Links |
|
Links |
|||
|
Weber | ||||
|
Weber on Stratification | ||||
|
Early American Stratification Theory: the Lynds & Warner | ||||
|
Intro to Davis & Moore on Strat | ||||
|
Davis & Moore on Strat -- Advamced | ||||
Critiques of Davis & Moore | |||||
|
Parsons & Structural Functionalism | ||||
|
Parsons on Stratification | ||||
|
Occupational Prestige | ||||
|
Neo Marxism | ||||
|
C. Wright Mills' Power Elite Theory | ||||
|
Dahrendorf | ||||
|
Class Location | ||||
|
EO Wright | ||||
|
Domhoff's Power Elite Theory | ||||
|
Domhoff on the Three Key Interest Group Coalitions | ||||
|
An Analysis of the Three Key Interest Group Coalitions | ||||
|
A Comparison of Pluralist Theory & Power Elite Theory by Farley | ||||
|
Stratification based on Gender | ||||
|
Stratification & Sociobiology |
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
Stratification was ignored in the U.S. until the Great Depression | |||||
Marxism / conflict theory was ignored in the U.S. until the late 1950s | |||||
Middletown (1929) & Middletown in Transition (1937) by Robert & Helen Lynd established a tradition of strat studies in the US | |||||
The Lynds exposed overpowering images of equality of opportunity in America as a myth | |||||
The Lynds focused on power & economic inequalities; ideas that were later ignored | |||||
Yankee City by Warner was a classic study in stratification w/ a qualitative analysis w/ a focus on status | |||||
Warner's focus was similar to that of the Lynds but added an examination of the extent of inequality & social mobility | |||||
Warner focused on status as did most social scientists until conflict theory entered the debate in the 1950s | |||||
Warner differed from the Lynds in THREE important ways | |||||
a. The Lynds focused on the stratification of power & economic inequalities while Warner focused more on the stratification of status | |||||
Warner, utilizing Weber's second dimension of stratification, defined stratification in terms of status: "By class is meant two or more orders of people who are believed to be, and are accordingly ranked by the members of the community, in superior and inferior positions." | |||||
Warner's utilization of status in place of economic class ignored the inequalities of power & economics | |||||
b. The Warner school failed to critically examine the actual extent of equality of opportunity | |||||
There was a stress on the reality of social mobility w/o an examination of the extent of social mobility |
|
||||
|
c. The Warner school emphasized that stratification was functional & necessary for complex societies |
|
|||
|
The conflict, the structured & hereditary nature of inequalities, the harsh conditions for workers, & the extensive poverty were ignored |
|
|||
|
Warner's study, Yankee City, utilized the 'reputational method' | ||||
Warner developed 6 classes basing rank on status judgments by members in the community | |||||
|
Early American sociology had a non critical view of stratification w/ FOUR qualities |
|
|||
|
a. Stratification was generally ignored |
|
|||
b. It took our most severe economic crisis, the Great Depression, to bring social scientists to examine class inequalities | |||||
c. The interest generated by the Great Depression was short lived | |||||
d. Frequently the less radical topic of status inequality was examined | |||||
There are other early American examinations of stratification that were more critical, including | |||||
- Thorstein Veblen on the leisure class & conspicuous consumption | |||||
- Floyd Hunter, 1953, who conducted a study of community power | |||||
- CW Mills, 1956, who compiled a description of the power elite on the national level | |||||
- Parsons, whose view on stratification was non critical, but influential |
Links |
|
Links |
|
STRATIFICATION IS THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL POSITIONS | |||
Stratification is the structured process by which social groups are assigned a social position, resulting in a hierarchy & a pattern whereby scarce "resources" are distributed unequally to these social positions |
|
||
FOR DAVIS & MOORE, SOCIETY HAS ALWAYS HAD STRAT & MUST HAVE STRAT TO FUNCTION | |||
Davis & Moore hold that stratification is universal | |||
STRAT MOTIVATES PEOPLE BY REWARDING THEM FOR DOING DIFFICULT JOBS | |||
|
Davis & Moore hold that poverty, stratification, & inequality exist because they meet society's needs for productivity by motivating people |
|
|
For Davis & Moore, the jobs that are the most critical to society, e.g. corporate mgrs., doctors., lawyers, etc., require longer & more difficult training than other jobs | |||
The jobs that are the most critical to society also carry greater responsibility, are stressful, have long hours, & should have high pay | |||
