Chapter 1 - Constructing Society

You are embarking on a course of study in which you are an Apprentice Social Scientist. As an Apprentice, it is your responsibility to learn the tools of the trade from the ground up. The subject of this particular apprenticeship is to become skilled at examining and understanding the social world around you especially as it pertains to social inequality. This first chapter presents you with the basic tools of the trade. It gives you the vocabulary and concepts required to understand your “job,” and move to the next level of your training.

Social scientists look for patterns within the society and attempt to see the connections between the patterns. We hunt for processes and mechanisms, themes and story lines. In examining diversity in the United States, we are looking for how it is “built;” what “fuels” does it run on; and where is it going. Chapter one provides the “building blocks” to understand the basic construction of society (particularly U.S. society) in relationship to diversity.

Upon completing this chapter, you should have a basic though sound understanding of how society basically works. You will be introduced to concepts such as culture, social stratification, and socialization, and see how they interact with each other in a variety of ways. In this endeavor you are both a social scientist examining a particular category of phenomena, and an individual subject to the forces of the society you are examining. I would ask that as you go through this chapter that you think of how these components and mechanisms influence you in your day to day life.

Culture is a term that is used to mean a number of things in different contexts. Normally, when people hear the term culture they assume that one is talking about such things as art, architecture, clothing, or food. These types of things are part of what culture is. Others may assume that “culture” means high culture such as opera, ballet, and fancy dinner tables with lots of silverware. This too may be a part of culture. Actually, culture is the values, beliefs, and behavioral expectations shared by a people, as well as physical manifestations that are created by a people. In other words, culture encompasses both a physical or material component such as clothes and food, and a non-physical (or non-material) component such as values and beliefs.

You notice that part of the definition of culture is that it is shared by a people. Culture is shared, and it varies from one “people” to another. It is culture that both binds people together through shared ways of being in the world, and distinguishes one people from another. Culture provides continuity within the group as it is passed from one generation to the next. As people share a culture and interact with each other within the rules and structures of that culture they are a society. Society is people collectively sharing a culture. Failure to pass on the culture, particularly the non-material culture, means the death of the culture and the society even though individuals descended from the group may live on into the indefinite future. [Include sidebar about cultural genocide]

Material culture includes all physical aspects of a culture. Different cultures share some material components such as housing, clothes, food, etc. However, what that material culture looks like and the meanings applied to it can be very different across cultures. These meanings are linked to the non-material part of culture. Values include the standards of judgement of a people -- what is right / wrong, good / bad, desirable / undesirable, beautiful / ugly. Values include the shared beliefs of a people, and the meanings of the world and interactions around them. In some ways it can be characterized as the “story” (Quinn, 1992) a people live.

One part of the cultural values components is beliefs. Beliefs include simple things such as glass is a solid (it is actually a liquid which in our environment never truly becomes solid). Beliefs can be more complex such as humans are “above” all other living things. Beliefs help explain “our” world to us and why things are the way they are. In the context of social order, they provide support and maintenance of why people have prestige (or lack of it). The realm of values and beliefs will become important when we begin discussing such things as racism, sexism, and classism.

Norms, on the other hand, reflect the rules for behavior. This is somewhat different than the way we normally think of norms which is actual behavior in the world. However, when we look at others or ourselves behaving in the world, we are judging their behavior against rules of how people are supposed to behave. Norms are not a list of written rules, though some norms may have been placed in a formal context such as laws. The overwhelming majority of norms are not written down. We enforce norms every day in our interactions with others through the use of sanctions. Sanctions are rewards or punishments for following or not following the prescribed norms. Acceptance or inclusion is the most common and powerful reward for following the rules. Exclusion or rejection is the most common penalties for breaking the rules, though penalties can go all the way to death.

Each of us within a culture are what we might call “Norm Police.” We reinforce the cultural norms everyday in every interaction regardless of how noteworthy or unnoteworthy those interactions might be. We make positive or negative eye contact; smile or wear a forbidding mask; laugh at or laugh with; nod or ignore; share our space or move away. All of these are signals that someone is ok or not ok; that we judge them as being a safe or unsafe person; acceptable or unacceptable. In turn, we monitor our own actions and are reinforced into “proper” behavior by those around us.

Norms are derived from cultural values and serve to reinforce those values. Place yourself in the following scenario. You are at a theater with some friends. You are in line with your friends at the concession stand when you see a guy walk by with toilet paper stuck to his shoe. What do you do? What do your friends do? Why do you respond this way? What rules is the person breaking and why is it a big deal? If you think it’s not a big deal, would you and your friends respond the same way if the guy had a post-it note stuck to his shoe? What is so significant about the toilet paper? What values are being reinforced?

