Sneak Preview
Social Issues:
Challenges, Opportunities, Innovations
Edited by Cheryl B. Leggon
Included in this preview:
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Excerpt of Chapter 1
For additional information on adopting this book for
your class, please contact us at 800.200.3908 x501
or via e-mail at info@cognella.com
Sneak Preview
SOCIAL ISSUES
Challenges, Opportunities,
Innovations
Edited by Cheryl B. Leggon
Georgia Institute of Technology
From The Social Issues Collection™
A Routledge/University Readers Custom Library for Teaching
www.universityreaders.com
“Introduction,” “Establishing a Common Universe of Discourse,” and “Gender, Race, Ethnicity and
the Digital Divide,” copyright © 2010 by Cheryl B. Leggon.
All other textbook content, copyright © 2010 by University Readers, Inc., and Taylor & Francis
Group, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted,
reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any
information retrieval system without the written permission of University Readers, Inc.
First published in the United States of America in 2010 by Cognella, a division of University Readers,
Inc.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
14 13 12 11 10
12345
Printed in the United States of America
ISBN: 978-1-935551-49-2
Contents
Introduction
By Cheryl B. Leggon
1
PART I: ESTABLISHING A COMMON UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE
Establishing a Common Universe of Discourse
By Cheryl B. Leggon
7
PART II: READINGS ON SELECT SOCIAL ISSUES
The Conservation of Races
By W. E. B. DuBois
21
The American Dream of Meritocracy
By Heather Beth Johnson
31
Black Wealth/White Wealth: Wealth Inequality Trends
By Melvin L. Oliver and Thomas M. Shapiro
45
The Gender Asset Gap: Why Women’s Wealth Matters
By Carmen Diana Deere and Cheryl R. Doss
61
Complex Inequality: The Interplay Among Gender, Class, and Racial Inequality
By Leslie McCall
77
Gender Pay Gap: Are Women Paid Fairly in the Workplace?
By Thomas J. Billitteri
87
Age Matters: Age As a Basis of Inequality
By Toni Calasanti and Kate Slevin
125
Employee Benefits for the Era of Living Longer
By John A. Turner
141
The Social Economy: Or Why We Can’t All Be Knowledge Workers
By Hasmet M. Uluorta
151
Housing and Education: The Inextricable Link
By Deborah L. McKoy and Jeffrey M. Vincent
167
The Effects of the Economic Recession on Communities of Color
Prepared by Julia Berndt and Cara James
193
Race, Gender and Genetic Technologies: A New Reproductive Dystopia?
By Dorothy E. Roberts
209
Women’s Health and Social Change
By Ellen Annandale
229
Gender, Race, Ethnicity and the Digital Divide
By Cheryl B. Leggon
249
Introduction
By Cheryl B. Leggon
N
ow more than e ver, life in societies all over the world is increasingly complex.
Some of the traditional lines of demarcation between nations, institutions, and
groups are shifting. The purpose of this anthology is to use sociological perspectives to provide analytical frameworks and sociohistorical contexts to help the reader navigate
through the complexity of contemporary social issues.
Theme
The theme of this anthology—social issues as challenges and opportunities—highlights ways in
which social issues can be viewed as opportunities for innovation as well as challenges to meet.
For example, although education is one of the most critical issues in the United States, there are
other pressing issues such as the lack of adequate affordable housing in American cities. Rather
than addressing these issues separately, their interrelationship provides the opportunity to address them simultaneously, as suggested by McKoy and Vincent (“Housing and Education: the
Inextricable Link”).
This anthology encourages the search for approaches to social issues that are flexible, innovative, and creative. For example, Turner asserts the need for benefits policy options that
reflect major demographic changes—specifically, that Americans are both living and working
longer than ever (“Work Options for Older Americans: Employee Benefits for the Era of
Longer Living”). Uluorta argues that we need to expand our conception of work from being
limited to paid labor in the market economy to include additional types of labor in the social
economy (“The Social Economy: or Why We Can’t All Be Knowledge Workers”).
