sociology
this is some writing I did about sociology in response to a sociology video I saw. When I say sociologists, I mean the ones in the video, not all of them.
Status/class differences required to be inequal yet caused by imbalanced power? I say that power can never be fully balanced but brought closer together to lessen status differences.
Education role in class position seems superficially raised by sociologists. Implied social class by society is more of a factor, which I go into later. Sociologist simply accepts the inequalities and observes, doesn’t work out how to fix them.
Marx supposedly didn’t see differences between the workers and the boss and didn’t realize middle class would get as big as it did. They say it’s why his plan failed. I agree in that the difference is there but the type of difference is dependent on society. Pay dependent on individual’s work or pay dependent on company’s work as whole. A different method of money distribution. What flaws could equal pay bring?
Social status is effected by what they called “face” which was more like social acceptance, and how to act to outsiders. It was shown on limited basis, middle class response to a street beggar and example of how street gang status works in holding positions by more violent methods. Again preventable behavior by evening out pay distribution, therefor evening power distribution.
pay = power = status/class
A lower class became middle supposedly due to a teacher that actually tried to teach. Can education raise social status? It seems to me that status is a learned behavior that is expected, or rejected. If someone in a power position rejects status behavior it outcasts that person, but if the person being rejected has power as well rejection immunity may exist. This explains why gang members are more insecure about social status, as they have little pay/power so rejection immunity is less likely. Position defending is much more important.
Power and pay aid rejection immunity, and the more powerful one gets the more secure the social position. In the same aspect, people with lower paying jobs typically have less secure jobs, and this works both ways. And since this is so, the pay = power = status/class ratio is kept the same yet again. This is why raising a class is hard, as the ratio is locked, and to successfully jump from one to another requires acceptance into the class, which will then in turn raise the pay and power, and secure the new class. Falling a class is possible as well when the reverse happens and some of each aspect is lost.
Lower class people will act lower class because of the expectation, people will see their life style one way or another, but is it fake-able? I say it is. How someone treats superiors and inferiors, disregarding rejection possibilities, and faking a high self importance may trick some into believing you’re of a higher class but when you have nothing else to show for it the plan will fail unless a jump is made. Of course a typical class jump is something like this as well but the person wouldn’t be doing it with that kind of motive, and their class raising may include educational achievements, which seem to be taken as a form of power, aiding a class jump.
Current society is unable to have everyone as a certain class directly because of money and power, and with rising population and no active form of population control, the inequalities have great chances to grow.
It seems like some sociologists concentrate on the norms of society and not in how to fix the problems with them. Many directly relate education to class, and sometimes relate power/pay to education. They ignore power/money connection directly to class.
In getting a job, while a non-educated person won’t get a ph.d requiring job without having one, the class advantages still seem to help greatly in job acquisition. The sociologist seemed to go completely around this topic, capitalism’s ability to be bought out.