Download File

The following are a list of sample essays on Inequality. PLEASE NOTE that some
of them (particularly the first 20 mark response) are far longer than you would
be expected to write within the time constraints of an exam – I’ve done this
intentionally, just to highlight the range of information you could include.
Overall, these essays are really intended to help guide you in terms of the sort
of things you should be including, and how to apply some of the concepts and
theories we’ve studied, alongside using some contemporary ideas and some
evidence from your own research. There are hundreds of ways you COULD
answer each question – your job in the exam is to present the
evidence/argument that you feel best addresses the question, using the
examples, concepts and theories that you believe most important/relevant.
Outline the evidence that some ethnic groups are disadvantaged in the
contemporary UK [20]
Over the last few decades, UK society has reached the level of super-diversity
(Vertovec; 2007). This means that, due to globalisation and factors like
international travel, the UK’s population is more complex and diverse than it
has even been before, particularly in terms of ethnicity. However, this has
potentially created a new series of problems for UK society, as there is much
evidence that some ethnic groups experience more disadvantage than others.
A study by Modood & Berthoud (1997) found that some ethnic minority
groups were at a significantly higher risk of living in poverty in the UK, with
Pakistani and Bangladeshi households being the most likely to experience
poverty. Pilkington (2005) found that these ethnic minority groups were also
more concentrated in deprived areas, often in overcrowded accommodation. A
truly multicultural (or even ‘super-diverse’) society should see different ethnic
groups living side-by-side, enjoying equality of opportunity and with the
differences between them being celebrated. Any correlation between ethnicity
and poverty casts doubt on the UK’s status as a multicultural society and such
patterns continue throughout other areas of social life.
Some of the clearest evidence for ethnic disadvantage is found in the
workplace. Sociologists such as Heath & Li Cheung (2006) refer to the concept
of an ethnic penalty, meaning the disadvantage faced by ethnic minorities in
gaining and maintaining employment. Employment statistics and national
surveys offer evidence for this ethnic penalty: 14% of black men are
unemployed compared to only 5% of white men (Cabinet Office Report; 2004),
70% of Bangladeshi/Pakistani women are socially inactive compared to 25% of
white women (Social Trends Survey; 2006); fewer than 35% of black, Pakistani
and Bangladeshi men occupy the highest two social class groupings (Labour
Force Survey; 2000). Even for those in steady employment, there are
potentially huge differences in salary: A 2000 Cabinet Office Report showed
the white men earn twice as much as Bangladeshi men.
Problems in the workplace might be closely tied to problems in education.
According to the ONS (2004), less than 40% of black and Pakistani boys gain 5
or more GCSE A-C grades, which would have an obvious impact on their
potential for gaining employment. Other studies have suggested that these
same ethnic groups are also more likely to engage in truancy and the
formation of anti-education subcultures.
However, these findings and statistics on their own do not offer definitive
evidence of disadvantage. They could be explained through cultural attitudes
to education or to work-ethics, for example, or simply that some ethnic groups
are not yet fully established in the UK, meaning differences and inequalities
will disappear throughout subsequent generations. It is also worth noting that
such differences do not apply to all ethnic minorities (for example, Chinese and
Indian people living within the UK are more likely than white people to occupy
the highest two social class groupings, and outperform white people in the UK
education system). Heath & Li Cheung accept this, but claim that even when
factors like age, education and country of birth are removed, there is still an
ethnic penalty – albeit one that is greater for some ethnic minorities over
others - and that the root cause of it is discrimination. Mason (2003) concurs
that discriminatory attitudes of employers in the UK is the biggest contributor
to the disadvantage faced by ethnic minorities.
Evidence of discrimination leading to disadvantage for some ethnic groups can
be found in many areas of social life and within some of the UK’s most
influential institutions. For example, the Macpherson Inquiry (1998) into the
racially motivated murder of Stephen Lawrence found evidence of institutional
racism in the Metropolitan Police Force. When those who protect our society
are found to actively discriminate against certain groups because of ethnic
origin, disadvantage will inevitably follow. It has certainly be demonstrated in
the UK that some ethnic groups (particularly young, black males) are far more
likely to be stopped and searched by the police and subsequently more likely
to end up in prison.
