Earl Warren vs. William Rehnquist

Earl Warren vs. William Rehnquist Abstract This paper will discuss that, the outlook of the Chief Justice becomes the belief center for the Court; with each new Chief Justice appointed, the outlook of the Court also changes. Two major developments that the Court has gone through over a span of several years, were the periods when the Supreme Court was headed by Warren who became a liberal while on the bench and Rehnquist that remained ultra conservative; both were considered Republican yet had completely different views on how decisions should be made. This paper will compare and contrast their approaches to criminal procedure while on the U.S. Supreme Court, their significant decisions and their effects on the balance between social order and maintenance and individual liberties, and the effects of the Supreme Court’s decisions on law enforcement in the United States. Finally, the paper will discuss the Supreme Court’s approach to balancing civil liberties against public order maintenance. Earl Warren vs. William Rehnquist Introduction In the beginning of the 1950s, America had become a nation obsessed with freedom and social change. At approximately the same time, the Warren Court mirrored these developments. The following court, run by Burger built and upheld the developments that had already started. Warren and Burger’s Courts believed in a new idea, that the Constitution was in fact a breathing and living document, meant to adapt to the times. A new court surfaced, the Court of Rehnquist. This court deferred to the idea that the original Constitution was not only relevant when it was drafted, but that it remained so in the 20th and 21st centuries. The Warren Court During Earl Warren’s sixteen years as chief justice (1953-1969), the Supreme Court had profound impact on politics and government in America. The Warren Court was an extraordinarily activist, innovative tribunal that wrought far-reaching change in the meaning of the Constitution. Among its major decisions, the Warren Court out-lawed authorized racial segregation within public schools, required the equal apportionment of state legislatures and the House of Representatives, set strict national standards to protect the rights of criminal defendants, and ruled that prayers and Bible reading in the public schools were unconstitutional. And it handed down other dramatic decisions that won it both high praise and sharp criticism and engulfed it in great controversy. Riding the crest of the tidal wave of social change that swept through America in the 1950s and 1960s, the Court became a natural target of those who felt it was moving too fast and too far. The political reaction to its bold decisions was symbolized by automobile bumper stickers and roadside billboards that read â€Å"Impeach Earl Warren.† Before he retired as chief justice in 1969, Warren was asked to name the most important decisions of the Warren Court. He singled out those dealings with reappointment, school desegregation, and the right to counsel. Each of these cases symbolized one of three broad fields in which the Warren Court brought about far-reaching changes in America: the political process itself, civil rights, and the rights of the accused. In its reapportionment decisions, the Warren Court required that each citizen’s vote count as much as another’s. If the quality of a democracy can be gauged, certainly the individual’s vote is a basic unit of measurement. Until the reapportionment revolution of the Warren Court, voters were often powerless to correct basic distortions in the system of representation itself. The Warren Court’s Brown decision has not eliminated racial segregation in American schools or American society. But by striking down the officially enforced dual school system in the South, the Court implied that â€Å"all racial discrimination sponsored, supported, or encouraged by government is unconstitutional.† Thus the decision foreshadowed a social upheaval. The civil rights movement, the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, and the continuing controversy over the busing of public school children all followed in the Supreme Court’s wake. By the 1980s, the goal of integration appeared to be less important to many African Americans than freedom, dignity, and a full share of the economic opportunities of American society. Nevertheless, the Brown decision remains a judicial milestone; by its action at a time when much of white America was complacent and satisfied with the existing social order, the Supreme Court provided moral as well as political leadership. It reminded the nation that the Constitution applies to all Americans. The third broad area of decision by the Warren Court, the protection of the rights of criminal defendants, was yet another milestone for the Warren Court. In a series of controversial decisions, including Miranda, Escobedo, Gideon, and Mapp, the Court, bit by bit, threw the mantle of the Bill of Rights around persons accused by state authorities of crimes. In so doing, the Court collided directly with the electorate’s rising fear of crime; it was accused of coddling criminals and handcuffing the police. The Warren Court moved aggressively in several other areas as well, banning prayers in the public schools, curbing the anti-Communist legislation of the 1950s, and easing the laws dealing with obscenity. All this activity provided ample ammunition to the Warren Court’s conservative critics: The Court, they charged, had tinkered with legislative apportionment, forced school integration, overprotected the rights of criminals, banished prayer from the classroom, tolerated Communists, and encouraged pornography. Moreover, as many of the Court’s critics frequently pointed out, it decided many important cases by a one-vote margin. The Rehnquist Court After Warren Burger retired in 1986, President Reagan elevated William Rehnquist to chief justice and appointed Antonin Scalia, another conservative, to the Supreme Court. Even though Rehnquist was not as conservative as Burger, his associates were all supportive and pleased, even his Democratic opposites. His nomination was received with honest excitement on the part of not just his friends on the Court but also others who he had only had minimum contact with. The appointment of Anthony Kennedy in 1987, and President Bush’s appointments of Justices David Souter in 1990 and Clarence Thomas in 1991, meant that for a time, eight of the nine members of the Court had been appointed by Republican presidents. In the space of a relatively few years, the members and political philosophy of one of the three branches of the federal government had changed measurably. When William Rehnquist was sworn in as chief justice of the United States in September 1986, many political observers expected that his appointment would usher in an era of conservative decisions by the highest