Values also provide meaning to the physical culture. All cultures have some form of housing, but not all housing is the same. Even within the United States all housing is not the same. In the U.S., we have gone so far as to have elaborate codes about housing. The basic expectation is that it has sound doors and windows that lock, running hot and cold water, indoor plumbing, electricity and a reliable heat source. Beyond these codes, we have expectations that houses will generally include a minimum of a bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen. In other words, there are specific rooms for specific functions. Obviously, this expectation of what housing is in the U.S. is different from other places around the world. However, even every structure that meets the requirements of housing in the U.S. are not the same. We are taught to value an apartment differently than a three bedroom, two bath private home in the suburbs. In fact, housing in the U.S. is considered to reflect our individual economic status and success. We frequently go so far as to assume that someone who lives in a “nice” house in a “nice” neighborhood is in many ways a “better” person than someone who lives in a “poor” neighborhood and a house that needs a lot of work. We are also “taught” through a variety of means that we should each want and strive for the nice house in the nice neighborhood.

Language is at once a part of culture, a reflection of it, and the primary vehicle for transmitting it. Language is a symbolic system. Words and sounds (and in written form signs) are given certain meanings which change, disappear, or are created as the culture changes. This system of shared meanings allows us to communicate with each other. It seems so natural that we rarely stop to think about how we know what things mean, or what the assumptions are that we share with others when we communicate with them. Contained within a culture’s language are the relationships between things and the various ways of expressing those relationships. Also contained in language are the values and beliefs of the culture. Language however, is much more than words. Tone of voice, inflection, and body language can completely transform the meaning of the words used. The meanings of these things are also shared.

Language extends beyond the spoken or written words. A separate language of gestures and facial expressions both modify spoken language and can be a language of its own. This type of language, generally referred to as para-language, follows the same “rules” in that meanings are shared. Language both reflects and defines the reality as perceived through cultural eyes.

While people who share a culture also share a language, sharing a language does not mean they are sharing a culture. For example, though there are strong similarities between England and the United States (peoples of both countries have English as their native language) the two cultures are not the same. Likewise, many peoples have Spanish as their native language, however they are not all the same culture. These examples point to the importance of culture in shaping language.

After this brief description of culture, it seems apparent that it forms the framework for social control. Values generate norms and the reinforcement of norms controls or constrains people to act in certain ways. At the same time, enforcing norms reinforces the values that generated the norms. Beyond this, living within the rules, and sanctioning those who step outside them makes us “good” people. Some of the mechanisms for learning (and internalizing) the culture are discussed later in this chapter under socialization.

We make an assumption, which is sometimes incorrect, that culture, society, and nation are the same thing. Society is the people who are collectively sharing the culture. Nations are physical territories with boundaries which are generally agreed upon by governments. Within any given nation you may have multiple cultures, but usually there is what is referred to as a dominant culture. This culture may achieve dominance in a number of ways. A culture may be imposed on others through conquest, imperialism, war, or internal conflict. The dominant culture may also have been the original culture of an area. In most situations, the dominant culture sets the non-material culture, and the structure of the way things are done within a given nation.

Dominant and subordinate, as well as majority and minority, are not simply a question of numerical superiority. In other words, what makes a group the dominant (or majority) group is not because they have more people in their group than other groups within the society.

In the social and sociological context, it is power - not numbers- that determines whether a group is dominant or not. Power means that a group controls access to the social resources of a society. This group makes the rules, determines what the “common” culture will be, and has high status within the social structure.

Two examples of groups who are numerical majorities and social minorities are North American women and Black South Africans. In the U.S. women make up roughly 52% of the population; however, they have historically (and still currently) faced numerous restrictions on participating in the society in relationship to men.

While Black South Africans make up roughly 90% of the people in South Africa, White South Africans are the majority. Even after the end of Apartheid, Black South Africans earn only 25 cents for each dollar earned by White South Africans.

Simply because a culture is the dominant culture, does not mean it is the only culture within a given nation. However, it usually means that everyone within the nation is required to follow the formal rules and norms of the dominant culture. People of other cultures may or may not be able to openly practice their own cultures and speak their own languages. As individuals, and as groups, there are obvious benefits to having your culture be the dominant culture. The world is defined within the framework of your culture. The rules, norms, and language are yours. You may receive formal benefits of being a member of the dominant culture such as entrance into schools and jobs, rights to be a full citizen and be protected by the legal system. You may even have a special status within the society.

