Social Inequality Debate, Essay Example

Social inequality debate has been the talk of the town for decades now. Most people believe that societies have their own levels of inequalities which distinguish people in classes. However, sociologists have come up with a new strategy that connects inequality to society. Despite individual effort being a factor in achieving success, society is seen as the main determining factor that enhances a person’s ability to change social classes. Sociologists insist that social stratification is the base that is used by societies to define success. For example, people living in the same neighborhood will have the same social life that includes the same income and almost the same expenditure. The current essay elaborates why sociologists consider individual effort as a minimal factor that enhances success. Instead, the sociologists believe the social community determines the success of an individual. The objective of the essay will be based on social inequalities and its impacts on employment. According to Furze et al. (2015, p.311), each nation has different levels of income. In a study conducted using a Gini index to rank levels of stratification of each nation, the researchers found out that different nations have specific levels of inequality. From this index, Australia has a value of 30.5, while America’s value is 45 and Sweden 23. Therefore, Sweden proves to be more equal as compared to Australia and the USA. The current essay will delve into factors that make success not only an individual effort but also a society’s contribution.

Social stratification is a categorization aspect that societies use to rank its people in regard to wealth, education, power, race, and income (Browne, 1998, p.15). Through the stratification, classes are created that represents the efforts of people. In various job places, people from rich backgrounds will always have the upper hand as compared to those from the middle or low class. The social stratification aspects enhance these occurrences. For instance, children from leafy suburbs will enjoy the best aspects of life and will have the upper hand while growing up as compared to those from the middle class. Despite putting in much effort, children from low class will have more obstacles to achieving their ultimate success.

Sociologists have identified social stratification as a pillar of inequalities. Although differences are based on individuals, sociologists focus more on a broader aspect. Therefore, stratification is based on group inequalities using classes and membership. The social inequalities are no longer under an individual’s control (Green and Johns, 2014, p.80). The setup of a society is the determining force that leads to social stratification. Despite individuals having the chance to fight social inequalities, society still stands out as the epitome of social stratification. Social stratification is defined by factors that distinguish individuals in regards to wealth, education, or employment (Adorno, 2002, p.63). Though people are regularly classified in regard to wealth, there are other factors that the society uses to classify people. For instance, in some societies, people who have wisdom and charisma get respect more than those who lack it. In some societies, the aged people are respected, while in some, they are not given much attention (Thompson et al. 2016, p.199). Through this, it is evident that the society creates the specific stratification pillars.

Another aspect that leads to inequality is intersectionality. The groups generated by intersectionality have become a sphere in the classification of people in regard to their social status. Differences generated by gender and race also contribute to the success of an individual. For instance, natives of a certain nation will have a better opportunity in their nation as compared to foreigners. Moreover, gender and religion are also epitome of inequality. In the world today, the focus has been on empowering the girl child to the extent that the boy child has been neglected. However, parents have been pointed out as the pillars that could breach these differences. Most parents teach their children the values of their specific society. For instance, a specific social stand of parents becomes a familiar lifestyle for the kids. In the long run, this stand becomes an identity for the kids who incorporate it into their lifestyle. Other form of intersectionality exists in education through the teachers’ pay. Despite being so loyal and producing great minds, teachers have continued to receive low payment as compared to other professions. The society has formulated a strategy that underrates teachers and their contribution, yet the same people would not allow to be underpaid in their specific workplace. Therefore, cultural beliefs have been the base for social inequalities in the society.

Sociologists have defined two different types of stratification systems. The first system is closed, where little change is experienced in society. On the contrary, the open system is where change is highly experienced. The open system is the foundation of achievement and also makes it possible for a change of position as well as the interaction between classes. These systems define different aspects of the community that help it to socialize (Browne, 1998, p.15). The most common stratification systems are a meritocracy, caste as well as class systems. The caste system is a closed stratification system where individuals are limited to change. Most people in this category have little chances of making progress (Alexander et al. 2016, p.253). People get opportunities regardless of their potential, talent, or interests. For instance, the Hindu had a system where they believed that the course of a person was to work in their caste culture. Therefore, an individual was supposed to fully comply with the system to be acceptable in society. This system had very little chance of individual progress. The Indian system is still prevalent in the rural areas, while most people who reside in urban areas have adopted a new system.

