Miner

1. Who are the Nacirema?

2. Why does Miner use this writing strategy to describe the Nacirema? 

Lovely Hula Hands (Trask)

1. After defining the terms norm, value, and belief provide an example of a Hawaiian norm, value and belief from the reading.
2. How is the commercialization of Hawaiian culture analogous to prostitution, according to Trask?
3. What is your reaction to Trask’s article? How do you think your own statuses (e.g. nationality, race, class, etc….) influence your reaction?

McDonald’s in Hong Kong: Consumerism, Dietary Change and the Rise of a Children’s Culture (Watson)

1. What are some of the factors that allowed for the success of McDonald’s in Hong Kong?
2. Give at least four examples of how McDonald’s culture has been localized in Hong Kong.
3. In the beginning of the article, Watson poses the question, “Does the roaring success of McDonald’s and its rivals in the fast food industry mean that Hong Kong’s local culture is under siege (p. 152). And, “Are food chains helping to create a homogeneous, ‘global’ culture…” (p.152)? How does he ultimately answer these questions? Do you agree with his response? Why/why not?

NOTE:

Remember, there will be ten discussion opportunities during the quarter. You must participate in at least FIVE. You decide which five. I will drop your five lowest scores. Each post is worth 20 points. Extra posts do not equal extra credit. Strong posts will demonstrate understanding and connection to course materials and include citations/references (see grading rubric for details).

You also must respond to two peers’ responses to the prompt for the discussions in which you choose to participate. Responses are due by midnight on Wednesday. Responses should be at least 150 words each (put the word count in all responses). Replies should take the conversation further by adding questions or your own ideas in your replies. In addition, you can point out both strengths and areas of improvement on your peers’ submission. Strong posts will demonstrate understanding and connection to course materials. Each reply is worth 5 points, for a total of 10. 

You have the opportunity to earn extra credit points by responding to your peers’ replies to your own thread (100 minimum word count, worth up to 2 points each).  These are due on the same day as your other replies to peers. In order to ‘entice’ others to respond to you, and thus be able to take advantage of this extra credit opportunity, you will have to craft a strong original post that is engaging enough to others that they are interested in replying to it. Posting early in the discussion also helps 😉 

Confirming Pages
THE PRACTICAL SKEPTIC
CORE CONCEPTS IN SOCIOLOGY
Sixth Edit ion
Lisa J. McIntyre
Washington State University
mcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd imcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd i 19/04/13 3:51 AM19/04/13 3:51 AM

Rev. Confirming Pages
THE PRACTICAL SKEPTIC: CORE CONCEPTS IN SOCIOLOGY, SIXTH EDITION
Published by McGraw-Hill Education, 2 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10121. Copyright © 2 014 by
McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Previous
editions © 2 011, 2008, and 2006. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in
any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written
consent of McGraw-Hill Education, including, but not limited to, in any network or other
electronic storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning.
Some ancillaries, including electronic and print components, may not be available to customers
outside the United States.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 DOC/DOC 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3
ISBN 978-0-07-802687-4
MHID 0-07-802687-3
Senior Vice President, Products & Markets: Kurt L. Strand
Vice President, General Manager, Products & Markets: Michael Ryan
Vice President, Content Production & Technology Services: Kimberly Meriwether David
Managing Director: Gina Boedeker
Brand Manager: Courtney Austermehle
Director of Development: Rhona Robbin
Freelance Development Editor: Nomi Sofer
Marketing Manager: Philip Weaver
Marketing Coordinator: Ryan Viviani
Director, Content Production: Terri Schiesl
Content Project Manager: Mary Jane Lampe
Buyer: Nichole Birkenholz
Cover Designer: Studio Montage, St. Louis, MO
Cover Image: Digital Vision / Getty Images
Typeface: 10/12 Palatino
Compositor: Laserwords Private Limited
Printer: R. R. Donnelley
All credits appearing on page or at the end of the book are considered to be an extension of the
copyright page.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
McIntyre, Lisa J.
The practical skeptic : core concepts in sociology / Lisa J. McIntyre, Washington State
University. — Sixth edition.
      pages cm
ISBN 978-0-07-802687-4 (alk. paper)
1. Sociology. I. Title.
HM586.M55 2014
301—dc23
2013008264
The Internet addresses listed in the text were accurate at the time of publication. The inclusion of a
website does not indicate an endorsement by the authors or McGraw-Hill Education, and McGraw-
Hill Education does not guarantee the accuracy of the information presented at these sites.
www.mhhe.com
mcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd iimcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd ii 4/22/13 11:46 AM4/22/13 11:46 AM

Confirming Pages
iii
CONTENTS
Preface x
Introduction 1
So, What Is Sociology? 2
The Value of Sociology to Students 3
Tips for Studying Sociology—and an
Invitation 4
Chapter 1 Responding to Chaos: A Brief History
of Sociology 5
Inquiries into the Physical World 6
Technology, Urbanization, and Social
Upheaval 10
The Origins of Modern Sociology in France:
Émile Durkheim 13
E xcerpt: É mile D urkheim, From Suicide (1897)
and The Rules of the Sociological Method (1904) 14
The Origins of Modern Sociology in Germany:
Ferdinand Tönnies, Max Weber, and Karl Marx 16
E xcerpt: F erdinand T önnies, From
Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (1887) 17
Karl Marx 20
The Origins of Modern Sociology in England:
Herbert Spencer 22
Sociology in the United States 23
mcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd iiimcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd iii 19/04/13 3:51 AM19/04/13 3:51 AM

Confirming Pages
iv CONTENTS
B ox: One Small Step for Sociology 25
The Place of Sociology in Modern Society 26
Chapter Review 26
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion 27
Chapter 2 The Sociological Eye 29
The Focus on the Social 29
B ox: Agency and Structure 34
Skepticism 35
B ox: Nail Down That Distinction Between
Manifest and Latent Functions! 37
Chapter Review 38
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion 39
Chapter 3 Science and Fuzzy Objects: Specialization
in Sociology 40
Dividing Up the Task 42
Topic Area or Subject Matter 43
Theoretical Perspectives (Paradigms):
Functionalist, Conflict, and Symbolic
Interactionist 43
The Functionalist Paradigm 43
The Conflict Paradigm 44
The Symbolic Interactionist Paradigm 44
Which Paradigm Is Correct? 45
Levels of Analysis: Microsociology
and Macrosociology 46
Chapter Review 47
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion 48
Chapter 4 Who’s Afraid of Sociology? 49
The Empirical World and Inconvenient Facts 50
Ethnocentrism 52
Avoiding Ethnocentrism Can Be Difficult 54
Cultural Relativism 56
Chapter Review 57
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion 57
Chapter 5 The Vocabulary of Science 58
Concepts and Constructs 58
Variables 59
mcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd ivmcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd iv 19/04/13 3:51 AM19/04/13 3:51 AM

Confirming Pages
CONTENTS v
Hypotheses 61
Kinds of Variables: Independent Versus
Dependent 63
Kinds of Relationships: Directionality 65
Operational Definitions 66
Tables and Figures 68
A Note on Common Statistics 72
Correlation Versus Causation 74
Chapter Review 75
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion 76
Chapter 6 Doing Social Research 81
Two Traditions: Quantitative and Qualitative
Research 81
First Things First: The Lit Review 82
The Survey 84
Types of Survey Questions 85
B ox: Six Guidelines for Crafting Survey
Questions 87
The Art of Asking Questions 88
Observation 88
Unobtrusive (Nonreactive) Research 90
Artifacts 90
Use of Existing Statistics 91
Content Analysis 91
The Importance of Triangulation 92
Box: Ethnography 93
Sampling 96
B ox: Ethics and Social Research 97
Chapter Review 98
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion 99
Chapter 7 Culture 101
Material and Nonmaterial Culture 102
Nonmaterial Culture 102
Symbols 102
Language 103
Norms 104
Types of Norms 105
Sanctions 105
B ox: The Power of Informal Sanctions 106
Values 107
mcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd vmcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd v 19/04/13 3:51 AM19/04/13 3:51 AM

Confirming Pages
vi CONTENTS
B ox: What Do Americans Value? 107
B ox: Ideology 108
B ox: Ponder 109
B ox: Statements of Belief 109
Ideas and Beliefs 109
How It Adds Up 109
Culture as a Product of Action 110
Culture as a Conditioning Element of Further
Action 111
B ox: Problems Identified and Resolved in All
Known Cultures 112
B ox: Varieties of Cultural Wisdom 112
Social Institutions 113
Social Change: Cultural Diffusion and
Leveling 114
Subcultures and Countercultures 114
Idiocultures 116
Chapter Review 118
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion 119
Chapter 8 Social Structure 121
Statuses 121
Roles 123
Tricky Situation 1: Role Strain 124
Tricky Situation 2: Status Inconsistency 124
Tricky Situation 3: Role Conflict 125
Master Status 126
Groups 127
Primary and Secondary Groups 128
Formal Organizations and Bureaucracies 130
Ideal-Type Bureaucracies 130
Chapter Review 133
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion 134
Chapter 9 Society and Social Institutions 136
Societal Needs 139
The Nature of Social Institutions 142
Institutions Are Generally Unplanned; They
Develop Gradually 142
Institutions Are Inherently Conservative; They
Change, but Slowly 144
mcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd vimcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd vi 19/04/13 3:51 AM19/04/13 3:51 AM

Confirming Pages
CONTENTS vii
A Particular Society’s Institutions Are
Interdependent; Because of This, Change in
One Institution Tends to Bring About Change in
Others 147
The Statuses, Roles, Values, and Norms Associated
with an Institution in One Society Frequently
Bear Little Resemblance to Those in Another
Society 148
B ox: Polygamy and Monogamy 149
Social Change: The Trend Toward Increasing
Specialization 149
Chapter Review 150
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion 150
Chapter 10 Socialization 152
Nature and Nurture: Biological and Social
Processes 152
How Socialization Works 154
The Looking-Glass Self: Charles Horton
Cooley 155
The “I” and the “Me”: George Herbert
Mead 157
Family 160
School 161
Mass Media 162
Peer Groups 163
The Workplace 164
B ox: Rites of Passage 165
Resocialization and Total Institutions 166
B ox: Ponder 167
Chapter Review 167
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion 168
Chapter 11 Deviance and Social Control 169
The Relativity of Deviance (What We
Already Know) 169
Nonsociological Theories of
Deviance 171
Sociological Theories of Deviance: Émile
Durkheim and Suicide 173
The Collective Conscience and Structural
Strain 173
Egoism and Anomie 174
mcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd viimcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd vii 19/04/13 3:51 AM19/04/13 3:51 AM