In order to induce highly capable people to take these critical jobs, society must offer them greater rewards in exchange for the difficulty in getting the job & the stress incurred on the job | |||
W/o the motivation of higher pay, people would be unlikely to sacrifice current income in order to get the years of arduous training that critical jobs require | |||
W/o higher pay, everyone would choose jobs that require no training, have little stress, & run only 8 to 5 |
Links |
|
Links |
|
- Project: What Influences Career Rewards? |
|
||
- Stratification is the structure of social positions |
|
||
Davis & Moore focus on the nature of positions' or jobs' effect on stratification | |||
|
Davis & Moore believe that all societies exhibit stratification |
|
|
A critique, presented below shows that the amount of stratification varies widely among societies and that hunter gatherer societies had very limited stratification | |||
Stratification is functional (necessary) & inevitable | |||
Society functions to, society must fill, all positions in society | |||
Positions vary by costs & benefits, therefore people's desire for different positions vary | |||
Davis & Moore ask: 'How does society fill undesirable positions while ensuring that desirable positions are NOT overfilled?' | |||
- 'How does society instill the desire to fill positions?' | |||
- 'How does society instill the desire to achieve in a position?' | |||
- Davis & Moore note that some positions are “more pleasant” than others & some positions are more important than others | |||
Davis & Moore's SIX Principles of the Functionality or necessity of stratification include | |||
1. Some positions / roles are more important than others | |||
2. Some positions require special skills or are unpleasant | |||
3. People sacrifice to gain skills | |||
4. Society functions to induce people to sacrifice w/ three general types of privilege & rewards | |||
a. Sustenance & comfort | |||
b. Humor & diversion | |||
Some jobs are inherently more pleasant, though many people come to enjoy their job even though it is belittled by society | |||
c. Self respect & ego expansion | |||
5. There must be differential access to rewards creates status/prestige & power to induce people to take difficult jobs | |||
6. Inequality is functional and inevitable in any society |
|
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
For Parsons, status/ honor/ prestige is the most important dimension of stratification | |||||
One's place in the stratification system is determined by status, which may be understood as the moral evaluation by others | |||||
Wealth/power is a secondary dimension of stratification that arises as a reward for status | |||||
Status earns other rewards such as wealth & power | |||||
Status is formed by common value system (consensus on values) | |||||
Value consensus is shaped by the social institutions as driven by the functional imperatives | |||||
People are ranked by living up to the values of society | |||||
Stratification will exist in every society because every society has a hierarchy of values | |||||
Parsons makes the argument that status/ honor/ prestige cause wealth/ power as do Davis & Moore | |||||
Can one also make the argument that wealth/power cause status/honor/prestige? | |||||
The most respected roles in a society coincide with the functional imperatives: AGIM | |||||
The different tasks of these institutions lead them to stress different values | |||||
For functionalists, stratification is shaped by the power of institutions which is shaped by the emphasis of the society | |||||
How is this similar to Marxism? | |||||
Societies differ on which functional imperative they emphasize | |||||
The U.S. is driven by the economic social structure as manifested by the adaptation functional imperative | |||||
Iran, & Afghanistan, who are ruled by the Taliban after the US helped them defeat the Soviets, are driven by the religious social structure which manifests the maintenance functional imperative | |||||
China emphasizes its political social structure driven by the goal setting functional imperative | |||||
Critique of Parsons stratification theory | |||||
1. Parsons incorrectly assumes that people in top positions act for social, not individual interests | |||||
Power is used to promote interest of individual and groups | |||||
2. Mills holds that Parsons view of power as a benign force is flawed | |||||
For Mills, power is used to get what one individual/ group wants & prevents others from getting what they want | |||||
Mills’ nightmare is Parsons’ dream because Mills fears the abuse of power while Parsons recognizes the inevitable role of power in society | |||||
