Durkheim, Veblen's cousin
There are some wonderful discoveries I made recently, while re-reading Le Suicide. I think most of Chapter 5 merits the insertion into a Social Class course. I am surprised it isn't discussed more in detail when it comes to social class discussion. The talk of division of labor, although completely legitimate, is not the sole contribution made by Durkheim to the entire social class conversation. There is his discussion of anomie, too.
The definition detour: anomie - a social condition under which all known social norms break down and become irrelevant and/or inapplicable.
Before launching into the discussion of anomie in more detail, Durkheim spends some time talking about consumption. Here is what he says: “No living person can be happy or even live at all unless his needs are sufficiently well adjusted to his means. In other words, if he demands more than can be provided to him, or even something other than can be provided, he will be constantly irritated and unable to function without suffering” (p. 269)
In touch with unknown Puritanical roots, Durkheim believes that it is the people themselves, the individuals, who cannot constrain their desires to consume on their own. “There is no society in which they [desires] have been satisfied to an equal extent in the different degrees of social hierarchy. However, in its essentials, human nature is very much the same in all its citizens. So, it is not human nature that can set the variable limits to these needs that they demand. Consequently, to the extent that they depend solely on the individual, they are limitless. In itself, setting aside any external power that governs it, our sensibility is a bottomless abyss that nothing can fill.” (p. 270)
“So the more one has, the more one wants to have, the satisfaction one receives only serving to stimulate needs instead of fulfilling them.” Durkheim argues that under the conditions where all external constraints to desire are obliterated, a disruption in the pursuit of satisfaction could cause anxiety and lead to suicide. “For things to be otherwise, it is all above necessary that passions should be limited. Only then can they be harmonized with the faculties and then satisfied.” (p. 271-271)
The definition detour: anomie - a social condition under which all known social norms break down and become irrelevant and/or inapplicable.
Before launching into the discussion of anomie in more detail, Durkheim spends some time talking about consumption. Here is what he says: “No living person can be happy or even live at all unless his needs are sufficiently well adjusted to his means. In other words, if he demands more than can be provided to him, or even something other than can be provided, he will be constantly irritated and unable to function without suffering” (p. 269)
In touch with unknown Puritanical roots, Durkheim believes that it is the people themselves, the individuals, who cannot constrain their desires to consume on their own. “There is no society in which they [desires] have been satisfied to an equal extent in the different degrees of social hierarchy. However, in its essentials, human nature is very much the same in all its citizens. So, it is not human nature that can set the variable limits to these needs that they demand. Consequently, to the extent that they depend solely on the individual, they are limitless. In itself, setting aside any external power that governs it, our sensibility is a bottomless abyss that nothing can fill.” (p. 270)
“So the more one has, the more one wants to have, the satisfaction one receives only serving to stimulate needs instead of fulfilling them.” Durkheim argues that under the conditions where all external constraints to desire are obliterated, a disruption in the pursuit of satisfaction could cause anxiety and lead to suicide. “For things to be otherwise, it is all above necessary that passions should be limited. Only then can they be harmonized with the faculties and then satisfied.” (p. 271-271)
alive and well?
I ask my students about the American dream a lot, but rarely get a comprehensive answer. So, since we are on the subject, let’s talk about the American Dream.
I hear often many contend that American Dream is still alive and well, all we need to do is just to work hard. Also, some argue that the American Dream is different for anyone, but this is an incorrect assumption to begin with. If the American Dream was different for everyone, we would not have the term and, most likely, kept referring to it to simply as “my dream” or “his dream” and “my lil’ sister’s dream”. But no, we have a term that unites the entire nation, which means there is a value that is unique to the population of this country and is more or less the same for all individuals. It is a cultural stepping stone that makes America one of the most (if not THE most) popular countries in the world for people to come to in search of better life. I am surprised that most people won’t even take a minute to Google it in case the term is unfamiliar or shaky, such a sign of complacency and complete indifference to their own country.
In short, the American Dream lays in the value of equality and freedom, reflected in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” For the most part, it is interpreted as an opportunity for achieving a better, more stable and secure life [as well as a better standard of living] that can be enjoyed [as opposed to seeing it fly by].