The Mass Media is perhaps the area that most shapes and influences our
views in the 21st Century UK. Many sociologists have claimed that the media
has helped create prejudice towards ethnic minorities in the UK, which has in
turn helped create the disadvantage many experience today. For example,
Moore (2005) identified five stereotypes used to portray black people in the
media: As criminals, as a threat, as abnormal, as unimportant and as
dependant. Studies by Hall (1995) and Van Dijk (1991) have offered further
evidence of this, showing how potentially racist language is (unconsciously)
used by areas of the mass media (e.g. when a crime is committed by a black
men, his ethnicity is always pointed out; quotes from ethnic minority experts
are often ignored in favour of testimony from white people). Specific television
programmes have occasionally been highlighted as problematic: For example,
Eastenders have faced criticism for often falling back on ethnic stereotypes
(e.g. every Asian family has to go through an ‘arranged marriage’ storyline),
whilst Midsomer Murders was criticised for showing no ethnic diversity
whatsoever. Even in areas of the media where there is considerable diversity,
it is often not positive: For example, as identified by a recent BBC Panorama
investigation (2013), black male role-models in the media tend to be either
rappers or footballers rather than people working ‘everyday’ jobs, creating
false (and often negative) aspirations for young black males that often almost
dismiss the need for education.
It would certainly not be true to say that every ethnic minority
group/individual experiences the same levels of disadvantage in the
contemporary UK. In work and education, some ethnic minority groups could
be argued to actually experience advantage over the majority ‘white’
population and, further to this, The Times Rich List demonstrates that many of
the richest people resident in the UK (including the vast majority of the ‘top
ten’) are ethnic minorities. This suggests that, as a society, we are not ‘racist’
and that being in a minority group does not automatically result in
disadvantage. However, the evidence does seem clear that some ethnic
minority groups are at a significantly higher risk of disadvantage than others
and that there are elements of prejudice and cultural difference that need to
be understood and addressed in order that this disadvantage be removed.
Outline and assess Marxist explanations of ethnic inequality [40]
Marxists recognise that ethnic minorities in capitalist societies experience longterm disadvantage and inequality. They claim that being an ethnic minority in a
capitalist society automatically makes a group/individual working-class,
because it means being subjected to the same exploitation as the broader
proletariat at the hands of the bourgeoisie.
Cox (1948) claimed that capitalist societies require ethnic inequality and are
therefore inherently racist. Many Marxists would agree that racism has always
served the needs of capitalism, because it has encouraged the treating of some
groups as ‘less than human’, which in turn has justified paying them low wages
and forcing them to work in appalling conditions. It could be argued that,
historically, using ethnic minorities as slave labour was essential for the
development of capitalism. In the contemporary UK, slavery is obviously longabolished, but Marxists would argue the same principles still apply. For
example, Castles & Kosack (1973) claim racism is used to justify treating ethnic
minorities as a reserve army of labour, supporting the capitalist system by
being maintained in a semi-permanent state of unemployment, easily ‘hired
and fired’ to suit the needs of the economy.
Further to this, Marxists claim that racism also helps maintain a false-class
consciousness by dividing the working class, which in turn makes them easier
to rule. If the ruling classes can turn the working classes against each other
(e.g. by encouraging racial prejudice), they are less likely to ever unite and
revolt against the unfair capitalist system. One way in which they can achieve
this is through scapegoating ethnic minorities for the problems that capitalism
creates e.g. lack of housing, unemployment. Policing the Crisis by Hall (1995)
showed how young black males were depicted as criminals by the media
during the moral panic surrounding ‘mugging’ in the 1970s. Hall argues that
this was a case of society scapegoating a minority group to conceal the socioeconomic problems caused by a failing capitalist system in the UK at the time.
Critics of these views claim that the Marxist perspective is reductionist,
attempting to reduce all inequalities to economic factors at the expense of
other issues (e.g. cultural differences). Neo-Marxists such as Miles (1980) have
taken some of this criticism on board and offer slightly different explanations.
