Captalism: Here to Save Us All!

Capitalism. A necessary evil?

 

When I go on one of my occasional rants about the effects of Capitalism, my students often presume I’m a staunch Marxist.  I’m not; I certainly have Marxist leanings but these are not necessarily more prevalent than my feminist, Actionist or functionalist leanings.

So from here I usually go to explain that it’s probably more appropriate to see me as anti capitalist.

This invariably ends in me (after I’ve expelled my emotional rage!) feeling quite deflated by the socioeconomic climate We exist in.  This is largely because I see capitalism as a source of all that is Wrong in the World in terms of the creation of inequality and poverty.

And I’m a part of the problem.  This is because I’ve bought into consumerism. I like my nice things.  I like the fact I have a good laptop that I’m using to type this post. I’ve got an array of Apple products that I’ve convinced myself my life is better for them and couldn’t be Without. And I’m too far gone to back out now.  However I’ve also bought into the functionalist notion of meritocracy; I’m living proof it exists.  It’s tangible. Hence Why I can’t be labelled Marxist in the truest sense!

Capitalism creates by its very nature unequal wealth and therefore opportunity inequalities; the haves and the have nots.      

Teaching Sociology and Social Policy I occasionally get to discuss trickle down theory; the notion that to give the less Well off more financial support, those giving it have to create more to enable their position not to worsen.  Therefore the gap between the haves and have nots Will never get closer.

Capitalism…hiss boo hiss!

However I read with interest recently an article praising capitalism for actually reducing poverty (see link at bottom).

It’s a fascinating read, claiming that throughout the remainder of this decade, “hundreds of millions Will join the ranks of the middle classes in the emerging world”  So everything’s alright then?  Well I don’t believe it’s that simple.  Why?  Well poverty is not just about absolute measures, something that Blair’s New Labour knew all too Well. It’s also about relative measures i.e. setting standards against accepted the social norm.

But of course Marxists Would recognise argue that all these hundreds of millions entering the sparkly realm of the middle classes are simply purchasing themselves a big dollop of ignorance and With it are blinded to their real position in life, creating false class consciousness along the Way. Thus the elite powerful stay just that, and all because a few hundred million more tablets and smartphones are sold and convince We are ‘better’ for them!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10804385/Thanks-to-the-spread-of-capitalism-poverty-is-being-cut.html

 

 

 

 

Kids and Gender Identity: a follow up!

Since I blogged about kids and gender in my previous post, I came across an article online that discusses some recent research in the US that I think is worth sharing and provides an opportunity to follow up.

The article entitled “Men are stuck in gender roles, data suggests” focuses on various research including this from two years ago:

a Global Toy Experts survey found that more than half of mothers wouldn’t give a doll to someone else’s son, while only 32% said the same about giving cars or trucks to a girl.

Why?

Well it seems “If girls call themselves tomboys, it’s with a sense of pride … but boys make fun of other boys if they step just a little outside the rigid masculine stereotype.” (Prof. Risman of University of Illinois)

 

And why is this?  Well Prof. Rosky of the University of Utah claims that “Masculinity is valued more than femininity” “So there’s less worry about girls than about boys.”

This therefore suggests that the Western world places greater emphasis upon socially constructed masculinity than femininity.

Gender stereotypes do seem to have loosened: “The Global Toy Experts survey found that most mothers would let their own sons play with dolls and dress-up sets, even if they shied from buying them for other boys”

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-one-way-gender-revolution-20131227%2C0%2C7169949.story#axzz2t1gb1nnt

Children, Gender and Life Choices

Does early role socialisation have that great an impact on adult roles?

As someone educated and versed in Sociological thinking, I am all too familiar with the abundance of arguments centred around the issue of gender role socialisation; something that first pricked my interest via the works of Oakley many moons ago.  For those not familiar with this work, the basic premise centres around children being socialised into their gender roles via the family in 4 ways: manipulation, canalisation (channelling), verbal appellations, and different activities.

So when it came to being a new father a few years back, I tried to enter my relationship with my newborn with some sense of objectivity when it came toys, language used and clothing etc. What I aimed for was balance as opposed to simply following social convention of pink, sparkly and dainty.

