03.29-03.31

First off, let me say that I was very pleased with most of your participation in the wiki discussions last week! Several of you had interesting and informed discussions that really made me think. Some of you need to participate more, but I am very pleased with all of you who did. I stopped commenting after Thursday because, as it turned out, Baby Bucher decided to arrive early! He made his appearance on Friday 03/26 at 4:43 weighing in at a healthy 6lbs, 11oz. His name is Augustus and he is absolutely perfect.
 * __Organizing Ourselves__**

So we spent the weekend in the hospital getting to know one another and I am just now returning to work (via e-mail). Over the next two weeks we will go into greater depth regarding inequalities of race and gender. In addition to this we’ll need to figure out, together, what are the best ways of learning together on-line. You may take that as an open invitation to send me suggestions or feedback on teaching modules that are and are not working for you.

Many of you have taken my race and ethnicity class, or learned about racial inequality in intro. In order to avoid being redundant, today we are going to explore the topic from a different perspective. We’ll be looking at it from the viewpoint of William Julius Wilson. Wilson’s work has, arguably, influenced our understanding of modern America more than any other living social theorist.
 * __Race In America:__**

Let’s first review what theories he was working with. Tradition Marxists understood race as a factor of capitalism. Think about it … capitalists (the bourgeoisie) are motivated to make money by exploiting workers to make goods while being paid an ever lower wage. The most effective way to do this is to enslave people. Once a group of people have been enslaved then they can provide nearly 100% profit to the capitalists. Traditional marxists, then, understood race relations (specifically slavery) as the natural offshoot of exploitive capitalism. If we look at our own history we can certainly see that this theory explains the period of American history before the Civil War, but lacks explanatory power after that.

After the Civil War, during the Jim Crow era, African Americans were technically free, but had little economic or social power. This era had what we call a split labor market, where higher paid workers (note: not bourgeoisie … we’re not talking rich people, we’re talking the union working class guy as opposed to the non-union working-poor) are invested in keeping lower paid workers in a disadvantaged state. Why? Because in doing so the higher paid workers can insure a small skilled labor pool and therefore a higher wage (supply and demand). So while traditional marxists saw the tension between the bourgeoise, the lower skilled workers see the tension existing between the middle class and the lower class.

The period from World War II to the 1970s marked another shift in the American landscape. It is this shift that influences the current opportunities for non-whites in America today. Specifically, there was a push-pull factor where discrimination was made illegal, affirmative action programs were put in place, and economic opportunities were far more available than they had been in the past. On the other hand white flight, decreases in the number of manufacturing jobs, and decentralization decreased the opportunities for non-whites (who had traditionally benefitted from these positions as a result of separate but equal policies in both work and education). The result was that a small portion of African Americans were able to advance into the middle class and upper classes via affirmative action programs and anti-discrimination laws while others were pushed lower in our socio-economic ladder. Wilson concludes, then, that the current socio-economic status of Blacks in America today is dependant on the position of their families prior to the 1960s.

What, then, are we to do with this economic inequality?

The jigsaw puzzle is an active learning tool that forces students to rely on one another to learn important information. Some of you will be asked to complete the jigsaw classroom today, others will be asked to complete it on Wednesday. So go to the discussion board on this page and look at the group under your name. Groups one through three will participate today, while groups four and five will participate on Wednesday. Here is how it works. Go to the discussion board on this page and join the discussion under your name. You each will need to learn and summarize one important piece of information. Together, you will use this information to answer a question. Groups one through three, please have this complete by 5PM on Tuesday.
 * Jigsaw Puzzle:**

The second aspect of inequality that we need to examine today is gender. Gender inequality is often a highly contentious topic, and one that we should not shy away from as sociologists. Janet Chaftez takes the issue head on in one of our more complex theories of the semester. Lets concentrate on understanding her point and then we will focus on its validity. For Chaftez, gender inequality is generated through multiple structures. It is implemented upon us by higher-level structures (particularly labor force participation) and also played out in our everyday interactions. Due to fact that we see gender inequality in our everyday interactions and in broad social structures, it is perceived by society as a natural division of the sexes rather than a socially constructed one. This, then, is the emphasis of Chaftez’ theory … how are structures of gender inequality maintained? Lets take each level (macro, meso, and micro) and examine them to understand how Chaftez explains the maintenance of gender inequality. First, at the broadest level, we can understand gender inequality as the result of … can you guess … I’ll give you a second to guess … that’s right. Capitalism. According to Chaftez women are the unpaid labor force of our capitalistic society. Domestic labor (housework and child-rearing) are essential to maintain a functioning, complex society such as ours. Despite the importance of these jobs they are unpaid and thus count as pure profit for the bourgeoisie. So in a broad sense capitalism can explain some of the gender inequality … but there is a good chunk that it leaves unexplained. Like what about women in the labor force? And why do both men and women accept inequalities as natural if they are imposed upon us? Meso level analysis looks at medium sized social structures such as organizations or companies. Rosabeth Kanter (1977) did this amazing study called Men and Women of the Corporation. In it she explores the perpetuation of gender inequality even in the face of strong women who have advanced through the corporate structure. She argues (and Chaftez ultimately agrees) that a person’s position within a social structure (such as an organization) influences how that person is perceived by others as well as how they behave themselves. Gender is, in the workplace, an important variable for determining how people are perceived and how they behave. Look to Group 4 for an explanation of the role of gender in influencing people’s behavior and perceptions. Micro level analysis looks at much smaller groups of people … it works to understand how individuals interact within and create (or maintain) the larger society. In regard to gender, Chaftez argues that women interact in the ways that they do because they are at a disadvantage in the larger society and, as a result, in their interpersonal relationships. Because women are denied access to the same rewards and resources that men are, they often enter into interactions with men at a disadvantage in regard to power, prestige, and capital. The result is that women will show deference to men because of their higher status in the larger society. Men, on the other hand, will feel empowered in their relationships with women because of their diminished status in society. None of this will be a conscious thought, rather it is (at our advanced stage) not even a matter of thought. Men routinely interact with women as if they are younger, weaker, more frail (intellectually and physically) or otherwise ‘less than.’ Women will, more often than we care to admit, take this talking down to as a sign of caring, friendship, or even love. Can anyone give me examples of this (put them on the discussion board)? So (in my opinion) the most important aspect of Chaftez theory is on page 289. This explains how gender stratification is maintained. The long and short of it is that we see it everywhere and so it seems natural to us. All of our media, families, friends, work interactions follow, by and large, this same pattern. Women who break this mold are thought of in a negative light … they are perceived as being unfeminine, rude, evil, etc. In fact, some of the same behaviors that men engage in (such as interrupting or asserting themselves) are taken as being unacceptable or offensive when women engage in them. Look for Group Five to explain the specifics of Chaftez’ argument. Finally, I’d like to have a class discussion over the next 48 or so hours about inequality in America today. I have tried to pull some topic that ya’ll have brought up over the course of the semester. Since we can’t discuss in person, I’d like to see each person engage the conversation at least once, although my preference would be for us each to engage the conversation multiple times. I’ll post some topics for your consideration, but feel free to post your own as well. Also, since I won’t see any of you before Easter, I hope you all have a great break and if you are traveling, travel safely. Next week we will explore some of the more radical (and powerful) thinkers on inequality. I hope our discussants will be ready with their wiki’s to lead us in what can be an exciting, but touchy, subject. As always, please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Best, DCB
 * __Gender Inequality:__**