Confirming Pages
viii CONTENTS
More Structural Strain: Robert Merton and
Anomie 176
Anomie and Modern Social Structure 176
Responses to Anomie 177
Legitimate Versus Illegitimate Means 179
Learning to Be Deviant: Howard Becker’s Study
of Marijuana Use 179
Learning to Smoke 180
Learning to Perceive the Effects 181
Learning to Enjoy the Effects 182
The Societal Reaction Perspective: Labeling
Theory 183
The Functions of Deviance: Maintenance of the
Status Quo and Social Change 187
B ox: Ponder 187
A Caution About Crime Data 188
Deviance Is Not Immutable 189
Gays in the Military 191
Chapter Review 192
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion 193
Chapter 12 Stratification and Inequality 195
Caste Systems 196
Estate Systems 199
B ox: A Year in the Life of the Peasant 200
Class Systems 202
Theoretical Conceptions of Class 203
B ox: Ponder 204
Some Words About Slavery 207
Social Mobility and Open Versus Closed
Systems 209
Chapter Review 210
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion 212
Chapter 13 Inequality and Achievement: Social
Class 213
B ox: The Matthew Effect 217
Explaining Social Stratification 218
Cultural Explanations 219
Structural Explanations 220
mcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd viiimcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd viii 19/04/13 3:51 AM19/04/13 3:51 AM

Rev. Confirming Pages
CONTENTS ix
B ox: Beyond Academics 223
The Pygmalion Effect: The Power of
Expectations 227
The Fallacy of Hard Work 228
B ox: Ponder 229
Social Mobility, Social Structure, and Social
Change 230
B ox: Measuring Inequality 231
Chapter Review 232
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion 234
Chapter 14 Inequality and Ascription: Race, Ethnicity,
and Gender 237
Why a Dollar Is Not Always a Dollar 238
”Racial Surtax” on Mortgages 242
Prejudice 245
Discrimination 246
Discrimination and “Isms” 249
The Social Construction of Minority
Groups 254
Gender 257
B ox: Sex or Gender? 259
What to Do with What You’ve Learned? 260
Chapter Review 262
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion 263
Afterword 266
References 268
Credits 278
Glossary/Index 279
mcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd ixmcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd ix 4/22/13 11:46 AM4/22/13 11:46 AM

Confirming Pages
PREFACE
I t wasn’t until I was about halfway through my first decade of teaching that I finally had the opportunity to teach Introduction
to Sociology. Did I want to teach Intro? You bet! I was ecstatic. I had
been teaching various upper-division classes—research methods,
social theory, criminology, law and society—but I wanted to be
the one who introduced sociology to students. I wanted to share
with students the enthusiasm that I felt for the entire sociologi-
cal enterprise and to expose them to the power of sociological
thought.
I tried to create an introductory course that would speak to the
typical first-year student who isn’t planning on majoring in soci-
ology and, indeed, may not even know what sociology is. Even
among sociology majors, very few plan on becoming sociologists.
Each semester, I ask my beginning students, “Why are you here?
What is it about sociology that interests you?” The very charitable
say, “I don’t know what sociology is, but I am sure that it will be
interesting.” Mostly, students are honest: “I’m here to fulfill my
general education requirements.” A few are more specific: “I have
to take a social science class and my advisor said that sociology is
easier than economics or political science.”
I knew that once these students discovered sociology, they
would find merit in it. Even if they didn’t major in sociology, they
would come away from the class with some important life knowl-
edge. I quote Robert Bierstedt in my syllabus: “Sociology owns
a proper place not only among the sciences, but also among the
arts that liberate the human mind” (1960, 3). I paraphrase Peter
Berger to suggest that students will find one of the most impor-
tant lessons of sociology to be that “things are not what they
x
mcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd xmcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd x 19/04/13 3:51 AM19/04/13 3:51 AM

Confirming Pages
PREFACE xi
seem” (1963, 23)—that sociological training encourages people
to look beyond the surface and to be suspicious of what “every-
body knows.” I tell them that it hardly matters what sort of career
they are working toward: learning how to be skeptical and how
to think like a sociologist will help them understand and resolve
complex and abstract problems on the job.
So, I knew how I wanted to structure the course—we would
learn the basic concepts and then talk and read about how these
worked in the real world. But I couldn’t find a textbook whose
author had anticipated my wishes. I wanted a book that would
introduce students to sociology’s foundational concepts—the sci-
entific method, culture, social structure, socialization, deviance,
inequality. I wanted a book that would not bury those concepts
inside tons of empirical information but would present them in
such a way that students could gain enough understanding to
apply them to what they read elsewhere and what they encoun-
tered in life. It was the sociological perspective I wanted these
students to come away with, not the details.
I was encouraged to pursue this vision by something I read
in an article by Frederick Campbell, a sociologist from the Uni-
versity of Washington. In the book he co-edited with Hubert
Blalock and Reece McGee, Campbell wrote that undergraduate
courses in sociology ought to focus on principles rather than facts:
“The mastery of sociology has a different meaning in the con-
text of undergraduate education than in vocational training or a
graduate program. A baccalaureate degree in sociology seldom
prepares a student for a specific occupation or to pursue inde-
pendent research. Emphasis on the subject matter, then, has lit-
tle value if it means memorizing material that will soon go out
of date for a job that does not exist. Mastery should move away
from factual material and focus instead on the development of
the mind” (1985, 13).
The longer I taught introductory sociology, however, the
greater became my frustration with the available instructional
material. So, one summer, I sat down to write some introductory
and background materials for my students. My idea was that
I would introduce them to the concepts that sociologists use,
and we would then apply these to what we read in a variety of
sociological articles and to what we encountered in real life (and
in the media). My goal was to provide my students with the
tools they needed to understand the social world through the
eyes of sociologists. As everyone who has taught introductory
courses probably knows, the foundational concepts of our dis-
cipline are not simple ones, and many students resist them. My
goal was not to simplify the concepts but to make them acces-
sible to students.
mcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd ximcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd xi 19/04/13 3:51 AM19/04/13 3:51 AM

Rev. Confirming Pages
xii PREFACE
The set of essays I wrote that summer—on the history of soci-
ology and the vocabulary of science, culture, social structure,
socialization, deviance, and inequality—seemed to serve my
students well. After students read them, we moved on with our
shared vocabulary to other works by sociologists and to discus-
sions of how these concepts applied to the real world. It worked.
It was as Peter Berger had promised in his Invitation to Sociology:
“It is not the excitement of coming upon the totally unfamiliar,
but rather the excitement of finding the familiar becoming trans-
formed in its meaning. The fascination of sociology lies in the fact
that its perspective makes us see in a new light the very world in
which we have lived all our lives” (1963, 21). Although I omit-
ted much that is found in the typical sociology text (there are no
chapters on family, religion, or politics), the concepts I did focus
on (institutions, roles, values, and so on) allowed us to have rela-
tively sophisticated discussions of those topics.
Be warned: I am not one of those sociologists who write in
what Peter Berger called “a barbaric dialect.” I’ve taken C. Wright
Mills’s caution to heart: “To get beyond sociological prose we
must get beyond the sociologist’s pose” (1959). Notwithstanding
the fact that I once had a book rejected by a noted university press
because it was “too much of a good read,” I’ve persisted in my
casual style and, whenever I couldn’t help it, have indulged my
odd sense of humor. Many sociological concepts are very com-
plex, and I think I have done justice to that complexity, but I have
tried to do it in ways that are accessible to students.
NEW TO THIS EDITION
This edition uses updated statistics from the most recent census
and other agencies. In response to suggestions from my readers, I
continue to augment the discussions of topics that many students
find difficult. In this edition, you will find new sections on the
relationship between correlation and causation, ethnography, the
mutability of deviance and the relationship between gender and
income.
The goal of the book remains the same: to introduce students to
sociology in a way that makes the core concepts of our discipline
accessible without losing the crucial complexity of these concepts
in translation. Along the way, I hope that I have managed as well
to convey my enthusiasm for sociology.
SUPPLEMENTS
Visit our Online Learning Center Web site at http://www.mhhe
.com/mcintyre6e for student and instructor resources. This is a
mcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd xiimcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd xii 4/22/13 11:46 AM4/22/13 11:46 AM

Confirming Pages
PREFACE xiii
combined Web site for both The Practical Skeptic: Core Concepts in
Sociology, and its companion reader, The Practical Skeptic: Readings
in Sociology.
For Students
Student resources include comprehensive self-quizzes for both
the text and reader.
For Instructors
The password-protected instructor portion of the Web site in-
cludes the instructor’s manual (written by the author), contain-
ing discussion questions and activities, examples of lectures, tips
specifically targeting new instructors, a comprehensive test bank,
and all the tools available to students. Also included is a sepa-
rate test bank for the reader with multiple choice, true/false, and
essay questions for each reading.
THE COMPANION READER
Created to serve as a companion to the text, The Practical Skeptic:
Core Concepts in Sociology, this reader, The Practical Skeptic: Read-
ings in Sociology, includes classic sociological writings as well as
recent writings on fascinating topics of interest to students. Cor-
responding to the conceptual organization of the text, each of the
readings serves to illustrate key sociological concepts and ideas.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My largest thanks go to the hundreds of students who have read
The Practical Skeptic and shared their views of the text with me.
Many thanks to the following reviewers whose comments and
suggestions shaped the sixth edition: Peter Adler, University of
Denver; Mitch Berbrier, University of Alabama in Huntsville;
Joslyn Brenton, North Carolina State University; Margaret Dele-
hanty Kelly, University of Minnesota; Stacy Evans, Berkshire
Community College; Susan Eichenberger, Seton Hill University;
Catherine Leone, University of Wisconsin-Manitowoc; Pamela
McMullin-Messier, Central Washington University; Janice L. Milner,
Century College; Megan Peterson, William Rainey Harper College;
Carly Sebastian, Mount Wachusett Community College.
Thank you to the following reviewers whose helpful comments
and suggestions helped us in our preparation of the fifth edition:
Elizabeth Larsen, California University of Pennsylvania; Lynda
Dickson, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs; Kiren
Ghei, Delta College; Thomas B. Gold, University of California at
Berkeley; Patti Guiffre, Texas State University; Michael Collins,
mcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd xiiimcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd xiii 19/04/13 3:51 AM19/04/13 3:51 AM