However, the objection to this from those involved in my child’s life was somewhat disheartening.  In fact, the reason I’m blogging this topic is because of the disdain received by some adults recently who all seem to say the same thing:

“I played with/ My child plays with (insert some form of gender stereotypical toy / clothing / popular Disney character) and it’s not harmed me / harmed them!”

Thankfully I’m thick skinned!

But see the thing with those close to my offspring and I imagine the majority of people, is that particular ‘gender based bias‘ in toys etc. have become culturally normalised so that when someone is bold enough to make some form of stand against the reinforcement of gender identity within the lives of our young, we / they are met with derision.  Thankfully for me I have the skin of a rhino!

Anyway, giving me at least some crumb of comfort, it was reported on the BBC web last week that education minister Elizabeth Truss warns that children’s toys could affect their later adult careers by claiming gender specific toys risked turning girls off science and maths. Unfortunately she then verged on social  engineering by urging parents to buy their little girls Lego to encourage them to be engineers!

NO! Bad Parenting

YES! Good Parenting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The article quotes ONS statistics that claim there are still overwhelming gender divides in some professions. Just over 80% of “science, research, engineering and technology professionals” are male, whereas in contrast, 82% of workers in “caring, leisure and other services”, and 78% of administrative and secretarial workers are female.

So is there something in this? Possibly.  The impact of Gender bias in children’s lives cannot be ignored.  However, it does raise one very important factor and the very thing that makes us human: the freedom of choice. The choice to be what we want to be whether that fits into a conveniently labelled gendered identity. If we accept the path of gender role reinforcement, do we deny ourselves the freedom to choose?

Maybe the females cited in the stats above choose to be in these fields, maybe out of necessity even.

But here is a twist and one in the eye for capitalism.  It’s reported today (BBC again) that by targeting children with gender specific products is actually damaging our economy!

SO…to all you out there who are quick to shout down the likes of me, those of you who think there is no harm in buying little boys and girls gender specific stuff, just remember this.

YOU are bringing the downfall of capitalism! 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25857895

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26064302

Cohabitation and Family Breakdown

Cohabitation. The dirty word for living in sin…if you’re of a New Right or functionalist persuasion.

For others, it’s an alternative to tradition and expectation…it’s freedom from patriarchy…it’s simply a test bed for the eventual tying of the knot.Whatever your stance on it, you have to accept it has increased over the last 20 years or so and continues to divide and test emotions. Figures from ONS  suggest that 2012 saw the figure for cohabitation reach almost 6m in the UK, double the figure of 1996.

The reason I’m writing about this is because I read an article the other day that claims a £50 million, 20 year state sponsored research concludes that there is more family breakdown within cohabiting families than married families.  OK – is there any surprise in this revelation? Possibly to those more liberal minded?

What’s more, cohabiting couples with children under the age of 16 are now responsible for the largest number of family breakdowns; approximately 4 times more than married couples.

What I found particularly of note, was it claims to dispel any myth that low income and low education are closely linked to family breakdown, stating:

It is frequently said that low income and poor education are the main reasons behind family breakdown. But, if anything, the average income and level in education has improved since the 1980s while family breakdown has doubled

So what is it then?

Those studying SCLY1 Family & Household would of course be expected to discuss secularisation, feminist movement, changes in laws, attitudes and expectations, easier access to the contraceptive pill etc. and what all of these have produced or at least, made more achievable, is the element of choice; choosing one’s own desired path rather than an ascribed one.

However, and I purposefully adopt a New Right stance here (I’m personally pluralistic!), what is the possible result of all this? The persistent married tax relief argument by the Tories is an indication that marriage is good for families and children, cohabitation is not.  What will spring forth are wild un-socialised oiks that have no contributory value to society.  Therefore cohabiting couples (along with all other non-married family types) are the reason why society is as dysfunctional as it is today!

Okay, I’m being rather tongue in cheek but another article by the Daily Mail I came across refers to how one of Britain’s most senior family Judges Sir Paul Coleridge, places Britain’s social anarchy firmly at the feet of the breakdown of family and marriage.

