If you want assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
If you’re the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have your projects published in the UKDiss.com website then please:
Associated Services
,
Our educational writing and marking services can help you!
Related Lectures
,
Study for free with this selection of university lectures!
,
Looking for a flexible role?
Have you got a 2:1 degree or more?
Learn Resources
,
Free resources to help you together with your university studies!
We’ve received widespread press coverage since 2003
Your UKEssays purchase is protected and now we’re rated 4.4/5 on reviews.co.uk
All work is written to order. No plagiarism, guaranteed!
We’re here to answer any questions you’ve got about our services
Copyright © 2003 – 2020 – UKEssays is really a trading name of All Answers Ltd, company registered in England and Wales. Company Registration No: 4964706. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ.
*You may also browse our support articles here >
“
2450 words (10 pages) Essay
1st Jun 2020 Sociology Reference this
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted with a university student. This is not a good example of the work produced by our Essay Writing Service. You can view examples of our professional work here.
Any views, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those associated with authors and do not always reflect the views of UKEssays.com.
Historically, British society has been defined with a clearly demarcated system of social classes. Within the medieval period, it was characterised with a feudal system of landowners and serfs (Bloch, 2014); within the early modern period the courtly aristocratic model defined the British class system, and this morphed within the last two centuries to create the traditional tripartite type of the working, middle and upper classes. However, in recent years this kind of system has been called into question. It has been argued that Britain is really a class-less society, that socio-economic and democratising political forces have combined to rid the society of its vertical, pyramid structure. Proponents of the levelling process have argued that Britain, within the globalised twentieth century, is characterised by other, wider contextual forces than those associated with national class system (Portes and Walton, 2013). However, this essay will just take issue with this contention, and argue that announcements associated with death of the class system in Britain are not simply premature or exaggerated, these are typically fundamentally wrong. Whilst net measures of wealth, education and so forth point to improvements and progression en masse, the kinds of intra-societal divisions which mark out the class system have, if anything, increased in the past few years, rendering Britain a society not only defined but dominated by its class system.
If you want assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Among the defining options that come with a class system is the fact that it has a lowest strata or group. This has been defined variously due to the fact lower classes, the working classes, the serfs or the ‘under class.’ Regardless of terminology, this presence of a lowest social group is the one that is really a defining feature of class systems; it is seen, notably, in other cultural contexts such as the ethno-religious Hindu caste system, which identifies a plainly lowest class by means of the so-called ‘untouchables’ (Rahaman, 2015). Therefore, one argument in favour of Britain not exhibiting a class system may be the contention that no such underclass exists any more. Such an argument is false, nevertheless, as social marginalisation, social exclusion, greater inequality along with other social realities of contemporary British life make evident. Exactly What has frequently been mistakenly recognized as the erosion associated with class system is actually a net movement upwards with respect to criteria in British society in general. Therefore, it is true that British people, over the income spectrum, are better educated, live longer, and revel in better living criteria than they did in previous centuries (Graham, 2012). Yet, this has been matched with a general increase in criteria for British people in general. The class system is really a measure of demarcations in the collective social human body, not really a measure of general criteria, and therefore, it may be argued that the class system in Britain is more rather than less entrenched in current decades, being a net increase in criteria has had spot alongside an increase in inequality.https://medium.com/@vladimirtrofimov049/3-best-business-essay-samples-89565e1951d8
The results associated with free market economic policies which defined the Thatcher governments associated with the 1980s and which were repackaged and continued by means of New Labour happen significant inside their impact on the British social structure and class system. They may be understood within the context of international free market economics, identified elsewhere with economics figures such as for instance Milton Friedman, political figures such as for instance Ronald Reagan, and principles such as Monetarism, Neoliberalism, and so-called Reaganomics (Hill, 2015). Such policies have led to considerable wealth creation. In Britain under Thatcher, they were based on the so-called ‘trickle down’ effect, whereby it had been believed that wealth creation among the upper echelons of society might have a knock-on effect whereby those users associated with lower classes benefited from this. The really terminology – the concept that wealth would trickle down from higher up – betrays the degree to which these policies were based on the thought of a still-existent class system (Vinen, 2013). Indeed, Thatcher’s aspirational emphasis in her rhetoric and policy-making ended up being indicative of the fact: she stressed the desire to produce a British society (a term which she famously wouldn’t normally purchased) in which users associated with lower classes could wish to join the ranks associated with middle and upper classes, and that upward-mobility ended up being something of which a society and its people might be proud (Hill, 2015). The very risk of upward-mobility implies a class system, but exactly what these policies effected ended up being, rather than a collective move upwards for the low classes and therefore an abolishment associated with class hierarchy, ended up being the exact opposite. As opposed to reducing class differences, Thatcherism increased them. It enabled some to become enormously wealthy and others to stay poor. Even though the latter group were to be better off, the class system is really a relative one so that as such, a larger relative difference between one social strata and another compounds class differences, regardless if the entire result is the fact that every person is better off in absolute terms.