Confirming Pages
xiv PREFACE
UW Fox Valley in Menasha; Linda C. Evans, Drake University;
Carolyn Kapinus, Ball State University; Carla Norris-Raynbird,
Bemidji State University, C. Stephen Glennon, Iowa Western
Community College; Doug Degher, North Arizona University;
Kim Hennessee, Ball State University.
The fourth edition manuscript was reviewed by the following
people, who responded with suggestions and pointed out neces-
sary revisions, for which I am deeply grateful: Diane C. Bates, The
College of New Jersey; Gretchen DeHart, Community College of
Vermont; Esther Horrocks, Villa Julie College; Michael C. Maher,
Spoon River College; Lida V. Nedilsky, North Park University;
Deborah Thorne, Ohio University; and Craig Tollini, Western Illi-
nois University.
I also appreciate the help of the third edition reviewers who
offered many helpful comments and suggestions: Deborah A.
Abowitz, Bucknell; Cheryl Albers, Buffalo State; Sue Cox, Belle-
vue Community College; Derek Greenfield, Highline Community
College; Tiffany Hayes, Green River Community College; Barbara
Karcher, Kennesaw; Susan Ross, Lycoming College; and Ann S.
Stein, College of Charleston.
I thank the reviewers of the second edition for their thoughtful
reading: Jerry Barrish, Bellevue Community College; Debra Cornelius,
Shippensburg University; Jamie Dangler, SUNY Cortland; Laurel R.
Davis, Springfield College; Gloria Y. Gadsden, Fairleigh Dickinson
University; Alan G. Hill, Delta College; Susan E. Humphers-Ginther,
Moorhead State University; Katherine Johnson, Niagara County Com-
munity College; Barbara Karcher, Kennesaw State University; Debra
C. Lemke, Western Maryland College; Patricia A. Masters, George
Mason University; Susan McWilliams, University of Southern Maine;
Dan Pence, Southern Utah University; Marcella Thompson, Univer-
sity of Arkansas; Georgeanna M. Tryban, Indiana State University;
and Brenda S. Zicha, Charles Stewart Mott Community College.
I would also like to thank the reviewers of the first edition:
Peter Adler, University of Denver; Sheila M. Cordray, Oregon
State University; Mary Patrice Erdmans, University of North
Carolina–Greensboro; Valerie Jenness, University of California–
Irvine; Frances V. Moulder, Three Rivers Community–Technical
College; Karl T. Pfeiffer, University of Alaska; Martha L. Shockey,
St. Ambrose University; Lisa Troyer, University of Iowa; and
Georgeanna M. Tryban, Indiana State University.
Lisa J. McIntyre
mcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd xivmcI26873_fm_i-xiv.indd xiv 19/04/13 3:51 AM19/04/13 3:51 AM

Confirming Pages
1

INTRODUCTION
H ave you ever caught yourself thinking about things that people do? Have you ever asked yourself, for example,
questions about everyday things like these:
Why do some students always sit in the back of the classroom
while others always sit in the front?
Why do African Americans on predominantly white college
campuses frequently say “hi” to other African Americans,
even if they don’t know them?
Why do we dress baby girls in pink and baby boys in blue?
Why do people generally not look at one another in
elevators—and always face front?
Why do young men, but not young women, spit?
Why do we go to such lengths to pretend we aren’t embar-
rassed when we have to get naked in front of a doctor?
Why do people from small towns tend to act differently from
people from big cities?
Why are most people less willing to seek professional help for
mental or emotional problems than for physical problems?
Sociologists are trained to find answers to questions about
people’s behavior. We are especially interested in understanding
the effects that people have on one another.
Sociologists are convinced that much of people’s behavior is a
result of what other people do. A sociologist reviewing the ques-
tions just listed would likely say that many of these behaviors
result from how people are influenced by others.
mcI26873_intro_001-004.indd 1mcI26873_intro_001-004.indd 1 4/9/13 12:57 PM4/9/13 12:57 PM

Confirming Pages
2 INTRODUCTION
This sociological conviction might offend you. Certainly, I like
to think of myself as independent minded; you, too, may like to
think that your behaviors are the results of choices you have made
of your own free will. But allow me to persuade you that to under-
stand people’s behavior and the choices they make, it is important
to take into account the influence of others in their environment.
Even when you think you are making your own choices, often
you are picking only from the fairly limited range of options that
others allow you. The simple fact is that, depending on your position
in society—your age, gender, race, social class, and so on—people
expect and allow you to act in various ways. Society places restric-
tions on your behavior with very little regard for your preferences.
Of course, you can choose not to live up to society’s expectations,
but if you decide to be contrary, you will pay a price. And, depending
on the seriousness of your infraction, that price can range from end-
less nagging by your parents to a prison sentence and even to death!
Consider marriage. Surely, the decisions whether to get mar-
ried, whom to marry, and when are very personal decisions. Actu-
ally, they are not. Examine this matter carefully and you will find
that your marital choices are rather restricted. For example, in the
United States, you can be married to only one person at a time. And
(at least for the time being) you can marry only a person of the
opposite sex—unless you live in one of the several states that allow
same-sex marriage. Until the late 1960s, many states even had laws
requiring people to marry within their own racial group—if you
broke these laws, you could be sent to prison or exiled from the state. 1
Chances are, your family places even more restrictions on your
marriage choices. Have you noticed that there are, in effect, family
“rules” about whom you can marry? These rules may be unspoken
but clear: Your parents may wish you to wed someone of your own
race and religion and from the same educational and social-class back-
ground. Of course, there is no law that says family rules must be fol-
lowed, but we all know that families have ways of making us suffer.
Even your friends may restrict your marriage (and dating)
choices. Consider how they would make you suffer if you started
to date some seriously weird geek.
You really have to wonder, why does everyone care so much
about whom we marry? Now that is a sociological question!
So, What Is Sociology?
Here is a technical definition of sociology: Sociology is the scientific
study of interactions and relations among human beings.
1 Some states have never rescinded these laws, but because such racial restrictions
were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967, even where they do
exist, they do not have the force of law.
mcI26873_intro_001-004.indd 2mcI26873_intro_001-004.indd 2 4/9/13 12:57 PM4/9/13 12:57 PM

Confirming Pages
The Value of Sociology to Students 3
I hope the word scientific caught your attention. Including that
word in the definition is a reminder that sociologists try to be
very careful about how they find answers to their questions.
While the questions they ask are certainly influenced by their
own interests and even their biases, they do not want their answers
to be contaminated by bias or emotion or faulty logic—after all,
they want their research to be persuasive to others. Therefore, as
much as possible, they strive to be systematic in gathering data.
The Value of Sociology to Students
The goal of this book, and this course, is not so much to introduce
you to new worlds as it is to inspire you to take a long hard look
at familiar ones. And, I promise you, the reward for doing that
will be much greater than the simple gratification of intellectual
curiosity. There will be many practical rewards.
The practical value of taking a sociology course is that what
you learn, by definition, never will be irrelevant to your life —present
and future. Each of us lives in the social world; each of us is influ-
enced by others and, to some extent, hopes to influence others.
Studying sociology will strengthen your ability to understand
how the social world operates and what your place is in it. More-
over, studying sociology will enhance your ability to act effec-
tively in the social world.
Just to whet your appetite, let me share with you one of the
most basic sociological truths as it was put into words in 1928 by
the sociologist W. I. Thomas: “If people define situations as real,
they are real in their consequences.” The Thomas theorem articu-
lated the sociological finding that had escaped many nonsocio-
logical observers. If one truly wants to understand why people
do the things they do, one must take into account not only what
is really going on in a particular situation but also what people
think is going on. For example, if moviegoers believe the theater is
on fire, they will react to the threat as if it were real, even if there
is no fire. A consequence could be a panic in which people are
trampled to death, even though the threat was never “real.”
Thomas’s insight helps us to understand how people live their
everyday lives, too. Suppose the local newspaper runs a series
of articles on how people are being victimized by crimes. The
reporters pick the most interesting and most gruesome of crimi-
nal events on which to focus. Even if the reality is that these are
uncommon events and that the actual rate of crime is going down,
we would predict that people’s fear of crime would increase,
which would have important consequences. For example, more
people might purchase handguns for protection just at the point
when things really are becoming safer. The increase in handgun
mcI26873_intro_001-004.indd 3mcI26873_intro_001-004.indd 3 4/9/13 12:57 PM4/9/13 12:57 PM

Confirming Pages
4 INTRODUCTION
ownership might result in an increase in handgun deaths—kids
playing with guns, panicked homeowners shooting neighbors
stumbling around in the middle of the night, and so on.
Certainly, reality is important, because even when people do
not define things as real, they can have real consequences. Thus,
even if people do not know that the theater is on fire, they will die
if they don’t escape. But reality is only one factor that we must
take into account to understand how people act and interact.
Sociology, then, is the discipline that studies the interactions
and relationships among people—the realities and the perceived
realities. Even given the seemingly countless variations in people’s
possible behaviors, sociologists are remarkably successful in shed-
ding light on questions about why people do what they do and
how they are influenced by one another.
My goal in this book has been to select the most important concepts
that sociologists use and share them with you. My hope is that you,
too, might apply these concepts as you work to move about in the
social world more effectively and to understand it more thoroughly.
Tips for Studying Sociology—
and an Invitation
To get the most out of your study of sociology, you will need to do
more than simply read the book. Your goal should be to “own” the
concepts—that is, not only to read, but to think about the concepts
as well so that you can use them to understand social life. To help
you achieve this goal, I have scattered Stop and Review questions
throughout the book. I urge you to answer these questions. Many
of my own students have told me that doing so makes it much
easier to understand (and remember) sociological concepts. Several
of my students tell me that they learn even more by making a list
of the concepts for each chapter along with the definitions given
in the book, and then writing their own definitions and examples.
Finally, I enjoy hearing from students (and their teachers, of
course). If you have a question, comment, sociological example, or
suggestion that you would like to share with me, please do so! I
might use your example in the next edition of the book. (If I do
that, I will be sure to give you credit—and I will make sure that you
receive a copy of the book so that you can see your name in print.)
You can contact me via “snail mail” at Department of Sociology,
Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4020, or e-mail
at ljmcint@wsu.edu . Please include your mail or e-mail address
so that I can respond.
mcI26873_intro_001-004.indd 4mcI26873_intro_001-004.indd 4 4/9/13 12:57 PM4/9/13 12:57 PM