Both Mills & Parsons would agree that consensus on values may be shaped by powerful interests, the difference in their viewpoint is whether the value consensus is shaped by manipulation & structural forces or whether it is freely arrived at |
|
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
Power elite theory has been formulated by C. Wright Mills & William Domhoff |
|
||||
|
Power elite theory is similar to pluralist theory, except that while pluralists hold that "the balance of interests" is intact, the power elite theorists hold that the balance of interests have failed |
|
|||
The power elite: |
|
||||
- are a small, very wealthy group |
|
||||
- foster a society where office holders have only the appearance of power; i.e., they are puppets |
|
||||
- exercise real power & decision making behind the scenes |
|
||||
- influence political leaders by foundations & public policy institutes which they fund | |||||
- struggle among themselves in what are often similar to "palace intrigues" |
|
||||
- in terms of class, are made up of the active, influential, powerful, members of the upper class & the corp. mgrs. | |||||
Power is gained: |
|
||||
- almost exclusively via corporate wealth |
|
||||
- via interlocking directorates, which are overlapping positions of power on corporate boards |
|
||||
- though the concentration of wealth via state capitalism |
|
||||
- via overlapping positions of power in govt, including the executive branch, the civil service, and the military | |||||
- by controlling the rules and regulations of state capitalism |
|
||||
- by keeping other classes pluralistic, i.e. fragmented |
|
||||
The power elite are largely the result of "cultural lag" and are fundamentally anti democratic and anti equalitarian |
|
||||
The group dynamics of the power elite demonstrates domination by a small leadership group |
|
||||
|
The control exercised by a small elite is not so much the characteristic of organization, but rather the result of a great concentration of wealth, which leads to a concentration of power |
|
|||
Control of corporations by the ruling elite rests on the ownership of large blocks of stock | |||||
P-E theory notes that the richest 1% of the US population owns over 50% of the stock (Gilbert & Kahl, 1982) | |||||
P-E theory notes that the richest 1% also owns over 28% of total wealth (Census, 1993e) | |||||
The ruling elite is a virtually closed social group w/ tremendous power | |||||
For Domhoff & P-E theory, the ruling elite attend exclusive preparatory schools, colleges, clubs & resorts, & intermarry largely w/ other members of the ruling class (Domhoff, 1983) | |||||
For Braun & P-E theory, While there are exceptional self made tycoons whose lives parallel the famous rags to riches novels by Horatio Alger, in reality, the heads of the largest corporations are almost exclusively born into their class position (Braun, 1991, 1997) |
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
|
Analysis of class location examines how & why people, analysts, politicians & the people themselves view themselves & others as belonging to a particular class |
|
|||
|
For Kerbo, there are SIX variables that describe a particular class location including realism, nominalism, subjectivism, objectivism, continuity of ranking, & discontinuous ranking |
|
|||
1. REALIST: CLASS LOCATION BASED ON WHO ONE ASSOCIATES WITH | |||||
|
The realist analysis of class location is based primarily on who one associates with |
|
|||
|
The realist analysis holds that an analysis of associations can identify clear class boundaries, though many dispute this |
|
|||
Most people do associate w/ people of the same class, status, etc., however a certain percentage of people do have associates of a different ranking, & a certain amount of people will say / believe they have friends of a different ranking | |||||
An example of the realist position is that most people marry w/in their rank & w/in rank marriages have a greater chance of success | |||||
|
The realist analysis is primarily a subjective form of identification |
|
|||
2. NOMINALIST: INDEPENDENT CRITERIA ON CLASS | |||||
|
The nominalist analysis of class location is based primarily on objective criteria based on independently constructed criteria |
|
|||
|
The most important class determinants of the nominalist analysis of class location are the common characteristics of people such as Weber's life chances, membership in prep schools, inclusion on the social register, etc. |
|
|||
3. SUBJECTIVE: SELF IDENTIFICATION OF CLASS | |||||
|
The subjective analysis of class location is based primarily on self identification or whether a class identity has meaning for the individuals themselves | ||||