This misconception reaches one’s heart of arguments which, this essay contends, mistake absolute changes within the nature of British social life for changes to your relative position of its social classes. The net result of Neoliberal economics, both globally and domestically in Britain, has been an increase in the wealth gap, a shoring up associated with the class system, and a larger distinction between your haves while the have-nots (Mount, 2012). This is certainly seen most evidently within the perseverance associated with social underclass, that has been rendered fairly worse off by the wealth creation towards the top of society, wealth that has perhaps not trickled down (Jones, 2012). Indeed, the creation by the New Labour government of a Social Exclusion device in 1998 (Stanley et al., 2011), tasked utilizing the task of intervening among the lower classes to stop folks from being excluded from the benefits that society provides, is proof of the truth that wealth hasn’t trickled down. The severe economic disparity between your wealth of London – Britain’s financial capital – while the rest of the country, particularly the North-East, is further proof of class division on a geographical level. Cribb et al. (2013) show that income inequality has knock-on impacts in terms of social exclusion, so that even in the big event that individuals wish to move up the class system, the machine itself, rate Thatcherism, works to stop this from being feasible. Your decision by Thatcher to privatise a number of British industries, to actively undertake industrial and manual workers such as for instance in the event associated with the Miners’ Strikes, and also to concentrate much of British wealth and economic power in the fingers of a quantity of leading banks and corporations within the City of London, all contributed for this greater division in British society (Jones, 2012). The end result is that the poor are, fairly speaking, poorer, while the rich are, positively speaking, much richer and, fairly speaking, fantastically richer. a large percentage of britain’s wealth is possessed by an increasingly little percentage of its population. The knock-on impacts when it comes to class division, social exclusion, while the perpetuation associated with so-called underclass, are palpable.
It may be argued that, so far, this essay has demonstrated just how income inequality and wealth gaps have increased in Britain in current decades, and that this is not just like saying that the class system has been entrenched and increased within the same manner. Indeed, wealth is not a straightforward synonym for class in Britain. This essay has thus far avoided defining the term ‘class’ for the really reason that it is nebulous and never something which may be defined in straightforwardly quantitative terms. It is, to some extent, question of self-identification. Therefore, a household having a low net income might recognize itself as middle income, whereas a household or couple or individual with a greater net income might, conversely, consider themselves to be lower class. However, a good working definition of class is inclusion/exclusion (Kraus et al., 2012). the social class, the greater social opportunities, resources and capital one is privilege to. the social class, the higher access there is to your things the nation provides, the folks are included. By comparison, lower social classes are defined by their being excluded from particular resources and opportunities that the society provides. Therefore, the low classes may be excluded from private education, top universities, higher criteria of health care, and leisure opportunities and facilities (Scott, 2014). Whilst these are correlated with wealth, they are not merely coterminous with it. For instance, a household may have the money to put their children through university, but when they or the kids feel socially excluded from advanced schooling (simply because they feel these are typically too lower class to belong there), they will perhaps not attend and might therefore be socially excluded in any case. It is the contention of the essay that social exclusion continues to be a defining feature of British society, and therefore the class system continues to work to distinguish between those people who are area of the ‘in’ group, and the ones that aren’t.
As noted above, this is certainly observed in areas such as for instance education and health care. One might cite the life expectancy variation in privileged areas of London compared with less privileged areas as proof of their education to that the poor are socially excluded from the great things about British medical resources, technology and science (Scott-Samuel et al., 2014). Furthermore, one might cite the preponderance of public school educated children at top higher education institutions, as well as in top of the echelons of British social life more generally, as proof of their education to which folks from lower-incomes or lower socio-economic groups are not afforded similar opportunities while the same inclusive legal rights as other people from higher class backgrounds. The prevalence of gang culture in inner-city environments is evidence of the marginalisation of youth from deprived socio-economic backgrounds (Jones, 2012). The London Riots of this summer of 2011 brought this class division to the spotlight, and constitute quite damning proof of the concept that Britain isn’t any longer a class-defined society. Similarly, the UK Uncut movement, whilst situated in the international context associated with economic crisis, and its opposition to your 1%, is further proof of a groundswell of social discontent in the UK at the degree to that the country’s population is socio-economically divided (Mount, 2012). This is not to mention a few of the wider social issues which affect Britain and which impinge in the concept of class: included in this questions of language (Standard English being the preserve of an elite class and contrasted with ‘lesser’ forms of speech such as for instance regional or dialect English), competition and nationality (with immigration while the resistance to inward-migration to the UK being topical political problems which impinge on ideas of class and social status).