And here is the crux: individualism.  That product of post modernism and the social changes of the last 50 years or so.

So, what is the real reason for family  breakdown? Perhaps it is something as simple as it’s all about me!

 

It might all be about you…but it costs our economy a reported £44bn a year.

Article Links

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/families-and-households/2012/cohabitation-rpt.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2516347/Most-family-break-ups-involve-unmarried-parents-Co-habiting-couples-times-likely-separate.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1198962/Yes-family-breakdown-IS-broken-Britain-Top-judge-says-national-tragedy-attacks-BBC-suppressing-debate.html

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/policy/pathways-to-poverty/family-breakdown

OK, so why study Sociology?

It’s that time of year again when the new A Level students begin their journey into post compulsory education.  Some of my new intake will have seen me prior to starting the new year at open events or interviews, which gives me the opportunity to discuss what Sociology is and get revved up about it as an academic discipline (which really is not difficult at all).

However, if parents / guardians are in tow, then every now and then you get asked that real crunch question:

How useful is Sociology?

I fully understand and appreciate the question as it was something I even had to explain to prospective employers in my previous career prior to teaching. Teaching it appears to some is the only avenue for a Sociology background.  But this isn’t the case as I’m sure many readers of this in their own careers can testify.

Now you need to understand that I have a real passion for this subject, having studied it at GCSE, A Level and at Degree Level (with History) with Sociological connections in post Degree studies too. I left my successful previous career to pursue my Sociology teaching ambitions! However it wasn’t until degree level that I ‘connected’ with its subject matter – engaging lecturers that actually knew their subject!  Nevertheless I found myself having to explain why I chose Sociology and what I got out of it.

So this is what I personally got out of studying it and this is what I’m happy to tell parents.

There are first of all the skills, and these (depending upon how engaging the teacher is I suppose) really begin to develop quickly at A Level. Critical thinking, analysis, evaluation are key and to some extent, limited to subjects like sociology and psychology etc. I recall when I first entered the labour market and major organisations like M&S and Tesco were recruiting Sociology graduates into their HR departments specifically because of this skill base.

Of course there are other skills Sociology can afford, however for me it was about personal enlightenment.  Understanding the mechanics of social organisation and my place in it all, expanding my rather narrow mindset that comes from growing up in a single parent home, on a typically working class council estate.  It changed my way of thinking as well as my use of language.

I somewhat tongue in cheek, tell prospective students that Sociology is probably the most important subject there is in our curriculum because of the personal growth that comes from it.  As for careers, well unless you specifically want to pursue something very tightly focused that requires a specialist subject qualification, then I believe any avenue is possible.  My background is sales and marketing!

So, why study sociology? Because I believe that you will come out the other end a more ‘in tune’ and ‘wisened’ individual, more sympathetic to social relationships around you.  And as my adult learners invariably fume, you’ll never be able to watch a TV advert in the same way again!

 

 

Is the Nuclear Family universal?

The nuclear is often considered the traditional family; it consists of 2 generations – married man and woman with clearly divided gendered roles, with children.

Early functionalist writer Murdock claimed that the nuclear family was crucial to society as it performed 4 basic and vital functions: sexual, reproductive, economic and socialisation.  He considered the nuclear family therefore the only proper and useful family type to have.

For Murdock the nuclear family was a ‘universal social grouping’.  It was to be found everywhere.  This led the sociologist William Goode (1963) to proclaim there would be a worldwide trend towards the nuclear family!

However, these views of early functionalism are somewhat outdated when we consider historical and cross cultural examples as well as contemporary trends, that demonstrate that there have been and are other successful family types, past and in contemporary society.

So, is the nuclear family universal?

Well Diane Gittens (1993) stressed it was only possible to talk of relationships as universal, not the nuclear family.  In other words, in all parts of the world, there can be found human relationships – these may not however be of the nuclear variety! What’s more, Barrett & McIntosh state that it is not the nuclear family that is universal, but rather the idea of it.