When people are asked to self identify which class they are in, most people place themselves in the middle or working class | |||||
4. OBJECTIVE: ACCEPTED CRITERIA ON CLASS | |||||
The objective analysis of class location is based primarily on definition of class emphasizes observable, widely available factors such as wealth, income, status as measured by a well known survey, etc. | |||||
The obj analysis of class location is based on rewards from society as objectively determined by education, status, power, whether or not a person recognizes it | |||||
The objective analysis of class location is used by social analysts from Marx to Wright | |||||
5. CONTINUOUS CLASS RANKING: SCALES OF SUBCLASSES | |||||
The continuous class ranking analysis of class location ranks subclasses on a scale based on several objective, weighted factors which are used to create a range of class membership | |||||
6. DISCONTINUOUS CLASS RANKING: SCALES OF SUBCLASSES W/ CLEAR BREAKS | |||||
The discontinuous class ranking analysis of class location ranks subclasses in a discontinuous system when there are clear breaks, recognizing that a continuous class ranking may be possible when there are no clear breaks | |||||
Kerbo believes there are THREE dimensions of class location:
occupational structure, bureaucratic authority divisions, & property
structure
( Not to be confused w/ the 3 dimensions of stratification systems: class, status, & power or the 6 variables that describe a particular class location ) |
|||||
A. OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE IS ONE'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE MARKET | |||||
i. primarily based on skill | |||||
ii. & thus reward & skill are not directly correlated | |||||
iii. & one's contribution to society is not primary factor in determining pay, etc. | |||||
iv. where dominant groups shape the occupational reward structure | |||||
Economy: MOP: ROF & FOP | |||||
Marx's analysis of class & consciousness holds that they are influenced by the base of society; i.e. the larger economic system | |||||
B. BUREAUCRATIC AUTHORITY DIVISIONS STRATIFY PEOPLE ON CONTROL OF RESOURCES & PEOPLE | |||||
Bureaucratic authority divisions are organizations (e.g. Weber & Dahrendorf's imperatively coordinated associations (ICAs) ) each have their own unique power structure, w/ many similarities which stratify people on control of resources & control of other people | |||||
C. PROPERTY STRUCTURE WAS A CLEAR INDICATOR OF CLASS IN THE PAST, BUT IS NOT TODAY | |||||
For most of the industrialized world, as recently as 200 yrs. ago, property ownership was a clear indicator of class position | |||||
In the past, aristocrats owned nearly all the property while the proletariat owned almost nothing | |||||
Today the concept of property is much more complicated & is not a clear indicator of class location | |||||
Property structure includes real property & paper property such as stocks, bonds, trusts | |||||
For Kerbo, the property structure method of class location is problematic because many in middle class own stock & so "own" the means of production (MOP), but have no control over the MOP | |||||
In practice middle class stock holders own the MOP, but they do not control the MOP | |||||
On the other hand, farmers & small business people are middle or lower class & own relatively large swatches of property | |||||
The top 10 % of the US population own over 88 % of all stocks, bonds, & trusts & thus 90 % of the population own less that 12 % |
|
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
- Project: Key Interest Groups |
|
||||
- Project: Key Interest Groups in the Envl Debate |
|
||||
THE KEY INTEREST GROUPS INCLUDE CORPORATIONS, SMALL BUSINESSES, & LABOR / LIBERALS | |||||
According to Domhoff, 1983, there are three main interest groups trying to influence policy at the national level: the corporate coalition, the small business coalition, & the labor / liberal coalition |
|
||||
In 1990, there were more than 6,800 congressional lobbying groups in the US, however most of them tend to represent certain groups of interests, such as Domhoff three key interest groups |
|
||||
In 2005, there were more than 14,000 registered lobbying groups in Washington, DC, averaging just over two employees each for a total over 30,000 lobbyists (many lobbying firms are small) | |||||
In 2005, there were approximately 30,000 members of Congress & staff members, making the ratio of lobbyists to officials on the Hill nearly 1 to 1 | |||||
In the early 90s the total value of earmarks added to bills was under $100 mm, while in 2005 the value was over $32 bb | |||||
A. THE CORPORATE COALITION INCLUDES THE LARGEST CORPS IN THE WORLD, MANY HAVING MORE ECON POWER THAN THE MAJORITY OF NATIONS | |||||