Because we are generally raised within a specific culture, we may assume that the way things are within that culture is “natural.” For many, there is little competition to this view. The people around us act like us, look like us, speak like us, etc. Since there is this assumption about the nature of our lives, it is not unusual for people to be somewhat ethnocentric. Ethnocentrism is the belief that your culture is the only right way to organize society and believe and behave. When this belief is carried to an extreme, people are considered ethnocentric which is a form of prejudice. Prejudice is a set of beliefs and/or attitudes about a group of people, or a person, based upon perceived membership in that group. While one can have positive or negative prejudices, the term is generally used to connote negative beliefs and attitudes. In the case of ethnocentrism, the prejudice is a negative belief about cultures different from one’s own. In the United States, the dominant, or “American” culture is said to be Eurocentric. This means that the culture and structure reflect most strongly those who came to North America from, predominantly, western Europe. This raises the question of what happens when people leave one culture for another, or change location - as in the case of Europeans colonizing what became the United States. Environment -both physical and social- obviously plays a role in culture.

Here we had primarily British colonists in a setting very different from Britain. The social structure (based on law, religion, ways of ruling etc.) was British. However, the stresses were very different from Britain. As time passed and other western Europeans colonized, they came into a social environment dominated by those who were of British origin. This essentially means that those of British descent had the upper hand.

Colonization of the Americas is different from people immigrating to a new land. Europeans came into a territory that was populated by hundreds of indigenous peoples. The relationship to these peoples was largely not one a few immigrants coming to someone else’s homeland. It was one of claiming new lands for the possession and control of various European countries. From the outset, the relationship was one of conquest - not immigration. Later immigrants came into a social environment that was still largely British and conquest in orientation. This is because the established colonists wanted to populate this continent with their own kind.

In more recent times, however, when people immigrate to the United States they bring their cultures with them. Once here they may retain various cultural behaviors, but the environment, especially the social environment, is of the United States - not their cultures of origin. In order to survive in this environment, they must make accommodations to the dominant culture. This changes their culture from what it was originally. Culture is dynamic. Meaning that it changes over time. The forces shaping the cultures of immigrants in the U.S. are not the forces shaping culture in the immigrants’ homelands. While ongoing immigration from that homeland will generally keep immigrants culture in closer synch with their culture of origin, the two will diverge over time. Hence, Japanese American culture is not the same as Japanese culture; Mexican American culture is not the same as Mexican culture; and European American culture is not the same as European culture.

This points out another tendency which is to generalize cultures into broad categories and then assume that we are dealing with something specific. We see this tendency when we hear Hispanic, Native, African or Asian American cultures. There is no single, unified culture for any of these groups. For example, there are over five hundred Native American tribes in the United States, some with their own lands and each with their own language and culture.

Social stratification can be seen as a foundation for the culture and the society. It sets out the fundamental distinctions between groups and individuals. It largely determines how we will interact with each other, and what the conditions of our lives, as individuals and groups, will be. Social stratification is society’s way of systematically ranking groups and individuals into a hierarchy, and according them power, privilege, and access to social resources relative to that ranking. There are a number of variables in this definition of social stratification.

The first component is the term stratification itself. Stratification is built upon the word “stratum” meaning “layer.” Strata, which is the plural, means multiple layers stacked upon each other. According to our definition, the layering of these strata has a meaning - hierarchy. In the social sense of the term, hierarchy means that not all strata are valued equally. Those in the lower strata are “less important” than those in the higher strata from society’s perspective. The stratum that one belongs to determines what one’s power, privilege, and access to social resources are.

Social resources are essentially anything that is considered valuable or desirable in the society. While this may include such things as money, land, or gold, it may also include less tangible items such as, education, health care, or personal prestige. One’s placement in the social order then affects what level of access and control one will have regarding social resources. Those at the top of the hierarchy will have relatively free access. In fact, possession of valued social resources may be seen as their “right.” Also the decisions about other people’s access to resources lies largely in the hands of the upper stratum. Those persons/groups lower in the hierarchy may be totally denied access to some social resources.

Critical to social stratification is that it is systematic. In other words, it is organized, arranged. The social stratification system is the basic arrangement of social interaction. Everything relates to it in some way: how we interact with each other; how social institutions such as religion, the political order, education, and economy work and are structured; what things need to be done and who is to do them. Social stratification is systematic in that it organizes social structure.

Strata are comprised of people who meet characteristics the society determines make up the criteria for membership within each stratum. This is important in that access to social resources are determined by what strata one is a member of, and membership is determined by the society - not the individual. Stratification systems, and the characteristics needed to be placed (or located) within a stratum are generally based upon either ascribed or achieved characteristics. Ascribed characteristics are usually those one is born with and cannot change. These types of characteristics may include such things as race, sex, caste or clan, age, and religion. Achieved characteristics are based upon individuals’ achievements and may be such things as skill or economics.