This may suggest some underlying ideology towards what may still be considered the ‘proper’ and ‘natural’ family type – we’ve seen this past and present within government policy.

Historically we have seen the Nayar Tribe of the 18^th century through the work of Gough that illustrates a fully socially functioning familial set up that saw children born of multiple fathers that had no responsibility for their upbringing.  This fell to the female tribe members and the child’s uncles.

We’ve even seen direct attempts at to avoid the nuclear family.  The early 20^th century saw the Russian experiment in which the government no longer felt the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ necessary and attempted to free women from the chore of unpaid domestic labour. Greater state involvement would mean the family would wither away as it would increasingly no longer be required to fulfill roles once undertaken.

Since the 1970s, the nuclear family in the UK has diminished by a third whilst other family types have increased significantly e.g. lone parents have increased three fold and according to the Rappoports, due to the multi culturalism of Britain, there will never be a dominant family type.  Therefore the nuclear family will not ever be universal; a direct critique of Goode’s previous claims some 30 odd years earlier.

However, living in a nuclear family is a phase that most people, as children and adults, go through in the course of their life cycle (Chester). What’s more, British based Chinese families are predominantly nuclear in form. So, whilst it may not be universal as early functionalists claimed, the nuclear family is still significant in contemporary British society,

Conjugal Roles: Has Feminism Failed?

Are we finally seeing symmetry in domestic chores?

I like most people, don’t like domestic chores. However, I like to think I do my fair share of chores around the home and I certainly do the the bulk of the cooking, gardening and all the DIY.  Back in the 70s Willmott & Young spoke of the Symmetrical Family, a relationship that was equal when it came to performing domestic chores.  Personally I believe in my household, this is pretty much the standard.

Of course as those of us who are familiar with this work will know, is that their work was severely flawed, not least of which was their methodology in measuring ‘symmetry’ (see Oakley’s critique).

So is the male of the species becoming more involved in the domestic sphere? Well apparently there has been a three fold increase in the number of house husbands in the UK in the last 15 years and according to recent research by YoupiJob.co.uk 66% of men perform 8 hours or more on domestic chores each week.  Surprisingly this compares to 62% of women.

This compares to 1965 when men performed 4.9 hours and women 30, apparently.

Modern life requires men take a greater role in domestic chores.  More and more women are working full time and cool gadgets make doing chores less feminine.

According to the researchers, this turns gender stereotypes on their heads.  Or does it?

A recent study into Britain’s cleaning habits shows that 82% of wives / female partners still do the bulk of household chores with relationship expert Phillip Hodson, spokesman for the Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy, saying many men still regard traditional housework as ‘women’s work’.

Women apparently still do the bulk of household duties

Data from other research claims that 1 in 5 men do nothing at all around the home, with women performing around 17 hours per week on domestic chores compared to men’s 6 hours.  Hardly the symmetrical family is it?  “Gender inequalities in all areas are rooted in social structures but also in attitudes,” said Professor Gillian Robinson, of the University of Ulster.

Now for those familiar with Willmott & Young’s notion of the Symmetrical Family, this idea of an equal relationship was more likely to be found within middle class relationships.  So it was with interest that I read an article a little while back in the Daily Mail on line that claimed feminism has failed working class women. Feminism has focused too much on the high profile and neglected the basics of the domestic sphere.

Feminism therefore has failed the majority of women. Feminism has failed to achieve greater equilibrium in the home!

Well according to Catherine Hakim, feminism should in fact not be trying to achieve greater male participation in domestic chores, as there already exists an equal sharing of hours spent on productive work.  To quote:

“…this data overturns the well-entrenched theory that women work disproportional long hours in jobs and at home in juggling family and work. Feminists constantly complain that men are not doing their fair share of domestic work. The reality is that most men already do more than their fair share.”

So there you have it.  Us men are engaging more in domestic chores (according to one set of research data) although women are still doing the bulk of the chores (according to a different set of data).

Has feminism failed women? Depends on your point of view really.

And that is why I love Sociology!