court. One location that various researchers expected to view substantial alterations in was the limiting of power of the federal government and increasing the power of the federal government and increasing the power of state governments. In time the Court did become more conservative, but that was not the case initially. During the Rehnquist Court’s first term, the liberals won all but two of the major cases and the conservatives prevailed only in the area of criminal law. A moderate-liberal coalition, led by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. decided cases on affirmative action, teaching creationism in the public schools, protection for pregnant workers, and political asylum for illegal aliens. Moreover, the Court, by a vote of 8-0, threw out the Reverend Jerry Falwellà ¢â‚¬â„¢s suit against Hustler magazine. In so doing, the Court declined to curb criticism of public figures. But by 1988 the Rehnquist Court shifted in a more conservative direction, giving public school officials the right to censor school newspapers and plays, for example. However, many of Rehnquist’s wins directed toward the federalist objective of limiting Congress’s authority over the states had minimal practical impact. And after the appointment of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court in several decisions made it more difficult for workers to sue employers for discrimination. The Court’s action alarmed liberals and led to speculation that a conservative majority had finally emerged. In May 1988, in another decision that some analysts seemed to believe reflected a more conservative trend, the Court ruled 6-2 that police may, without a warrant, search through trash that people leave outside their homes to be collected. Rehnquist voted with the bulk of the Justices in City of Boerne v. Flores and later referred to the decision as a model for requiring Congress to give way to the Court in regards to the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause and including the Fourteenth Amendment, in several cases. Boerne stated that any statute that Congress used to enforce the guarantees of the Amendment had to demonstrate both proportionality and a congruence between the injury that was deterred or fixed and the means adopted to this end. Rehnquist’s Court proportionality and congruence theory took the place of the ratchet theory that had controversially been advanced in Katzenbach v. Morgan. Due to the ratchet theory, Congress was able to ratchet up civil rights beyond the Court’s recognition, but Congress would be unable to ratchet down the rights the courts already recognized. The Rehnquist Court’s congruence and proportionally theory made it less difficult to revive older models th at prevented Congress from over extending itself in enforcing equal protection of the laws. But, as always, the decisions varied; the Court in 1990 struck down the federal law that sought to ban flag-burning. And in 1991, it invalidated New York’s â€Å"Son of Sam† law, which had barred criminals from earning money from books about their crimes; the Court said the state law violated the First Amendment’s provisions of free press and free speech. In 1999, Rehnquist was the second Justice to oversee a presidential impeachment trial, against President Clinton. Rehnquist, in 2000, delivered a consenting decision in Bush v. Gore, the case that ended the election controversy in Florida. He agreed with four justices in the case that the Equal Protection Clause did not allow a standard less manual recount of votes as was ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. Conclusion In conclusion, the Rehnquist Court moved more cautiously in the 1970s and thereafter and narrowed the sweep of some of the Warren Court’s decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal justice and pornography. The Supreme Court might do so even more dramatically in the future. The doctrines of equality, freedom, and respect for human dignity laid down in the numerous decisions of the Warren Court cannot be warped back to their original dimensions. Generations hence it may well appear that what is supposedly the most conservative of American political institutions, the Supreme Court, was the institution that did the most to help the nation adjust to the needs and demands of a free society. As this paper demonstrates, the decisions of the Supreme Court are often unpredictable, and the Court’s direction is not always easily categorized. Although by the year 2000 the Court’s conservative bloc was often a dominant force, it did not always prevail. References Herrman, J. (2009). Theres a Fine LineAdolescent Dating Violence and Prevention. Pediatric Nursing, 164-170.

Explanatory Concepts in Political Science Essay

Since 1979 there have been dramatic changes in both the structure and organisation of the Labour Party. In part, this was in response to their failure to win a general election between 1979 and 1997. However, the change goes much further than that and can be perceived as a reflection of the continued struggle between ideologies of different factions within the party. This essay will first try to establish what ‘Old’ Labour was and what it stood for. Then, scrutinising ‘New’ Labour, this essay will discus if, how and why the Labour Party changed and identify the key differences between ‘old’ and ‘new’ Labour. The Labour Party was initially established as a party to represent the newly enfranchised working class in Parliament. Growing out of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC), the party owed its existence to various trade union and socialist organisations. Consequently, right from its inauguration, the party’s primary purpose was to elect MP’s that would represent the interests of the unions. Although ostensibly not a committed socialist party, by 1918, the party had included Clause 4 in its election manifesto, the principle of public ownership which committed the party to nationalising land, coal mining, the electricity industry and the railways as well as declaring their intention to make rates of taxation steeply progressive to fund a major extension of education and social services.