Confirming Pages
5
1
RESPONDING TO CHAOS
A Brief History of Sociology
“He who watches a thing grow has the best view of it.”
— Heraclitus 1
I have always suspected that what people choose to study is a result of something other than mere accident. It seems to me
that people study what they feel they most need to understand,
and frequently, these are things that frighten them.
To the first peoples of the world, nature was overwhelmingly
powerful and fear inspiring; the physical environment domi-
nated the lives of men and women. The time of year dictated
daily tasks—planting, reaping, hunting. The available vegetation
and game dictated what people ate. Even after plants and animals
were domesticated, menus were limited by climate—if you lived
in the Northern Hemisphere, probably you would die without
ever having tasted a mango or a banana.
It is easy to understand, then, why the earliest people focused
their intellectual efforts on gaining an understanding of the phys-
ical world. Theirs were pressing questions: Why did the sun rise
each morning and set each evening? Would it continue to do so?
What made it rain? Why did the wind blow?
Obviously, humankind has never “conquered” nature, yet by
the beginning of the nineteenth century, humanity had succeeded
in making the natural world seem more predictable. But then,
just as Westerners seemed to be getting a handle on the natu-
ral, their social world became frighteningly chaotic. People were
accustomed to wars with foreigners, but in the eighteenth century
nearly every European nation faced internal war in the form of
revolution. By the time the nineteenth century rolled around, the
political, economic, and religious foundations of society appeared
1 Heraclitus (hera-KLI-tus) was an ancient Greek philosopher (c. 540–480 B.C.E. ).
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 5mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 5 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
6 CHAPTER 1 RESPONDING TO CHAOS
to be on the verge of crumbling. Things were in chaos. People
were frightened.
Inquiries into the Physical World
Although the most dramatic social upheavals occurred in the
eighteenth century, rumblings had been heard as far back as
the sixteenth century. It was during the sixteenth century that
people started to question the validity of long-held beliefs about
the fundamental nature of the world.
At first, these questions had to do with the physical world. In
the second century of the common era, 2 Greek/Egyptian astron-
omer Claudius Ptolemy had determined that the earth was the
center of the universe. (Actually this idea had been around at
least since the fourth century B.C.E., but Ptolemy mathematically
“proved” the theory using geometry.) More than a thousand years
later, leaders of the Western Church still embraced Ptolemy’s
view because it meshed with other ideas they held: Of course, the
earth is at the center of things—“man” was God’s most important
creation, and where else would God place man’s world but at the
center of the universe? Anyway, if things were otherwise—if the
earth were not the center of things but revolved around the sun—
wouldn’t we feel the earth move?
In 1543, a Pole named Mikolaj Kopernik (better known now
as Nicolaus Copernicus) in Frauenberg (a town in East Prussia)
2 We are so accustomed to thinking that our ways of accounting for time are natural,
that it comes as a shock to realize that these systems are very much human creations. For
example, many people in Western societies distinguish between B.C. (Before Christ) and
A.D. for Anno Domini (or “in the year of our Lord,” and not “after death”). The B.C. – A.D.
distinction did not appear spontaneously but was devised in 523 C.E. by the abbot of a
Roman monastery, Dionysis Exiguus (also known as Peter the Little). Until then, the
Church had followed the Roman tradition of dating events from the purported year of
Rome’s creation ( Anno urbia conditae, or year of the establishment of the city). Dionysis
Exiguus calculated that Jesus was born in 753 A.U.C. and designated that year as 1 A.D.
The monk’s calculations have since been determined to be in error. Jesus of Nazareth
was born during the reign of King Herod, and Herod died in 4 B.C. Thus, the birth of
Jesus has traditionally been dated at least four years too late.
As an acknowledgment of the arbitrary beginnings of the Western calendar, many
contemporary writers have substituted the terms B.C.E. (“before common era”) and C.E.
(“common era”).
Of course, the Christian calendar has never been accepted everywhere in the world.
The Islamic calendar, for example, dates the beginning of modern time from Anno Hegirae
( A.H. ), or the year of the Hegira—the year when Mohammed fled from Mecca to Medina
(the Arabic word hirira means “flight”). The Prophet’s flight took place in what the
Western calendar calculates to be 622 C.E. (and more specifically on July 16); that means
that the year 2000 C.E. on the Western calendar was 421 A.H. Moving back and forth
between the Western/Christian and Islamic calendars is further complicated by the fact
that their years are not the same length: The Western calendar is calculated according to
solar movement, the Islamic calendar according to lunar movement.
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 6mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 6 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
Inquiries into the Physical World 7
published a book titled On the Revolutions of Heavenly Bodies. In
this book Copernicus suggested that the sun, not the earth, was
at the center of the universe and that the planets (including the
earth) revolved around the sun. In other words, Copernicus
properly described the cosmos as heliocentric, not geocentric
(see  figure 1.1 ).
The heliocentric perspective did not catch on right away. For
one thing, Copernicus was such a timid fellow that he did not
publish his theory until he was literally on his deathbed. And
even after it was published, many people were reluctant to accept
the Copernican view. Copernicus’s ideas of the universe contra-
dicted those espoused by the Church. Contradicting the Church
meant facing possibly serious consequences (even death). Why
risk it? At best, Copernicus’s theory was a sophisticated guess.
There was no way to test it.
Then, along came the Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei, who
was born in Pisa in 1564. In 1609, Galileo was visiting Venice,
where he learned of a new device invented by spectacle-maker
Hans Lippershey: a telescope. Back home, in 1610, Galileo built
his own telescope (one that was three times as powerful as
Lippershey’s original) and was the first to use the instrument
to examine the heavens. Galileo found evidence to support the
heliocentric theory. In 1632, Galileo presented this evidence in a
book titled Dialagoi ai due Massimi Sistemi, or Dialogue on the Two
Great Systems of the World.
Galileo understood the risk of publicly contradicting the teach-
ings of the Church. In hopes of reducing his risk, Galileo wrote
his book as if it were a dialogue between two scholars—one who
argued for Ptolemy’s (and the Church’s) view, the other who pro-
pounded Copernicus’s theory. At the end of the book, even though
he had appeared to be winning the argument, the Copernican sup-
porter suddenly gave up and admitted that the Ptolemaic view
was the correct one. Because of this, asserted Galileo, his book sup-
ported the Church’s teaching.
But Galileo had not been clever enough. The final surrender of
the Copernican scholar did not make up for the fact that through-
out the book the Ptolemaic supporter had been portrayed as an
Figure 1.1
Competing Views
of the Cosmos.
Geocentric means
“earth-centered”;
heliocentric means
“sun-centered” (Helios
was the sun god of
Greek mythology). Geocentric
Sun
Sun
Heliocentric
Earth
Earth
“The doctrine
that the earth is
neither the center
of the universe, nor
immovable, but
moves, even with
a daily rotation, is
absurd, and both
philosophically and
theologically false,
and at the least an
error of faith.”
— Rome’s judgment
against Galileo
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 7mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 7 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
8 CHAPTER 1 RESPONDING TO CHAOS
unpersuasive simpleton. Anyone who actually read the book was
left with the impression that religious leaders had been proved
wrong about the nature of the universe. Because of this, the book
was judged to be heresy, and Galileo was summoned to Rome
to face the Inquisition. In other words, the Church leaders put
Galileo on trial. 3
In his defense, Galileo argued that there was nothing unholy or
irreligious about his theory. After all, as Galileo reminded Church
officials, it was God who had made the planets revolve around the
sun. Galileo even asked the judges to look through his telescope
to see the truth for themselves. Some of the judges did look but,
stuffed full of Church doctrine, failed or refused to see.
In fact, Galileo’s crime (if we must call it that) was to question
the authority of the Church. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a lead-
ing theologian of the Church, as much as told Galileo that it didn’t
matter what proof he had: “Physical reality is not to be explained
by mathematics but by the Scriptures and Church fathers.”
Ultimately, faced with excommunication, Galileo was forced to
recant—to take back his theory—and promise to be silent. 4
Galileo died in 1642, having spent the final eight years of his
life in enforced seclusion in Florence, Italy. Some twelve months
later in England, Isaac Newton was born. Newton would salvage
Galileo’s reputation—and bring about the final undoing of the
Church’s authority over the workings of the natural world.
Newton was a brilliant mathematician—while still a student
at Cambridge University, he discovered the binomial theorem—
who became a professor at a very young age. His university career
was put on hold in 1666, however, when the plague nearly turned
London into a ghost town. Newton retreated to his family’s farm
in Lincolnshire. Farming was of little interest to Newton, so he
built himself a laboratory wherein he might continue his research.
At least part of Newton’s genius lay in his ability to look at
data with a mind free of preconceived notions. He was not like the
3 The Inquisition was a tribunal or court of the Roman Catholic Church. It had been
established in 1233 to deal with heresy, or crimes of unbelief. In 1542 (more than a cen-
tury before it summoned Galileo), the Inquisition came to be called the Holy Office
(though most still called it the Inquisition). In 1965 the Inquisition was replaced by the
Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.
Don’t confuse the Roman Inquisition with the much more notorious Spanish Inqui-
sition. The latter had been established by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella in 1478 to
test the faith of converted Jews and, later, of converted Muslims. The Spanish Inquisi-
tion made frequent use of torture and capital punishment; the Roman Inquisition made
only occasional use of such drastic measures.
4 Galileo’s reputation was eventually rehabilitated by the Catholic Church. In 1992,
Pope John Paul II suggested that the condemnation of Galileo had been an error result-
ing from “tragic mutual incomprehension.” The Church’s acceptance of Galileo’s con-
tributions has not been total. In 2009, plans to place a statue of Galileo in the Vatican
were quashed after church officials voiced concerns with the project.
Newton’s most
famous discovery,
gravity, holds up
planets. Newton
also invented
calculus, which
often holds up
students.
∑i=1
n
u=f(x,y)
v=√—2gh
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 8mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 8 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
Inquiries into the Physical World 9
Church officials, who looked but could not see. Newton studied
the works of his predecessors, conducted his own experiments,
and saw.
In a book titled Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687),
Newton posited his famous three laws of motion; from these
Newton deduced the law of gravitation. 5
First Law of Motion—The Law of Inertia
Nothing moves unless and until some force acts upon it.
Second Law of Motion—Law of Acceleration
Force is equal to mass times acceleration ( F   5   m   3   a ).
Third Law of Motion—Law of Action and Reaction
To every action there is always an opposed and equal reaction.
Law of Gravitation
Every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a
force that is proportional to the product of the masses of the two
particles, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance
between their centers. This force is directed along a line between
their centers.
Newton completely undid the traditional view of the cosmos
by making it clear that the earth was not the center of the
universe. But Newton did more: His simple
laws explained the movement of everything
visi ble in the universe. These laws explained not
only how planets moved about in the cosmos,
but also why buildings sometimes fell down