Since ascribed characteristics are ones which cannot be changed under normal circumstance, stratification systems based upon ascriptive characteristics are considered “closed” systems. This means that you are born (or placed) into a stratum and you cannot change it. Achieved systems on the other hand are considered within the realm of the individual’s ability to change (hard work, acquiring a skill, etc) and therefore are considered “open” systems. This means that individuals can change their stratum. In practice, there are no known contemporary societies where the stratification system is either totally closed or totally open. Instead, most societies lie along a continuum of closed to open.

It was once argued that India was a pure example of a totally closed system as the caste system allowed no social mobility (the ability to move from one stratum to another). However, India began outlawing the caste system in 1950 and continues to pass laws and policies regarding it. On the other hand, the United States was touted as being the only totally open system as stratification was seen as being based solely upon socio-economic class (which was seen as purely achievement based). This is a good example of cultural blindness as at the same time this theory was popular, both women (of all races) and people of color (of both sexes) were denied significant rights and access into the social class “competition.” Hence, the U.S. has ascriptive components of its stratification system that affect its achieved components.

It is worth noting that the classification of stratification systems in itself may be culturally biased in several regards. Within the context of the U.S. value system, “closed” is frequently interpreted as “bad” or “undesirable,” while open implies “good” or “desirable.” This is not a “human” interpretation but a cultural one. Not all peoples would make the same value judgement of open versus closed systems as someone socialized in the United States. A second cultural assumption is that hierarchy is “good” or “necessary.” This is especially true in places such as the U.S. where we are socialized to believe that we are all equal and the differences between our achievement rest within ourselves. Therefore, everyone is where they are “supposed” to be because their social placement reflects their efforts and abilities. Further, it is believed that people “deserve” to be in the social class either because of their hard work - or the lack of it.

Social stratification systems have two basic similarities: 1) to the best of our knowledge, all societies have some form of stratification system; 2) these systems persist from one generation to the next. Let’s discuss the implications of these two similarities.

First, all societies have a stratification system. While this appears to be true, everything else about these systems may vary from what the characteristics are that a shape membership in strata to the range of inequality between strata. What does remain consistent here is that the characteristics associated with the higher stratum are defined as being more valuable and desirable than those assigned to the lower strata. This is not because every member of a strata has the characteristics intrinsically, but because the society defines that all members have those characteristics. One example of this is the characteristics assigned to men in the U.S. society. Men are assumed to be strong, competitive, and rational. Women, who hold a lower status are assumed to be weak(er), less competitive, and irrational or emotional. This society values strength, competition, and rationality and so those characteristics are assigned to the higher status group - males.

Stratification systems also persist over time. This characteristic is extremely important because it indicates the embeddness of stratification. This multi-generational component means that it is relatively constant within the organization of the society and reinforced through social institutions. Secondly, the only way it can be passed from one generation to the next is through the socialization process. This means that it is ingrained in the culture as well.

One of the most critical functions of the stratification system is that it provides every member of, and visitor to, a society with a status or social location. We generally interpret “status” to mean prestige. Sociologists change this understanding of status by interpreting status as equal to a position which is assigned prestige.

In this discussion of social stratification that each of us is placed into a category or categories at birth. Placement in these categories establishes our social location(s). In the United States, there are a variety of “strands” of our stratification system. At a minimum we are placed in at least four positions based upon our sex, race, social class of our parents, and our age (infant/child). These four different positions are referred to as master statuses because of the importance they hold in broad societal terms. While all of these categories interact with each other, they may also interact with other things on a cultural or sub-cultural level. For example, were we born to an unmarried woman; left on the door step of the hospital; are we first born son or daughter, or the child of a billionaire, etc.? Our statuses then become the foundation of how others in the society interact with us, and we with them. They determine to a large extent the rules we will live under both in terms of cultural norms and societal laws. Each of us is a walking embodiment of our stratification system.

Status, as mentioned above refers to one’s social positions within a society, and we all hold multiple statuses at any given time in our lives. These positions are pre-existing for the individual just as a society pre-exists the individual. We are slotted into our position in the hierarchy based upon what society has determined to be important characteristics, and we share those social locations with others who have similar characteristics. The prestige component of a status has to do with the way that other members of the society view and judge you based upon you social location and how you are performing within that status. Every status has roles that are assigned to it. These roles are the acting out of the responsibilities and norms of the status. An analogy that some find useful is that a status is similar to a job title, while the roles of that status is similar to the job description. Every status has roles just as every job has job duties.

In terms of master statuses, the job title (status) might be female, and the roles would be how a female is supposed to act and be within the context of the society. Roles always have two components: a doing component that says what one is supposed to do, and a being component that says how one is supposed to be (act) within that role.

We interact constantly as individuals of different statuses and roles. While we may individualize our roles to reflect our own personality, we generally do that within the limits of what the society has determined to be acceptable. If we exceed those limits we are considered at best odd and at worst deviant. If our status is high enough and we exceed the limits of the role we may be considered eccentric rather than deviant.