[1] Labour soon overtook the Liberals in popularity and rose to be the principle opposition for the Conservatives, forming three governments between 1926 and 1945. Post-war Labour fundamentally recognised the relationship between state and society in Britain and introduced a number of reforms in education, social security and welfare in an attempt to lay the foundations for a new, more caring society. The post-war Atlee government sent Labour on a trajectory towards socialism with commitments to economic planning in an attempt to reduce unemployment, a mixed public and private sector economy and a comprehensive welfare system which was endorsed by successive Labour and Conservative governments until 1979 when Thatcherism ideology took over. During this time Labour was widely perceived as being orientated towards a socialist perspective as the government took responsibility for unemployment, healthcare and housing. After Labour’s defeat by the Conservatives in the elections of 1979, the party went through a period of considerable internal turmoil that ultimately resulted in extensive reform of the structure and organisation of the Labour Party. Since 1979, there have been three distinct phases of change as ‘Old’ Labour became ‘New’. These can be defined as The Bennite challenge, Modernisation and New Labour. The first phase of this, the Bennite challenge led by Tony Benn attempted to redress the balance of power within the party. Aided by the leaders of some major trade unions at a special party conference in 1981, the party’s left wing activists succeeded in forcing through a number of internal organizational reforms that enhanced the power of grass-roots activists and trade unions in the selection of parliamentary candidates and party leaders. This change meant that ‘the party would now be committed to bringing about a fundamental and irreversible shift of power and wealth towards working people and their families’[2]. In response, a number of leading parliamentarians and supporters seceded from Labour and founded the Social Democratic Party in 1981. Labour presented a radical manifesto that proposed extensive nationalization of industry, economic planning, unilateral nuclear disarmament, and the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Economic Community. The result was Labour’s worst national electoral defeat in more than 50 years. It was after this defeat that modernisation took place under the new leader of the Labour Party, Neil Kinnock, a politician who, despite his leftist credentials set about re-establishing Labour as a credible national electoral force. Kinnock’s â€Å"modernisation† process towards the beginnings of a ‘New Labour’ contributed to Labour’s electoral revival after the trauma of 1983. As well as explicitly rejecting nationalisation as a tool or goal of economic policy, Kinnock ‘set out to crush the revolutionary left by launching a series of expulsions of supporters of the Militant Tendency’[3] but it was not sufficient to deprive the Conservatives of their governing majorities in the general elections of 1987 and 1992. By the time that Blair took the Labour Party leadership in 1994, the leadership had reasserted its authority having introduced significant organisational reforms which broadened and centralised the decision making process within the party as well as removing all trace of links with Marxist socialist ideology. Traditionally, there had been a strong socialist link with the Labour Party through Clause 4. Despite opposition from many of the Old Labour leaders, the rank and file of the party was insistent on maintaining its Socialist roots right up to the 1990’s. In stark contrast to the rest of Europe, which by 1980 had largely rejected a fully-fledged socialist ideology, Labour maintained Clause 4 that sought to maintain its ideology of socialism and nationalisation. Clause 4 of the Labour Party’s constitution was an integral part of the party’s philosophy and ideology as it marked the party as ardently socialist. Clause 4 is as follows; â€Å"To Secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible up the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.†[4] The clause is clearly anti-capitalist and commits to replacing capitalism with a system of social ownership, justice and planning where more control is given to ‘the workers’. Dearlove and Saunders propose that in practise, Old Labour was happy to accept a capitalist economic order although they sought limited social ownership through nationalisation, limited redistribution or wealth and income through taxation and welfare and limited planni ng through national agencies. In practise then, Dearlove and Saunders suggest that Labour should have been considered as a ‘social democratic’ party rather than actively pursuing its formal socialist objectives. Following the election of Tony Blair in 1994 as leader of the Labour party, the party saw a series of programmatic and organisational changes; the party systematically reviewed its policies so as to re-embrace the mixed economy in the tradition of the revisionists of the 1950s. Labour had consistently struggled to fully implement socialism, and reject the capitalist system because of what many critics believed to be a lack of a proper plan of how to implement their socialist ideology and replace the capitalist system. Blair took the modernisation of the party to a new level, adopting the American idea of rebranding the party as ‘new’. The slogan, ‘New Labour, New Britain’ was unveiled and stuck as the new party name. Blair believed that the Left had to ‘modernise or die.’ [5] With the rejection of Clause 4, Blair and the modernisers showed little respect for Old Labour’s sacred cows; â€Å"state ownership, economic planning, Keynesian de mand management, full employment, tax-and-spend welfarism and close links with the trade unions†[6] and brought Labour back to win the next General election. New Labour is itself a contested term. There is much debate as to what exactly it means. Michael Freeden suggests that the ‘ideological map’ of New Labour is â€Å"†¦located somewhere between the three great Western ideological traditions – liberalism, conservatism and socialism – though it is not equidistant from them all.†[7] Some suggest ‘New’ Labour is nothing but a marketing ploy and product of Alistair Campbell’s PR campaign for Labour in an attempt to win votes. During the 1997 election campaign, the Conservatives tried to convince voters that New Labour was simply ‘Old’ Labour in disguise using the ‘New Labour, New Danger’ slogan. Some political scientists, notably Driver and Martell assert that the political positioning of ‘New’ Labour is nothing more than Liberal Conservatism. They would argue that ‘New Labour’ is simply an extension of Thatcherism inasmuch as it is no different from Thatcherite attempts to blend traditional conservative and classical liberal principles. Pointing to Conservative prescriptions regarding education, the family and welfare, they assert that ‘New Labour’ is simply a progression of Thatcherism. Blair sees ‘New Labour’ as a new means to an old end, believing that the party has the same values yet is using new ways to achieve these aims. Apart from the rejection of Clause 4, how then is ‘New’ Labour different from ‘Old’ Labour? Dearlove and Saunders regard ‘New Labour’ to be Liberal Socialism. New Labour has rejected its classed based socialism in exchange for what many believe to be ethical socialism which has been largely influenced by Blair’s own Christian beliefs and the Labour ‘tradition of self help and mutual aid. Dennis and Halsey have defined ethical socialism as ‘a moral