The corporate coalition include multinational corporations from around the world |
|
||||
Also included in the corporate coalition group are policy foundations & research institutes that do not call themselves lobbyists, but claim to operate on the behalf of "good govt" or the "national interest" |
|
||||
Examples of conservative policy foundations include the Ford, Rockefeller, & Carnegie Foundations, the Committee for Economic Development (CED), the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission, & the Business Roundtable |
|
||||
Conservative policy foundations lobby for policies that promote free trade & polices that allow multinationals to operate in the world economy w/ minimum restrictions |
|
||||
The North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA), the General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs (GATT), the US govt's support for the Maquiladores program are examples of the efforts of the policy institutes allied w/ the multinational corporations |
|
||||
B. THE SMALL BUSINESS COALITION INCLUDES ALL SMALL BUSINESSES, WHICH MAY BE WORTH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, INCLUDING MANY PROFL ORGS | |||||
The small business coalition includes the Chamber of Commerce & national orgs of professions that operate as small businesses such as the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Dental Association (ADA), & the Farm Bureau |
|
||||
The small business coalition is more conservative that the corporate coalition |
|
||||
The small business coalition concentrates on opposition to govt regs of business |
|
||||
The small business coalition is less involved in foundations & research institutes than corporate coalition |
|
||||
The small business coalition does support the American Enterprise Institute & the Hoover Institute |
|
||||
C. THE LABOR / LIBERAL COALITION INCLUDES ORGANIZED LABOR AS WELL AS OTHER SOC MVMTS SUCH AS THE CIVIL RIGHTS MVMT, WOMEN'S MVMT, ENVL MVMT, & MORE | |||||
The labor / liberal coalition is a loose coalition & is the most diverse, & thus the most divided of the coalitions |
|
||||
The labor / liberal coalition includes organized labor, feminists, the civil rights movement, the envl mvmt, et al |
|
||||
Specific orgs w/in the labor / liberal coalition include the AFL CIO, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Urban League, the National Association for Women (NOW), the National Education Association (NEA), the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the Ralph Nader based orgs, et al |
|
||||
Domhoff developed an analysis of the key interest groups that shows that, indeed, contrary to what pluralists believe, one group controls the govt, benefits from govt policy, & wins controversial issues | |||||
See Also: A Comparison of Pluralist Theory & Power Elite Theory by Farley |
Links |
|
Links |
|||
|
Domhoff developed an analysis of the key interest groups that shows that, indeed, contrary to what Pluralists believe, one group controls the Govt, benefits from govt policy, & wins controversial issues | ||||
|
a. Who Governs? |
|
|||
|
The corporate coalition is well represented by national elected officials & appointees as seen in the fact that in 2000, |
|
|||
|
- nearly half of the 100 US Senators are millionaires, while only 1 to 2% of population are millionaires |
|
|||
|
- women, African Americans Latinos, etc. are underrepresented in the both houses of Congress |
|
|||
|
- nine of 100 Senators were women (9 %), and 56 of 435 Representative (12.9%) while women make up 51% of the population |
|
|||
|
- there are no African Americans in the Senate & only two held office in the 1900s, while Blacks make up 13% of the population |
|
|||
|
- there are 38 Black Representatives (9%) |
|
|||
|
In 1996, there were 17 Hispanic Representative (3.9%) while Hispanics make up 13% of the population |
|
|||
|
The representation in the federal legislative branch of women, Blacks, & Hispanics, despite being low, is at near record highs |
|
|||
|
The executive branch and advisory groups who govern behind the scenes are even less diverse than Congress |
|
|||
|
The majority of professors who served on the President's Science Advisory Commission of 16 years had been on the boards of corporations |
|
|||
|
Stryker found that when social scientists' support the interests of the wealthy, their work becomes institutionalized, but when they oppose such interests, their role is usually eliminated |
|
|||
|
A critique of the who governs analysis is that millionaires do not agree on social policy, as illustrated by Ted Kennedy & George Bush |
|
|||
|
Thus, the pluralist Dahl argues that there is no power elite, while Domhoff & Mills would argue that there is such a large amount of consensus in govt that there is a corporate coalition which rules |