The term itself is coined by the American historian James Truslow Adams. In his book “Epic of America” (1931) he says this: “The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position” (p.214-215)
The Economic Mobility Report by Pew Charitable Trusts points out that, despite the wide-spread belief of Americans that hard work pays off, social mobility in this country has been stalling for decades. One’s social standing (social class) has been mainly conditioned by one’s birth, rather than by one’s efforts. Men in their thirties are doing worse than their dads when they were that age. People work harder (productivity increase), while pay for the efforts is disproportionately lower. The increase in household finance is due to women joining the workforce, not due to increase in actual wage. Finally, compared to other industrialized nations, the US has the least rate of relative social mobility. The UK has the lowest rate, which can be explained: historically, the UK had an extremely rigid class system – the feudal understanding of social standings (think estates, think aristocracy) has hundreds of years in tradition. The tradition, which many of the British settlers were trying to escape and make meaningful systematic changes. Given the current rates, the changes were not successful.
Now, allow me to say a couple of words about the idea of American meritocracy: work hard – reap high rewards. Historically, this ideology applied to only one hearth subculture that arrived to America from the British Isles – the Puritans. To those of you familiar with extreme Calvinism practiced by these settlers, this should be no news: Puritans believed that the economic and social system must be pure (hence, the name), which means that all signs of God must be transparent and undistorted by human touch. According to their beliefs, work was the only God-pleasing way of living, so the value of hard work was praised and instilled since birth. The other equally strong belief was that God recognizes hard work by gracing such individuals with generous rewards. These rewards should have been saved and preserved: Puritans lived severely below their means, saving every penny, for accumulation of wealth was a sign of God’s recognition and grace.
This system was not taken lightly and Puritans went long distance to uphold its clarity: bribery, cheating, backstabbing and other behaviors of this nature were strictly prohibited and violently punished. Puritans, being excellent financiers, considered it an honor to give loans to those attempting to start their own business and, indeed, loaned money. However, profiteering on the loan percentage was forbidden as well, all loan percentages were set at low rates, manageable to the debtors. As a result, during the pre-industrial times Puritans had the best desired meritocracy you can find. Too bad their society was extremely homogenized, so cases of rags to riches were rare: as the migration of Puritans started in the first third of the 17th century, candidates for the big move were diligently screened. The move was expensive and only those with a stable trade and good finances were considered. For more details, I suggest you read the “Puritan Ethics” by Max Weber and “Albion’s Seed” by David Hackett Fischer, a tremendously interesting study of the American folkways.
With the social transformation that took place during the industrial transition - growth in diversity, rise in urban populations, mass production and factory work as well as establishing of wages, increased contact between North and South (that had completely opposite value of work and wealth) didn’t help upholding meritocracy either. Additionally, the creation of wages kicked started the core capitalist idea of time=money, which blended nicely with the core Puritan value of economic advancement. As a result, we achieved an ideology that has little to do with the reality of work/compensation as well as with equal opportunity for all.
Let’s do a short review of equal opportunity since a lot rests on the ideological stereotype that the playing field is leveled. It is not my goal to cram an entire sociology curriculum in one page, but just a few core facts won't hurt:
Overall poverty rates: in this country, the populations that are most affected by poverty, are minorities. While about 10% of Whites were consistently in poverty (by 2006), the number is likely to grow due to recession, about 25% of African Americans and Hispanics (each) are in poverty at the same time.
Education (that some of refer to as the cure for all and the direct path to social/economic advancement): while 93.5% of Whites graduated high school in 2008, only 87.7% of African Americans and 65% of Hispanics did. In regard to higher ed, 35.5% of Whites received a Bachelor’s degree in that same year, while only 19.5 and 11.6% of African-Americans and Hispanics did, respectively. (source: Center for Educational Statistics). Some reasons for this discrepancy: impoverished schools in the minority districts, less access to educational resources (books, qualified teachers that are retained by school), and as a result – lack of adequate schooling and scores that allow to graduate, let alone – go to college. College tuition is a separate story altogether as extreme poverty leads to destroyed credit, hence, hinders loan opportunities.
Even for those minorities who pull through and receive their degrees, the earning gap among those with terminal (Doctorate) and professional (JD, MD) degrees is about 30K a year, whites in the lead. The gap is about 10K a year for lesser degrees. Source: US Census.
Additionally, let’s face it, in addition to being race/ethnicity divided, we are a gender divided country as well. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there is about 20K earnings gap between men and women with PhDs, this gap widens as the amount of education received decreases.
Social class-wise, the earnings gap is insurmountable: we are looking at an average difference of 140K a year between the top fifth and the bottom fifth of society (US Census). This is a gap that cannot be bridged, no matter how hard the person at the bottom works (unless, of course, they win a lottery, which, in itself, has nothing to do with working hard and making good choices, etc).