community in which freedom is gained for every member through the sharing of what they have, in equal mutual respect for the freedom of all’. Where Thatcher ‘sought to temper the free market individualism of neo-liberalism with an emphasis on traditional conservative values’ Blair has tried to temper the individualism of neo-liberalism with traditional ethical socialist values of equality, fraternity, self improvement and moral rectitude, in an attempt to amalgama te neo-liberal economics and socialist ethics. Whereas ‘Old Labour’ had been based on the big ideas of socialism and collectivism for the advancement of the working class, ‘New’ Labour attempts to reconstruct the state with more democracy and individual responsibility based on ‘co-operative self-help’ and the idea of communitarianism whereby individuals have a responsibility to help themselves and those immediately around them in their community. There is a new emphasis on social cohesion and ‘New’ Labour’s attempts to repair the social fabric of society. ‘New’ Labour is attempting to maintain the dynamic, innovative and efficient aspects and advantages of a liberalised economy whilst trying to avoid the inimical and often inevitable social fragmentation. One aspect of this is the shift from the ‘Old’ Labour stance on providing a large welfare state as a means of creating a more egalitarian society to ‘New’ Labour’s smaller we lfare state which is based on the principle of ‘hand up, not hand-out’ and the idea that the community and the individual should exist for each other’s benefit. The Ethical Socialist ideals are further perpetuated with ‘New’ Labour’s belief in stakeholder capitalism – the idea that every citizen must be included in the society they live in by being made to feel they have a long term stake in it using the idea of the welfare state and universal provision of services such as healthcare and education. Unlike ‘Old’ Labour’s focus on the interests and needs of the working classes, the trade unions and the poor, ‘New’ Labour concerns itself with the interests of consumers, especially middle Britain and a new deal for citizens. Anthony Giddens argues that this is largely in response to the impact of ‘post-materialism’. This idea asserts, â€Å"after a certain level of prosperity has been reached, voters become concerned less with economic issues than with the quality of their lives.†[8] In order to get the middle England vote, New Labour needed to accommodate for these voters. Giddens also suggests New Labour’s shift is a reflection of class dealignment and the decline of the blue collar, working class which meant Labour could no longer rely on a consistent ‘class bloc’ to vote for them. ‘New’ Labour has largely rejected a Keynesian style economy using demand management style that had been characteristic of ‘Old’ Labour. ‘New’ Labour has also rejected its former ideology of nationalised industry and public ownership replacing this with a much more free market approach and even privatisation of some former publicly owned services such as the London Underground. To argue that there are no discernable differences between ‘Old’ and ‘New’ Labour would be both naà ¯ve and crass. Like most political parties, since its inception, Labour has evolved, changing both its organisation and ideology to reflect changes in society and voters needs. The gap between the Left and Right has significantly narrowed with ‘New’ Labour policy and there are undeniable elements of Thatcherism in ‘New’ Labour although it is certainly not merely an extension of this. Perhaps the most significant change to ‘New’ Labour, the amendment of Clause 4, can be attributed to class dealignment and the decline of the working class that has shifted Labour far away from its socialist and nationalising policies that used to provide the core of its ideology. ‘New’ Labour no longer seeks to nationalise and plan but rather prefers equality of opportunity rather than outcome. ‘New’ Labour is no l onger the preserve of the socialist working class; it has been transformed into a party for middle England as much as the workers. [1] John Dearlove and Peter Saunders – Introduction to British Politics 3rd Edition, Polity 2000 p.394 [2] ibid p.397 [3] John Dearlove and Peter Saunders – Introduction to British Politics 3rd Edition, Polity 2000 p.402 [4] The former ‘Clause 4’ of the Labour Party constitution [5] Tony Blair, speech to the Part of European Socialists’ Congress, Malmo, 6 June 1997 [6] Stephen Driver and Luke Martell – New Labour, Politics after Thatcherism 1998 Polity, p.12 [7] Michael Freeden – The Ideology of New Labour – Political Quarterly 70 (1999) p.48 [8] Anthony Giddens – The Third Way: The Renewal of Democracy Polity p.19

Does Social Inequality Exist in Jamaica

Introduction â€Å"Social Inequality allows for the exclusion of individuals and the formation of prejudices and discrimination. Carefully analyze and discuss the validity of this statement based on current events in the Jamaican society. † Social Inequality is the existence of socially created inequalities; it occurs when ideology and power combine to make one group of people feel inferior to another. From a sociological perspective people are able to assess both opportunities and constraints that characterize their lives as it relates to age, sex, gender, race and class and based on this, many ills that the world faces today are derived from some person’s blatant disregard for differences. A prejudice is a preconceived belief toward a particular group while discrimination is a behavior (an action), with reference to unequal treatment of people because they are members of a particular group. Some theories suggest that racism is a characteristic of an abnormal minority of the population and that this abnormality is psychological. This prejudice may lead to racial discrimination. We may be familiar with this form of discrimination being more prevalent in recent times (Apartheid, Hitler vs. Jews) than now. In answering the question this report will outline the causes of social inequality and show that Social Inequality is prevalent in all societies including Jamaica. Race & Ethnicity Within sociology, the term ethnic, race, minority, and dominant group have very specific meanings, different from the meanings the terms have in common, their usage. These concepts are important in the development of a sociological perspective on race and ethnicity. Race A race is a group of people treated as separate in society on the basis of certain characteristics, some of which may be biological, that have been assigned social importance. Because of presumed biologically or culturally inferior characteristics, a race is typically singled out for its uniqueness and unfortunately succumbs to unfair treatment. Therefore it is not biological characteristics per se that defines racial groups, but how groups ave been treated historically and socially