For example, they disagree that all ethnic minorities are working-class. Miles
used the concept of racialised class factions to show that ethnic minorities are
found in all social classes, but they are still treated differently because of their
ethnicity, possibly due to a cultural racism in the UK. Gilroy (1987) affirms this,
pointing out that black people are still seen as culturally different even if they
were born in the UK, and therefore are seen to threaten the cultural unity that
has made Britain strong in the past – hence their differential treatment,
leading to inequality.
A logical conclusion of the Marxist view is that ethnic inequalities are entirely
created by capitalism and would therefore disappear in a communist society.
This is questionable – and difficult to test, as communist societies that we have
seen around the world to date have not been especially diverse. As described
above, Neo-Marxists have moved away from such economically deterministic
views and Weberian views have moved further still away from the traditional
Marxist arguments, suggesting that inequality is better explained by ethnic
differences than economic ones.
Through explaining ethnic inequality in relation to capitalism, Marxists do give
some valuable insight into one key source of inequality, but by reducing their
explanations to this single factor, they probably do not offer the whole picture,
largely ignoring many other potential factors and issues. However, Marxism
does recognise the persistence of racism. This is in contrast with Functionalist
explanations, which tend to assume the racism and ethnic inequality is a
temporary issue that is resolved once immigrant groups assimilate into a host
culture and values and attitudes within that culture change accordingly. Racism
in the UK – as in most other societies – does not seem to be temporary; it is
something experienced by new immigrants to our society and every successive
generation thereafter. The Marxist perspective does at least recognise this and
offers an explanation for it, demonstrating that the persistence of racism
serves the needs of a capitalist society.
Outline the evidence for social class inequality in the contemporary UK [20]
Traditionally, the very concept of social class would signify inequality in a
society. Karl Marx believed conflict between two main social class groups – the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat; the former holding all the power and wealth
at the expense of the latter. Contemporary capitalist societies like the UK are
probably more complex than those described by Marx, but there is still clear
evidence of inequality based on class.
Occupation and income are the most common ways of measuring social class
(the UK government uses the NS-SEC, categorising households into one of
eight class groups based on the occupation of the highest earner in the
household), so it is perhaps inevitable that the ‘higher’ your social class, the
higher your income is likely to be. The ONS (2006) shows that those in the
highest occupational group earn – on average – more than double that of the
lowest class group, despite working fewer hours. Beyond the workplace,
however, there is a great deal of evidence that suggests social class has a major
impact on people’s life chances and opportunities, thus creating inequality.
In Education, social class has an impact on attainment. In 2002, 77% of
students from the highest class group gained 5 or more A-C grade GCSEs
compared to just 32% from the lowest. Obviously, these qualifications are
potentially crucial in determining a person’s future opportunities. These sorts
of class-based differences at school level will almost inevitably result in
work/income inequalities later in life, significantly reducing social mobility.
The Sutton Trust Study (2008) found that social class becomes less of a barrier
to achievement at A-Level, but a student’s chances of getting into a prestigious
university are greatly improved if they attended an expensive private/public
school – an option that would not be available to students from poorer
backgrounds.
There is evidence that social class can very literally affect someone’s life
chances. According to the Healthcare Commission, men in the highest social
class live around 7.4 years longer than men from the lowest (the difference
between women is 5.7 years) and there are comparable correlations between
social class and infant mortality and on a person’s chances of surviving serious
illnesses and conditions like cancer. The first Whitehall Study, by Marmot
(1967) showed that lower-grade civil servants had a much higher death rate
(particularly from coronary heart disease) that those at the top of the
hierarchy, concluding that the most significant factor in this was workplace
stress, as those lower in status felt they had less control over their work. This
was a large-scale study that could be generalised to describe health issues
related to class for the wider population.
Social class appears to be a major source of inequality in the contemporary UK.