Finally, the gap between CEOs and their workers is so incredibly high that even with application of all their might and diligence, an average worker has no means of climbing that top: by 2007, an average ratio of CEO to their worker pay was 344. Yes, five years ago, an average CEO made 344 times the salary of their average employee. This ratio was 100 in 1997 and 71 in 1989. The same ratio is about 21:1 in Europe. This in conjunction with 86% of the entire American wealth being owned by the top 20% leaves absolutely no hope to an average citizen (Source: Wolff, E. N. (2009). Recent trends in household wealth in the U.S., update to 2007: Rising debt and the middle class squeeze. Working Paper in progress. Annandale-on-Hudson, NY: The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College).
So, let us try again and work with facts, rather than blind ideological assumptions.
Nisbeth on obsolescence of social class.
When it comes to the discussion of the reality of social class, it is not unanimous – two camps are fairly salient in their views. The debate began in late 50s-early 60s with Nisbeth’s article and the timing of it is not random, since it coincided with the start of the post-industrial revolution when the primary and secondary economic sectors (working with raw resources and manufacturing) began decline and the tertiary sector (service jobs) became to expand.
Similar to the industrial revolution, new times called for new measures. As opposed to requirements of physical durability, ability to perform simple divided tasks and basic understanding of heavy machinery brought in by the industrial revolution, the key to success in the era of technology required a completely different skill set. It included an ability to work with information, process data, communicate orally and in writing as well as to understand abstract ideas to create tangible, material things on their basis. Due to these new demands, the need for college education has risen, thus, opening new opportunities for the American population. In Nisbeth’s words, “national democracy, economic and social pluralism, ethical individualism, and an ever-widening educational front joined to create new patterns of social power and status and to make class obsolete in constantly widening sectors of Western society.” For example, among other interesting developments were the separation between occupations and professions, where the former became connected more to manual work (e.g., auto mechanics, massage therapist, driver), while the latter – to work requiring large amount of abstract knowledge (e.g., computer programmer, lawyer, doctor).
So, with colleges opening their doors to a broader population, women and minority included, the original idea was that such development will prompt more visible social mobility and to some degree will help people overcome certain social circumstances related to their social standing. Thus, when you read Nisbeth, it is a must to make an adjustment for the date of his publication. Considering the social condition of that time, it makes perfect sense when he writes:
“To be sure, quickening social mobility is not inconsistent with the existence of social class, and income differentials among the three sectors do not in themselves negate the possibility of strong class lines. But with a few occupations such as domestic service excepted, it is all too obvious that the majority of jobs falling within the tertiary sector in modern times are not easily subsumed under any class system.”
The lines between the classes are visible when each stratum has their own occupation (ranging from more physically demanding to more intellectually demanding) as well as the associated incomes. Nisbeth argues that with the majority of the population being engaged in the same economic sector, the actual class lines become blurry at best. He claims that “irrespective of high individual mobility in this sector, the job structure itself is too fluctuant, too mobile, to allow classes to form. Finally there is the fact, important to any analysis of class, that the dispersion of productive forces among the three sectors has become more important to the character of our society than the distribution of property.” So, in a way, his argument resembles Weber’s idea of the class complexity where class becomes a function of intertwining property ownership, power and prestige. The more weight is give to the nature of contemporary occupations (less physical labor, more working with people and ideas), the less the idea of class-based society becomes possible. It is important to note that Nisbeth does not argue that elimination of social class eliminates social inequality or evens the playing field for all, he merely states that with the fluidity of the new order of work the existing approach to understanding social stratification (i.e., the class system) no longer applies.
Similar to the industrial revolution, new times called for new measures. As opposed to requirements of physical durability, ability to perform simple divided tasks and basic understanding of heavy machinery brought in by the industrial revolution, the key to success in the era of technology required a completely different skill set. It included an ability to work with information, process data, communicate orally and in writing as well as to understand abstract ideas to create tangible, material things on their basis. Due to these new demands, the need for college education has risen, thus, opening new opportunities for the American population. In Nisbeth’s words, “national democracy, economic and social pluralism, ethical individualism, and an ever-widening educational front joined to create new patterns of social power and status and to make class obsolete in constantly widening sectors of Western society.” For example, among other interesting developments were the separation between occupations and professions, where the former became connected more to manual work (e.g., auto mechanics, massage therapist, driver), while the latter – to work requiring large amount of abstract knowledge (e.g., computer programmer, lawyer, doctor).