over the years. Societies assign people racial categories such as Black, White, and so on. Not by science, logic or fact, but by opinion and social experiences. In other words, how racial groups are defined is a social process. This is what is meant when we acknowledge that race is â€Å"socially constructed†. The use of biological differences to judge an individual seems some what arbitrary. F or example we differentiate people based on skin color and not other characteristics such as personality traits or culture. Jamaica is made up of several races, but the majority is dark skinned. Most people interact with their own kind and do not get the opportunity to interface with others of a different race. However, for the ones who do, they may say that we are not a racist society but would more likely discriminate based on a persons’ socio-economic status. This may be true but there remains the irony that individuals with high socio-economic statuses are usually the light skinned (Caucasian, Indian, Chinese). Ethnicity This refers to a social category of people who share a common culture, for example a common language or dialect; a common religion; and common norms, practices, customs and history. Ethnic groups have a consciousness of their common cultural bond. Jamaicans, Americans, Trinidadians, Japanese, Mexican Americans and so forth, are examples of ethnic groups. However ethnic groups are also found in other societies, such as Pashtuns in Afghanistan or Shiites and Sunnie in Iraq whose ethnicity is based on religious differences. An ethnic group does not exist simply because of the common national or cultural origins of the group. These groups develop because of their unique historical, cultural origins or social experiences. These experiences become the basis of the group’s ethnic identity. PREJUDICE A prejudice is a preconceived belief, opinion, or judgment toward a group of people or a single person because of race, social class, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, disability, political beliefs , religion, line of work or other personal characteristics. It also means a priori beliefs (without knowledge of the facts) and includes â€Å"any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence. Although positive and negative prejudice both exist, when used negatively, â€Å"prejudice† implies fear and antipathy toward such a group or person. †¢Cognitive Prejudice refers to what people believe to be true: for example, in adherence to a particular metaphysical or methodological philosophy at the expense of other philosophies which may offer a more complete theoretic al explanation. †¢Affective Prejudice refers to what people like and dislike: for example, in attitudes toward members of particular classes such as race, ethnicity, national origin, or creed. Conative Prejudice refers to how people are inclined to behave. It is regarded as an attitude because people do not act on their feelings. An example of conative prejudice may be found in expressions of what should be done if the opportunity presents itself. These three types of prejudice are correlated, but all need not be present in a particular individual. Someone may believe that a particular group possesses low levels of intelligence, but harbor no ill feeling towards that group. A group may be disliked because of intense competition for jobs, but still recognize no differences between groups. DISCRIMINATION Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the treatment taken toward or against a person of a certain group that is taken in consideration based on class or category. The United Nations explains: â€Å"Discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection. Discriminatory laws such as redlining have existed in many countries. In some countries, controversial attempts such as racial quotas have been used to redress negative effects of discrimination Farley also put discrimination into three categories: Personal / Individual Discrimination is directed toward a specific individual and refers to any act that leads to unequal treatment because of the individual's real or perceived group membership. †¢Legal Discrimination refers to â€Å"unequal treatment, on the grounds of group membership, that is upheld by law. Apartheid is an example of legal discrimination, as are also various post-Civil war laws in the souther n United States that legally disadvantaged Negros with respect to property rights, employment rights and he exercise of constitutional rights. †¢Institutional Discrimination refers to unequal treatment that is entrenched in basic social institutions resulting in advantaging one group over another. The Indian caste system and European feudal system are historical examples of institutional discrimination. As with prejudice generally, these three types of discrimination are correlated and may be found to varying degrees in individuals and society at large. Many forms of discrimination based upon prejudice are outwardly acceptable in most societies. What is Gender? Gender is a social classification that divides individuals into one of three categories (masculine, feminine, androgyny) as defined by behaviour, cultural and/or physiological traits learnt and expressed. The Difference between Gender and Sex Sex is a biological classification the divides individuals into categories (Male, Female, Hermaphrodite) as defined by their Chromosome make-up, reproductive organs, external genitals, hormonal states, internal genitals and secondary sex characteristics. Therefore sex is fundamentally different from gender on the basis that sex is determined by sex from birth and gender is determined by socialization after birth. Gender: Functional History The gender roles in society today are as a result of thousands of years of social evolution going back to the beginnings of society. Lets us take a look at how gender evolved into what it is today. The first type of society that existed, hunter/gatherer societies, men and women shared equal roles as the food gatherers in society. Women secured the more stable sources of food such as ground provisions grains and fruits while men secured the less stable sources of food from hunting game. This is due to the fact that hunting is a physically intensive activity and thus more naturally suited for the men in society however both sources of food were important to the welfare of the society and therefore both men and women had comparable roles. However while comparable, these roles would go on to influence society through the ages as the gathering of food tended to be relatively close to the settlement and the hunting of food would be further away. We see therefore that women were socialized to stay close to home and men were socialized to journey away from the home. This comparable role relationship remained similar in pastoral and horticultural societies however a huge shift came when people began to