The class system is an open stratification system that is based on individual achievement and social factors. In a class system, people share the same aspects that group them together. These aspects include wealth, education, employment opportunity, as well as occupation. Individuals are allowed to gain more achievement in this system (Thompson et al., 2017, p.198). For instance, a child could manage to be more educated than the parent. Also, the kid could grow up and earn more as compared to what the parents are making per month. People in this category are allowed to move and associate freely. As a result, changing social status is easy as more people are vulnerable to success. In this system, personal attributes play a vital role in mentoring an individual. The individual fate is no longer determined at birth but by their own efforts as they grow up. Besides, in this system, marriage is formed by exogamous partners. The partners come together from different social class and mingle freely. This system is very healthy as it enhances individual growth. Most people in this kind of discipline have achieved more success and managed to work together in various positions. Marriages in this system are made up by a union of compassion and love. Choosing a life partner is an individual aspect rather than a forced stuff. People live freely and progress together. Therefore, the socialism that exists in these communities enhances the togetherness that they generate. Also, most individuals reach out to their best potential due to the freedom that is allowed between them (Thompson et al., 2017, p.199). Moreover, through this system, individuals can learn to the limits that they desire and also gain employment opportunities that fit their specifications. Job opportunities are available in regards to the specific qualifications of an individual.

Meritocracy is a social stratification system where personal effort and merit determines the social stand. Individuals who put extra effort will have higher rates of success as compared to those who have low efforts on their side (Browne, 1998, p.15). Through this system, the society is not ranked on merit but through an individual’s effort. Multiple factors play a crucial role in distinguishing social stand. Despite meritocracy being absent in the world, sociologists believe that most nations today practice it. This is because of the systems of employment that are available and how people get opportunities in the world.

These social systems have been fundamental in determining the efforts of a person. Sociologists believe that as much as an individual has the opportunity to grow, the society still plays a vital role in the growth. For instance, in a workplace, for an individual to fully grow, the prospects of the whole system have to adjust and enhance the growth. This means that each department has to fully dedicate their efforts towards the success of the company as they yearn to reach the set limits. In the same way, in health care, people will find it hard, reaching higher levels when working in an environment that have low infrastructure. For example, a person working in a health center with more government funding and special donor funds will have different experiences with an individual who is employed in a private health center with few resources.

Social inequality plays a vital role in deciding the fate of individuals. Societies that survive in a caste system will impact an individual differently as compared to societies that have a class system. Through this, it is evident that as much as individual effort is important, social inequality contributes to their fate. Also, when societies survive through the class system, it is easier for individuals to make an impact on the society as well as to their own (Browne, 1998, p.15). Rising up is easier as most individuals put effort that speeds up their status. These individuals would freely end up being successful and be role models to others in the society.

Nations have different capacities of stratification that define their heritage. In Australia, inequality exists at a lower rate, and citizens have the opportunity to expand their talents as well as their social status (Furze et al. 2015, 108). However, it is believed that the social status in Australia defines the personality of an individual. According to Furze et al. (2015, p.108), the Australian people believe that wealth is the form of power. Through this technique, the adults believe that the wealth of people is what each person owns. The people of Australia have, for a long time, believed that individual effort is what bridges success. However, due to the social stratification effects, individual efforts are not proving enough for success. Other features such as social surroundings are vital in making the people rise up.

Inequalities in Australia and New Zealand are evidence of social status that only makes the individual effort a small aspect that can easily change their class. It is evident that inequalities in employment are sources of social differences that the people have to endure (Furze et al. 2015, p.108). Employment defines the status of an individual in Australia. This is because the people believe that the more income that an individual earns from employment, the higher the chances of becoming wealthier. However, other social factors prove vital for such to be the case. People have had the opportunity to move further in life due to the surrounding. In most employment places, the more efforts the team puts is the key to the company’s success, which transforms into higher bonuses. Therefore, for anyone to be more successful and improve their class, the social background has to be in par with their specific ambitions.

