, Strategic Research and Analysis Directorate, Department of Canadian Council of Social Development 2000, ‘Social Cohesion in Canada: Possible Indicators Canadian Heritage, Ottawa. Jenson, J 1998, Mapping social cohesion: The state of Canadian research (pp. 109-28). Family Network, CPRN. Pickett, K, & Wilkinson, R 2009, The Spirit Level: Why more equal societies almost always do better, Allen Lane, London. Sampson, RJ 2012, Neighborhood inequality, violence, and the social infrastructure of the American city. Research on schools, neighborhoods, and communities: Toward civic responsibility, 11-28. Wilkinson, R 2004, Why is violence more common where inequality is greater? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1036(1), pp 1-12. Wilkinson, RG 2006, the impact of inequality. Social Research: An International Quarterly, vol. 73, no. 2, pp 711-732. Read More

Through Scatter-graphs, Wilkson and Pickett (2009) model the relationship between social inequality and social problems in the sampled countries. According to Sampson (2012), strong correlation between the level of social inequality and negative social outcomes is apparent from these graphs. In Japan and the Scandinavian countries where social inequality is low social cohesion, quality of life and wellness of society is recorded. On the other hand, countries like Portugal and the United States score poorly in the three social outcomes while continental Europe, Canada and Australasia come in between.

Interestingly, the book seeks to separate lack of social cohesiveness and the associated social problems with low per capita income and lower total wealth of a nation’s population. While the USA has the highest Per Capita income, life expectancy is lower than any other developed country. A high crime rate an important indicator of low social crime rate is highest in the USA among the countries selected for analysis by the two authors (Wilkson 2004). Wilkson and Pickett (2009), most of the crimes in American society are committed by young men who are not upwardly mobile.

Denied an economic or educational route to attain higher social status these young men target those they perceive as oppressors, they become enraged and disillusioned with their unequal society. The Spirit Level overall argument holds that the mortality and social health of a society is more accurately defined by how wealth is distributed within the society in question. According to Wilkson and Pickett (2009); ‘the more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society’.

A comparison of infant mortality between the two countries at the far ends of the inequality scale show that infant mortality rate in the USA (most unequal society) is twice as high as Japan (most equal society). Most interestingly, the mortality rates are an average across all classes of the society. According to Wilkson and Pickett (2009), these figures show that ill health effects as a result of inequality affect everyone within the society. In their views, increased inequality has benefits for every occupational class in society.

Wilkson and Pickett (2009) discuss a number of social ills that are caused by inequalities that also indicate lower levels of social cohesion within a society. Drug and substance abuse are likely to increase in societies with a larger social inequality gap (Wilkson, 2006). Where drug abuse is high rates of violent crime will also be very high. In such as society polarization also occurs as those who take drugs form a social grouping separate from mainstream society. On the other hand, mainstream society discriminates against addicts and causes their stigmatization.

Higher rates of homicide are also recorded in more unequal societies. High murder rates can be associated with the bitterness individuals in the lower social rungs feel with their inability to climb the social ladder. In response, they target those who are higher in the social ladder in the hope of obtaining social power. Another indicator of social cohesiveness in society is fighting and bullying among children. According to Wilkson and Pickett (2009), fighting and bullying among children is higher in more unequal societies.

While children are supposed to be innocent and unaware of class polarization this is not always the case. In most cases, rich kids are bullied by poor kids or social formations of poor kinds or vice versa. Bullying in school is an example of system where the wealthier may be attempting to exert their social power over their poorer companions. Bullying of rich kids on the other hand is an attempt by the poor to gain social power that they have been deprived by society. Mutual trust among citizens is another dimension of social cohesion is discussed by Wilkson and Pickett.

According to Coburn (2000), increasing inequality in society corresponds with increasing rates of mutual suspicions among different social classes in the society.

Read More