Scientific and technological advances have significantly transformed societies worldwide—
and provide many challenges as well as opportunities for innovation. Innovations stemming
from the sciences and technology have resulted in creating social issues for which there are
no precedents. For example, research in human genomics has dramatically altered conceptualizations of disease and treatment. Although some groups view this research as cutting edge
medicine, other groups view it as a scientific mechanism for eugenics and other discriminatory
Introduction
1
2
Social Issues
practices.1 Roberts discusses ramifications of the new genetic technologies in the context of
race and gender (“Race, Gender, and Genetic Technologies: A New Reproductive Dystopia?”).
The Internet has revolutionized communication and generated new forms and patterns of
social interaction. Some scholars argue that information technology can narrow gaps between
groups. For example, a 1999 report from the President’s Information Technology Advisory
Committee asserted that information technology is a factor in decreasing gaps between groups
insofar as it facilitates all groups having voice in the public arena.2 Other scholars contend that
the Internet and information technology create additional gulfs between groups of people.
These gulfs or “digital divides” occur not only between nations but also among groups within
nations. The digital divide is an issue not only of access to technology it is also an issue of
empowerment, as Leggon argues in “Gender, Race, Ethnicity and the Technological Divide.”3
Scope
This anthology cannot be exhaustive in scope. Despite the fact that one of the defining characteristics of social life in the twenty-first century is globalization—that is, the interconnection
among nation states—this anthology will focus on the United States; however, this is not
meant to imply that these issues are limited to the United States—quite the contrary. In today’s
world, the concept of globalization also embodies the interrelatedness of social issues that
transcend national boundaries—such as the economic recession.
This anthology seeks to enhance understanding of the economic, cultural, political, and
social forces that shape social issues by focusing on specific social issues in the context of the
United States. Some of the topics included in this anthology are not usually included in most
social issue anthologies—such as, for example: the links between housing and education; and
the social consequences of science and technology. Topics included in this anthology that
are often included in many social issues anthologies are presented in such a way as to be a
catalyst to refining how social issues are approached—case in point: “ageism” as a basis of social
inequality.
1 Kevles, Daniel J., and Leroy Hood (1992). The Code of Codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome
Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2 PTIAC 1999. “Information Technology Research: Investing in our Future: A Report from the President’s
Information Technology Advisory Committee.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
3 This article originally appeared in Gender, Work, and Technology (2006), edited by Mary Frank Fox, Deborah
Johnson, and Sue V. Rosser. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Introduction
3
The anthology is divided into two parts.
• Part I: Establishing a Common Universe of Discourse lays the foundation for a common universe of discourse in which the same term/concept is used consistently to refer
to the same phenomenon. Part I begins with a discussion of the sociological perspective
and three basic theoretical frameworks: symbolic interaction; structural functional;
and social conflict. Definitions of key terms and concepts and the importance of those
definitions are discussed.
• Part II: Readings on Select Social Issues. The theme of social issues as challenges and
opportunities is reflected in the readings in Part II. The lens of social inequalities is
used to focus on social issues in specific institutional contexts—education, the economy,
medicine and health, and science and technology. This approach should heighten the
readers’ awareness of the overlap among and between social issues in various contexts.
Pedagogically, it is easier to develop an understanding of social issues in specific institutional contexts; however, in reality social issues are inextricably intertwined.
Because each article in the anthology is intended to be a catalyst for discussion, the chapters
need not be read in order. Nevertheless, readers might want to consult Part I to help establish
a common universe of discourse.
Part I: Establishing a
Common Universe
of Discourse
Establishing a Common
Universe of Discourse
By Cheryl B. Leggon
T
he purpose of this anthology is to use the sociological perspective to provide
analytical frameworks to help the reader navigate through the complexity of
contemporary social issues. The anthology seeks to enhance understanding of the
economic, cultural, political, and social forces that shape social issues by focusing on specific
social issues in the context of the United States. Now more than ever, life in societies all over
the world is increasingly complex—especially as some of the traditional lines of demarcation
between and among nations, institutions, and groups are shifting.