Social institutions are relatively stable patterns of interaction that members of the society engage in to meet the survival needs of the society. What does a society need in order to survive? What are the basic needs? First, it needs to be able to replace members of the society as they die. Therefore all societies have some pattern of relations around family, and within that institution other institutions and regulations about marriage, acceptable sexual mates, etc. It is not enough to just replace societal members. These members must learn how to be members of the society and this involves a variety of institutions such as the family, education, religion and more recently the media. These new members need to survive in some way, and so societies have organization around the production and distribution of goods and services. This is known as the institution of economy. In order to maintain stability a society needs to have some sense of order (institutions of the political order, and religion), and a sense of common purpose and identity (all of the above institutions may be involved here). Certainly many other institutions may be created by a society either as distinct patterns, or as part of other social institutions. For example, there may be an institution of medical care.

While we can identify a number of social institutions, they do not function separately, but are strongly integrated with one another. While each have identifiable patterns of interactions aimed at specific functions, they are part of one whole. What ties the institutions together in the society, and sets the framework or context for the interactions, are the same as for individuals in the society - shared culture and the stratification system. Social institutions are not buildings or machines. They are people working and interacting in certain ways. They are us living in our society. The rules (norms) that govern our behavior in society also govern us in social institutions. The values and beliefs that constitute the shared cultural mindscape govern a society’s institutions.

As social scientists, we can look at social institutions to see broad scale patterns of inequality that reflect the stratification system. We can see what groups do well or poorly in institutions such as education, economy and health. We can see what stories and myths are prevalent in the society and the roles that different groups play in them. We can look at the law and see how it deals with different groups. As social scientists, we look for patterns. These patterns consist of the lived experiences of individuals and the social rules that comprise the society. The existence of a pattern does not mean that every individual’s experience is the same or matches the pattern. It does mean that there is something at work in the society that moves collections of individuals to have similar experiences and outcomes.

In the discussion of culture, prejudice was defined as “a set of beliefs and/or attitudes about a group of people, or a person, based upon perceived membership in that group.” When we see and experience the patterns of inequality that are embedded in the stratification system, we know that we are seeing something more than a few prejudiced individuals. Rather we are seeing institutional discrimination. Institutional discrimination is the arrangements or practices in social institutions and their related organizations that tend to favor one group (the dominant group) over other groups. These arrangements or practices may be conscious or unconscious actions, policies, and choices that tend to maintain groups in their socially proscribed stations. Institutional discrimination is characterized by its continual and ongoing nature as it is generally embedded within the processes, policies, rules, and norms of the organization or dominant group.

Institutional discrimination reflects the cultural ideology that underpins and supports the stratification system. A cultural ideology is a way of thinking that characterizes a particular society. In the United States, we can clearly identify numerous patterns of difference across various groups based on sex, race, ethnicity and social class, among others. We have words such as sexism, racism, ethnocentrism, and classism that we generally assume reflect individual’s beliefs about (and sometimes actions towards) groups that are different from their own. However, the existence of institutional discrimination points to a social, not a personal, phenomenon. It in fact suggests that the source of both individual and institutional prejudice and discrimination springs from the same source - the cultural belief system.

Socialization is the process by which we internalize the society around us - particularly the culture. Through socialization we internalize group values and norms. While much of socialization occurs in the early years of life, it is a life long process. Through socialization we internalize the appropriate patterns of interpersonal and group interaction. We internalize the beliefs and values of our group. We develop our sense or individual personhood and world view.

You will notice that I used the term “internalize” several times in the paragraph above. I use this because it is a stronger term than learn and more accurately captures the essence of what happens in socialization. When we learn something, we assume that we learned it consciously and can recall the information or skill at will. In learning we assume that, to some extent, we are in control of the process. We are rarely aware of what is happening in socialization, and especially as children, are not in control of the process. Socialization happens through the deliberate and incidental actions of those around us. Sociologists refer to these “others” as socialization agents. They include: the family, our peers, schools, churches/long houses, groups we may be a part of (day care, teams, scouts, etc.), and the media to name a few. While we certainly learn explicit things during socialization (chew with your mouth closed, don’t interrupt, etc.) many things we learn simply by watching or by inference.

The box to the right is a good example of what we learn during socialization. It is the story of a little girl growing up in a small town in Germany during the Nazi era.

From Ursala Hegi. 1994. Stones From The River. Scribner: New York. P 62.

“Good manners meant not poking your finger in your nose and not interrupting grown-ups when they talked. Good manners meant offering your seat on the streetcar to grown-ups, bending to pick up things that grown-ups dropped, and opening doors for grown-ups. Already, Trudi had figured out that good manners could keep you real busy.