The social class you are born into potentially determines your chances of doing
well at school, which in turn determines your career potential, which in turn
determines – in part - your healthy life expectancy. Because the gap between
attainment by social class continues to be so huge at school level, this creates a
vicious circle, limiting social mobility in the UK and ensuring that class
inequality continues. This means that to reduce class-based inequality, the
education system is perhaps the place to start, so we would need to entrust
our politicians to solve this...
...Unfortunately, politics is another area where social class inequality is
evident. According to a study by the Smith Institute (2010), 34% of current
MPs were privately educated (compared to 7% of the UK population as whole
– and an incredible 54% of Conservatives went to private school). Additionally,
an increasing majority of MPs in all parties are from higher occupational (social
class) backgrounds. Two-thirds of the current cabinet are millionaires,
including Michael Gove, the current Secretary for Education, Jeremy Hunt, the
current Secretary for Health and Iain Duncan Smith, the current Secretary for
Work & Pensions.
Politicians are essentially the ‘ruling class’ of the contemporary UK, and if a
majority are from wealthy or powerful origins, the Marxist view of society
suddenly does not look so outdated in the contemporary UK. A Marxist would
suggest that inequality serves the interests of the bourgeoisie ruling classes,
and therefore perhaps it is no surprise that there is so much evidence for social
class inequality in our society to this day.
Outline and assess functionalist explanations of social inequality [40]
Durkheim, the founder of the functionalist perspective, believed that social
inequality was inevitable and functional for any complex human society – and
this is a view shared by the majority of subsequent functionalist theorists.
Inequality is inevitable because it is found in every complex society; there has
yet to exist a human society free of inequality – and even though Marxists
claim a communist society would/should practice complete equality, forms of
inequality have emerged in the communist societies that have existed.
Social inequality is functional because it is necessary in order for a society to
function effectively. For example, Durkheim believed it helped maintain social
order and prevented anomie. This is because it creates a system within which
people know their place. Parsons (1940) agreed, claiming that any social
system had to be hierarchical in order to be healthy. Within a clear hierarchy,
everyone knows their role and the norms and expectations of that role.
Without this, no-one would know how to behave or who to follow, and society
would collapse into normlessness and cease to function.
Functionalists invariably see a healthy society as being a meritocracy. This
means that the people who work hardest, demonstrate the most talent and
fulfil the most important roles receive the highest rewards. Davis & Moore
(1945) believe that pay should always be relative to talent and ability. This
ensures that the most talented and able people gain the most important and
highly-paid jobs, which ensures society runs smoothly. In untalented, incapable
people got the best jobs, society would not work. This inspires the wider
population to work harder, gain more qualifications and skills in order to
increase their chances of high pay. This means societies become increasingly
competitive, which further ensures the best people reach the top and gain the
most important positions. Lazy, talentless people remain at the bottom of
society, working in jobs that are not important in return for not much money.
This creates inequality, but shows that inequality is needed.
The functionalist view of social inequality is therefore relatively simple and
common-sense. However, in practice, it is also highly questionable. For
example, in the UK, is it really the case that the most important jobs are the
most highly paid? Footballers, actors, models, city traders, lawyers and
musicians are some of the highest paid people in society – but few would claim
that these represent the most important jobs in our society. It may be true
that the most highly paid people in these professions are those who have
shown the most talent and competitive spirit, but it is also highly probable that
society would be perfectly healthy and functional without most of them. At the
other side of the spectrum, nurses and teachers receive relatively modest
incomes, but are trained professionals who are vital for a healthy society. If the
functionalist view of society was credible, then surely nurses should be
millionaires whilst modelling would be a minimum wage job. Tumin (1963)
questioned functionalist views, by pointing out that it was difficult to discern
what is meant by a ‘functionally important’ role within a society.
A functionalist might argue that the key thing about these highly-paid
profession(al)s is that they inspire people to make the best of themselves. For
example, a multi-millionaire like Simon Cowell is probably not required for UK
society to function, but he – and others like him – inspires the rest of us to
work hard and develop our talents and abilities in order that we might achieve
similar wealth and status. In reality, however, stratification – and the huge gap
between rich and poor – is just as likely to frustrate, anger and de-motivate
people as it is to inspire them. Does a cleaner in a hospital working 45 hours a
week for minimum wage feel inspired when they see a professional footballer
getting paid millions of pounds a year to play a match once or twice a week?