All statistics and quotes are taken form the articles below:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2274498/Are-men-REALLY-doing-housework-women-According-new-survey-men-really-ARE-tidier-sex.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1319876/Gender-equality-Women-STILL-82-cent-housework.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-206381/Working-women-housework.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301956/Has-feminism-failed-Eight-married-women-STILL-housework-husbands.html

http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2010/08/domestic_duties.aspx

BBC as the epitome of democratic media pt2 – Impartiality and the Construction of News

Can Public Service Broadcasting be democratic?

A few blog posts back, I discussed the idea of the BBC as Britain’s Public Service Broadcaster, possibly being the epitome of democratic media broadcasting https://brianrobertssociology.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/the-bbc-the-epitome-of-democratic-media-or-a-tool-of-the-state/ Completely unbiased and objective.

In theory it should be due to its remit upon which its ‘unique’ funding i.e. via taxation is based.  However within that discussion I tabled the possibility that the BBC in Marxist terms, is an Ideological State Apparatus.  A tool of the state used to promote the interests of the rulers.  I think its easier to suggest that private (as opposed to state) media will show bias as there is usually a single controlling figure at the helm i.e. News Corp and Rupert Murdoch, who has openly admitted to using his news media to promote his own views on the war in Iraq.

But publicly funded state media in Western society?

So anyway, I came across this article recently in the Guardian in which Helen Boaden as the former BBC’s News Director, admitted that the BBC held a “deep liberal bias” in its coverage of immigration when she took up the post in 2004.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jul/03/bbc-deep-liberal-bias-immigration

Admits BBC is biased in its news coverage

Now Boaden is still employed by the BBC, so this isn’t some kind of dig at her ex employers.  In the interview she talks of the bias the corporation had in its coverage of immigration, religion and the EU.  Ceri Thomas, the acting deputy director of BBC News and former Today editor, is quoted in the article as saying: “Any culture can be at risk of excluding what it thinks is wrong, possibly marginalising significant chunks of public opinion. We need to push against this consensus every day.”

Indeed.  By its very own funding remit, it has to be!

Whilst I cannot think of many occasions where the BBC have openly admitted their bias, there have been many accusations of bias in their coverage including reporting of the IRA conflict, Palestinian / Israeli conflict as well as being anti Christian and pro-Islamic.

So for me this throws up two issues (at least):

1/ Can the pluralist argument that PSB is the epitome of media broadcasting have any credibility?

2/ How the issue of bias in news reporting demonstrates the social construction of news

Are those in charge at the BBC any different to Murdoch?

Demonstrated here are preconceived notions of what is ‘right’ enough to show the public, based upon the liberal held views of those few in charge at the Beeb. No different to Murdoch using his media empire to support his own political views. The media output has been filtered through a value system that contorts  the ‘reality‘ of the situation or event.  Therefore, what the audience receives is not a window to the world i.e. an impartial reflection of an issue, but rather a deeply biased and subjective interpretation of that issue.

The BBC (PSB) as the epitome of democratic media…the ultimate in objective news broadcasting?  Nope.

Is news coverage a window to the world? Is this ever really possible?

Just don’t call me a feminist!

I’ve posted before about the merits of Feminism as a social movement and ideology, for the positive changes that it has brought about (in the Western world at least).

I always try and get my students (particularly the females) to connect to the idea of how very different their lives would be today if the feminist movement of the last 40/50 years or so had not achieved what it had. Most of the females comment on how you’d never find them ‘chained to the kitchen sink’ (although a handful claim that would indeed be a life choice for them) but, have no idea of the huge social shifts that have taken place to provide them with the opportunity to be sitting in an FE college with the potential to go on to university.

Make no mistake, feminism has changed Western society forever.

However, all too often discussion of feminism turns derisory, and not just from the males proclaiming life would be better if women knew their place.  For a light hearted but reflective take on this, have a look at some old Harry Enfield sketches on YouTube on this subject!

What’s more, the discussion often turns to the issue that feminism has gone too far, particularly when Radical Feminism (which let’s be honest is a bit extreme at times!) is the topic.