So, with colleges opening their doors to a broader population, women and minority included, the original idea was that such development will prompt more visible social mobility and to some degree will help people overcome certain social circumstances related to their social standing. Thus, when you read Nisbeth, it is a must to make an adjustment for the date of his publication. Considering the social condition of that time, it makes perfect sense when he writes:
“To be sure, quickening social mobility is not inconsistent with the existence of social class, and income differentials among the three sectors do not in themselves negate the possibility of strong class lines. But with a few occupations such as domestic service excepted, it is all too obvious that the majority of jobs falling within the tertiary sector in modern times are not easily subsumed under any class system.”
The lines between the classes are visible when each stratum has their own occupation (ranging from more physically demanding to more intellectually demanding) as well as the associated incomes. Nisbeth argues that with the majority of the population being engaged in the same economic sector, the actual class lines become blurry at best. He claims that “irrespective of high individual mobility in this sector, the job structure itself is too fluctuant, too mobile, to allow classes to form. Finally there is the fact, important to any analysis of class, that the dispersion of productive forces among the three sectors has become more important to the character of our society than the distribution of property.” So, in a way, his argument resembles Weber’s idea of the class complexity where class becomes a function of intertwining property ownership, power and prestige. The more weight is give to the nature of contemporary occupations (less physical labor, more working with people and ideas), the less the idea of class-based society becomes possible. It is important to note that Nisbeth does not argue that elimination of social class eliminates social inequality or evens the playing field for all, he merely states that with the fluidity of the new order of work the existing approach to understanding social stratification (i.e., the class system) no longer applies.
Colleges Turn Students Liberal! OMG!
OK, I am no pundit, but I am a scientist, so I know my way about the research methodology. Sampling procedures, survey design, data analysis with all the beta-weights and effect sizes are like a family to me. So, I get very interested when I hear stuff like this:
So, FOX News folks are discussing the issue of increase in liberal views among college graduates. The discussion is titled "Trouble with Schools: Indoctrination University" and "How well are universities teaching kids?" and the correspondents put into question the entire purpose of going to college, stating that it is an "open question". While I am laughing through my tears, I am tracking down the original document, you can read at your leisure right here
While Tucker Carlson admits to his sheer impotence when it comes to delivering the core of the study (he has not seen the methodology and claims that it's pretty straightforward - give college graduates a survey and then process their answers), I am diving right into the depths of the right-wing insanity, which The Intercollegiate Studies Institute that conducted the study, without a doubt, is, in hopes to understand how it was done.
I took a detour to look at the ISI's front page, just to make sure that Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate is still inscribed above their gates. It is still there, but the translation is inaccurate. It says "Every study shows that the university is dominated by liberal professors. It is no wonder this country is currently on a slippery slope to socialism."
Part 1: Sampling. "The telephone survey data can be taken to represent
a probability sample of all individuals who live in households with residential telephone service in the United States."
There are definite issues associated with this method of selection. One dates as far back as 1948 when Chicago Tribune shamed itself with the Dewey Defeats Truman headline. They, too, relied on the telephone polls, disregarding the fact that those owning landlines were more affluent, older and - well - more likely - republican. Today the situation is similar with a twist: cellular service on a rise. Nielsen Mobile did a study in 2008, comparing the wireless-only and landline owning populations. According to the results, those living in poverty(26%) or nearing it(22.6%) were more likely to cut the cord compared to those with higher incomes (14.2%). So, yet again, we are dealing with the more affluent population, and affluence in this country is related to conservative views, a very Marxian picture.
So, what's with the wireless people? According to the same Nielsen Mobile report, 17-some% of the population was completely wireless and the number grows exponentially. So, that demographic is completely omitted from the survey. To be fair - the report clearly states the inference - the findings represent the landlines owners. Nielsen suggests that the cordless population is substantially different from those who are wired. Then, let's interpret it correctly: these findings do not represent the entire America, since the initial sampling procedure excludes nearly 1/5 of Americans by default. That, my friends, is a lot of people to overlook.
Part 2: Weighting. "A standard weighting process was applied to the data to adjust for error inherent in the sampling methodology. The frame of the general population was aligned to the national population, as taken from the 2006 American Community Survey, and a weight was applied based on age, gender, education, and race."
Well, during the period of my scholastic indoctrination, one of my doctorate emphases was Methodology of Research, so I've taken a fair share of classes that discussed every minute detail of processing data. I have heard this from every single prof and read it in every single textbook, from remedial to complex - you have to have a pretty good theoretical reason to assign weights, and when you do - you have to explain in detail how and why you went about it. So, looking further into the text I see even a regression equation (which is doomed to get an eye roll from anyone who is not in the research business), but I don't see a reasonable explanation of how the weights were applied.