It is perhaps no surprise that Marxists criticise functionalists for underplaying
the conflict and division caused by social class inequality.
Another criticism of the functionalist view is their assumption that we need to
see the success of others in order to be inspired to work harder and better
ourselves. In reality, surely many people don’t need such inspiration, and work
hard and undergo training, education and self-improvement because it is
fulfilling to do so. For example, a nurse or carer – earning relatively little
money – might work hard and train in order to be better at their job because
they want to help people, and to help society, not because they have been
inspired to want to be rich, competitive and successful.
A further criticism is that functionalist theorists tend to be white males from
wealthy or middle-class backgrounds. The concept of a meritocracy would be
appealing as an explanation of inequality to someone who is already wealthy;
to a poor, deprived person, the concept of a meritocracy would be a dismal
explanation, as it would suggest they are lazy or untalented. So the class
position of functionalists probably influences their explanations for social
inequality.
Given all the criticisms of the view, combined with the fact that the
functionalist view is very dated, it might be easy to write off their explanations
for social inequality as irrelevant to contemporary societies. However, some
New-Right theorists like Saunders (1994) have revived functionalist views on
inequality, and the basic idea that social position is a reflection of hard-work
and talent is one that still – often controversially – remains in place in many
21st Century societies.
Outline the evidence that patterns of gender inequality are changing in the
contemporary UK [20]
Since the late 19th Century, the UK has seen two waves of feminism and since
the 1990s has been experiencing a third, with each targeting particular
perceived inequalities for women created by our allegedly patriarchal society.
As well as this (or perhaps as a result of it), UK governments have recognised
that gender inequality is an issue and have introduced legislation to tackle it
(e.g. the 1970 Equal Pay Act; the 2006 Equality Act). This demonstrates that
attempts have been made to change patterns of gender inequality in the UK –
but have they succeeded?
Within the workplace – always one of the most visible areas of gender
inequality – there have been clear changes. In 1971, 56% of women were
employed (compared to 92% of men), but in 2005, this had risen to 70% of
women (though a decline, for me, to 80%). This shows a clear change in the
pattern of gender inequality. There is still a difference in employment rates for
women compared to men, but the gap is closing (and, in part at least, at the
expense of male employment). However, these figures alone do not prove that
inequality is disappearing: For example, women remain far more likely to work
part-time than men (42% of women compared to 10% of men) and are still
paid less than men (earning 82% of the average male wage). There also
remains evidence of a glass ceiling for women, blocking them from the ‘top
jobs’: For example, there is a significant underrepresentation of female
directors in the FTSE 100.
More evidence from changing patterns of gender inequality can be found in
education: In the contemporary UK, girls outperform boys at every level of
compulsory education, as well as at A Level and degree level. This is a
significant change as, historically in the UK, certain subjects were not available
to girls and there were fewer expectations on females to attain at school.
Cultural changes in our society, combined with changes in the labour market,
have probably led to the dramatic change in female attainment at school. A
study by Sharpe (1976, 1994) showed how the priorities of girls had changed
from love and marriage in the 1970s to jobs and careers in the 1990s. The
decline of male-dominated manual labour and the rise of the service-sector
was probably a major factor in this, although feminists such as Mitsos &
Browne (1998) claim that it is also due to the work of feminism in raising
women’s self-esteem and challenging patriarchal traditions.
The increasing employment of women is inevitably linked to better female
performance in education, but the fact that a glass ceiling remains, combined
with evidence for horizontal segregation (gendered jobs) and vertical
segregation (lower pay/conditions for women), suggest that there is still some
way to go to completely remove gender inequality.
There is also evidence that, despite some improvements in patterns of gender
inequality at work and school, traditional expectations of women in the
household still persist. The role of home-maker is still primarily associated
with women, and feminists like Oakley would argue that gender-role
socialisation continues to condition girls to aspire to domestic/caring roles.
