According to Manza in the Social Structure reading, social structure is based on the social
stratification system and social institutions. The main focus of this blog
entry is on the social stratification system. The social stratification system
ranks people or groups of people based on society’s norms and beliefs. I
believe there are three forces that influence and determine social status: social
environment, effects of wealth/poverty, and culture.
First of
all, the social environment contains the specific norms and social status in
which a person is born into. According to Manza, children born into a rich
family are more likely to become a rich adult. Rich children are more likely to
obtain valuable opportunities such as traveling, attending private schools, and
networking, because of their place in the social structure; whereas, children
born into poor families are more likely to have a harder time obtaining these
resources. I believe this is one of the main reasons why inner city “street”
residents, discussed in “The Code of the Streets,” also exist in the lower
level of the hierarchy when compared to mainstream society. As seen in the
reading, inner city street life is constantly surrounded by violence and crime.
Being born into this type of setting with limited benefits and opportunities,
individuals grow up to learn and become engaged in this type of street behavior;
therefore remaining at the bottom of the hierarchy.
The
second factor that influence social structure is wealth and poverty. It is previously
evident that a wealthier individual will benefit from his or her place in the
social structure when compared to an individual living in poverty. Relating it back
to the first factor, I definitely think that the effects of poverty limit the
chances of an individual to acquire opportunities and benefits that would move
them up in society, such as education. This was strongly evident in the Lebron
James Don't Drop Out of School Campaign commercial.
As quoted by Lebron,“Without an education, you never know where you are going
to land.” The effects of dropping out of school exemplified in this commercial may
lead to an underprivileged lifestyle, poverty or homelessness that would put
these individuals in a lower social class.
Lastly, I
believe that “The Code of the Street” article puts culture into perspective on
how it impacts social stratifications. Culture is based on the customs and ways
of living that influence a person’s position on the social ladder. In order for
inner city residents to adapt to the social structure, they follow “the code of
the street” which encompasses a set of street-oriented rules including
violence, respect, and control. Embracing this street culture allows residents
to cope and adapt to the impoverished neighborhood that they are living in,
rather than competing with the expected norms of mainstream society, where success
is unlikely. Through this “code”, men and women can gain status and reputation
within the street culture by wearing specific clothing, engaging in violence, and
having control. It is interesting to note how, although, the inner city
residents may be limited to a lower social structure, they have created street
culture that have their own set of social rules and social status, (a social
structure within a social structure!) where success is more likely. Thus,
structural forces like inheritance, wealth, poverty, and culture are constantly
playing a role in modifying our society.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“Social structures are mysterious because they have many interlocking parts” (Manza 89). This is especially true when trying to determine what factors affect social status. I agree with Alexis that “social environment, effects of wealth/poverty, and culture” are three conditions that influence social status. All three are reflected in “The Code of the Street” as the youth try to grapple with their identity in two antagonistic spheres. In this locality, it can be revealed that factors such as race and even gender influence social status just as much as the other three factors mentioned. It is probable that more could be revealed with more research in this environment. For instance, majority of the residents who occupy inner cities are minorities, revealing that one’s race can affect the environment they experience. Additionally, gender also plays a role in this environment where young females seek out the help of older males to help them with their revenge missions (Anderson). While both genders resort to violence during confrontation, the girls are not expected to lose their lives to maintain their reputation or their pride, which is highly expected from the males (Anderson). Moving away from the inner city to the Jersey Shore, we also see how gender contributes to social status. Men are assigned income generation whereas the women are meant to be kept but domesticated.
ReplyDeleteTo a certain degree, I also agree with Alexis and Manza. The only aspect in which I believe is missing is the "luck" factor. Yes, it is certainly harder to obtain a higher social status if born in the lower class and it is more likely that a person born in the upper-class will stay within the upper-class. We have all heard success stories from people who were part of the lower class. An example of this is the story of Chris Gardner. For those who do not recognize the name, he was a homeless man for a year with a son. He was given a chance by some corporate "big-wigs" and ended up becoming a multimillionaire. We all know him now because of the movie "The Pursuit of Happyness" where Chris Gardner was played by Will Smith. His work ethic plays a large role in his success, but I believe luck helped a lot. Chris Garnder is not the only one. Just a few more off of the top of my head are Michael Oher, Halle Berry in her early twenties, Singer Ella Fitzgerald the "Queen of Jazz," and even Charlie Chaplin. So in general, yes, Manza is correct about the climb of social status but I believe luck should be considered another contributing factor.