|
|||
|
Dahl would also note that politicians must pay attention to their constituents if they expect to be elected & reelected |
|
|||
|
b. Who Benefits? |
|
|||
|
Measuring who benefits from govt policies is very difficult & is thus the area of focus of the disciplines of social stratification, demographics, & others |
|
|||
|
Examining the stratification of wealth & income gives one indication of who benefits from govt. & corp. policy | ||||
|
Examining the incidence of taxes & payments by the fed, state, & local govts. gives one indication of who benefits from govt. & corp policy | ||||
The military industrial Congressional complex ( MICC ) | |||||
Domhoff & power elite theorists believe that the US military policy benefits the corporate coalition | |||||
A larger share of the US fed budget goes to defense than in other industrialized countries | |||||
10 of the largest 50 corps rely primarily on sales to the military | |||||
Critics, including Domhoff, argue that military spending is greater than is needed for national defense, & has two other purposes | |||||
Defense spending is oversized because the military industrial Congressional complex (MICC) lobbies for it so that they may profit from it | |||||
Defense spending is oversized because the the corporate coalition benefits from a US, global military presence | |||||
|
Star Wars / SDI was funded even though the scientific consensus was that it is unfeasible at this time |
|
|||
|
As the movie the "Lord of War" depicts, the largest small arms dealers are the US, UK, Russia, France & China | ||||
Small arms are more deadly than WMD, killing more people each yr than all the WMD put together | |||||
|
In many wars, arms dealers & the nations who are the largest arms dealers, arm both sides of a conflict as seen in the recent Balkans War, the two wars against Iraq, the Iran Iraq war, the Israeli Arab conflicts, & more |
|
|||
Taxfare & Welation | |||||
|
Domhoff & power elite theorists believe that the US Tax policy benefits the corp coalition |
|
|||
|
Wealth & income are more unequally distributed in the second half of the 20th century |
|
|||
The concepts of taxfare & welation denote that the tax code benefits the UC & that the welfare system does not provide an adequate safety net to allow someone to get an education & a job get out of poverty | |||||
Corp welfare includes the subsidies that go to businesses | |||||
|
The effective rates of taxation for those in the higher income brackets have fallen |
|
|||
|
Tax reform in the 1980s under President Reagan cut taxes 7% for the middle class & 31% for the upper class |
|
|||
Under the 1980s Reagan tax reform, those earning $100K to 2 mm got a got a tax cu of $7,000 while homes w/ incomes below $10,000 got a $37 tax cut |
|
||||
Under the 1980s Reagan tax reform, the tax burden was shifted from corporations to individuals in that the share of taxes paid by corporations fell from 21% to 17% | |||||
Since the Reagan era, the capital gains tax has been reduced | |||||
c. Who Wins? | |||||
Domhoff found that when there is substantial disagreement btwn the corporate coalition, the small business coalition, & the labor / liberal coalition, the corporate coalition almost always wins | |||||
Doctors & hospitals were unable to stop healthcare cost controls desired by corps in the 1980s | |||||
Early in the Clinton Administration, universal healthcare as supported by the labor / liberal coalition was defeated by the combination of the corporate & the small business coalitions | |||||
The corporate & the small business coalitions are the most likely allies to each other of the three coalitions | |||||
The passage of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 was the only clear defeat for the corporate coalition, & it has been significantly weakened over the decades by the Taft Hartley & other Acts | |||||
The small business coalition appears to have veto power in that the labor / liberal coalition can do little w/o its support, & while the corporate coalition can act alone, it is much more successful if it has the small business coalition on its side | |||||
The labor / liberal coalition is the least powerful in that it can pass little on its own, & it has the power to veto actions of only the small business coalition | |||||
The power of the labor / liberal coalition increases during times of social conflict when people are disillusioned w/ the status quo of the corporate coalition & are more likely to become involved | |||||
Domhoff believes the labor / liberal coalition is the weakest because it has: | |||||
a. a looser & more diverse coalition which makes it less unified | |||||
b. fewer economic resources | |||||