In sum, and also to conclude, Britain continues to be a society sharply divided on socio-economic and class lines. That these divisions have increased in both number and degree is clear proof of the perpetuity associated with class system. Though there is net increases in living standards through the history of modern Britain ( with all the possible exception of periods of war (Price, 2013)), the relative changes that have happened, particularly within the last four decades, were ones that have exacerbated distinction rather than paid off it. The class system has been stretched rather than diminished, so that the socially excluded bottom has become excluded to a greater degree than before, as the wealth and privilege associated with elite has increased exponentially. Whilst wealth distinction isn’t a fool proof indication of class difference, analysing inclusion and exclusion ( with all the upper classes enjoying the former while the lower classes suffering the latter) makes clear their education to which Britain isn’t an equal society of equal opportunities. The class system operates in the principle that we now have individuals who have, and you will find those who have-not. British society operates in the same lines, and as such continues, not only showing, but to be defined by its class system.
Bloch, M. (2014). Feudal Society. London: Routledge.
Cribb, J., Hood, A., Joyce, R. and Phillips, D. (2013). Living standards, poverty and inequality in the UK: 2013 (No. R81). IFS Reports, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Graham, H. (2012). Smoking, stigma and social class. Journal of Social Policy, 41(01), 83-99.
Hill, D. (2015). Education, Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and Class Struggle in Britain and Europe. Colonized Schooling Exposed: Progressive Voices for Transformative Educational and Social Change, 6, 182.
Jones, O. (2012). Chavs: The demonization associated with Working Class. London: Verso Books
Kraus, M.W., Piff, P.K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M.L. and Keltner, D. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: the way the rich will vary from the poor. Psychological review, 119(3), 546.
Mount, F. (2012). Mind the Gap: The New Class Divide in Britain. Oxford: Short Books.
Parkin, F. (2013).The Social Research of Class Structure. London: Routledge.
Portes, A. and Walton, J. (2013). Labor, Class, therefore the Global System. Nyc: Elsevier.
Price, R. (2013). An Imperial War therefore the British Working Class: Working-Class Attitudes and Reactions to your Boer War, 1899-1902. London: Routledge.
Rahaman, M. (2015). Please touch the Untouchables. Global Journal of Research, 2(6), 410-415.
Scott, J. C. (2014).Who Rules Britain?. Nyc: John Wiley & Sons.
Scott-Samuel, A., Bambra, C., Collins, C., Hunter, D. J., McCartney, G. and Smith, K. (2014). The impact of Thatcherism on health and well-being in Britain. Global Journal of Health Services, 44(1), 53-71.
Stanley, J. K., Hensher, D. A., Stanley, J. R. and Vella-Brodrick, D. (2011). Mobility, social exclusion and well-being: Exploring the links. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 45(8), 789-801.
Vinen, R. (2013). Thatcher’s Britain: the Politics and Social Upheaval associated with Thatcher period. Boston, MA: Simon and Schuster.
,
To export a mention of this article please pick a referencing stye below:
If you’re the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have your projects published in the UKDiss.com website then please:
Associated Services
,
Our educational writing and marking services can help you!
Related Lectures
,
Study for free with this selection of university lectures!
,
Looking for a flexible role?
Have you got a 2:1 degree or more?
Learn Resources
,
Free resources to help you together with your university studies!
We’ve received widespread press coverage since 2003
Your UKEssays purchase is protected and now we’re rated 4.4/5 on reviews.co.uk
All work is written to order. No plagiarism, guaranteed!
We’re here to answer any questions you’ve got about our services
Copyright © 2003 – 2020 – UKEssays is really a trading name of All Answers Ltd, company registered in England and Wales. Company Registration No: 4964706. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ.
*You may also browse our support articles here >
, “
2719 words (11 pages) Essay
1st Jun 2020 Sociology Reference this
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted with a university student. This is not a good example of the work produced by our Essay Writing Service. You can view examples of our professional work here.
Any views, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those associated with authors and do not always reflect the views of UKEssays.com.
Social control can be defined as something of ‘measures, suggestion, persuasion, restraint and coercion’ by which society brings people into conformity with an accepted code of behaviour (Sharma, 2007, p. 220). There are lots of types of direct and indirect social control. The household has always provided a strong way of social control in its direct influence in the behaviour of its users. However, utilizing the changing nature associated with family structure in modern Britain, the family’s ability to offer an effective way of social control has been called into question. This essay will explore the idea of social control with regards to the changing role associated with household while the increasing influence of the areas, in particular the media while the internet.