Even though women are more active in the labour market, they still spend
more time on domestic tasks than men – as found in a study by Savage (1997),
using time-diaries. This leads many women to adopt a dual-role, combining
domestic tasks with paid work.
In conclusion, patterns of gender inequality in the contemporary UK do appear
to be changing. However, gender remains a source of inequality, even if it is to
an increasingly lessening extent.
Outline and assess the view that patriarchy is the main cause of gender
inequality [40]
Feminists would claim that gender inequality is caused by patriarchy, meaning
that our society is dominated by males, who will routinely protect their own
interests at the expense of females. Freidan (1963) claims that gender
inequality persists because it has been historically unchallenged. Certainly, it
might not be in the interests of a patriarchal society to challenge gender
inequality – although the work of feminist movements over the past hundred
years has made significant attempts to challenge and question the causes of
such inequality.
Marxist Feminists, like Benson (1972), argue that capitalist societies are
inevitably patriarchal and that gender inequality is essential for these societies
to develop and thrive. For example, gender inequality ensures that women
provide unpaid domestic labour and childcare; looking after the current
generation of workers and raising the next one, in return for nothing. This
additionally creates a reserve army of labour; masses of ‘unemployed’ women,
who can be called upon to fill in gaps in the labour market when required, but
are left to work for free at home when not – serving the needs of a ‘boom and
bust’ capitalist economy. Equality for women would mean losing this valuable
reserve and would lead to having to pay women to do the jobs they would
otherwise do for free, which makes no economic sense for a capitalist society.
Therefore, Hartmann (1981) claimed that feminism and Marxism had to unite
in an ‘unhappy marriage’ in order to explain and tackle this inequality and
campaign for major changes in the social structure.
Liberal Feminists like Oakley (1974) claim that it is the dominance of the
‘mother-housewife’ role in patriarchal societies that is to blame. The weight of
expectation on women to fulfil this role (and the fact that they are socialised
to fulfil it from childhood) restricts the opportunities for women, meaning that
inequality persists. Functionalists such as Parsons (1955) demonstrate exactly
the sort of thinking that Oakley criticises, as they claim that innate differences
between men and women mean that women are more suited to expressive
roles (e.g. taking care of others). The work of Mead (1932) offers a challenge
to this; Mead found examples of tribal societies in which it was men who
fulfilled this so-called expressive role and women who fulfilled a more
instrumental role, which upsets the very idea that gender roles are innately
ascribed.
Radical Feminists like Walby (1990) argue that most societies are patriarchal
and that within such societies, men will always seek to control women (even
though cultural differences between societies means they can’t always do it in
the same way). Firestone (1971) claims that the source of inequality is
biological, suggesting that – in patriarchal societies – men have used the fact
that it is only women who can bear children as a way to justify gender
inequality. For example, it is women who are expected to take time off work to
have and raise children. This is reaffirmed by some Functionalists, who use the
concept of Human Capital Theory to explain gender inequality. They claim that
because women take more time off work than men (mainly due to
pregnancy/child-rearing), they are less valuable to employers and less
committed to their work. Men, on the other hand, don’t take such career
breaks and so gain much more human capital (through experience, training,
qualifications etc). Functionalists claim that this means gender inequality is
‘fair enough’, whereas feminists would argue that it is just an excuse used by
men and that, in reality, these expectations on women should be removed.
Biological reasons aside, men could still contribute much more to child-rearing,
reducing the amount of time women have to take off work.
The feminist and functionalist theories discussed blame the structure and
culture of patriarchal societies for gender inequalities. Hakim (2004) offers an
alternative view, through her controversial preference theory. Hakim claims
that the reason for gender inequality is not patriarchy, but is actually down to
the preferences of women and the choices they make. She claims that women
choose whether to be adaptive (combining work with domestic roles), workcentred or career-centred. The fact that relatively few women choose to be
career-centred is the sole reason for inequality. In other words, it is women
themselves who create gender inequality, not society. Hakim’s theory
evidently conflicts with feminist ideas, but perhaps highlights that the cause of
gender inequality is probably very complex and cannot to attributed to a single
factor.