form agrarian societies. Men took the role of primary food gatherers in society freeing women from the task of food gathering. Thus women adopted alternative roles in the home to occupy their time. This however elevated the role of men in society while at the same time decreasing the roles of women. Men became more educated and took on more complex jobs within society. Women became the nurturers and home-makers of society. Thus the sexual division on labour became institutionalized ( Lengerman and Wallace, 1985) In industrial society women were reintegrated in the workplace however they were typically low paying unskilled jobs and their male counterparts were typically paid more for the same work. The role of women in society was slowly increasing at this point. Gender: Functional Analysis of Jamaican Society Traditionally in Jamaican society women are seen to be the home-makers and men the bread winners. This is due to the fact that the two genders play a complimentary role to each other (Talcott Parsons 141, 1964; orig 1951). In other words a complex Co-dependency between each gender that fulfils the economic social companionship, and social placement needs of a family unit thus holding and shaping society and. Each gender is socialized from birth to fulfil their respective roles. Boys are socialized to be competitive and aggressive through sports and aggressive role-models and yard work thereby allowing them to compete and survive in the working world as part of the labour force when they become Men. Girls are socialized to be sensitive and caring through dolls and house chores so that once they become Women they are better able to run the household and rear children. In a family unit these roles compliment each other and act as a stabilizing force for the unit and by extension for society. These stabilizing forces are perpetuated through various schemes of social control. Individuals who fail to show appropriate levels of masculinity or femininity are ridiculed and ostracised by society, this produces guilt and fear of rejection in the individual and serves to reinforce gender classes. Gender: Functional Analysis – Critical Comments The functionalistic view of gender is unable to proper explain many occurrences of modern society. With the post-industrial society we see that women are increasingly taking on more complex roles in society due to the reduction in the amount of physical labour needed to perform complex tasks through industrialization, the ability to control contraception, the feminist movement and poverty level (women in poorer household work out of necessity). Indeed most households now reply on a two person income. This however has left women with the dual roles of home-maker and breadwinners. This is a very daunting task as such many women remain single to avoid such a scenario. Alternatively since women have become a large part of the labour force we see that in couples, men have now either partly or in rare cases fully taken over the tasks of nurturing and caring for a child so as to fill the void created by the absence of the mother Traditionally androgyny was a socially ostracised gender however lately there has been a blurring of the roles separating the genders. We see this in ‘the sensitive new age guy', ‘the metro sexual', in women with short hair (short hair was traditionally a masculine feature), in male bleaching and male earrings (both of which were initially feminine traits). Gender Discrimination Though gender discrimination and sexism refers to beliefs and attitudes in relation to the gender of a person, such beliefs and attitudes are of a social nature and do not, normally, carry any legal consequences. Sex discrimination, on the other hand, may have legal consequences. Though what constitutes sex discrimination varies between countries, the essence is that it is an adverse action taken by one person against another person that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex. Discrimination of that nature in certain enumerated circumstances is illegal in many countries. Currently, discrimination based on sex is defined as adverse action against another person, that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex. This is considered a form of prejudice and is illegal in certain enumerated circumstances in most countries. Sexual discrimination can arise in different contexts. For instance an employee may be discriminated against by being asked discriminatory questions during a job interview, or because an employer did not hire, promote or wrongfully terminated an employee based on his or her gender, or employers pay unequally based on gender. In an educational setting there could be claims that a student was excluded from an educational institution, program, opportunity, loan, student group, or scholarship due to his or her gender. In the housing setting there could be claims that a person was refused negotiations on seeking a house, contracting/leasing a house or getting a loan based on his or her gender. Another setting where there have been claims of gender discrimination is banking; for example if one is refused credit or is offered unequal loan terms based on one’s gender. In todays Jamaican society, it is debatable as to whether ones sex influences their position or status in life. A feminist Shulamith Firestone believed that women were disadvantaged by their biology, due bto the fact that they bear children and as s result they become dependent on the male species for survival. This dependence ion men produced unequal power relationships. Local journalist Peter Espeute, believes that boys face challenges due to inequality from as early as Primary school level. He disputes that girls are usually seated at the front of the class, while the boys sit at the back where they idle and play instead of learning. He also states that the entrance test given to children to decide what High school they go to is given at the wrong stage in their life cycle. It is a fact that at age eleven (11), girls are mentally more developed that boys, therefore the girls would outperform the boys, get the scholarships and be placed at the â€Å"best† schools. A study done by Kevin Harper of Howard University show that gender biases occur even in doctor offices. Doctors are deemed upper class statuses in Jamaica, and see themselves as â€Å"the almighty healers† (Payne-Jackson 1997). The study revealed that doctors were more apologetic to male patients who were kept waiting. More so males of high statuses. Female patients tended to be treated more like children needing instructions. Another example of gender bias may be seen in the workplace. In Corporate Jamaica, males in high positions (CEO,GM, etc. ) are paid higher wages than their female counterparts. As you go down the scale you will find that the salaries are usually level. However in some institutions such as factories and industrial