Good manners had a lot to do with grown-ups and what children did or did not do around them. She’d been told all along by grown-ups that it wasn’t polite to stare at them, but how could you see people if you didn’t look at them? And about honesty . . . Grown-ups were always saying you had to be honest, but that only meant you could say good things about them and bad things about yourself. If you said bad things about them, you were rude, and if you said good things about yourself, you were bragging. She couldn’t wait to be a grown-up because grown-ups were always right -except for grown-ups who were maids or cooks or servants: they had to be obedient like children.”

We can see that there are explicit things we learn such as the rules of good manners. However, there are implicit parts of socialization -- the status of children in relationship to adults – and an extrapolative part – all adults aren’t really adults.

One of the most central aspects of our socialization is interacting within and across statuses. Status becomes central in virtually all of our interactions with the world

Much of the way we learn to be in the world is through observing how others around us act and interact. We notice who they interact with. We also learn through the ways that people react to us. In the discussion of culture, I stated that one of the strongest sanctions to which we respond is acceptance (and conversely the fear of rejection or exclusion). If we look at this from the eyes of a child, it becomes very clear why acceptance is of highest priority.

Children are defenseless and dependent on others to survive. Learning, and learning quickly to be liked by others – particularly adults – is an absolute necessity. Failure to do so can result in death. We might say that the desire to be accepted is a survival mechanism. However, we need more than for adults to like us enough to feed us and give us a place out of the storm. We need (physically and emotionally need) to be picked up, cuddled, talked sweetly to. In other words we need (not want) to be cared for, loved.

We see this need demonstrated in a number of examples. Lucky for most of us they are the exception and not the rule. Children who are isolated or not lovingly cared for suffer a variety of problems from death, to bizarre behavior, to lack of ability to speak, to what we broadly call “failure to thrive.” While “failure to thrive” can have organic causes, the most prevalent non-organic cause is lack of emotional bonding to an adult. This failure can actually turn off the child’s production of growth hormone which can lead to its death. Some researchers, medical and social work practitioners are seeing failure to thrive as an issue for seniors as well.

This need to be accepted carries over into our most incidental interactions with others. While this need is psychological and physical in nature, it is also strongly social and societal. It is our culture that informs us what is “acceptable” or “unacceptable.” This acceptability applies to our status and our being and doing within those contexts. It also applies to our appropriate interactions with others and acting correctly in an infinite array of social situations. All of this is structured within the society.

As noted above, while a significant amount of socialization occurs when we are children it continues to our death. We like to think of ourselves as gaining personal strength as we age so we are less susceptible to the influences of others; however, we continue to both consciously and unconsciously adapt in order to be accepted and liked by others.

Status socialization is a key component of the socialization process. Certainly whatever master statuses are important in the society will be part of our socialization regardless of where in the status hierarchy we are. By now, most of us have heard of sex role socialization and we will discuss it in detail later in this text. However, there are also the much less explored status socialization into racial and social class statuses.

It is interesting that our socialization into the age system is also generally unremarked. It is assumed but not identified as age socialization. Age socialization is perhaps our first and most critical introduction into status and how it works. It teaches us the basic power dynamics of social interaction – that of child and adult. Many of the same dynamics consistent in adult-child interactions are similar to other status interactions. For example, it is not unusual for lower status individuals to be “talked down to,” ignored, reprimanded, or treated as if they were unintelligent.

The core of social construction is acknowledging that we as human beings and societies apply meaning to the world. Essentially, in defining the world we define social reality. Most students respond to this idea with “that makes sense.” However, that agreement is quickly challenged when we start thinking about the implications of meaning and “reality.” This challenge comes because while we logically understand that we learn the meanings of words and signs, we are taught that the “world” itself and everything in it is an unquestionable reality. In other words, we are raised as “essentialists” believing that the essence of a thing is in the thing itself - not in what we define it to mean.

W.I. and Swayne Thomas (1928) created a theorem that captures the “essence” of social construction. They argued that things that are defined as real are real in their consequences. This statement can be applied to a large body of experience. Let’s talk about some examples of things that are socially constructed but which we assume to be real or natural.

First let me share a story with you. A friend of mine was at a potluck with a husband and wife (the Somé’s) from Africa. As is not unusual at such events, the men were in the living room and the women were in the kitchen making preparations to put dinner on the table. As the women were putting the food out on the table, my friend asked the woman from Africa to get the casserole out of the oven and put it on the table. She nodded and without hesitation opened the over, took out the casserole and walked into the other room to put it on the table. The women gasped and stuttered with shock, and asked her if she were all right. She replied that of course she was all right, why shouldn’t she be? They wanted to know how she could pick up a casserole dish with her bare hands that had been in the oven at 375 degrees for forty-five minutes and not be burned. The woman looked somewhat puzzled and said “My mother taught me to work with fire.”