If you want assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Social control is available in two distinct kinds: direct control and indirect control. Direct social control works when someone exerts influence on a person directly due to their close proximity, for instance, the household. Indirect social control is supplied by other factors removed physically from the person, such as for instance institutions, traditions, customs and culture: these indirect way of social control are ‘invisible and subtle’ (Sharma, 2007, p. 221). Additionally two types of social control within these groupings: control by sanction, which rewards the compliant and punishes the miscreant, and control by socialisation and education (Sharma, 2007, p. 222).
Social control may be maintained by positive means and negative means. Positive way of social control make people wish to comply with society to be able to enjoy rewards, such as for instance praise, social recognition or respect. Negative way of social control work in the reverse means, making people wish to comply with society to avoid emotional or physical punishment, criticism, ridicule or shame (Sharma, 2007, p. 222).
Formal and informal kinds of social control are also recognised as mean of controlling people’s behaviour within society. Formal social control is ‘carried away by an agency specifically set up to ensure that people comply with a specific group of norms, especially the law’ (Browne, 2011, p. 17). Types of formal social control include the control exerted by official institutions such as the government, education establishments, religion, law enforcement while the army. Informal social control, on the other hand, is ‘carried away by agencies whose primary purpose isn’t social control’ (Browne, 2011, p. 18), such as for instance family and friends, who influence us by socialising us into particular customs, values, ideals and norms.
One example of socialised ‘norms’ is gender roles. Girls and boys are encouraged to behave in means which accords using what society accepts to be masculine (assertive and dominant) or feminine (passive and submissive) types of behaviour. To step outside these socialised expectations would be viewed as transgressive and may even result in disapproval from others. Gender roles have been shown to be socially constructed rather than the result of any natural inclinations by studies that show men and women’s accepted gender roles to be different in other cultures and tribes all over the world (Browne, 2011, p. 20).
The household has always provided a strong way of social control. Parents provide children with direct instructions to follow regarding acceptable behaviour. Social control through the household is attained by both positive and negative means, with kids keen to gain praise from their parents, while attempting to avoid punishment in every kind for disobedience. Based on social control theory, ‘those who are socially integrated … are more prone to engage in socially sanctioned behaviours and less inclined to engage in risky behaviours’ (Baron, 2007, p. 9). This way, social integration provided by the household device helps to encourage socially accepted behaviour.
However, the role associated with household has changed dramatically through the years. There’s been a reduction in economic functions because of an increase in government help; a reduction in activities performed by the household by having an increase in child sitters and nurseries; an increase in household fun utilizing the advent of television and radio; and a lot of importantly, a big change within the relationships between men and women (Sharma, 2007, p. 256), that has seen the dominance associated with patriarchal head being replaced with a dependence on co-operation among equals (Sharma, 2007, p. 259).
The standard concept of the nuclear household, comprising mom, dad and two children, isn’t any longer relevant in our contemporary world. Today, there are lots of families made up of unmarried parents and single parents, while additionally many step-families and increasingly, homosexual partners with children. The conventional household is also being replaced by other modes of living, for instance, single-person homes and house-shares of friends. The changing nature associated with household device means that today the word ‘family’ can suggest this kind of variety of situations that no typical ‘family’ now efficiently exists. Bernardes suggests that ‘… family situations in contemporary society are so varied and diverse it merely makes no sociological sense to talk about an individual ideal-type model of “the family” at all’ (Bernardes, 1997, p. 209).
Indeed, the Office of National Statistics tells us that the amount of unmarried parent families has increased significantly ‘from 2.2 million in 2003 to 2.9 million in 2013’ (Office for National Statistics, 2013). There’s been a slow but steady rise in the amount of single parent families, 1.9 million in 2013, up from 1.8 million in 2003. Out of 26.4 million households in 2013, 29% contains just one person, while ‘the fastest growing household type ended up being households containing several families (Office for National Statistics, 2013).