complexes, because of the nature of the job, men are favoured. Even if females are among them, night shifts and overtime are usually approved for the men. The United Nations had concluded that women often experience a â€Å"glass ceiling† and that there are no societies in which women enjoy the same opportunities as men. The term â€Å"glass ceiling† is used to describe a perceived barrier to advancement in employment based on discrimination, especially sex discrimination. Social Class The term social class refers to a system of social stratification which is based on individual achievements, resulting from the unequal distribution of wealth, power and prestige. A hierarchical distinction is made between individuals or groups of people within the society. Social stratification is regarded as structured inequality based on the characteristics of the society and usually persists over a long period of time. It is usually universal and often occurs on the basis of access to the scarce factors of production: it also occurs on the basis of other factors, such as race, gender, age, religion and caste. Social stratification is usually prevalent in most societies. Usually a person’s status is either ascribed or achieved. An ascribed status is usually fixed at birth and depicted by ones sex or race. An achieved status is depicted by ones achievements throughout their lifetime, usually occupational. An open society usually fosters social mobility between the different social classes. Social mobility is the movement of individuals between, or up or down the different class structures over time owing to improvements in their fortunes. Social mobility is usually achieved through the following avenues: 1. Education, the attainment of higher tertiary education leads to more expertise and usually higher income paying jobs. 2. Hard work 3. Marriage, an individual marries into a rich family 4. Family status, the name of a rich family member usually opens doors for that individual 5. Talents and skills 6. Physical attributes, e. g. Miss World, usually marries into a powerful or rich family 7. Luck A closed system does not foster social mobility. Social positions are ascribed at birth and the system is very rigid with clearly defined structures. The caste system in India is a very good example of a closed system of stratification. In this system an individual is born in caste and this determines their occupation, education, social interaction and power. No amount of hard work and achievement can change their status or caste over time. The best example of the open system is the class system. This is found in most modern industrial societies around the world. One’s class in this system is largely determined by ones occupation, education, income, wealth and power. There are four classes in this system. They are the upper-class, the middle class, the service class and the underclass. The upper class is usually made up of the top ten percent (10%) of the wealthy people in the society. This class is also broken down into two classes: the upper and the lower class. ?The upper- upper class is made up of people who normally have â€Å"old money† and are set apart by their wealth and power. These persons have been born and raised with wealth; mostly consists of old â€Å"noble† or prestigious families. The Royal Family of England would be a prime example of the upper – upper class. The lower- upper class is made up of people who have extraordinary large income, which is achieved through occupational means. These people are usually referred to as having â€Å"new money†. These individuals have become rich within their own lifetimes. This class consists of people who own large companies or are CEO’s of large companies. It also consists of entrepreneurs, mo vie stars, top athletes, as well as some prominent professionals). The middle class is divided into three different groups. They are the upper -middle class, the service- class and the lower- middle class. The upper middle class is usually made up of people who have prestigious occupations, such as doctors, lawyers, politicians and entertainers. These people usually earn very high incomes and live in prominent neighborhoods and are able to send their off springs to colleges and universities abroad. These people usually accumulate lots of wealth overtime. ?The service- class is made up of highly trained people who are usually managers at their place of work. These people usually have secured careers and earn very good incomes on the job. Business consultants, teachers, and small business operators are good examples of persons who fall within this class. ?The lower- middle class is reserved for people who earn an average income and enjoy a decent standard of living. These people work in mainly less prestigious white collar jobs and include Sales Representatives, Supervisors, Bank clerks and Office clerks. Most of these people have not acquired a tertiary level education. The working class is usually those people who live from paycheck to paycheck and are called blue collar workers. These people usually earn what is known as â€Å"minimum wage† and are normally the first set of workers to be affected in times of recession. The underclass is those people who fall below the poverty line. They are usually temporarily employed or unemployed and are usually dependent on the state for survival. Conclusion As our motto rightly states â€Å"Out of Many One People†, we are diverse in race, ethnicity, and socialization. Based on our research which included a questionnaire (Appendices), we can clearly state that Social Inequality exists worldwide and Jamaica is no exception. The questionnaire was issued to twenty persons which included two Rastafarians, Two Chinese, three Mixed race individuals, one Caucasian and the rest were Negros. Half were male and the other half females. The results were as follows:- Age discrimination was felt by one young man (22 years old) who was a bus driver by profession. He expressed that persons were not willing to take his bus when they saw that he was the driver. The Rastafarians who were ironically from the lower class said they faced discrimination from every aspect (class, beliefs). Most of the females stated that men are preferred for jobs in the corporate world. One lady in particular related an experience of being in an interview and was told that she did well but they want to hire a male, as too many women were in the office. The only white man that did the questionnaire expressed that he felt discriminated just because of his colour; he was not comfortable going out alone because some people thought that he had something to offer them and were constantly begging. Therefore the question is answered Social Inequality does lead to people forming prejudices which may influence their actions toward person of a particular group or groups.

When Good Hair Goes Bad a Sociological Perspective of the...