And so it was with interest that I read an article the other day in the Guardian online http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/jul/03/ellen-page-interview-the-east. It was an interview with the actress Ellen Page in which she discussed the apparent  disassociation successful female stars have with feminism.  You’d think that there would be a connection, an almost appreciation of how feminism has helped them to achieve what they have.  But no.

The article quotes Lady Gaga as saying: “I am not a feminist – I hail men, I love men. I celebrate American males and beer and bars and muscle cars” whilst Björk is quoted as saying: “To say I’m a feminist would isolate me” whilst Beyoncé when recently asked if she considered herself a feminist stated: “That word can be very extreme … I do believe in equality … But I’m happily married. I love my husband.”

So have people fallen out of love with feminism?  Is it that what we (but of course women especially) have today is taken for granted?  What is it about being labelled a feminist that’s so bad? Interestingly Page offers that how can feminism be such a bad word when we still live in a patriarchal world? She suggests that maybe women just don’t care, which is interesting when you consider I recently read in the Daily Mail on line the results of research which claim 62% of women secretly wished to be a housewife whilst 78% said they wouldn’t mind being financially independent upon their husband http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2324926/Majority-British-women-pick-housewife-having-career.html

So finally I’ll leave you with this.  In some of the exam papers I’ve been marking recently, you can almost see the rolling of the eyes from the students when discussing feminism.  In one example, functionalism and Marxism were discussed with the language “Argue” and “Claim”, whereas feminism “Moaned”.

Childrens’ Educational Success: The impact of the home

Impact of home support?

As an educator I regularly hear conversations, read discussions and even experience, dialogue about the relationships between a pupil’s educational achievement and ‘the teacher’.  Education in my opinion has changed from my pupil days some years ago in that there appears far too much emphasis on what a teacher is doing / not doing than on what a pupil is doing / not doing?  However this particular angle is for another time.

But what it does raise is the issue of the school / college environment as a determinant of a child’s educational success or failure.

These are often referred to as ‘Internal factors’ and encompass many elements e.g. processes of labelling, ethno-centric curriculum, and stereotyping in terms of class, gender and ethnicity.  Much has been made of these in the educational environment and in my opinion, rightly so.  Education should always offer equality of opportunity regardless of who you are.

HOWEVER…regardless of who you are, the education system should ALWAYS be based upon merit; you get out of it exactly what you deserve.  This is of course a functionalist argument and in my experience, to some extent has been lost.  Personal pupil responsibility has been replaced by targets and funding.

As a sociology student, it is necessary when discussing the internal factors of the school, to evaluate / assess with an examination of ‘External Factors’ i.e. those factors outside the school.  The home.

A recent article I read highlighted the important impact a home with bookshelves can have.

Read the article here: http://gizmodo.com/parents-who-own-bookshelves-raise-kids-who-do-better-in-513115295

The article cites research by Stanford and University of Munich which found that British children growing up in a house whose parents owned TWO bookshelves, learned THREE TIMES more than those children whose parents did not! Furthermore the article quotes the research authors as saying…

“Books at home are the single most important predictor of student performance in most countries”.

Now let’s connect this to the two fundamental elements when discussing external factors: money and culture. You need money (or at least enough disposable income) to buy books as well as the cultural understanding to recognise and value the importance of having and reading books (I’m using the tone found within sociology textbooks). If you have these then you are said to have Cultural and Material Capital.  If you don’t then you experience cultural and material deprivation.

These are then subsequently attached to one’s socio-economic positioning and the question of who is able to afford books and has the attitude to appreciate them?  The answer found in research and textbooks of course is the middle class.  And what is the culture of schooling? Middle class (see Bernstein’s Language Codes).  Therefore who are going to be the most successful in the education system? The middle class kids.

Of course generalisations are made here…there are always exceptions.  I consider myself one of those exceptions having grown up on a council estate within a single parent home.

Nevertheless what I hope this discussion does highlight is how a child’s educational success should never only be about what the teacher does / doesn’t do, but also about what the pupil does / doesn’t do and the foundation for this is found within the home. Genetics, psychologists will argue, are just as important the building blocks as socialisation…but I leave that up to you to read around!