Part I provides the foundation for a common universe of discourse and consists of four
sections:
• Section 1—Overview of the sociological perspective
• Section 2—Summary of major theoretical paradigms in sociology
• Section 3—Defines the basic building block of the anthology—the concept of “social
issues”—and discusses the bidirectional relationship between sociological
thinking and social change
• Section 4—Defines other key terms and concepts, and discusses the significance of those
definitions.
Section 1: The Sociological Perspective—an Overview
“Sociology is the systematic study of human society”1—including analyses of relationships
between and among individuals, groups, and institutions. The sociological perspective is an
organized, systematic way of thinking about what is happening both within the individual and
in the world. From the sociological standpoint, society acts differently on various categories of
people. For example, if a male acts decisively, he is viewed as a leader; if a female acts decisively,
1
Macionis, John J. (1999). Sociology, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cheryl B. Leggon, “Part I: Establishing a Common Universe of Discourse,” Copyright © 2010 Cheryl
B. Leggon. Permission to reprint granted by the author.
Establishing a Common Universe of Discourse
7
8
Social Issues
she is viewed as pushy. Although the objective behavior (making a decision) is the same in both
cases (when the actor is male and when the actor is female), the subjective interpretation of that
behavior differs by who the actor is and to which relevant social categories (e.g., gender; race;
ethnicity; age) they belong.
The relationship between the individual and society is bidirectional: each one acts upon the
other. Because the sociological perspective enhances our ability to identify general patterns in
the behavior of particular people, neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society
can be understood without understanding both. This means, for example, that when a few
individuals or groups lose their jobs, it is described as a personal issue; however, when large
numbers of people in several social categories lose their jobs, it becomes a societal issue. The
sociological perspective enhances awareness that what each person once considered to be their
personal issue is actually shared by other individuals.
Transforming personal problems into public issues is the catalyst to social change. For
example, during the second wave of the women’s movement in the United States, women
became increasingly aware that “the personal is political.”2
The sociological perspective enhances our ability to recognize the social, political, economic,
and demographic factors that enhance life (and those that hinder it)—and to know how these
factors operate. If knowledge is power, then this knowledge should empower us to actively
participate in society and be proactive rather than reactive.
2 The phrase “the personal is political” originated with the Cumbahee River Collective, an offshoot of the
National Black Feminist Organization, was founded by black feminist activists in Boston during the mid-1970s.
Establishing a Common Universe of Discourse
9
Section 2: Sociological Paradigms
Theories consist of a system of concepts, principles, hypotheses, and explanations based on
available knowledge and experience (Charlotte Bunch, “Feminism and Education: Not by
Degrees”). Based on this definition, theoretical paradigms can be viewed as basic frameworks
that guide how issues are conceptualized and how research is conducted to test that conceptualization. Theoretical paradigms are analogous to the lens of a camera: both influence how the
world is viewed. When focused on specific situations, theoretical paradigms are analogous to
a close-up lens; similarly, when focused on the broad patterns that create, impact, and change
society, theoretical paradigms are analogous to a wide-angle lens. In sum, theoretical paradigms influence how we view society and social interaction and, consequently, our approach
to explaining social behavior. Three major paradigms in sociology are: symbolic interaction;
structural-functional; and social conflict.
Symbolic interaction. The symbolic interaction paradigm views society as a complex,
ever-changing kaleidoscope of “subjective meaning”—resulting from the everyday actions of
individuals. According to the concept of the “looking-glass self ” created by the sociologist
Charles Horton Cooley, our sense of self results from our interactions with others through a
three-step process:
1. Imagining how we appear to others;
2. Imagining how others judge that appearance; and
3. Developing some feeling(s) about ourselves (e.g., pride or mortification) as a result of
our imagining what others’ judgments of us are (Ritzer 2006:236).
This process is not only subjective but also varies from person to person as well as from group
to group.