and bridges sometimes collapsed. Because of
Newton, astronomers could calculate the orbits of the planets,
and engineers could build taller buildings and longer bridges.
During the next century, religious leaders retreated from their
position that their authority was the last word on the natural
world. Newton’s findings were so compelling that the Church had
to retreat. But, the Church leaders maintained, it was still God,
not gravity, that ordered the individual’s place in the social world.
As was frequently said, “The rich man in his castle, the poor man
at his gate, God made them, high and lowly, and ordered their
estate.”6 In short, each individual was born into a particular
5 The story that Newton’s discovery of the law of gravity was inspired when an apple
fell on his head was first recounted by the French philosopher Voltaire (1694–1778), who
claimed to have been told the tale by Newton’s niece.
6 This verse is from the hymn All Things Bright and Beautiful, by Irish poet Cecil
Francis Alexander (1815–1895), published in 1848. Although this hymn is still sung in
churches, this particular verse is omitted from modern hymnals.
“Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in Night:
God said, ‘Let Newton be!’
And all was light.”
— Alexander Pope
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 9mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 9 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
10 CHAPTER 1 RESPONDING TO CHAOS
“estate,” or rigidly defined social group, and that was the condi-
tion in which he or she would die.
It is important to understand that a person’s place in the social
world was believed to be much more than an accident of birth:
The estate or status into which the individual was born was the
estate into which that person ought to have been born. According
to religious leaders, God made kingly people kings, generally
superior people rich, and generally inferior people poor. More-
over, men were superior to women, and (of course) Europeans
were superior to everyone else. If you had been born a woman,
or poor, or non-European, you had only gotten what you had
deserved.
But people still wondered. Newton had stripped the universe
of its great veil of mystery by showing that the planets were
governed not by some unknowable cosmic force but by a few
simple laws of physics. Surely the mysteries of the more immedi-
ate social world could be similarly resolved?
Technology, Urbanization,
and Social Upheaval
And so it was that by the end of the eighteenth century, the tra-
ditional view of the social world came to be as suspect as the old
views of the natural world. Skepticism ran deep. Were the rich
really superior to the poor? Were men really superior to women?
Were Europeans really superior to everyone else? Some people
even had the audacity to propose that kings reigned not by divine
right but simply to serve the needs of the people! If that was true,
then if a king failed to serve his people, he should be replaced.
This very revolutionary idea was reflected in the American Dec-
laration of Independence in 1776 and the French Declaration of
the Rights of Man and Citizen in 1789 and was behind the many
revolutions that occurred in Europe in the late-eighteenth and
early-to-mid-nineteenth centuries.
Still, this new world was a fragile one. It lacked political, eco-
nomic, and social stability. Compounding the problem was the
fact that technology kept bringing about even more changes.
Richard Arkwright’s invention of the water-powered spinning
frame, for example, led to the building of giant textile mills. The
prospects for employment in the huge mills and other new facto-
ries (or manufactories, as they were called) lured hordes of people
from rural areas to cities. Throughout Europe, urban centers grew
fast and furiously.
Consider: In 1800, 900,000 people lived in London, 600,000 peo-
ple in Paris, and 170,000 people in Berlin. By 1900, the population
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 10mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 10 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
Auguste Comte called
himself the Great
Priest of Humanity.
Technology, Urbanization, and Social Upheaval 11
of London was 4.7 million, of Paris 3.6 million, and of Berlin
2.7 million.
Among the new urbanites were millions of desperately poor
people. Five-year-old children worked fifteen-hour days in factories,
and countless numbers of unattached men and women could
barely earn a living wage. Industry was dangerous, and if the
factory didn’t kill you, the open sewers and lack of clean water
probably would. There was, of course, no health insurance. If you
were injured and could not work, or if you lost your job for any
reason, you would not eat. Here’s how one medical historian has
described the scene:
In the big cities the death rate had reached such levels by the middle
of the nineteenth century that there were serious doubts whether
sufficient hands would be available for factories, and whether
enough able-bodied recruits could be found for the . . . armies. . . .
The big city slums represented reservoirs of infectious diseases and
epidemics, menacing not only the poor, but the life and health of the
upper classes as well. (Ackernecht 1982, 212)
In England, the life expectancy between 1540–1800 was around
37 years. This is not to say that no one lived until old age; the
average life expectancy was affected by the fact that more than
50 percent of children died before the age of 15 years.
The new urbanites included many unfortunate souls—people
working long hours for tiny wages, insufficient food, and inad-
equate shelter. These urban poor terrified the urban middle and
upper classes—and it was easy to see why. There were obvious
and strong links between poverty, riots, and revolutions. In
France the urban poor were referred to as the dangerous classes.
The first European countries to experience widespread social
upheaval were those countries that had first undergone industri-
alization: Britain, France, and Germany. It was thus no accident
that the first sociologists emerged in those countries—these were
the men (and a few women) who offered solutions to the pressing
problems of modern industrial society.
One of the first to step forward was Auguste Comte. Born in
France in 1798, Comte had witnessed firsthand the social chaos
that had followed the French Revolution. Comte urged that some
scholars should specialize in studying the problems of modern
society and propose solutions. In 1832 Comte named this field
of study sociology. 7
7 Comte brought together the Greek word socius, or “companion,” and the Latin
word logy, or “study,” to create the term sociology. In a similar fashion, it was Comte
who coined the term biology.
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 11mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 11 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
12 CHAPTER 1 RESPONDING TO CHAOS
As Comte came on the scene, people were saying that the
main problem of modern society was that people no longer knew
(or were satisfied with) their proper place in society. Instead of
focusing on the good of the community and being content with
their lot (or estate) in society, people had become selfish, greedy,
and uppity. Generally, this sort of individualism was seen to be at
the root of social chaos.
Comte’s diagnosis was more specific. He argued that his
contemporaries—people in this newly modern society—were suf-
fering from “intellectual anarchy” because they no longer shared
any beliefs about the way things ought to be.
Comte suggested that the history of people’s understanding
of things (including the social world) followed what he called
the Law of Three Stages. In the first stage, which Comte called
the theological stage, religious leaders were the major sources of
knowledge and intellectual authority. In the second stage, which
Comte called the metaphysical, people turned to philosophers for
guidance. In the final stage, which Comte called the positive or
scientific, knowledge would be based on scientific principles.
Comte believed that social chaos would be overcome when
people accepted that it was time to move on to the third stage
of knowledge. Then, through the science of sociology especially,
social harmony would be restored. Scientific sociologists would
be the experts on the earthly social world, just as astronomers
were the experts on the heavens.
Sociologists would use scientific methods to gain knowledge
of the social world. Then they would advise people about how
life ought to be lived. Comte went so far as to argue that sociology
should take the place of religion as a source of answers to life’s
important questions: What is right and wrong? What does jus-
tice require? Convinced that sociologists should serve as the high
priests of the modern world, Comte even wrote to the Roman
Catholic pope suggesting that he abdicate and let Comte take his
place! Toward the end of his life, Comte began to sign his letters
with the title The Founder of Universal Religion, Great Priest of
Humanity (see Coser 1971).
Comte’s grandiose plans gained him a number of disciples—
even the English philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote admiringly
of Comte in his System of Logic. Some of Comte’s followers formed
a cult known as Comtism. But eventually he went too far. Comte
grew to be more than a tad odd; frankly, he became a quack. By the
time Comte died in 1857, sociology was more or less a laughing-
stock in France.
It would be some time before anyone dared to raise the subject
of sociology in France. Eventually, however, the mantle of the dis-
cipline was taken up by a scholar named Émile Durkheim.
The word scientist
was coined by the
English mineralogist
and philosopher
William Whewell in
1840—about the
same time that
Comte coined the
term sociology.
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 12mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 12 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
One of his professors
warned Émile
Durkheim (1858–
1917) to abandon
his plans to become
a sociologist because
“sociology leads to
madness.”
The Origins of Modern Sociology in France: Émile Durkheim 13
The Origins of Modern Sociology
in France: Émile Durkheim
Like many of his contemporaries, Émile Durkheim 8 was alarmed
by the chaos he saw in society. It was important, Durkheim said,
to study society and social dynamics to find out what was going
on. Yet, whereas many of his contemporaries were repelled by the
individualism that had emerged in the late-eighteenth and nine-
teenth centuries, Durkheim wasn’t so sure individualism would
be the undoing of society. In his first book, The Division of Labor
in Society, published in 1893, Durkheim explored the sources of
order and stability in the modern world. Based on his research,
Durkheim argued that even a society filled with selfish individ-
uals would hold together, because even selfish people need one
another to survive.
Imagine, for example, a premodern society in which people’s
livelihoods depended on their herds of sheep and their crops of
vegetables. In such a society, most people would spend their time
raising sheep and tending crops. Thus, the interests of each indi-
vidual in the community would coincide—a bad year for sheep or
turnips would be a bad year for everyone, and a drought would
bring catastrophe for the entire group. In such a society, Dur-
kheim suggested, with a very simple division of labor, people’s
work would be alike, and so would the people.
This likeness was important, Durkheim claimed, because it
was what held people in premodern societies together. Likeness
allowed people to experience solidarity. Their similar circum-
stances led them to have shared ideas, values, and goals—or what
Durkheim called a collective conscience. Durkheim called this sort
of solidarity mechanical because people in the community func-
tioned together as a simple machine.
Life in modern society is very different, Durkheim said. People’s
labor is more specialized, and their interests are thus different
(and even conflicting). An especially hot summer might be bad
for the vegetable farmers but great for the grape growers. A rail-
road strike might be a disaster for cattle ranchers but a bonanza
for chicken farmers, who could easily ship via truck.
Because of this specialized division of labor, said Durkheim,
modern society could not be held together by likeness. The col-
lective conscience—people’s shared ideas, values, and goals—
existed but was a very small part of people’s overall consciences.
As the division of labor in society became more complex, people
8 Émile is a man’s name and is pronounced “A-meal,” and not, as some mistakenly
say, “Emily.”
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 13mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 13 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
14 CHAPTER 1 RESPONDING TO CHAOS
became more different (and so, too, did their interests, values,
beliefs, and the like).
This brought Durkheim to the point that was terrifying every-
one else. If the collective conscience, or what people shared, was so
limited, what would hold society together?
