Text:
Feagin and Feagin, Chapter 2
E-reading:
Ain't No Makin' It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-Income Neighborhood: Ch. 2, "Social Reproduction in Theoretical Perspective" by Jay McLeod.
By the end of this lesson, you should be able to describe and discuss
In lesson two, we explore varied theories of race and ethnicity—assimilation and pluralism, power and conflict theories, and stratification systems.
Assimilation
Feagin and Feagin (1996:36) define assimilation as "a process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other persons or groups, and, by sharing their experience and history, are incorporated with them in a common cultural life." Two scholars who significantly contributed to the study of assimilation are Robert E. Park and Milton Gordon.
Robert E. Park. According to Park, ethnic groups come in contact with each other on a regular basis, and when contact occurs, a "race relations cycle" takes place.
Milton Gordon. Milton Gordon introduces the concept that assimilation has varying definitions and levels. All groups reach some form of assimilation but at different rates. See Feagin and Feagin (2003:26-29) for a discussion of Gordon's seven stages of assimilation.
Gordon's model has been criticized for neglecting power issues and ignoring the fact that not all groups reach cultural assimilation before structural assimilation. Furthermore, Gordon believes that, despite the struggle for power and ongoing racial prejudice and discrimination, all groups will eventually reach civic assimilation. The opponents of assimilation argue that full assimilation will never be reached while power and conflict struggles continue (Feagin and Feagin 1996:36-37).
Top of Page | Bottom of PagePluralism
Although similar concepts of acceptance, assimilation refers to outside groups' absorption into the dominant society, while pluralism allows outside groups to maintain components of their ethnicity. Migrant groups come in contact with the dominant society (or a dominant group colonizes another group). The migrant/colonized groups maintain part of their ethnicity, such as language, customs, traditions, food, and religion, while adopting major components of the dominant society, such as its political and economic structure. Migrant groups also contribute certain elements of their society to the dominant culture (Feagin and Feagin 1996:39-40). Marger (2003:119-120) divides pluralism into two camps: equalitarian pluralism and inequalitarian pluralism.
Equalitarian Pluralism. With equalitarian pluralism, groups maintain cultural and structural autonomy but remain relatively equal in political and economic power. Their separation is mostly voluntary. Under equalitarian pluralism, cultural pluralism and corporate pluralism make up two subgroups. In cultural pluralism, groups voluntarily maintain components of their culture. Marger uses the United States as an example of cultural pluralism where ethnic groups have maintained aspects of their cultures over many generations. Marger points out, however, that, although the United States purports an ideology of equal opportunity, not all ethnic groups have access to this opportunity. Furthermore, he adds that a form of structural pluralism exists "because most groups have adopted the key elements of the mainstream culture after the second immigrant generation" (2003:121).
Corporate pluralism refers to societies whose structural and cultural components are sustained by mutual political authorization. Ethnic groups maintain not only the cultural aspects of their ethnic group but also the structural components. "Institutional provisions are made to encourage an ethnically proportionate distribution of societal rewards" (Marger 2003:122). Thus, all ethnic groups have access to power and resources. Switzerland is a nation that exemplifies this type of pluralism.
Inequalitarian Pluralism. With inequalitarian pluralism, "social relations between dominant and minority groups are typified by extreme polarization, supported by high levels of prejudice and discrimination" (Marger 2003:125). Societies that experience inequalitarian pluralism can be typified in the following ways (Marger 2003:126-128).
Power and Stratification Theories
Stratification theories emphasize the unequal distribution of a society's resources. Feagin and Feagin (1996:44-53) list the major power and stratification theories:
The Caste School
In the early 1940s, W. Lloyd Warner and colleagues described black-white relations as constituting a caste system in which African Americans are confined to lower socioeconomic positions, denied access to power, discouraged from intermarriage, and segregated in their own living space. This caste system, which insured that blacks remained immobilized, replaced slavery and was supported by institutional discrimination (Feagan and Feagan 1996:44).
Top of Page | Bottom of PageColonialism Theories
Internal colonialism is the process whereby the dynamics of the colonization complex (Marger 2003:127) are seen to operate within a society. South Africa's apartheid is an example of this type of colonialism. External colonialism is the process by which one nation controls the political and economic activities of other less developed and less powerful societies. An example of external colonialism is the British government's rule over the American colonies and India.