Table 1. Comparisons between Structural Functional Theory and Social Conflict
Theory
Structural Functional Theory
Social Conflict Theory
Level and scope
Large-scale
Interrelationships
Large-scale
Interrelationships
Focus
Equilibrium
Stability
Conflict
Change
Critiques
Ahistorical
Ahistorical
10
Social Issues
Structural-functionalism.3 The structural functional paradigm views society as a complex
system consisting of parts working together to promote solidarity and stability of the system.
In this framework, the notion of system means that the component parts are interdependent—that is, change(s) in one or more of these parts result in change(s) in one or more other
parts. Although structural functionalism was the dominant sociological theory in the 1960s, its
preeminence diminished because it is ahistorical, highly conservative, and unable to deal with
conflict and change (Ritzer 2008:137).
Social conflict theory. In contrast to structural functionalism, which focused on equilibrium and how the parts of the system contribute to its stability, social conflict theory focuses
on change, conflict, and coercion. Social conflict theorists view society as an arena of inequality
that generates change and social conflict—that is, struggles between segments of society over
valued and scarce resources. Like structural functionalism, social conflict theory has been
criticized for being ahistorical. Some sociologists have criticized social conflict theory for being
conceptualized as an alternative to rather than a compliment of structural functional theory
(Ritzer 2008). These two theoretical paradigms are compared in Table 1.
Section 3: Social Issues
Social issues can be defined as matters, topics, concerns, and problems shared by and directly
or indirectly affect one or more groups, collectives, or communities. At any given point in
time, there are many matters that fit that definition. Issues that recur—for example, poverty,
war, substance abuse—have precedents to which we can turn for guidance. For issues that
are unprecedented—such as the applications of findings from human genomic research—we
have no guidance. However, just because issues are unprecedented does not mean that they are
incapable of being effectively and adequately addressed. Rather than viewing unprecedented
issues as causes for panic, they can be viewed as challenges that provide opportunities for
members of society to apply not only their intellect and skills, but also their innovation and
creativity to devise ways to effectively address these issues.
Social, cultural, economic, and political forces determine how a social issue is framed. Case
in point: childcare. When childcare is defined as an individual issue, childcare arrangements
and responsibilities lie solely with the family (usually the adult female of the household).
Defining childcare as a social issue implies a consensus among members of society that the
government (at various levels) shares some of the responsibility for childcare arrangements.
Historically in the United States, the state played a limited role in social welfare. People’s
welfare was viewed as a product of their own efforts; and churches and charities met the needs
of those who could not meet their own needs. Although that view changed, there are still
vestiges of the position that government should intervene in family affairs only as a last resort.
3 For an excellent exposition and historical overview of sociological theories see Ritzer, George (2008). Modern
Sociological Theory, 7th ed. McGraw-Hill, Higher Education.
Establishing a Common Universe of Discourse
11
However, one exception to this occurred in the United States during the early 2000s when
members of the fundamentalist religious right encouraged government intervention in shaping and upholding “family values.”4 When social issues are framed to include exhortations to
family values, one must ask two questions:
•
•
Which families?
Whose values?
How an issue is framed is partially determined by how many—and what types of —people are
affected.5 Do those who are affected belong to a group or social category that is held in high or
low esteem in society? For example, when HIV/AIDS was first identified in the United States,
it was viewed as an issue for gay men and intravenous drug users. However, when HIV/AIDS
began to be spread via blood transfusions and heterosexual intercourse, it was redefined as an
issue impacting the entire society and not limited to gay men and intravenous drug users.
Definitions of social issues and the priority assigned to them vary by social category and
across time. At a given point in time societies differ in terms of what issues are defined as social
issues. In addition, at a given point in time groups within a given society may differ in terms
of which issues they define as social issues and the importance they assign to those issues. Over
time, members of a given society can differ in terms of which issues they define as public rather
than private.
It is important to note that all social issues are not social problems. The word problem implies that something is wrong. Therefore, conceptualizing social issues as social problems limits
focus to fixing what is broken. Such a conceptualization does not include improving what
already works. Instead of viewing social issues as social problems, an alternative conceptualization is to see social issues as challenges that present opportunities for innovation—especially if
the social issue is unprecedented—that is, an issue for which no historical model exists. Rather
than being a cause for alarm, such issues can serve as catalysts for social change.