Durkheim reasoned that dissimilarity would not mean an end
to group solidarity. Indeed, as people became more specialized
and different, they grew more dependent on one another. For
example, because they worked in specialized occupations, people
needed each other as sources of trade. Durkheim called this sort of
From Suicide (1897) and The Rules of the
Sociological Method (1904)
ÉMILE DURKHEIM
What Is a Social Fact?
Sociological method as we practice it rests wholly on the basic
principle that social facts must be studied as things, that is, as
realities external to the individual.
The system of signs that I employ to express my thoughts, the
monetary system I use to pay my debts, the credit instruments
I utilize in my commercial relationships, the practices I follow in
my profession, etc., all function independently of the use I make of
them. Considering in turn each member of society, the foregoing
remarks can be repeated for each single one of them. Thus there are
ways of acting, thinking, and feeling which possess the remarkable
property of existing outside the consciousness of the individual.
Not only are these types of behavior and thinking external to
the individual, but they are endued with a compelling and coercive
power by virtue of which, whether he wishes it or not, they impose
themselves upon him. Undoubtedly when I conform to them of
my own free will, this coercion is not felt or felt hardly at all, since
it is unnecessary. . . . If I attempt to violate the rules of law they
react against me so as to forestall my action, if there is still time.
Alternatively, they annul it or make my action conform to the norm
if it is already accomplished but capable of being reversed; or they
cause me to pay the penalty for it if it is irreparable. . . . In other
cases, although it may be indirect, constraint is no less effective. I am
not forced to speak French with my compatriots, nor to use the legal
currency, but it is impossible for me to do otherwise. . . .
Here, then, is a category of facts which present very special
characteristics: [social facts] consist of manners of acting, thinking
and feeling external to the individual, which are invested with a coercive
power by virtue of which they exercise control over him [emphasis added].
[Social facts] have a reality sui generis.
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 14mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 14 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
The Origins of Modern Sociology in France: Émile Durkheim 15
solidarity organic solidarity, because society functioned as a com-
plex entity that depended on the proper functioning of a variety
of parts, or organs. In premodern society, people had been held
together because of likeness; in modern society they were being
held together because of their differences.
In The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim thus articulated
and resolved a paradox: However much they may want to be free
and autonomous, people in modern society have no choice but to
maintain social ties. The structure of society—especially the way
labor is divided in modern society— forces people to interact and
to maintain social relationships with one another.
In that first book, Durkheim not only made important discover-
ies about the relationship between the division of labor and social
solidarity but also identified the key to understanding things socio-
logically. The way to understand society was to focus not on the
psychological or biological attributes of individuals but on the
nature of society itself. This led Durkheim to a fairly startling con-
clusion: Society and social phenomena actually do exist.
I call this a startling conclusion because prior to Durkheim, no
one had really thought that social phenomena existed. Sure, the
word social was used, but it meant little more than a group of
individuals.
Throughout his life Durkheim continued to explore the social.
He claimed that social phenomena have a reality sui generis —that
is, a unique reality of their own—and that social facts must be
distinguished from individual biological or psychological facts.
The discovery of the social provided Durkheim and his follow-
ers with a whole arsenal of tools with which to explain important
and troubling phenomena. For example, Durkheim discovered
that suicide was more than merely a personal thing—suicide rates,
at least, were strongly influenced by social factors (the economy
or political changes, for example).
Likewise, Durkheim would have held that if we want to under-
stand why the rate of divorce increases or decreases, we should
look for changes not in the psychological attributes of married peo-
ple but in the wider society: divorce laws, the availability of child
care, the economic pressures on family groups, and so on.
Sui generis is a Latin phrase that means “of its (or her, his, their)
own kind.” It’s pronounced “SOO-ee JEN-air-us” in English.
Durkheim stressed that social facts could not be reduced to
psychological or biological facts. By this he meant that social
facts (e.g., suicide rates) could be explained only by other social
facts (e.g., changes in industry or the economy), and not by
individual facts.
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 15mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 15 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
Ferdinand Tönnies
(1855–1936) was
one of the first
German sociologists.
16 CHAPTER 1 RESPONDING TO CHAOS
According to Durkheim, sociology was to be the scientific study
of social facts, or of those things in society that transcend or are
bigger than individuals. This is not to say, Durkheim observed,
that individuals did not exist or play a role in the modern world.
Yet, Durkheim insisted, individuals and individual facts were the
domain of psychology and biology. Social facts were the domain
of sociology.
1.1 Carefully consider Durkheim’s definition of a social fact: “manners
of acting, thinking, and feeling external to the individual, which are
invested with a coercive power by virtue of which they exercise control
over him.” One category of social facts that interested Durkheim was
rules for behavior (what sociologists call norms). Are norms truly social
facts? Test this for yourself. Does the rule or norm that one must wear
clothing to class qualify as a social fact according to Durkheim’s defini-
tion? Explain why or why not.
The Origins of Modern Sociology in Germany:
Ferdinand Tönnies, Max Weber, and Karl Marx
As Durkheim was resolving the paradox of dependency in
France, sociology was emerging in Germany under the leader-
ship of Ferdinand Tönnies and Max Weber. 9 Like Durkheim,
Tönnies compared premodern and modern societies to see how
they differed. But Tönnies followed a different tack: He wished to
understand how social relationships between people differed in
the two types of societies.
His comparison of the premodern and modern social worlds
led Tönnies to conclude that there are two basic categories of
social relationships. The first category is made up of those social
relationships that people enter into as ends in and of themselves.
The second category includes social relationships that people
enter into as means to specific ends.
People enter into relationships that are ends in and of them-
selves for emotional or affective reasons. An individual’s relation-
ship with his or her family is generally an example of this sort of
relationship. Ideally, we value our families not for what they can
buy for us but because of our affection for them. Tönnies called
these emotion-based relationships Gemeinschaft, or communal,
relationships.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
Answers to Stop and
Review questions are at
the end of the chapter.
9 The umlaut (¨) over the o in Tönnies’ name indicates that the o is pronounced dif-
ferently than one might expect. The proper pronunciation of Tönnies is “TUH-nees.”
It is also important to mention that Max Weber is pronounced “Max VAY-ber.”
(In German, W ’s are typically pronounced as V ’s.)
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 16mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 16 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
The Origins of Modern Sociology in Germany 17
People enter into relationships that are a means to an end, not
out of affection or natural affinity, but to achieve some specific
goal (for example, financial gain). Tönnies called these goal-
driven relationships Gesellschaft, or social, relationships.
In your own life, you no doubt experience both sorts of rela-
tionships. When you pick someone to be your friend because you
enjoy his or her company (and hence think of the relationship
itself as the end or benefit you seek), the nature of that friendship
relationship is communal, or Gemeinschaft.
On the other hand, when you choose to associate with some-
one because it will help you achieve some goal, the relationship
is Gesellschaft. For example, if you hire a tutor to help you with
chemistry, your specific intention in creating the relationship is to
achieve a better grade in chemistry. Of course, you may grow to
like your tutor and continue to spend time with him or her even
after you pass the final exam. In such a case, then, your relation-
ship has changed from Gesellschaft to Gemeinschaft. Frequently, a
particular relationship will have some elements of Gemeinschaft
and some elements of Gesellschaft —for example, when you and
your best friend decide to open a business together or when you
join with a few other students to form a study group (which may
involve as much socializing as studying).
Tönnies suggested that in modern society more relationships
are means to an end, or Gesellschaft, than in premodern society,
From Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (1887)
FERDINAND TÖNNIES
All intimate, private, and exclusive living
together, so we discover, is understood as life in
Gemeinschaft (community). Gesellschaft (society)
is public life—it is the world itself. In Gemein-
schaft with family, one lives from birth on, bound
to it in weal and woe. One goes into Gesellschaft
as one goes into a strange country.
A young man is warned against bad
Gesellschaft, but the expression bad
Gemeinschaft violates the meaning of the
word. . . .
A bride or groom knows that he or she goes
into marriage as a complete Gemeinschaft of life.
A Gesellschaft of life would be a contradiction in
and of itself. . . .
The Gesellschaft exists in the realm of business,
travel, or sciences.
Gemeinschaft
(Guh-MINE-
shoft) intimate
association
Gesellschaft
(Guh-ZELL-
shoft)
impersonal
association
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 17mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 17 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
18 CHAPTER 1 RESPONDING TO CHAOS
where most human relationships were Gemeinschaft, or com-
munal. It is not so much that people themselves have changed.
Rather, modern society itself forces people to work and live among
others even when they lack emotional attachments. Think about
your relationships with your professors. Chances are, these are
Gesellschaft —means to ends and impersonal. In premodern times,
students would have been more likely to experience one-on-one,
personal relationships with their teachers.
In any particular society, one expects to find examples of both
Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft relationships, as well as relation-
ships that change from one type to the other and relationships
that are mixed. The difference between premodern and modern
society, according to Tönnies, is that the proportions are different.
One of Tönnies’ major contributions to the discipline of soci-
ology was the suggestion that if we wish to understand social
life, we have to understand that people enter into relationships
for different reasons and that, depending on the type of relation-
ship, we deal with people differently. The type of the relationship
determines the rules of the relationship. If John believed that he was
your best friend (a Gemeinschaft relationship), he would take it as
a terrible betrayal if you sold him out to gain some benefit for
yourself (that is, if you treated your relationship as Gesellschaft ).
On the other hand, the owner of the local supermarket should not
be personally offended if you shop at a competitor’s store to buy
groceries at a cheaper price.
1.2 Which of the following types of relationships are most likely to be
Gemeinschaft? Which are most likely to be Gesellschaft?
a. friend–friend
b. wife–husband
c. doctor–patient
d. retailer–customer
e. minister–parishioner
f. parent–child
g. worker–boss
1.3 Generally, the banker–client relationship in modern society is
Gesellschaft. Yet, from watching television advertisements for banks,
one might conclude that the banker–client relationship is supposed to
be Gemeinschaft. For example, many banks seem to make a big deal of
claiming to be “friendly bankers” or “good neighbors.”
Why would banks promote their services as Gemeinschaft rather than
Gesellschaft?
What, if any, danger is there in thinking of your relationship with your
banker as Gemeinschaft when it really is Gesellschaft?