Using weights is not hard and it is helpful when you want to beat your data into submission. The weighting system has been used in the US for a long time: I am rich, so I deserve to have health care, but you are poor - you really don't. So, I would like to know more about the weighting procedure used by the study, since I am not sure what a "standard" procedure is.
Part 3: The use of regression. I typically find the use of linear regression problematic - very few things in the social world are associated in this direct fashion, most social relationships are moderated, mediated and take funny shapes (in quadratic or cubic equations). So, while for a lay person all those beta-coefficients and stochastic errors will look impressive and scientific, there are crucial pieces of information that went amiss: what is the Adjusted R-squared of all these labors? R-squared is the number that tells you how much of the dependent variable (in this case, I believe, that would be liberal values and civic knowledge) is explained by the regression components (in this case, that would be the degrees). I would also like to see the effect sizes - how much each of the components influences the outcome. I would also like to know how well the model fits (give me that F-value!).
Now, an additional issue is as empirical as it is theoretic: are there real relationships between the actual degree vs. other variables that are discounted? Or is the difference attributed to hanging out on campus for x-number of years, socializing and expanding horizon (thanks, Tucker Carlson, you opened the door)? Universities have been trying to promote diversity on campus for years, so, perhaps, being exposed to all kinds of people, learning more about different beliefs, traditions and values helps adjusting one's view of the world, as opposed to, how did they put it, those liberal professors "pushing their values on young impressionable kids?" In fact, in the professorial trade the aspiration is to not let your students know what views you support - to generate free learning.
And finally, some things you learn in college have little to do with values, but with objective reality. So, spinning the Horatio Alger dime-tales of rags to riches can be easily challenged with facts: the US has second to lowest economic mobility rates among developed industrialized nations (UK has the least). 42% of kids born in the bottom 20% of the US population will remain there, similar with the top 20%. More than 50% of people at the bottom will remain there in 10 years. At the same time, those people work the most physically demanding jobs, many hold more than one job at a time, so it is not the matter of working hard. Puritan values are obsolete, because our achievement system is no longer pure. So, when you are in college, you are exposed to facts and figures that are hard to miss - there is no axe to battle them. Durkehim called it sui generis - reality of it's own, independent of individual properties of participants.
Part 4: The questions. Every professional survey designer knows the mighty power of the wording: it is too easy to skew the results just by the lack of language virtue. The golden rule is to use neutral, unambiguous, simple language. This is remedial stuff, at ISU we teach this in the first year methods course. So, let me give you a couple of poster examples of what not to do in a survey.
"America is the world’s greatest melting pot where people from all countries can unite into one nation." - this item is loaded, it is leading the participants to respond in a certain way. Who would want to appear Anti-American and contradict the "greatness"?
"Abortion should be available at any stage and for any reason." - same here, this is a severe, polarizing issue and there are no absolutes, therefore, issues of this caliber should be approached with certain gentleness. As an avid pro-choicer who doesn't believe that abortion should be allowed at any stage for any reason, I have no choice, but to support this statement. The Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree scale is irrelevant in this matter, because the item is worded in the worst possible manner.
"The Bible is the Word of God." - last time I checked, we are guaranteed the freedom of religion, which means there are other religions possible than the one that assumes the Bible as the key reading. So, this questions takes out about 22% of the American population who are not Christian. That in itself has absolutely nothing to do with the education those people receive, does it?
"Raising the minimum wage decreases employment." - well, considering the climbing unemployment rate, who wants to contribute to that cause? An initially biased question produces the desires result.
Anyway, I can pound on the quality of this study all day and have fun doing that. I am not against the results and I find the conservative outcry for the liberalization (or, shall I say, liberation) of the fellow conservatives fairly amusing. I am just not sure equating "liberal" with the poor quality of civic education (which is an entirely different topic for a different post) is befitting. And, again - what on Earth is "liberal' when put in this context? The ability to think critically and use objective facts when making a decision? If that's the case - please turn me liberal! Oh, hold on, I already am...
So, FOX News folks are discussing the issue of increase in liberal views among college graduates. The discussion is titled "Trouble with Schools: Indoctrination University" and "How well are universities teaching kids?" and the correspondents put into question the entire purpose of going to college, stating that it is an "open question". While I am laughing through my tears, I am tracking down the original document, you can read at your leisure right here
While Tucker Carlson admits to his sheer impotence when it comes to delivering the core of the study (he has not seen the methodology and claims that it's pretty straightforward - give college graduates a survey and then process their answers), I am diving right into the depths of the right-wing insanity, which The Intercollegiate Studies Institute that conducted the study, without a doubt, is, in hopes to understand how it was done.
I took a detour to look at the ISI's front page, just to make sure that Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate is still inscribed above their gates. It is still there, but the translation is inaccurate. It says "Every study shows that the university is dominated by liberal professors. It is no wonder this country is currently on a slippery slope to socialism."
Part 1: Sampling. "The telephone survey data can be taken to represent
a probability sample of all individuals who live in households with residential telephone service in the United States."
There are definite issues associated with this method of selection. One dates as far back as 1948 when Chicago Tribune shamed itself with the Dewey Defeats Truman headline. They, too, relied on the telephone polls, disregarding the fact that those owning landlines were more affluent, older and - well - more likely - republican. Today the situation is similar with a twist: cellular service on a rise. Nielsen Mobile did a study in 2008, comparing the wireless-only and landline owning populations. According to the results, those living in poverty(26%) or nearing it(22.6%) were more likely to cut the cord compared to those with higher incomes (14.2%). So, yet again, we are dealing with the more affluent population, and affluence in this country is related to conservative views, a very Marxian picture.
So, what's with the wireless people? According to the same Nielsen Mobile report, 17-some% of the population was completely wireless and the number grows exponentially. So, that demographic is completely omitted from the survey. To be fair - the report clearly states the inference - the findings represent the landlines owners. Nielsen suggests that the cordless population is substantially different from those who are wired. Then, let's interpret it correctly: these findings do not represent the entire America, since the initial sampling procedure excludes nearly 1/5 of Americans by default. That, my friends, is a lot of people to overlook.
Part 2: Weighting. "A standard weighting process was applied to the data to adjust for error inherent in the sampling methodology. The frame of the general population was aligned to the national population, as taken from the 2006 American Community Survey, and a weight was applied based on age, gender, education, and race."
Well, during the period of my scholastic indoctrination, one of my doctorate emphases was Methodology of Research, so I've taken a fair share of classes that discussed every minute detail of processing data. I have heard this from every single prof and read it in every single textbook, from remedial to complex - you have to have a pretty good theoretical reason to assign weights, and when you do - you have to explain in detail how and why you went about it. So, looking further into the text I see even a regression equation (which is doomed to get an eye roll from anyone who is not in the research business), but I don't see a reasonable explanation of how the weights were applied.
Using weights is not hard and it is helpful when you want to beat your data into submission. The weighting system has been used in the US for a long time: I am rich, so I deserve to have health care, but you are poor - you really don't. So, I would like to know more about the weighting procedure used by the study, since I am not sure what a "standard" procedure is.
Part 3: The use of regression. I typically find the use of linear regression problematic - very few things in the social world are associated in this direct fashion, most social relationships are moderated, mediated and take funny shapes (in quadratic or cubic equations). So, while for a lay person all those beta-coefficients and stochastic errors will look impressive and scientific, there are crucial pieces of information that went amiss: what is the Adjusted R-squared of all these labors? R-squared is the number that tells you how much of the dependent variable (in this case, I believe, that would be liberal values and civic knowledge) is explained by the regression components (in this case, that would be the degrees). I would also like to see the effect sizes - how much each of the components influences the outcome. I would also like to know how well the model fits (give me that F-value!).
Now, an additional issue is as empirical as it is theoretic: are there real relationships between the actual degree vs. other variables that are discounted? Or is the difference attributed to hanging out on campus for x-number of years, socializing and expanding horizon (thanks, Tucker Carlson, you opened the door)? Universities have been trying to promote diversity on campus for years, so, perhaps, being exposed to all kinds of people, learning more about different beliefs, traditions and values helps adjusting one's view of the world, as opposed to, how did they put it, those liberal professors "pushing their values on young impressionable kids?" In fact, in the professorial trade the aspiration is to not let your students know what views you support - to generate free learning.
And finally, some things you learn in college have little to do with values, but with objective reality. So, spinning the Horatio Alger dime-tales of rags to riches can be easily challenged with facts: the US has second to lowest economic mobility rates among developed industrialized nations (UK has the least). 42% of kids born in the bottom 20% of the US population will remain there, similar with the top 20%. More than 50% of people at the bottom will remain there in 10 years. At the same time, those people work the most physically demanding jobs, many hold more than one job at a time, so it is not the matter of working hard. Puritan values are obsolete, because our achievement system is no longer pure. So, when you are in college, you are exposed to facts and figures that are hard to miss - there is no axe to battle them. Durkehim called it sui generis - reality of it's own, independent of individual properties of participants.
Part 4: The questions. Every professional survey designer knows the mighty power of the wording: it is too easy to skew the results just by the lack of language virtue. The golden rule is to use neutral, unambiguous, simple language. This is remedial stuff, at ISU we teach this in the first year methods course. So, let me give you a couple of poster examples of what not to do in a survey.
"America is the world’s greatest melting pot where people from all countries can unite into one nation." - this item is loaded, it is leading the participants to respond in a certain way. Who would want to appear Anti-American and contradict the "greatness"?
"Abortion should be available at any stage and for any reason." - same here, this is a severe, polarizing issue and there are no absolutes, therefore, issues of this caliber should be approached with certain gentleness. As an avid pro-choicer who doesn't believe that abortion should be allowed at any stage for any reason, I have no choice, but to support this statement. The Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree scale is irrelevant in this matter, because the item is worded in the worst possible manner.
"The Bible is the Word of God." - last time I checked, we are guaranteed the freedom of religion, which means there are other religions possible than the one that assumes the Bible as the key reading. So, this questions takes out about 22% of the American population who are not Christian. That in itself has absolutely nothing to do with the education those people receive, does it?
"Raising the minimum wage decreases employment." - well, considering the climbing unemployment rate, who wants to contribute to that cause? An initially biased question produces the desires result.
Anyway, I can pound on the quality of this study all day and have fun doing that. I am not against the results and I find the conservative outcry for the liberalization (or, shall I say, liberation) of the fellow conservatives fairly amusing. I am just not sure equating "liberal" with the poor quality of civic education (which is an entirely different topic for a different post) is befitting. And, again - what on Earth is "liberal' when put in this context? The ability to think critically and use objective facts when making a decision? If that's the case - please turn me liberal! Oh, hold on, I already am...
Tonnies vs. Durkheim
Although Tonnies and Durkheim are often equated in their views of the social change, it is not necessarily the case, since they look at very distinct social features as well as antecedents of change. While Durkheim focuses on the division of labor as the force behind change (as well as a response to change). Tonnies looks at social institutions and the way they change along with the installation of the new social order.
Family: cohesive family living is a prominent feature in Gemeinschaft, primary, kin-based social ties. Therefore, as families are the carriers and the enforces of cultures and traditions, societal living is guided by constant principles and rituals that are transmitted between the generations. living is homogenized, based on deep similarities of views, aspirations and ideas. Living is based on a collective vision and operation. So, the social constraint is in the eye of other people: since understandings of right and wrong are the same for everyone, other members of community have equal power to reprimand. Living is based on doing well by your people.
This changes or "decays", in Tonnies words, with the change toward Gesellschaft. As society moves away from kin-based settlements, family ties lose their power. "individuals and families are separate identities, and their common locale is only an accidental or deliberately chosen place in which to live" - the natural order of flocking together breaks down (e.g., nowadays, "still" living with your parents in your mid-twenties and thirties is a sign of abnormality rather than an appreciated social characteristic). Once family bond dissipates, the influence of tradition and ritual weakens as well, which allows for more diversity to sprout: individuals no longer have to live by their people's standard, since the idea of "my people" no longer exists in the similar sense.
Religion: as a unifying force, religion is used in place of laws throughout the Gemeinschaft living in larger settings (say, a township). Yet again, unity in understanding the moral absolutes allows for relatively straightforward living for most residents, since everyone (or the vast majoryt) subscribes to the same world view. As society changes and grows, using religion as the sole guiding mechanism in an elaborate urban setting is impractical and improbable as well: too much human variation, diversity of ideas and rituals requires a different, a more elaborate set of rules. Thus, the legislation is instated. "The state is hardly directly concerned with morality. It has only to suppress and punish hostile actions which are detrimental to the common weal or seemingly dangerous for itself and society,"- argues Tonnies, suggesting that by eliminating the legitimately evil forces, the state creates a platform for the new society to become better through culture and education (or so we all wish).
Other social institutions change along the similar patterns. For example, the previous economic structure, agriculture, is based on familiar rituals, while industry is based on innovation and rules. Trade in Gemeinschaft is based on mutual liking and understanding, while Gesellschaft trade is based on deliberate calculations and projections. Art of story-telling and culture transmission is merging with the science of recording and mass producing the culture.
So, the basic contrasts between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft can be summarized in the following system:
Communal -- Individual
Rural -- Urban
Religious -- Secular
Homogeneous -- Diverse
Agrarian -- Industrial
Kin-based -- Contract (money) based
Traditional -- Innovative
and so on. Important, though, to realize that most of today's industrialized societies still combine the elements of both. The more rural the area, the more Gemeinschaft characteristics could be found, and vice versa.