ReplyDelete"There is no such thing as a society" (Margaret Thatcher, Manza 87). I absolutely disagree with this statement because our lives as individual and as a nation are in a way influence by society and its norms. We live under a microscope where every movement and action we take are judge and scrutinize by everyone around us if they don't fit into what is considered acceptable by the society. Like Manza said a rich child will grow to become a rich adult because of the opportunities and resources available to him or her. On the other hand, a child from a poor family can make something of themselves through hard work and determination and become a stereotype of what the society that they may live in expect of them. Like Anderson said inclination of violence springs from circumstance but my view is that if the same opportunities and resources available to the rich child can be offered to the poor child, would there be any violence left to worry about? I believe ranking and putting individuals in classes based on society norms creates a relationship in which people feel they are better and above the standard of the individuals in the class or rank below them. A person born into a specific society norms does not have to life up to that but they have the right to live whatever life they may choose for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI also disagreed with Thatcher's statement about "there [being] no such thing as a society." Thatcher believed that the term society was a "myth, a vague idea that could be used as a way of making excuses for disappointing outcomes" (86). I do not agree that there is no such thing as society, but I do believe that society and the characteristics that make a society are human made. She makes a good argument by saying "criminals are born, not made", which makes sense— it poses the question about the chicken and the egg— which came first or which shapes the other? Does society shape an individual or does a group of people provide the characteristics that define a society?
DeleteAnother idea that relates back to Mill's concept of history was that an individual has little control over how other people perceive them. The way an individual is seen is not their choice, but it is "rather shaped by social and political factors beyond their control" (86). During the time period in which Inge Deutschkron lived, being the offspring of two Jewish parents made her an outcast and could have gotten her killed, but today, that would obviously never happen. The actions and behaviors of a certain individual are important, but there are other vital forcing factors.
I found myself able to agree with all of Alexis' arguments: social environment, effects of wealth/poverty, and culture are all valid factors that influence a person's social status and I believe they are all connected— these three concrete factors are what make an individual different. In "The Code of the Street" by Elijah Anderson, the culture of respect, violence, and control comes from the lack of resources and living in the ghetto, but more importantly, this culture is developed from a feeling of being an outcast and having this feeling of hopelessness and alienation.
ReplyDeleteWhen Manza talks about the examples in fictional pieces where people are left alone to fend for themselves without rules or “social structure,” he says that “underneath everyday life is a foundation that makes social order possible” (89). This just made me think of the saying that I use with the men in my life: “Ya can’t live with ‘em and you can’t live without them!” Rules are essential for the function of everyday life. Without rules there is no foundation and a solid foundation makes for a strong building (society).
One of the ideas discussed in your blog post concerns the effects of dropping out of school on putting people into a lower social class, and while I think that this correlation is definitely being reinforced by the Don’t Drop Out of School Campaign commercial, it seems a bit problematic to frame this causal relationship as a one way process. In other words, there appear to be facets of poverty and being underprivileged that encourage dropping out of school, much in the same way that dropping out reinforces these disadvantages. Anderson calls the relationship between hopelessness and bad behavior/decision-making a “vicious cycle” for inner city black men and women, implying that social structure encourages certain behavior just as much as behavior influences social structure. It’s precisely because of this that Wade criticizes the aforementioned commercial—the advertisement takes for granted the structures in place that may cause a child to drop out of school early (priority for legitimacy among the local community, etc).
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting how Lebron's Don't Drop Out of School Campaign and Anderson's Code of the Street article are not in alignment with one another. Anderson states that, "simply living in such an environment places young people at special risk of failing victim to aggressive behavior" (109). He implies that street culture, peer pressure, and other external factors forced that child into street life. Whereas Lebron's campaign implies that if you sleep in for school too many times, you will fail out and be a contributor to poverty, street violence, and drug trafficking. Lebron and State Farm place blame of the aforementioned on the student's attitude and view of school. This Don't Drop Out of School campaign is excluding the external forces that cause students to drop out. In the video, a teenage black child shuts off his alarm clock and is beckoned to wake up by his presumed mother. If you take a look around the room, he has trophies on shelves, a nicely supplied desk for academics, and his own bedroom. His parent is one of the "decent" that is mentioned in the article. Lisa Wade from Sociological Images quoted, "All the issues related to why there is such a high dropout rate are ignored: the lack of jobs, the hopelessness of life in the ghetto, the collapsing state of education in the inner-cities. On top of that, the black male shown in the video seems to be from a rather middle class background… all of it seems to pin the fault on the individual student rather than the system itself". Sociological structure needs to be accounted for. It is unrealistic to imply to black youth that it is their fault unsuccessful minorities have become the dregs of society. Anderson states, ". . . if rules are violated, there are penalties. Knowledge of the code is thus largely defensive; it is literally necessary for operating in public" (110). If there is no escaping this life of violence, how is the student to blame for falling victim?
ReplyDeleteSide note: I would have had this in at 8, but my computer decided to delete all of the text instead of publishing, so I had to retype.
Delete