Now we “know” that this woman should have been burned. We have all kinds of “scientific” information, backed by personal experience, about what happens when human skin meets hot objects. From the time we are too young to know the words we are told “don’t touch that it is hot,” or “Don’t touch that you’ll get burned.” It is obvious from the story above that this woman had received a very different kind of information and experience about handling hot objects. She was raised with the knowledge to “work with” fire, where “with” means “in partnership” rather than as a tool or weapon. She had a different definition of reality, and demonstrated quite well just how much of a difference that can make in experience.

A second example is most people in the United States generally accept that boys and girls are raised differently from each other in this society, and basically understand that sex roles are social rather than biological. However, we also generally assume that the differences between boys and girls (men and women) are biological rather than social. Most of us accept that males are biologically more rational and mechanically oriented, relatively unemotional, and more physically coordinated than girls. We assume that women are “naturally” emotional, nurturing, more sensitive to the needs of others. We then see a “naturalness” to the roles; that the roles reflect something biological. This is not to say that there are not biological differences between the sexes, rather that culture has the ability to greatly modify, accentuate, or even reverse what we see as the behavioral and psychological differences that “naturally” occur between the sexes.

While we live in a socially constructed world, we are raised to believe that we do not. We are raised to believe that our world is “natural,” our beliefs rational or divinely given, our opinions totally our own. Most people raised in the mainstream culture of the United States feel that humans come first. Humans come first when it comes to development of land, use of resources, saving the victims of a fire, or in medicine to name a few examples. This belief is still commonly held even with broad acceptance of environmentalism and the wide notice of various animal rights organizations. For example, many people are questioning of the use of animals in experimentation and feel it needs to be controlled – few would argue that it should be totally abolished. However, few would argue against the use of a pig or baboon heart to save a human life. In fact, those who would argue that animals have the same standing as humans would be seen as extremists at best, and most likely as fanatics. However, the majority of those in the U.S. do not see their belief in humans first as being extreme or fanatical.

Social construction is nowhere more present than in the issues central to this text – race, class, and gender. We will be discussing social construction as we focus on each of these topics in this book. For now however, we will discuss the general principles of social construction as it relates to groups.

Social stratification creates groups within the society based upon characteristics the society determines to be important. Society then imbues (or assigns) these groups with various traits which may or may not be reflected in the nature of the individuals filling the groups. While we are constantly engaging in group construction and definition, master statuses already exist – they are part of our stratification system and our culture – and we learn them through the socialization process. However, in order to understand how this grouping process works let’s look at how groups are formed and maintained. In sociology, this process is generally called social construction of the “other.”

Social construction of the “other” generally involves a series of actions or processes: categorizing; naming; assigning attributes; stereotyping; and sanctioning. Categorizing involves creating categories for people to be in. These categories are generally mutually exclusive. Names are applied both for ones own group and the other. Characteristics are assigned to these groups which provide a way of distinguishing the groups from each other. These attributes, or characteristics, are then applied in a blanket type of way to which is stereotypical. Positive and negative meanings are given and the consequences (sanctions) for being part of the group are applied when appropriate.

Within this construction process, we are simply making groups, applying meaning and value to those groups, and then acting upon the meaning we have created. Boundary formation and maintenance goes hand in hand with social construction as an interacting process. We are also creating boundaries between the groups at the same time we are constructing them. Each layer of definition and meaning serves to solidify the groups as real and their differences as real. The following example of Central and Western colleges (fictitious schools) demonstrates part of this process.

In this example, we have two colleges (Central and Western) with basketball teams. These two schools are rivals - meaning they see each other as competitors for something that is valued, such as school pride. We know that over the years a variety of different players and coaches have “peopled” the teams of the two schools; however, the schools are historic rivals so the teams are historic rivals. As new members come onto the team they take on (or are given) the characteristics of the team.

Central’s team is seen as tough, aggressive, clean players who show absolute loyalty to their coach and other team members. Each year, a number of people try out for the team, but only a few make it. Even among those who make the team, a few seem to drop out within the first few weeks of practice. People attribute this to the high standards of the coach, but players who have left the team say they just didn’t feel comfortable on the team. Team members are seen as special by both teachers and other students. Individually, they have a reputation of not being someone you want to cross. There are rumors that if you mess with one of them that a bunch of they will come after you. They are generally seen as being pretty aggressive physically and verbally.

Western’s team is seen as best under pressure. They are generally pretty laid back, and easy going. They have a high degree of comradery and joke around a lot. Students and teachers at Western see team players as being friendly and easy going, but prone to being pranksters. Still, they are popular at the school because of their affable nature, and their ability to win games.