According to sociologists, stratification and social inequality are efficient in making the social balance. When people get the opportunity, they improve their status and are more fragile to more change. Layers of society are defined and characterized in a scale of a pyramid. This system has been boosted by the Davies-Moore hypothesis, which affirms that the unequal distribution is important in any society (Grandjean and Bean, 1975, p.1425). Through this system, it is easier for society to have an unequal balance. The system further entails that unequal distribution of pay in any employment is allowed to balance the structures. For example, in a company, the CEO earns more because of the job roles that entail with the position. On the contrary, a janitor will earn less because the role they play is important but does not carry weight as compared to the role of the CEO.

Any job opportunity is enhanced to make it serve the basic aspects of stratification. The importance of a job is determined by the unique roles that the position is assigned. For instance, garbage collectors will earn less due to the specialization of their tasks. On the other hand, doctors will earn more due to the extensive training that the role entails and the time spent to study for the role. It is therefore logical that society’s rewards the most qualified with more cash as compared to those with very few qualifications. Therefore, this concept motivates the most qualified individuals who end up filling higher job roles.

The approach of unequal distribution in employment ensures that there is a low functional perspective in the pay of professionals. Functionalism is a perspective in sociology that describes society as a block that consist related but different structures. For example, teachers earn less as compared to athletes. The difference in the pay means that the athletes earn more due to their fame and being involved in sporting events. Thus, when these athletes strike for lack of pay, no one will notice them, and it will be difficult to recognize the void that they have caused. However, when teachers strike, there will be great losses due to the importance of their roles. Therefore, functionalism reveals a huge difference between functional importance and income.

The system of social stratification is a feature that most people believe that the best people end up having the best opportunities. However, it is totally the opposite. For example, the former president of America, George Bush, had the most favorable life due to being born in a leafy suburb home. Through this, he managed to be voted for being president despite not having the best qualification (Thompson, 2016, p.300). Therefore, the social aspects of a certain place make an individual gain success. If the president had not been emerging from such a good background, he had to work extra hard to be at the top. However, there could not be a guarantee that when he works smart, he will be awarded with the top job in the country. Moreover, in the world today, most individuals have the highest qualifications but end up getting opportunities that doesn’t suit them due to poor networking. In conclusion, it is true that despite the individual effort being more superior to the success of a person, it is the society that surrounds them that matter the most. When people face trials that make them increase their worth, it is the surrounding environment that could easily influence their success.

References

Adorno, T. W. (2002). Introduction to sociology. Stanford, Stanford Univ Press. Retrieved from: https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=AJm2CK0b0uIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=INTRODUCTION+TO+SOCIOLOGY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixxqiyi9fpAhURohQKHV-nDkAQ6AEIQzAD#v=onepage&q=social%20stratification&f=false

Alexander, J.C., Thompson, K. and Edles, L.D., 2016. Contemporary Introduction to Sociology: culture and society in transition. Routledge.

Browne, K. (1998). An introduction to sociology. Cambridge, U.K., Polity Press. Retrieved from: https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=GW3goIZPMzQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=INTRODUCTION+TO+SOCIOLOGY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixxqiyi9fpAhURohQKHV-nDkAQ6AEIVzAF#v=onepage&q=social%20stratification%20aspects%20&f=false

Furze, B., Savy, P., Brym, R.J. and Lie, J. eds., 2015. Sociology in today’s world. Cengage Learning.

Grandjean, B.D. and Bean, F.D., 1975. The Davis-Moore theory and perceptions of stratification: some relevant evidence. Social Forces, 54(1), pp.166-180.

Green, B. S. R., & Johns, E. A. (2014). An Introduction to Sociology. Kent, Elsevier Science. http://qut.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1874446.

Thompson, W.E., Hickey, J.V. and Thompson, M.L., 2016. Society in focus: An introduction to sociology. Rowman & Littlefield.