Many social issues are affect-laden—that is, they evoke strong emotions and reactions that
often impede both dialogue and understanding. Sometimes these emotions are reactions to the
connotations of a given word or phrase—which can differ between groups. For example, in the
context of the debate concerning affirmative action, the word equality has two distinct connotations: equality of opportunity; and equality of results. Therefore, it is critically important
to establish between the readers and authors what I call a “common universe of discourse,” in
which the same term/concept is used consistently to refer to the same phenomenon.
4 Dinitto, Diana M. (2000). “An Overview of American Social Policy,” in The Handbook of Social Policy, edited
by James Midgley, Martin B. Tracy, and Michelle Livermore. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
5 Chambers, Donald E., and Kenneth R. Wedel (2009). Social Policy and Social Programs: A Method for the
Practical Public Policy Analyst. Boston: Pearson
12
Social Issues
Section 4: Definitions and the Differences They Make
Race and ethnicity. In everyday interactions, the terms race and ethnicity are often used
interchangeably; however, these terms are not synonymous with one another. The important
distinctions between the two concepts are more than a matter of semantics.
Race.
Race refers to a category of people who share biologically transmitted traits that members of a
society deem socially significant; however, race is not a biological category. If race were a bone
fide biological classification based on a single criterion, such as skin color, or a combination of
criteria such as skin color and hair texture, it would yield categories that are mutually exclusive
and exhaustive—that is, each and every person could be placed in one and only one category
or race. Although the concept of race has no basis in biology, it continues to have significant
socioeconomic, psychological, and psychic meaning and consequences—and an abiding place
in the daily lives of people of color in the United States.6 The meanings of race are not static.
Race is more than a social construct, it is a sociohistorical concept insofar as:
Racial categories and the meaning of race are given concrete expression by the specific social relations and historical context in which they are embedded (Omi and
Winant 1998:5).
The first reading in this anthology, W.E.B. DuBois’ “The Conservation of Races: Theories
of Race and Racism,” presents a classic exposition of the concepts race and racism. DuBois
contends that the problem of the twentieth century is the color line, which is the line of demarcation that separates groups and becomes the justification for the inequitable distribution
of resources in society. Color remains the problem of this century. Although many Americans
have been negatively affected by the recent recession, Berndt and James contend in “The Effects
of the Economic Recession on Communities of Color” that African Americans and Hispanics
have been affected to much greater degrees than other communities.
Ethnicity.
Ethnicity” refers to a shared cultural heritage—including language, religion, and common
ancestors—that confers a distinctive collective social identity on a group. This shared cultural
heritage can be based on historical evidence, oral tradition passed down from one generation
to another or chosen affiliations. Regardless of the basis, ethnicity both confers and confirms a
distinctive social identity. Major political changes such as, for example, the dissolution of the
6 For another classic exposition of the concept “race,” see Gossett, T. F. (1997). Race: The History of an Idea in
America. Oxford University Press.
Establishing a Common Universe of Discourse
13
former Soviet Union, have led to a reformulation of the concept of ethnicity, in which shared
ancestry is less important than shared interests (Leggon 1999).7
The intersection of race and ethnicity.
Individuals can be classified by both race and ethnicity. In the United States, for example,
Puerto Ricans and Cuban Americans can be classified in terms of common heritages rooted
in Spain (Hispanic) as well as by race (either Black or white). Over the past fifty years, the
United States’ population has become increasingly diverse in terms of both race and ethnicity.
Overall, mixed-race Americans tend to be young: the younger the age group, the more diverse
the population (LaFerla 2003). Generation Y—comprised of people born between 1977 and
2002—is the most racially diverse population in U.S. history.8
Sex and gender.
Language not only enables us to express ideas, but also puts constraints on how those ideas are
formed. For example, in English-speaking US society, women are assumed to be included in
the generic category “man” as in the phrase from the Declaration of Independence: “all men
are created equal.”9 This is an important example because initially this phrase did not refer to
all men (it was limited to white men who owned property)—nor to any women. Repeated use
of “man” to refer to both men and women comes to be equated with men only.10 In everyday
life, the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably. However, the differences between
the definitions of the terms are both meaningful and significant.