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 18mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 18 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
Max Weber
(1864–1920)
explored and
expanded Tönnies’
ideas about people’s
motivations for acting.
The Origins of Modern Sociology in Germany 19
Max Weber was intrigued with Tönnies’ idea that people act
with a variety of motives and that the type of motive makes a dif-
ference in what they do. In Weber’s eyes, especially, the fact that
people had begun to see one another more and more as means
to ends was a part of a larger trend. Weber called this trend the
growth of rational behavior.
In everyday life, we usually compare rational behavior and
irrational behavior, as if to suggest that rational behavior is the
only behavior that makes sense. But Weber used the term differ-
ently: For him, rational was synonymous with calculating. If you
have a goal and you sit down to plot how to achieve that goal
most efficiently, that is being rational.
The opposite of rational for Weber was not ir rational, but
non rational or noncalculating. To Weber, nonrational behavior
was behavior that was not especially geared to achieving some
goal but was simply to be experienced or appreciated for itself.
As he studied history, Weber discovered that people in pre-
modern societies were more likely to engage in nonrational
behavior. That is, they were less calculating and less concerned
about achieving larger ends; they did things simply because such
acts were pleasing. For example, when a premodern person had
enough to eat and was living a comfortable life, he or she stopped
working. Why not? What was the point of having more stuff than
one needed? In premodern society, people farmed and produced
crafts not merely to earn a living; farming and crafting were ways
of life, not simply ways to live.
People live a different sort of existence in modern society,
said Weber. In the modern world, individuals more frequently
do things to achieve specific goals efficiently. Most of us work to
live; we don’t live to work. One way of behaving, for example,
might be more fun or pleasing to us, but if there is a more efficient
way to behave, we tend to choose efficiency over fun. In modern
society, Weber observed, one is considered immature if one does
things simply because one enjoys them!
This is not to say that everything that everyone does in modern
society is rational (or done as a means to an end); nor is it to say
that premodern people were never calculating. In any society, at
any time, we can find examples of both kinds of behavior.
Consider art collectors. One sort of art collector, the nonrational,
noncalculating kind, might acquire a painting because it evokes a
feeling of beauty and awe. Another sort of art collector, the ratio-
nal, calculating kind, might purchase the same painting but see it
merely as a good investment.
Some golfers are nonrational. They play golf because they enjoy
the challenge of chasing the little ball around the course so they
can whack it. Then there are the rational players—they play golf
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 19mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 19 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
Karl Marx
(1818–1883) is
perhaps best known
as the “father” of
communism.
20 CHAPTER 1 RESPONDING TO CHAOS
because it is a good way to soften up customers or clients to make
profitable deals.
In the university community, I have met both rational and non-
rational students. The rational student sees college as a means to
an end (for example, a high-paying job); the nonrational student
enjoys college because of what he or she learns. (Of course, many
students have a mixture of motives.)
Weber wanted to know what it was about modern life that
tended to inspire people to choose rational over nonrational
behavior. The fact that rationalism seemed to be increasing in the
Western world suggested to Weber that something important was
happening and that, if we were to understand society and our
place in it, we needed to understand the underlying causes and
consequences of this trend. 10
1.4 Think about two things you do for what Weber would call rational
reasons. In what respect are your motives rational?
1.5 Think about two things you do for what Weber would call
nonrational reasons. In what respect are your motives nonrational?
Karl Marx
Although many sociologists rank Karl Marx among the most
important founders of sociology (along with Durkheim and
Weber), it is curious that they do so. As one of his biographers
wrote, “To write about Marx as a sociologist is to be hedged in
with perils.” Marx did not think of himself as a sociologist, and
indeed, he was contemptuous of the sociologists whom he knew.
As far as Marx was concerned, their focus on the social was
entirely misdirected; only economics counted.
Marx was born in Germany in 1818 and studied philosophy
and law. His early political activities made it impossible for him
to achieve an academic position and, ultimately, even to stay in
Germany. When he fled to France and continued to criticize the
German government, Germany prevailed upon France to expel
Marx. After a short stint in Brussels, he found himself in England,
where he would stay almost continuously until his death in 1883.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
10 Weber’s most famous investigation focused on the relationship between religion
and the growth of rationality. The result of this investigation, a book titled The Protestant
Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, first published in 1904–1905, remains one of the most
famous works in sociology.
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 20mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 20 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
Karl Marx 21
With Friedrich Engels, he wrote and published The Communist
Manifesto in 1848. This brief document helped shape the revolu-
tions that re-created much of the world over the course of the next
century.
Marx’s conception of the world was a singular one. In his
mind, the most crucial thing about a society was its primary
mode of production and distribution of goods—that is, its eco-
nomic system. Given this, Marx argued, the people of any society
could be divided into two distinct classes: the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat. The bourgeoisie consisted of the people who owned
the means of production—specifically, the owners of the factories
that produced the goods sold and distributed throughout society.
The proletariat consisted of the workers—the people who sur-
vived by selling their labor to the bourgeoisie. As far as Marx was
concerned, everything else—ideas, values, social conventions, art,
literature, morals, law, and even religion—was “epiphenomenal,”
or secondary to and in the service of the economic realities of
society.
Thus, for example, Marx argued that religion was the
“opium of the people” and existed only to mask the inequali-
ties and injuries of the economic system. Religion had no real
importance in the overall scheme of things because once the
people woke up and realized the real injustices of the economic
system, there would be no need for religion, and it would
disappear.
While Marx loathed sociology, he did have a great influence
on the discipline. His influence was of two sorts. First, many
“Marxist” sociologists have made important contributions to
modern sociology. As you will read in chapter 3, a major school
of sociologists is a proponent of what some call the conflict tradi-
tion or the Marxist tradition. As you will learn later in this text,
many Marxist concepts (for example, ideology and alienation)
have even been adopted by mainstream sociologists.
Second, Marx’s work had a tremendous impact on sociology
because of its influence on Max Weber. Weber was still in school
when Marx died, but he came of age in an era when Marx’s ideas
were hotly debated in Germany. Indeed, it has been said that
much of Weber’s sociology was a debate with the ghost of Karl Marx.
More specifically, much of what Weber wrote was a rejection of
Marx’s “monocausal” theory that the economic system was the
driving force behind all things social. There are, Weber said, no
ultimate causes—we must look not only at the influence of eco-
nomic or material things but also at the influence of ideas and
values.
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 21mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 21 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
Herbert Spencer
(1820–1903)
promoted the theory
of social Darwinism
(sort of looked like
Ebenezer Scrooge,
didn’t he?).
22 CHAPTER 1 RESPONDING TO CHAOS
The Origins of Modern Sociology
in England: Herbert Spencer
The pioneering English sociologist Herbert Spencer believed that
society was governed by laws in much the same way that the phys-
ical world was. His interest lay in understanding how societies
evolve; his belief was that societies evolve just as animal species do.
Spencer’s work on evolution was first published in 1852. 11 Seven
years later, Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in On
the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of
Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. After Darwin’s work was pub-
lished, Spencer’s ideas came to be known as social Darwinism. 12
Spencer’s theories were very popular in some circles. Those
who adhered to social Darwinism saw the world as a jungle in
which only the superior ought to prosper. Especially popular
was the principle that Spencer referred to as survival of the fittest.
This principle summed up Spencer’s basic thesis that if we sim-
ply leave people alone to compete, the best will survive and the
inferior will perish. The overall result of natural social evolution,
according to Spencer, is that society gets better over time. How-
ever, social improvement will continue only so long as people
do not interfere with the natural course of things. Consequently,
Spencer and his followers opposed any kind of state assistance to
the poor; they even opposed public schools.
In the wrong hands this principle can be deadly. For example, it
was used to justify the superior positions in society of whites over
blacks and rich over poor. In this respect, Spencer’s theory was
hardly an improvement on the premodern theories of social status,
which had held that God placed people in the estates they deserved.
Baldly stated, according to Spencerian doctrine, if someone was
rich, it was because he or she was superior; if blacks had a difficult
time thriving in white society, it was because they were inferior.
11 “A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility,”
Westminster Review LVII (1852). It was in this work that Spencer introduced the phrase
“survival of the fittest.”
12 Charles Darwin, the English naturalist, published On the Origins of Species in
1859. Given the timing, it is curious that Darwin’s theory was not labeled “natural
Spencerism” instead of Spencer’s theory being labeled “social Darwinism.”
Darwin’s theory would have been published even later had it not been for what
must have seemed (to Darwin, at least) the most appalling coincidence. Fourteen
years after returning home from his famous trip on the HMS Beagle, Darwin was still
gathering evidence for his theory (knowing it would be very controversial). Then, in
1857, another English scientist, Alfred Russel Wallace, fell ill in Borneo. According to
the story, Wallace passed his three days in bed by working up a theory of evolution
that was in many respects identical to Darwin’s. Wallace sent his paper to Darwin for
comments. Darwin was dumbfounded. Not wanting to become a historical also-ran,
Darwin rushed his On the Origin of Species into print even though he believed it to be
incomplete. For the rest of his life, Darwin referred to his work as a mere abstract.
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 22mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 22 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
Sociology in the United States 23
In the United States and Germany, especially, there were many
who found Spencer’s ideas compelling. With social Darwinism
they could justify the enslavement of Africans and the near geno-
cide of Native Americans. Later, in Germany, principles of social
Darwinism were invoked by the Nazis to justify their decision to
exterminate the Jews.
Spencer viewed social competition as a kind of purifying
process in which the weak were weeded out. Spencer cautioned