Power-conflict theory. "Prejudicial beliefs and discriminatory actions are used by elements of the dominant ethnic group, sometimes directly and other times indirectly, to secure its power and privileges" (Marger 2003:99). When the dominant group's power and privilege are challenged, the dominant group responds through prejudice and discrimination. When subordinate groups refuse to accept their stratified position, then strong racist ideologies emerge.
Marxian theory. The divide-and-conquer premise of this theory pits one ethnic group against another; thus, the capitalist class is able to keep the working class fragmented and easier to control.
Split-labor market theory. This theory emphasizes that markets for labor become partitioned with members of certain ethnic groups confined to lower-paying jobs and prohibited from working in higher-paying jobs. This process may occur when more powerful ethnic groups become fearful of losing or sharing power through competition, which would drive wages down.
According to Bonacich, there are three key groups in a capitalist market: businesspeople (employers), higher-paid labor, and cheap labor. One group of workers controls certain jobs exclusively and gets paid at one scale, and the other group is confined to jobs paid at a lower rate. Given the imperatives of a capitalist system, employers seek to hire workers at the lowest possible wage and therefore turn to the lower-paid sector when possible as a means of maximizing profits. Recent immigrants or ethnic groups migrating from rural areas in search of industrial jobs ordinarily make up this source of cheap labor. These groups can be used by employers as strike breakers and as an abundant labor supply to keep wages artificially low. Because these groups represent a collective threat to their jobs and wages, workers of the dominant ethnic group become the force behind hostile and exclusionary movements aimed at curtailing the source of cheap labor. (Marger 2003:96)
Split-class theory. There are splits within each class along ethnic lines. According to the Marxian view, the class system is composed of five groups. Please note that I have slightly altered this theory to include the professional class.
This theory maintains that members of the subordinate class can reach all levels of class, but they are not treated equally within their class subgroup. They are relegated to the less desirable, lower-paying, and less secure jobs within their class compared to the members of the dominant group (Feagin and Feagin 1996:47).
Middleman minority theory. Not all ethnic groups occupy lower castes and classes. Certain subordinate groups bring with them entrepreneurial skills and capital, such as the early waves of Jewish immigrants and Cuban migrants. Some ethnic groups are overrepresented in small business. They have a middle position in several ways.
Middleman minorities are accepted by neither the dominant group nor subordinate groups; in essence they are trapped in their middleman position. If they attempt to move into economic niches controlled by the dominant group, then the dominant group becomes hostile and may discriminate. Lower social classes may harbor resentment and hostility toward middleman minorities and blame them for lack of access to power and resources. This perspective by the lower classes helps the dominant group ignore its responsibility for the cycle of exclusion and maintenance of power and resources (Feagin and Feagin 1996:52-53).
Top of Page | Bottom of PageSamuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis: How Capital Reproduces Itself
Marx writes in Capital,
The capitalist process of production . . . produces not only commodities, not only surplus-value, but it also produces and reproduces the capitalist relation itself; on the one hand the capitalist, on the other the wage-labour. (MacLeod 1995:12)
Bowles and Gintis suggest that the American educational system reproduces the capitalist relationship by ensuring that the educational system perpetuates a subordinate working class, which is made available for the capitalist. This is achieved through the following measures (MacLeod 1995:12):
1) the organization of power and authority in the school and in the workplace;
2) the student's lack of control of curriculum and the worker's lack of control of the content of his or her job;
3) the role of grades and other rewards in the school and the role of wages in the workplace as extrinsic motivational systems; and
4) competition among students and the specialization of academic subjects and competition among workers and the fragmented nature of jobs.
In short, the social relations of the school reflect those of the capital mode of production; through its institutional relationships, the system of education in the United States "tailors the self-concepts, aspirations, and social class identifications of individuals to the requirements of the social division of labor."
Bowles and Gintis suggest that the American educational system not only places some people into a subordinate working class but also disseminates certain values and attitudes of the capitalist system. They contend that the unstated goal of the American educational system is to track children, that is, to keep them in the same position as their parents. If parents are wageworkers, then the educational system teaches them to adopt attitudes and values of docility and conformity. If their parents are elites, then the children are taught to be independent thinkers (MacLeod 1995:12-13).