c. less access to govt officials | |||||
|
d. very rare common interests w/ the other two coalitions |
Links |
|
Links |
|||
- Project: Comparing Pluralism & Power Elite Theory |
|
||||
Pluralist theory holds that society is composed many competing groups, none of which dominates | |||||
Power elite theory holds that society is composed of one group which dominates, & various other relatively unorganized groups which have little or no power in society | |||||
Power elite theory holds that society is composed of conflicting groups, including the: |
|
||||
- power elite which is made up of "old money," multinational corporation, powerful political leaders, powerful military leaders, et al |
|
||||
- many other highly fragmented groups, none of which manages to challenge the power of the P-E |
|
||||
Theorists such as Mills & Domhoff believe that the power elite dominates many spheres of society | |||||
Farley compares pluralist theory & power elite theory by asking Domhoff's questions of Who govern? Who benefits? & Who wins? |
|
||||
In the 70s there were 2000 interest groups, & in the 90s there were over 6800 interest groups |
|
||||
For Domhoff, society is composed of 3 key interest groups, including: | |||||
- multinational corporate interest groups |
|
||||
- small business interest groups |
|
||||
- the labor liberal coalition |
|
||||
For Domhoff, national level politicians & their appointments serve the interests of the 3 key interest groups |
|
||||
Congress consists of 30 to 40% millionaires & this trend continues |
|
||||
Who benefits from national policies? |
|
||||
Nat policies have resulted in a budget deficit for every year in the past 40 years (except for a few yrs at the end of the Clinton admin) |
|
||||
A deficit occurs when income (in the form of taxes) is not enough to cover govt expenditures (such as spending on social security, the military, etc.) | |||||
The national debt grew to over $8.5 T or $28,000 for every American in the mid 2000s | |||||
Who benefits from the national debt? | |||||
Defense spending has stayed high, at 30 to 50%, of the budget since WW II resulting in what President Eisenhower warned the public as the military industrial Congressional complex ( MICC ) |
|
||||
Those who hold govt bonds benefit from national debt in that they have a very secure place to store an immense amount of wealth | |||||
Who loses? | |||||
Those who pay the interest on the debt lose, & those whose programs are cut to fund the interest on the debt lose | |||||
Who wins or loses in relation to federal taxation? | |||||
A progressive tax is one designed so that the proportion of income paid in taxes increases as income increases | |||||
A regressive tax is one designed so that the proportion of income paid in taxes decreases as income increases | |||||
A flat tax is one designed so that the proportion of income paid in taxes is the same regardless of income | |||||
The US has a progressive income tax, on paper, with 5 tax brackets ranging from | |||||
17% 23% 27% 32% 33% | |||||
Many feel that the US tax system is regressive because the higher tax rates were lowered under Reagan, 1986 | |||||
In 1986 tax reform lowered taxes for the lowest & highest tax brackets & either raised taxes or left them the same for the middle three brackets |
|
||||
|
Most analysts agree that overall the fed tax system is flat or regressive because of taxes such as: |
|
|||
- payroll taxes such as social security & unemployment taxes | |||||
- sales type taxes such at gas taxes & others | |||||
- tax deductions such as interest for 2 homes, capital gains, & others | |||||
- though tax deductions, they remain an important loop hole for the wealthy | |||||
- because capital gains taxes have been reduced, they are an even more important loop hole for the wealthy | |||||
- though personal exemptions have slightly increased, they are a small factor in the tax system compared to tax rates & deductions | |||||
In sum it is a judgment call on whether the modern Western society is more pluralist, ie democratic, or more power elitist, ie corporatist in judging whether the tax system is unfair, the power of interest groups, the concentration of wealth, the control of the econ, the amount of poverty, the importance of the national debt, etc. | |||||
If one tends to think that the central features of the structure of society are formulated to favor no one, then pluralism exists; while if one believes that the central features of the structure of a society are formulated to favor the rich & powerful, then power elitism exists | |||||
Another important question is judging the control of society is whether one cares which class dominates in that some believe the upper class should dominate, while others believe the middle class should dominate | |||||
