SOCI 250 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Minority Group, Acculturation, Equal Exchange
8 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Lecture 8 (October 3rd, 2017)
Inequality + Race/Ethnicity
! Theories of stratification: Davis and Moore
•!The structural-functionalist theory
emphasizes consensus and shared values
over conflict.
•!This (the stratification system) is not only
acceptable, but profoundly desirable
•!It’s about avoiding conflict because we
share common values
•!It argues that:
o!Some jobs (e.g., physician) are more important than others (e.g., janitor) and require
more specialized training than others
o!Occupational-based-theory
o!To motivate people to make the sacrifices necessary to train for important jobs, they
must receive more rewards for their work.
o!Social inequality is therefore necessary (i.e., functional) and inevitable.
o!You need those rewards in order to “sacrifice” yourself
"!Sacrifice: going to school, working hard, going to the library…
•!Why bother study for so many years and working so hard to become a doctor if the doctor
makes the same amount as a janitor? We need this in society to motivate people to do those
hard/important things
•!Talent and ambition is how we’re going to select people
•!Scarcity of personnel for important job (talent and ambition are not distributed evenly across
society. There are some people who are more talented and ambitious than others. So, those
super talented people are very scarce) -- > hierarchical system of rewards (to motivate those
few smart people to do great things) -- > motivation to train for important jobs
•!If I’m a firm believer in this theory, am I going to do something to solve the inequality
problem? No! it’s necessary and important. We wouldn’t want to do anything else
•!Criticism of functional theories
o!Defining some jobs as more important than others is arbitrary. For example, are
doctors really more important than janitors?
o!Prof believes that there’s something to be said for scarcity personnel, for example.
"!It’s really something that scholars challenge.
"!How smart do you have to be to be a family doctor? Some people place it at
about 105 IQ, so most people could do it, some would argue. But we’re
creating scarcity and so scholars go further than that, but also the institutional
constraints: how many doctors are we accepting or letting out of med schools,
and so on. When there’s tons of people who could it all, salaries would go
down. The association can also create more scarcity.
"!Scarcity is a manipulative card of the manipulation process
"!People will argue: “is this really a sacrifice? Sacrificing what?”.
"!Critics will argue that what is defined as ambition and talent is also the
“luxury to do so”
o!Much wealth is inherited and not the result of talent and effort.
o!Much wealth is the result of ascription (e.g., women earn less than men for the same
work).
o!Conclusion: This theory is appealing to the privileged because it justifies inequality
on the basis of effort and ability. However, this is far from being the complete story.
o!If I’m born poor, 70% of people who are born poor will remain poor
o!If you’re born to high income parents, the odds are basically reversed: 70% chance of
staying rich
o!Talent and ambition, especially ambition, don’t work this way
•!Who makes it out?
o!The 25% of those who rise to the middle class
o!Factor that helps them? the majority of those people who had poor parents, their
parents still had degrees
o!The strongest predictor that we (students) are here (McGill): our parents
! Stratification in Canada
•!Distribution of Wealth
o!More than 2/3 of the largest corporations are controlled by single owners, more than
half of them are families.
o!Concentration of ownership continues to increase. Thus in 1978, 17 enterprises
controlled about 2/3 of the assets of the 170 largest non-financial corporations; by
1985 they controlled 3/4 of these assets.
•!**90% of Canadians owns no stock.
•!***The Top .01% of wage earners make 4.3% of total income (5.4% in the U.S, 2% in
France)
•!***Top 1% in U.S. make 17% of total income and control 22% of wealth
•!***In Canada, there is about a 50% chance that children born to top .01% will also be in the
top .01% in adulthood.
•!**While inequality in wealth decreased in Canada and other countries up to the 1970s, it has
increased since then.
•!The gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged has been widening due to an:
o!Increase of wealth and income inequality.
o!Increase in the number of poor due to high, steady levels of unemployment and more
part-time, temporary, and badly paid jobs.
•!As high economic growth seems to have come to an end indefinitely, increased material
inequality seems to have become persistent.
•!There is a correlation (not causal) between race and ethnicity and your position on the
economic spectrum system
•!Research on stratification is extraordinarily mixed as to the influence of race/ethnicity in
Canada.
o!Current studies tend to lean toward a continued yet weakening influence of
race/ethnicity on stratification.
o!Still, many studies have shown that those from the north and west of Europe and Jews
are generally in favorable positions, South Europeans and visible minorities are
generally in disadvantaged positions, and Aboriginal Peoples are at the bottom of the
Canadian occupational hierarchy.
Document Summary
Theories of stratification: davis and moore: the structural-functionalist theory emphasizes consensus and shared values over conflict, this (the stratification system) is not only acceptable, but profoundly desirable. It"s about avoiding conflict because we share common values. We need this in society to motivate people to do those hard/important things: talent and ambition is how we"re going to select people, scarcity of personnel for important job (talent and ambition are not distributed evenly across society. There are some people who are more talented and ambitious than others. So, those super talented people are very scarce) -- > hierarchical system of rewards (to motivate those few smart people to do great things) -- > motivation to train for important jobs. We wouldn"t want to do anything else: criticism of functional theories o defining some jobs as more important than others is arbitrary.