Sex is a category that is rooted in biology. Differences in reproductive organs are used
to categorize individuals as female, male, and hermaphrodite (reproductive organs of both
females and males). In addition, sex can be conceptualized on the genetic and cellular levels
(Fausto-Sterling 2006). Although sex is based on biological differences, gender is based on
cultural differences in terms of which behaviors are deemed appropriate—and inappropriate—for a given sex. Such cultural differences result in the gender classifications “feminine”
and “masculine.”11
7 Leggon, Cheryl B. (1999). “Introduction: Race and Ethnicity—A Global Perspective.” Sociological Spectrum,
vol. 19, no. 4, October–December 1999:381–387
8 There is a lack of consensus on the dates defining Generation Y.
9 See also, Theodora Wells, “Woman—which includes man, of course,” in Sheila Ruth (ed.), Issues in Feminism,
5th ed.
10 Similarly, the term “women” is inclusive in theory, but in practice it tends to refer to women who are white,
not Hispanic and middle- or upper-middle class.
11 Regardless of biological sex, both females and males exhibit some of the same behaviors; the gender distinction is based on the extent to which they exhibit more associate with one gender rather than the other. However,
“androgynous” refers to biological males or females who exhibit “masculine” and “feminine” traits equally.
14
Social Issues
Gender classifications are much more fluid than sex classifications because cultural criteria—
especially what behaviors are deemed “appropriate” and “inappropriate”—differ with time and
place.12
In sum, sex refers to biological distinctions between females and males at the hormonal,
cellular, and anatomical levels. Gender refers to the personal traits and social positions resulting
from and through social interaction that members of a society attach to being female and
male. Consequently, gender is a social construct. Gender identity consists of the culturally
determined traits that females and males incorporate into their personality through the process
described as the “looking-glass self ” (see schematic above). Gender roles are the attitudes and
activities that a culture links to each sex. Gender is not only a social construct but also a basis
for a line of demarcation between groups. Gender distinctions reflect, reinforce, and attempt
to justify differential access to scarce resources. “The Gender Pay Gap” provides an overview of
the sociohistorical context and socioeconomic implications of such gender distinctions.
What are the implications of using sex and gender interchangeably? Equating gender with
sex implies that traits associated with gender are as immutable as those associated with sex.
This is problematic because gender, which is rooted in culture, changes over time and place;
moreover, gender is much more fluid than sex, which is rooted in biology and, consequently, is
more difficult (although not impossible) to change. How one experiences being female or male
is influenced by such statuses as race, ethnicity, age, and social class.
Intersections of race, ethnicity, and gender.
Race, ethnicity, and gender are inextricably intertwined such that each influences the other.
For example, race and ethnicity (along with other social statuses) affect how an individual
experiences being female or male; and gender (along with other social statuses such as age
12
Oakley, Ann (1972). Sex, Gender & Society. New York: Harper Colophon Books.
Establishing a Common Universe of Discourse
Figure 1:
15
Intersecting Social Statuses
and sexual orientation) affects how an individual experiences being a member of a given race
or ethnic group. Race, ethnicity, and gender are all criteria used to put people into different
groups, as shown in Figure 1. This becomes problematic when invidious hierarchies are embedded into group membership—so that groups not only differ from one another, some groups
become better than or worse than other groups. These categories reflect, reinforce, and attempt
to justify the inequitable distribution of resources in a given society.
The impacts of the intersection of these statuses are greater than the sum of the effects. From an
analytical perspective, Collins (1991) describes the intersection of race, ethnicity, and gender
as “mutually constructing systems of power or a specific constellation of social practices that
show how oppressions converge.”13 Leggon discusses the convergence of gender, race, and
ethnicity in “Gender, Race, Ethnicity and the Digital Divide.”
Wealth versus income.