Pierre Bourdieu: Cultural Capital
While the theoretical approach of Bowles and Gintis supports a Marxian perspective, Pierre Bourdieu, a French scholar, was more inclined to adopt the perspectives of Weber and Durkheim. Bourdieu's most significant contribution is that of cultural capital. He suggests that general cultural knowledge is passed from one generation to the next. For example, upper-class children are acquainted with such things as the theater and classical music, and they gain linguistic and cultural knowledge from their families. Children of working-class parents, however, are generally denied this cultural capital. These differences are further exacerbated in the educational system (MacLeod 1995:13): "By embodying class interests and ideologies, schools reward the cultural capital of the dominant classes and systematically devalue that of the lower classes."
Stratification Systems
Definition of social inequality: Unequal levels of social influence or prestige exist among individual members of a society (Sanderson 1999:420).
Definition of stratification: Resources, which are valued and scarce, are unevenly distributed among members of society. "People are grouped on the basis of how much of society's rewards they receive, and these groups, or strata, are arranged in rank order, or hierarchy" (Marger 2003:35). This system of inequality is not random, but structured. Societies may be stratified along several dimensions, such as monetary wealth and occupation.
Differences between social inequality and stratification. Stratification concerns groups; social inequality concerns individuals. Social inequality can emerge at any given time, but stratification is usually hereditary; groups are born into their social strata. Social inequality is dictated by social influence and prestige, and stratification involves the competition for resources and power (Sanderson 1999).
Example of social inequality. Social inequality can be found among individual members of Melanesian society, for example, who seek the prestigious title of "Big Man." According to tradition, individuals from the community begin to grow additional crops and herd additional domestic animals. At harvest time, they hold large feasts. If one individual provides the larger feast among those giving feasts, then he is rewarded with the title of "Big Man." Although he does not keep any economic surplus or obtain any power, he does gain social prestige among his peers. Thus, social inequality emerges (Sanderson 1999).
Example of stratification. Stratification can be found in the structured hierarchy of classes. Those who own production, such as dominant shareholders of large corporations and owners of companies and businesses, are higher in the hierarchy than workers who do not own capital but who sell their labor to pay for material needs. The dominant class has greater access to resources and power (Sanderson 1999).
Top of Page | Bottom of PageDimensions of Stratification
Karl Marx's model. Karl Marx stressed the economic dimension of social stratification. He divided society into two classes: the ruling class (those who have access to power and resources) and the working class (those who lack capital and so must sell their human labor in exchange for material goods). The ruling class dominates the working class and benefits from its labor, which gives rise to conflict between the two classes.
Weber's multidimensional model. Max Weber's model encompasses three components of stratification: economic, status, and political power. Although Weber's economic component is similar to that of Marx's, status and political power add other dimensions. Weber believed that people with a certain status had a certain lifestyle that set them apart from others. This dimension of political rank refers to one's standing in a collectivity or organization whose action is oriented toward the acquisition of social power (Marger 2003:36). Weberian theories include these characteristics:
Emphasize the importance of dimensions of stratification not rooted in property relations. Focus on the various ways in which groups attempt to monopolize resources in order to acquire high levels of privilege and prestige. Thus, individuals' levels of social and economic reward are proportional to their control over important resources. (Sanderson 1999:215)
Lenski's multidimensional model. Gerhard Lenski's multidimensional model of stratification looks at varied "class systems" that contribute to stratification (Marger 2003:36-37):
1) Political:
Elite
Bureaucracy
Electorate
Apolitical populace
2) Property:
Upper Class
Upper Middle Class
Middle Class
Working Class
Poor
Underclass
3) Occupational:
Capitalists
Professionals
Managers
Entrepreneurs
Skilled Workers/Technicians
Unskilled Workers
Unemployed
4) Ethnic class system:
Anglo-Americans
Other Euro-Americans
Asian Americans
Hispanic Americans
African Americans
American Indians
You must choose one of the two following media assignments.
I. Conduct a film analysis of three of the top grossing (nonanimated) films in the United States from 2000 and 2001.
2000
2001
To conduct the analysis you must do the following:
II. Conduct a media analysis for prime time television for Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday on ABC, NBC, and CBS: