Social divisions Free Essay Example

Introduction

Social divisions are not the same as social differences. Social differences are mostly based on accident of birth. Normally we don’t choose to belong to our community. People around us are male or female, they are tall and short, have different kinds of complexions, or have different physical abilities, disabilities but every social difference does not lead to social division. Social differences divide similar people from one another, but they also unite very different people. People belonging to different social groups share differences and similarities cutting across the boundaries of their groups.

For example Carlos and Smith were similar in one way (both were African – American) and thus different from Norman who was white. But they were also all similar in other ways – they were all athletes (National Council of Educational Research and Training, 2007).

The interrelationships between social divisions

Social divisions have a major affect on the way that people see themselves and the structure of society, but interrelationships between social divisions are significant too (Marsh, 2006).

We cannot exist in isolation and ignore the fact that we often group with those who are like us. Just as we pigeonhole other people and adapt our own behaviour towards them, so too do they adapt to us, in a continuing creative process but these values can alienate people, who are not like us (Payne, 2006). The social divisions can function to reinforce the material inequalities of individuals or interrelate to produce contradictory locations where human subjects are positioned differentially within these social divisions.

For example black working – class men may be in a position of dominance in terms of gender but subordination in terms of ‘race’ and ‘class’.

It can also involve psychological costs where you may identify with one position but are located in another – this may apply to transsexuals, middle-class children in working-class schools, ethnic minority children who identify with the majority but are excluded, women who identify with male-defined occupations and attitudes: all these may involve bullying and harassment as well as new forms of social avoidance (Anthias, 2001). Now I will use my chosen article ‘Using Focus Group Research in Exploring the Relationships Between Youth, Risk and Social Position’ and show how interrelationships of social divisions are demonstrated in it.

The value of the focus group method

Article draws upon research and considers the value of the focus group method for exploring the relationships between youth, risk and social position. Groups comprising young, homogenous people (males, females, white British and ethnic minority) occupying similar social positions were used to generate talk about aspects of everyday life regarded as risk. Similar risk issues were raised and discussed in groups (divided by gender and ethnicity) according to different culturally-embedded meaning-frames and interpretive repertoires, indicating how habit’s disposes people towards different understandings and practices according to the relations of class, gender and ethnicity (Merryweather, 2010).

For example for young, middle – class women risk was understood in range of shared activities including alcohol consumption, night time leisure activities, fears of having drinks spiked or the threat of sexual assault. Women co-produced a narrative account of material risk practices associated with their particular social position and constructed themselves as active risk-takers. In this respect, narratives were performative of feminine identities transgressive of traditional restrictive gender stereotypes, illustrating here how risks were understood according to the speci?c relations of gender and class (Merryweather, 2010).

For young black and ethnic minority working – class women (BME) risk was understood in terms of experiences of racism, women providing examples of having felt out of place in certain white-dominated spaces like shopping centres or airport. Moreover discussion of risks associated with violence was informed by reference to specific material experiences and culturally-embedded understandings of what constitutes normal behaviour for young BME women (Merryweather, 2010). The group co-produced a gender distinction between a violent, physically aggressive masculinity, and a non-violent, traditional femininity. Related, the absence of reference to direct forms of risk-taking behaviour also reproduced distinctions between these women’s femininity, co-constructed here in fairly traditional terms of female passivity, and the more active risk-taking femininity like white, middle-class women, illustrating here how risks were understood according to the specific relations of class, gender and ethnicity.

The young BME working class men

Like BME women the main risk issue for young BME working class men were experiences of racism, however here discussion focused more on direct experiences of racism like being routinely stopped by police or suffering verbal racist abuse. Discussion was also characterised by gendered performances which differed significantly from those evident in the group of young BME women. The young men talked about racism in ways that were performative of a tough masculinity.

For example, a few men expressed a desire to avenge their abuse via physical force (Merryweather, 2010). Such talk reproduced an understanding of a working class masculinity marked by physical toughness often viewed as generated and contested within BME cultures. However the young men performed masculinities in ways that positioned themselves as rational and respectful non-aggressors (restrained themselves on account of their assailants’ age). In this respect, such material experiences and the meaning frames through which they were understood were indicative of the relationship between class, gender, ethnicity and age (Merryweather, 2010).

As for white middle class males the main risk issue were contacts with groups of other young men, alcohol consumption and witnessing ?ghts in the city centre. Discussion was concentrated on alcohol consumption. What made this group interesting was the degree of con?ict and tension evident between certain members of the group (Liam and Mark). Liam’s discussion of alcohol as an everyday risk practice accorded with the collaborative account generated by the majority of this group and was informed by the habitus at the speci?c intersection of class and gender at which such risk practices have their own ‘cultural logic’. Heavy drinking has long been associated with a tough, working-class, ‘hegemonic’ masculinity and Liam, although middle – class, performed his gender in such terms, highlighting that gender and class intersect in complex ways (Merryweather, 2010).

However, Mark (higher social position) experienced and understood alcohol consumption in quite different terms, and deployed his own ‘rhetoric of reason’, challenging Liam’s claim. In doing so he at once undermined Liam’s claim to a hegemonic masculinity and performed his own masculinity in a way which drew a clear distinction between himself and Liam. Then Liam reproduced a distinction around class and gender, positioning Mark in terms of a subordinate masculinity, as a weak and inferior man who lacked the authority to speak on issues such as alcohol consumption. This conflict showed that material experiences can be understood differently because of the relationships between class and gender (Merryweather, 2010).

Conclusion

To conclude, this essay has reviewed what social divisions are, why they are significant and how they are shown in my chosen article. To sum up, social divisions refers to social groups, different ways in which societies may be grouped and relationships between these groups. Social divisions can be distinguished on the basis of characteristics such as gender, age, class, ethnicity, health, sex, etc. Relationships between social divisions are significant too because they can reinforce social inequality. Using article this essay demonstrated how young people identi?ed different issues as risky aspects of their everyday lives through relationships with the material world according to social class, gender and ethnicity.