Each school’s (and team’s) perception of itself is not necessarily the perception of others from outside the school – especially the way the Central views Western and vice a versa. Central see’s Western as a “bunch of clowns” who play dirty in order to win. They are lazy and lack discipline. Western sees Central as thugs who are overly physical and deliberately hurt the players of other teams so they can win. They are also believed to “gang up” on opposing teams after the game is over.

Now let’s say that one of the team members from Central moves into Western’s school district. He/she stills wants to play basketball and goes out for Western’s team. What do you think the response is likely to be? The odds are that he/she will not make the team or will not stay on the team for long if he/she does. Why would this be the case?

Just because the basketball player is now at the rival school does not mean she/he gets a fresh start. She/he was part of Central’s team which means that she/he has the characteristics of that team. Therefore, he/she would not “fit” on Western’s team, and may be poorly received at the school as well.

The Central versus Western example is similar in some ways to stratification. Both of the colleges exist separately from the student body in that students come into and leave the schools, but the school stays the same. The rivalry between the schools is “historic” in that at some point in time they became rivals and have continued to be so over time. We can also look at the two schools as competing groups. As competitors the example highlights a number of functions that are common of group formation and maintenance.

First, these two schools see each other as different from themselves. They have established an “us-them” framework. The Centralians see Westerners as other than themselves. However, this is not a neutral “otherness.” Westerners are not just “other,” they are different, and it is not a neutral or positive difference. Creation of an “other” is a common characteristic of the social construction of groups. Generally, group construction is based on creating dichotomous categories. Dichotomous categories are two mutually exclusive categories which are sometimes opposite from each other.

Each team (and school) sees itself in a favorable light. In other words, they have a positive definition of themselves and what it means to be a Centralian or a Westerner. To some extent the students of the schools, and especially the teams of the schools are going to be seen (and see themselves) as embodying their own definition. Further, they see the rival school in a generally negative way.

The schools have created categories and applied meaning to each of the categories. But these schools are rivals. Losing or winning against each other is highly significant and emotional. Each team sees the others as the “bad guys” who will play “dirty” in order to win. The negative definitions that they have applied to each other come into play as the two teams come to game times. They are likely to talk poorly about the other team and favorably about their own. The “boundaries” between the two teams becomes stronger.

The strengthening of the boundary involves social construction in part, but it also requires action of some sort – even if that action is name calling. By placing the other team as the enemy who will play dirty if called for, the team increases its unity. The “threat” pulls the team together for a common cause. Virtually anything that increases the distinctiveness and unity of the group will serve to strengthen the boundaries between the groups. During these periods of high loyalty, more sanctions are enforced within the groups. There is less room for dissent, and penalties for not being “true to the group” may become quite harsh.

If we look at the teams we see that each team has a “reputation” and that the players also seem to have similar characteristics to those of their team. This similarity is one of the components of group formation. Generally, individuals are seen as having personalities similar to the group to which they belong. In voluntary groups such as teams, it may be that players take on those characteristics, or that those who don’t “fit” get weeded out along the way.

You may be wondering what the Central versus Western example has to do with anything related to social inequality. After all, inter-school rivalries are as common as there are schools. Every school has a rival; every major league sports team has a rival; so what? Our social stratification system is also “everywhere” and as common (and frequently unnoticed) as inter-school rivalries. The basic processes of social construction and boundary formation are the same whether we are discussing teams, gangs, cliques, nations, or race, class, and gender.

We do not have to look very hard to see social construction and boundary maintenance in society. The sexes are female or male; sexual orientation is straight or gay; race is white or non-white; we are rich or poor. Our language and conceptualization of the world is dichotomous and categorical. A few examples that are common sayings point this out:

Social stratification creates the groups. Culture applies the meaning and how we interact. Social institutions structure our broad societal interactions based upon those groups and their meaning within the society. Intergroup hostilities and fears are fanned to strengthen the divisions and justify application of penalties or privileges. We can see examples of this throughout our social world. Many claim “immigrants” are costing “us” money, and taking “our” jobs. Some argue people of color are granted “preferential treatment” in employment and education. Others argue that gays are trying to push an agenda of “special rights.” Many do not question the perception that those on welfare are “getting a free ride.” Each of these ideas are examples of mechanisms for rallying “popular” (dominant group) support for various policies; hence, these could be called dominant group boundary mechanisms. It should be noted that these messages are aimed at the dominant group in an effort to unify them towards particular actions. These messages are not for minority groups, but the groups under attack in each of these examples realizes that the anger and fear spawned will be acted out on them.

The next chapter builds upon the “building blocks introduced in this chapter. It explores theoretic frameworks and tools that are used throughout the remainder of the text.