In general the middle class has the most equality it that lower middle class, middle class, & upper middle class people all treat each other fairly & the range of income, power & wealth is a few million dollars | |||||
In general the middle class has the highest level of racial & gender tolerance in that in the middle class all people are more accepted than in the lower or upper classes |
Links |
|
Links |
|||
- Supplement: Median Income of Year Round, Full Time Workers, by Sex and Age, 1999 |
|
||||
- Supplement: Median Income of Year Round Full Time Workers, by Sex & Level of Education, 1999 |
|
||||
Women typically earn 60 to 70% of what men earn for equal work | |||||
The gender pay gap is slowly closing, but will probably take 20 to 30 more yrs. to reach equality | |||||
E.O. Wright found that economic discrimination against women occurs btwn, & not w/in a class or subclass: | |||||
Within a class, there is little difference in economic achievement btwn races or genders | |||||
In the working class, men & women, blacks & whites, etc. earn approximately the same level of income | |||||
For example, women earn 66% of what men earn, overall, but w/in the working class women earn equal wages to men | |||||
Blacks & females are more often in the Wright's working class & thus have an overall lower income | |||||
The proportions of blacks & females are greater in the working class | |||||
The proportions of white males are higher in the capitalist & managerial classes | |||||
60 to 70% of women work outside the home while only 55% of men work outside the home | |||||
In general, the class of both spouses is that of the highest class spouse; i.e., the higher class spouse, pulls the other up to his or her level | |||||
Married women typically earn less than husband, & so technically are in a lower class than their husband | |||||
But the standard of living, income, property, status, etc. are distributed through the family unit | |||||
And thus, after a divorce, women usually fall in income while men's income rises | |||||
In 2002, approximately 30% of wives earn more than their husbands | |||||
In the recent past, ( i.e. as recently as the 1950s) a married women's class was determined by position of husband; i.e. she would even come down to his position if he were lower | |||||
In terms of social marital mobility, by far the most people marry w/in their class | |||||
In terms of social marital mobility, the largest group of people who marry up consists of women | |||||
In terms of social marital mobility, the smallest group of people who marry up consists of men |
Links |
|
Links |
|||
Sociobiology is a discipline of study which recognizes that biology affects behavior and that behavior affects biology |
|
||||
Our activities actually have a physical impact on our musculature, our brain, and our neural/hormonal system |
|
||||
Sociobiology has a focus on altruism, cooperation, stratification, asking, 'Why did these social qualities evolve?' |
|
||||
Altruism is believed to have evolved because the survival of the group is more important than individual survival |
|
||||
Cooperation is believed to have evolved because many activities can be done more efficiently in this way with group cooperation |
|
||||
Sociobiologists and anthropologists have found that some cooperative species are highly stratified including wolves, apes, dogs |
|
||||
Stratification allows for cooperation and for dominant members of the group to reproduce more frequently |
|
||||
For most physical & social scientists, there are two roots of human behavior: |
|
||||
a. Biology or physical human nature |
|
||||
b. Socialization which is the shaping of behavior by learning, culture, the social environment & other nonbiological factors |
|
||||
The examination of biological qualities allow us the understand some aspects of behavior while social factors allow us the understand other aspects of behavior |
|
||||
Charles Darwin held that natural selection resulted in the survival of humans who were most genetically fit for the environment in which they lived |
|
||||
It takes many generations for a gene pool to be significantly altered |
|
||||
99 % of human existence has been in an environment with what would now be considered a very low level of stratification & a very high level of cooperation |
|
||||
The uncritical conflict theories (e.g. Weber) & uncritical order theories (e.g. functionalism) assume that conflict & the inequality found in almost all historical stratification systems is the result of selfish human nature |
|
||||
Popular books, like The Naked Ape, also posit that humans are naturally warlike & domineering, but there is little evidence for this |
|