Just as it is necessary to distinguish between sex and gender, and race and ethnicity, it is also
necessary to distinguish between income and wealth. Wealth is an overarching category that
includes income from not only labor, but also rent, interest, stocks, bonds, land, and other
assets. Income, which refers to money generated from paid labor, is one component of wealth,
as shown in Figure 2.
13 Collins, Patricia Hill (1991). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of
Empowerment. New York: Routledge, p. 11
16
Social Issues
Figure 2:
Components of Wealth
Much research on socioeconomic differences between groups is based on measures of income
rather than wealth because information on income is easier to get than information on stocks,
bonds, land, and other assets. Nevertheless, this is problematic because income is only one
component of wealth; consequently, income understates differences between groups. Wealth is
also important because it provides additional resources that can help compensate for decreases
in income. Wealth differs by such social statuses as race, as noted by Oliver and Shapiro in
“Black Wealth/White Wealth,” and by gender—as discussed by Deere and Doss in “Gender
Asset Gap: Why Women’s Wealth Matters.”
Integral to discussion of income differentials is the concept of poverty. Actually, there are
two types of poverty: absolute and relative. Absolute poverty refers to deprivation of resources
to the degree that it is life-threatening—for example, when one does not have enough money
to put food on the table and a roof over one’s head. Relative poverty refers to the comparative
deprivation (at the individual and/or group level) of certain resources. Implicit in the concept
of “relative poverty” is the notion of comparison. Selecting appropriate groups to compare
to one another is critically important. Comparing poor people in the United States to poor
people in another nation is relatively meaningless to the poor in the United States, because
people tend to compare themselves to those living in a similar context such as a nation or state.
Establishing a Common Universe of Discourse
17
Social equalities and inequalities.
Social inequalities refer to the unequal distributions of wealth, power, and privilege between
and among groups in a particular society. These groups can be based on achieved statuses (as
designated by levels of formal education and occupation) and/or ascribed statuses such as
race, ethnicity, and gender—as McCall discusses in “Complex Inequality: the Interplay among
Gender, Class and Racial Inequality in the New Economy.”
Both equality and inequality are adjectives that describe the relationship between two or
more entities. The concept “equality” connotes sameness; the concept “inequality” connotes
difference. In the context of social issues, difference becomes problematic when hierarchies are
embedded such that greater than becomes better than, and less than becomes worse than. In
discussing social equalities and inequalities in the United States—a democratic nation with
a market economy—it is crucially important to sharply differentiate between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity refers to a level playing field in
which people have the same access to resources (e.g., education) that make them competitive.
Equality of outcome refers to the results of the competition.
What about the ideological context in which inequality develops in the United States?
Meritocracy is the creed upon which the United States as a nation was founded. In a meritocracy, a person’s social position is based on their efforts rather than the circumstances into which
they were born. Often Americans tend to describe the United States as either “classless” or “one
big middle class”; both descriptions tend to downplay (or ignore) the existence of social classes
in the United States and how they differ from one another in terms of wealth, power, and
privilege. In theory, the notion of meritocracy explains how American society works. In reality,
the notion of meritocracy explains how inequality exists in the United States, as described by
Johnson in “The American Dream of Meritocracy and the Power of Wealth.”
Over the last century, the United States economic base has undergone dramatic shifts. First,
the economy shifted from agriculture to the manufacture of durable goods. The next shift was
from manufacturing to the creation, organization, manipulation, analysis, and dissemination
of information; this marked the beginning of what has been called the information age.14 In
the information age, science and technology drive the economy. However, Uluorta’s article
explains “Why We Can’t All Be Knowledge Workers.” Science and technological innovation
has the potential to decrease inequalities between groups. Science and technology also have
the potential to increase inequalities, as Leggon discusses in “Gender, Race, Ethnicity and the
Digital Divide.”
Whether based on race, ethnicity, gender, age—or various combinations thereof—social
inequalities in terms of access to valued and scarce resources result in advantages for some
groups and disadvantages for other groups. Both advantages and disadvantages are cumulative.
14
Nesbit, J. (1986). Megatrends.