When Good Hair Goes Bad: A Sociological Perspective of the Documentary ‘Good Hair’ Within the African American community, there exists a notion of â€Å"good hair† and â€Å"bad hair†. This topic has historically ignited a great debate within the culture that has entrenched the community drawing no lines between gender, socioeconomic status, or age. To understand some of the dynamics of the hair debate it is important to comprehend the cultural relativism of the social facts and the belief held by the African America Diaspora. Cultural relativism is the idea that â€Å"something can be understood and judged only in relation to the cultural context in which it appears† (Andersen amp; Taylor, 2011, pg. 41). Social facts were described by Emile†¦show more content†¦40). A prevailing belief is that natural hair is more cost-effective and takes less time to manage (Titelbaum, 2009). Natural hair is also perceived as unkempt and dirty (Titelbaum, 2009). If one chooses to style their hair in a naturalistic way, effectively rejecting th e dominant cultural opinion and pressure to conform to the hair standard; they are accepting of the fact that their choice will likely garner negative connotations and reactions. In conclusion, impression management by women through hair styling is not exclusive to the African American culture. However, this documentary illustrates that this is a fundamental part of their diverse culture. The individual choices made about hairstyle preferences or deviance from the norm will ultimately foster a characterization of â€Å"good† or â€Å"bad hair†; which sets this group of women apart from women of other ethnicities. It must be quite damaging to the ego to believe that a naturally occurring characteristic as unique as one’s own hair to be perpetually â€Å"bad† when in fact, any hair can be beautiful in any length and texture. The debate surrounding â€Å"good† or â€Å"bad hair† in the African American culture is best summarized by one participant from the documentary, â€Å"having any hair at all should be† [thought of as having] â€Å"good hair† (Rock amp; Stilson, 2009). One’s self-image shou ld not be dictated by general consensus or dominant culture and the choice of conformity orShow MoreRelatedDeviance, Crime, And Crime1805 Words   |  8 Pagesand the ties it has to race, class, and gender. Compassion goes hand in hand with curiosity, because comprehending motives will lead me to a brand new perspective. There are a few things I already know regarding this topic. I know that part of being deviant is rebellion. When an individual is being rebellious, he or she is resisting the ways of society, authority and control. Rebellion can come in any shape or form. For example, back when I was 13 years old, I went through a rebellious stage thatRead MoreNike Management Report5242 Words   |  21 PagesSources of revenue streams 2.3 Recent Developments 2.4 Presents Standing Page 8 3.0 SWOT Analysis 3.1 Strengths 3.2 Weakness 3.3 Opportunities 3.4 Threats Page 9 4.0 PEST Analysis 4.1 Political 4.2 Economic 4.3 Sociological 4.4 Technology Page 13 5.0 Market Segmentation 5.1 The Customers 5.2 Consumer Behavior Page 16 6.0 Marketing Activity 6.1 Products 6.2 Place 6.3 Promotion 6.4 Price 6.5 Branding and Brand Equity Page 19 Read MoreRastafarian79520 Words   |  319 Pagesthe apocalyptic visions of the world, saw something important in all of these happenings. I grew up in Jamaica at a time when Rastas were still regarded as useless, lazy, half-insane, ganja-smoking illiterates who were of no value to society. Teachers, students, ofï ¬ ce workers, and anyone of social importance could not grow locks, and families would go into mourning when their sons would start sprouting them. I heard the term â€Å"black heart man† used again and again as a means of expressing fearRead MoreImpact of Science on Society38427 Words   |  154 PagesTelevision’s Rome Bureau. Burke’s impressive following in the British Isles dates back t o 1966, when he joined the BBC’s weekly science show, Tomorrow’s World. As the chief BBC correspondent for all Apollo space flights, Burke won critical acclaim for his interpretation of the US space program to an audience of over 12 million people. During this time he developed and presented a variety of documentaries, and in 1972 he became the host of his own weekly prime-time science series, The Burke SpecialRead MoreImpact of Science on Society38421 Words   |  154 PagesTelevision’s Rome Bureau. Burke’s impressive following in the British Isles dates back t o 1966, when he joined the BBC’s weekly science show, Tomorrow’s World. As the chief BBC correspondent for all Apollo space flights, Burke won critical acclaim for hi s interpretation of the US space program to an audience of over 12 million people. During this time he developed and presented a variety of documentaries, and in 1972 he became the host of his own weekly prime-time science series, The Burke SpecialRead MoreOrganisational Theory230255 Words   |  922 Pages. Organization Theory Challenges and Perspectives John McAuley, Joanne Duberley and Phil Johnson . This book is, to my knowledge, the most comprehensive and reliable guide to organisational theory currently available. What is needed is a text that will give a good idea of the breadth and complexity of this important subject, and this is precisely what McAuley, Duberley and Johnson have provided. They have done some sterling service in bringing together the very diverse strands of workRead MoreMetz Film Language a Semiotics of the Cinema PDF100902 Words   |  316 PagesChapter 8. The Modern Cinema and Narrativity, 185 Chapter 9. Mirror Construction in Fellini s 8 1/2, 228 Chapter 10. The Saying and the Said: Toward the Decline of Plausibility in the Cinema? 235 Notes, 253 A Note on the Translation by Bertrand Augst When Film Language was translated, nearly twenty years ago, very few texts about semiotics and especially film semiotics were available in English. Michael Taylor s translation represents a serious effort to make Metz s complicated prose, filled withRead MoreOne Significant Change That Has Occurred in the World Between 1900 and 2005. Explain the Impact This Change Has Made on Our Lives and Why It Is an Important Change.163893 Words   |  656 PagesE SSAYS ON TWENTIETH-C ENTURY H ISTORY In the series Critical Perspectives on the Past, edited by Susan Porter Benson, Stephen Brier, and Roy Rosenzweig Also in this series: Paula Hamilton and Linda Shopes, eds., Oral History and Public Memories Tiffany Ruby Patterson, Zora Neale Hurston and a History of Southern Life Lisa M. Fine, The Story of Reo Joe: Work, Kin, and Community in Autotown, U.S.A. Van Gosse and Richard Moser, eds., The World the Sixties Made: Politics and Culture