It is clear that the household device is continually changing as society changes and so it seems natural to claim that there are lots of aspects of diversity within families that may impact their social control. Fogarty, Rapoport and Rapoport (1982) recognize five main kinds of household diversity in modern Britain:a. organizational, b. cultural, c. class, d. life-cycle of household, and e. cohort. (Rapoport, Fogarty and Rapoport, 1982, p. 479) Organisational diversity speaks associated with family structure, kinship patterns and division of labour in the home. For instance, conventional nuclear families, comprising husband, wife and two children; single-parent families; ‘dual-worker’ families where both parents work; and step-families. (Rapoport, Fogarty and Rapoport, 1982, p. 479)
Cultural diversity means the differences in lifestyles between groups of different ethnic, religious, or political backgrounds. For instance, Catholic societies do not allow abortion or contraception, which means this would always result in larger families and therefore, possibly, a stronger social influence over younger users. Class diversity means the class divisions between different classes, which give different levels of use of resources. This is observed in relationships between men and women, parenting of children and connections with extended household. (Rapoport, Fogarty and Rapoport, 1982, p. 479)
Life-course refers to differences in household life that occur over time. For instance, young parents managing their child have a different experience from an elderly couple with adult kids. Cohort describes generational links within families, that can easily be important when extended household members live near the nuclear household (Rapoport, Fogarty and Rapoport, 1982, p. 479); this would generally boost the energy of familial social control.
The household device has historically been a significant in shaping the characters and behaviour of its users, making sure that ‘the household may be the first institution that helps in implementing social control mechanism’ (Pandit, 2009, p. 73). Kids mature in the moral framework laid down by the older relatives. However, utilizing the breakdown of the standard nuclear family structure, there were other modes of social control that have become increasingly crucial.
The media is actively engaged with almost all people’s houses within the modern world. Media, such as for instance television and papers, influences our attitudes as well as our values may be skewed by the media as products and services are marketed as necessities. Advertising acts as an effective form of positive and negative social control by encouraging the customer to social norms. For instance, we are encouraged to purchase deodorant to prevent human body odour and therefore the disapproval of others, while we are also encouraged to buy stylish clothing to impress others (Batra, Myers and Aaker, 2006, p. 359). It is, this way, that the media is a crucial supply of social control on a day to day basis since the more pressing influences on our day to day behaviour are those influences which exist within our immediate vicinity. Indeed, ‘the proliferation of the media has changed the very nature of contemporary social order’ (Innes, 2003, p. 60). However, probably the most pressing influence of the media isn’t always being a type of social control but being a form of ‘social ordering’ in it determines perhaps not how exactly we think but exactly what problems we tend to consider (Innes, 2003, p. 60). The media directs public focus on particular problems and causes them to be the subject of public and private debate.
More particularly in the media, the rise associated with internet has made social networking a crucial aspect in social control and social ordering, especially among young adults. The rise in personal technology and popularity of internet sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, has meant that informal social control has grown between young adults and their peer group. Friends can share photos on social networks and record every event at length, tagging each other in photos, therefore appearing on other pages without explicit consent. There is less privacy than in the past and individuals are increasingly being pressured into social conformity in many various ways via internet sites: ‘social media can enable teens to succumb to peer pressure en masse’ (Firger, 2015).
There is no other form of media that allows for greater recording and sharing of the littlest details of every connection. These records may be projected across the world at the touch of a switch. The social control exerted by social networking works well due to its wide reach and comfortable access. This sort of influence may be used for both negative and positive (Herring, 2015, p. 50). The capability to relate to people so easily is really a positive element of social media, strengthening bonds and encouraging greater knowledge of other people’s cultures and viewpoints (Herring, 2015, p. 141).
However, the areas of negative social control also have arisen within the digital area. Not only can social media be considered a way to communicating the wrong information, it has also resulted in new types of social control, such as for instance cyber bullying; disturbingly, ‘twenty-five per cent of teens have reported being bullied online via social networking on their phones’ (Herring, 2015, p. 142). Social networking has also been cited being a main cause for the marked increase in eating disorders among young adults in recent years (Dugan, 2014). Individuals are now being threatened in new means, frequently from a great physical distance, to their peer group. This sort of digital social control is distinct from other social control in that it may be wielded twenty-four hours a day, in a similar way to familial social control.
The household has long been a crucial element of social control due to its close proximity to us, particularly as children. However, utilizing the changing face associated with household, this form of social control has become less clearly effective. The change within the household device while the decrease in conventional nuclear families means that the social control of families is more diluted. At exactly the same time, the development of personal technology combined with rise in internet usage and social networking has meant that individuals now have more media influence inside their life. Indeed, powerful modern ‘technology is which makes it more challenging for people to exert control over their personal worlds’ (Spring, 2013, p. 62), because they are efficiently controlled by social influences entering their life through their very own mobiles and tablets. The media being a variety of formal social ordering has long been powerful however now that news and entertainment may be accessed twenty-four hours a day from a mobile phone, and internet sites mean every moment may be shared, individuals are more impacted by the media than in the past.