Tönnies, F. (2001). Community and Civil Society. Cambridge University Press.
I've always found Durkheim fascinating and slightly controversial, not so linear and conservative as many present him. In fact, at times I feel he is a Marxist in the very core, or, at least, there is something Veblenesque inside of him.
The typical discussion of Durkheim in relation to social class is based on his Division of Labor (DOL) idea. So, as it goes, the way societies divide their labor conditions their entire way of life. Durkheim operates with two types of societies: pre-industrial and industrial, or, in his words, mechanical and organic solidarity. First of all, solidarity is a wonderful term to use, literally it comes from Latin solidus, which means solid. The dictionary definition is a bit more elaborate - "unity that produces or is based on community of interests, objectives, and standards". To grasp the meaning of this term is very much the key to getting the entire idea of social difference according to Durkheim.
So, to Durkheim, social unity comes in two distinct ways.
Mechanical solidarity exists in pre-industrial societies. Durkheim labels is "politico-familial" and describes it in the following way: "this organization, just like the horde, of which it is only an extension, evidently carries with it no other solidarity than that derived from resemblance, since the society is formed of similar segments and these in their turn enclose only homogeneous elements". It is based on a fairly simple division of labor - mostly by gender and then by age. That presumes that mechanical societies attribute a great importance to traditional roles. Thus, men do the heavy duty of working in the fields, building facilities and such, while women stay home, tend to children and the household issues. Every member of such society contributes their share, children and the elderly are given smaller chores that they can successfully complete.
It is also important to understand the nature of the work performed by people in mechanical solidarity: there is virtually no differentiation. All tasks are performed together within each gender - everybody works in the field, everybody builds a house, everybody cooks dinner. Therefore, since the scope of work is broad, there is a lot of redundancy in the system. One person's demise, although tragic, is inconsequential for the overall workings of the system, since everyone knows how to perform the necessary function.
Now, as technology advances and industrial development skyrockets, the society changes and moves into the realm of organic solidarity, meaning, the relationships and connections gain more complexity. "That social type rests on principles so different from the preceding that it can develop only in proportion to the effacement of that type. In this type, individuals are no longer grouped according to their relations of lineage, but according to the particular nature of the social activity to which they devote themselves" (p. 143).
With the new means of production there are new opportunities for work, those that did not exist before. With these opportunities comes relocation, new training and, as well, a new understanding of oneself as an individual entity, not necessarily bound by conscience collective - the collective mind based in the years of homogeneous living and tradition. Specialized activities become more prominent and foster individualization: instead of pursuing the common routine, each individual now has a chance to develop their own skill sets that fits better with their individual interests and callings. So, within organic solidarity, labor is divided not on the basis of one's gender or age, but on the basis of one's skill. Specialization is the key.
The outcome of the new order of labor division is such that interdependence between people increases supersonically: while before everybody knew how to do their neighbor's work, now - no one does. Just think, our society is so complex that we need other people to do things for us, because we, personally, have neither skill, nor time, nor otherwise - an accountant files our taxes, a plumber fixes our sink, a grocery store sells us our food (which we don't even know who produced) and so on. So, in a system like this, a failure of one element could have more severe consequences than in the mechanical solidarity setting. Nothing to say that there is still redundancy, however, it is not as widely and deeply penetrated into the society as before.
Finally, the point of this all? Durkheim has an interesting view of the entire purpose of the DOL in society, especially in an organic type with its overpopulated, dense and complex living that assumes more mutual difference (if not in-difference) than mutual connectedness. "Men obey the same law," - he says, - "In the same city, different occupations can co-exist without being obliges mutually to detsroy one another, for they pursue different objectives. The soldier seeks military glory, the priest moral authority, the statesman power, the businessmen riches, and the scholar scientific renown. each of them can attain his end without preventing the others from attaining theirs. It is still the same even when functions are less separated from one another.... Since they perform different services, they can perform them together." (154)
So, to Durkheim, Division of Labor is an essential social means to peacekeeping: the more jobs there are in a densely populated and diverse environment, the less there is an opportunity for conflict, since nobody take food out of another's mouth. No small potatoes, if you ask me. However, the opposite is also true as "similar occupations located at different points are as competitive as they are alike, provided the difficulty of communication and transport does not restrict the circle of their action." So, bottom line is that we are only as safe from the conflict as we have enough distinct occupations for all. Once this changes - welcome social tension. In fact, look around...
Durkheim, E. (1972) Selected writings. Cambridge University Press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)