his readers not to feel pity for the losers—the poor, weak, or other-
wise disadvantaged. Social competition, Spencer claimed, is a
“stern discipline, which is a little cruel that it may be very kind.”
He wrote about the pain and suffering (and deaths) of “inferior”
people. These deaths only seemed to be tragic, said Spencer. They
are not tragic, but beneficial to society!
When regarded not separately but in connection with the interests
of universal humanity, these harsh fatalities are seen to be full of
beneficence—the same beneficence which brings to early graves the
children of diseased parents and singles out [some but not others to
be] victims of epidemics. (1852)
The bottom line, said Spencer, is that we must face facts: The com-
petition to survive will be won by the best because those who
survive and thrive, by definition, are the “best.” Showing pity for
social losers only leads to “spurious philanthropy” and is a waste
of time, effort, and money. As one of Spencer’s students warned,
if we do not like survival of the fittest, we have only one possible
alternative, and that is the survival of the unfittest. The former is the
law of civilization; the latter is the law of anticivilization. We have
our choice between the two, or we can go on, as in the past, vacillat-
ing between the two, but a third plan [offering help to the poor and
helpless] for nourishing the unfittest and yet advancing civilization,
no man will ever find. (Sumner 1934, II)
Sociology in the United States
Sociology came to prominence in the United States later than it
had in Europe, possibly because the United States experienced the
social chaos of the Industrial Revolution later than France, Eng-
land, or Germany. Whereas the process of industrialization was
virtually completed in the European nations by 1850, the United
States did not experience full-fledged industrialization until after
it fought its civil war in the 1860s.
The first sociology course was taught by William Graham
Sumner, a professor at Yale University. The first sociology depart-
ment in the United States was organized in 1892, at the Univer-
sity of Chicago. In 1905, sociologists organized the American
Charles Loring
Brace (1826–1890),
who founded the
Children’s Aid
Society in the United
States, had this to say
about Spencer’s ideas:
“Would not mankind
take chloroform if
they had no future
but Spencer’s?”
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 23mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 23 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
Jane Addams
(1860–1935) was
the first sociologist to
win a Nobel Prize.
W. E. B. DuBois
(1868–1963) was
highly critical of the
race system in the
United States.
24 CHAPTER 1 RESPONDING TO CHAOS
Sociological Society (soon changed to the American Sociological
Association for reasons that might seem obvious). The goal of the
ASA was and is to promote the scientific study of society.
Early U.S. sociologists differed from their European counterparts
in that they did not focus all their efforts on building sweeping the-
ories of society. In addition to theory building, the U.S. sociologists
concentrated on solving the specific social problems—poverty,
crime—that had arisen (or so it was thought) as a consequence of
the large immigrant population. In other words, while European
sociologists were attempting to build sociology into a basic science
like physics or chemistry, many of the early U.S. sociologists treated
sociology as an applied science, like engineering. Indeed, some of
these sociologists called themselves social engineers.
Out of this initial enthusiasm for social engineering came the
first sociologist to win the Nobel Prize: Jane Addams. In 1889,
Addams and a colleague, Ellen Gates Starr, founded Hull House,
a settlement house that served the needs of the poor in Chicago.
Hull House was also the base from which Addams conducted
her research into the causes and consequences of poverty. Other
Chicago sociologists specialized in studying specific manifesta-
tions of modernity—hobos, dance hall girls, prostitution, gam-
bling, and the like. In general, the focus of early sociology in the
United States was as much on social reform as on theory building.
Born in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, William Edward
Burghardt (W. E. B.) DuBois was the first person of African
descent to receive a PhD from Harvard University. After a year-
long stint as research assistant at the University of Pennsylvania,
he took a job at Atlanta University in 1897. From 1933 to 1944,
DuBois chaired the department of sociology at the university.
Like Marx, DuBois saw society as conflict-ridden; but DuBois
argued that Marx had overlooked the importance of race and eth-
nicity in modern society. According to DuBois, it was not enough
to focus on economic differences in society—racial differences
were even more important. Convinced that once the injustice of
the race system in the United States had been exposed, it would
be remedied, DuBois published more than seventy books on race
and race relations, including The Philadelphia Negro (1899), The
Souls of Black Folk (1903), Darkwater (1920), and Color and Democ-
racy (1945). Turning to direct political activism, in 1909 DuBois
helped found the National Negro Committee, which soon came
to be known as the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP). DuBois was a vocal critic of other black
leaders—like Booker T. Washington—whom he saw as too willing
to compromise the position of blacks in American society. DuBois,
it has been said, “took the lead in making the United States and
the World recognize that racial prejudice was not a mere matter of
Negroes being persecuted but was a cancer which poisoned the
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 24mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 24 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
Sociology in the United States 25
One Small Step for Sociology
As a black man, DuBois had a difficult start in academics.
He graduated with a bachelor’s degree from Fisk College in
Nashville, Tennessee, in 1888. DuBois applied to Harvard but
was unable to begin graduate studies at that point because
Harvard refused to accept the legitimacy of a degree from Fisk.
DuBois repeated the final two years of his undergraduate work
at Harvard, graduating cum laude in 1890. He went on to com-
plete work for the Ph.D degree at Harvard, which he received in
1895. DuBois also studied in Germany with Max Weber at the
University of Berlin. Below is a clip from the front page of the
New York Times announcing his appointment as a research fellow
at the University of Pennsylvania. Notice that the reporter took
pains to assure readers that Dr.  DuBois would have no inter-
action with students at the University.
F IRST C OLORED “F ELLOW ” A PPOINTED .
Philadelphia, Sept 20.—Dr. W. E. B. Dubois, colored, who was
graduated from Harvard College several years ago, and who
studied in the German universities, has been appointed to a
Fellowship in Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania.
He is the first one of his race to hold such a position in this
university. He will be an assistant to Dr. Samuel Lindsay in
sociology. Dr. Dubois will not be considered a member of
the Faculty, and will not lecture at college. His work will be
among the colored population of Philadelphia. He will make
a house-to-house investigation of the colored settlements,
giving to the university authorities the results of his
observations. ( New York Times, 30 Sept. 1896, p. 1)
In fact, W. E. B. DuBois, and not “university” authorities,
compiled the results of his research into a book, The Philadelphia
Negro, which was published by the University of Pennsylvania
Press in 1899.
DuBois published widely throughout his career. But always, it
seemed, he was distrusted. According to information gathered
under the Freedom of Information Act, for example, we know
that the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation opened a
file on DuBois in 1942. Although he was widely quoted as say-
ing he was not a communist, his politics came under close scru-
tiny for the last 50 years of his life. All told, the portions of the
file made public included 927 pages. The final entries in that file
(made in 1960, when DuBois was 92 years old) mentioned that
“DuBois is alleged to be a ‘champion’ for equality among races
and therefore . . .” (the rest of the paragraph was redacted by the
FBI before the file was made public; alas, we will never know
why being a champion for equality was perceived as threatening)
(see http://www.foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/dubois.htm ).
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 25mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 25 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
26 CHAPTER 1 RESPONDING TO CHAOS
whole civilization of the United States” ( James 1967, 365). Many
members of the NAACP found his ideas too radical—especially
after he gave up on the idea of integration and began to promote
the idea of segregation—and eventually he was dismissed from
the NAACP. In 1961 DuBois renounced his U.S. citizenship and
moved to Ghana, where he lived until his death.
The Place of Sociology in Modern Society
The founders of sociology in Europe—Durkheim, Tönnies, Weber,
and Spencer, as well as Americans like Sumner, Addams, and
DuBois who followed them—brought sociology from laughing-
stock to prominence by the end of the nineteenth century. Although
(fortunately) the more dangerous ideas of Spencer have been largely
discredited, the works of the others are still held up as models of
good sociological work. The articles and books by Durkheim and
Weber, especially, continue to have a tremendous impact on soci-
ologists. In spite of their many differences, each of these scholars
insisted that the social world was worthy of study. Each believed
that by bringing to bear the tools of science on the social world, he or
she could help make sense of it. Like Copernicus, who was skeptical
of the traditional view of the natural world, these sociologists were
skeptical of traditional views of the social world. As we will explore
in the following chapters, the tradition of skepticism continues.
Chapter Review
1. Below I have listed the major concepts discussed in this
chapter and in the introduction to the book. Define each of the
terms. ( Hint: This exercise will be more helpful to you if, in
addition to defining each concept, you create an example of it
in your own words.)
sociology (defined)
W. I. Thomas
Thomas theorem
origins and development of natural sciences
industrial revolution
Auguste Comte
Law of Three Stages
Émile Durkheim
mechanical and organic solidarity
collective conscience
social facts
sui generis
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 26mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 26 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 27
Ferdinand Tönnies
Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft
Max Weber
rational and nonrational behavior
rationalization of society
Karl Marx
all but economy is epiphenomenal
proletariat
bourgeoisie
means of production
Herbert Spencer
survival of the fittest
Jane Addams
W. E. B. DuBois
2. What sorts of social changes helped to lead people to question
the nature of social reality (and thereby helped to spur the cre-
ation of sociology)?
3. List two of your relationships that are Gemeinschaft and two
that are Gesellschaft. Explain why you have categorized each
relationship as either Gemeinschaft or Gesellschaft. Then assume
that you had to leave some of your relationships. Which
would be easier to replace—those that are Gemeinschaft or
those that are Gesellschaft? Why?
4. Weber distinguished between rational and nonrational
behavior but said that many actual behaviors contain
elements of both rationality and nonrationality. What is a
behavior that you do that contains elements of both rationality
and nonrationality? Explain what is rational and what is
nonrational about this behavior.
Answers and Discussion
1.1 Durkheim said that social facts were “manners of acting, thinking and
feeling external to the individual, which are vested with a coercive power
by virtue of which they exercise control over him.”
The norm that one must wear clothes is a social fact. It is external to
the individual (it exists outside of him or her and would still exist even
if the individual claimed it did not exist). Does this norm have coercive
power? Yes. Imagine that you wanted to go to class in the nude. Wouldn’t
there be some coercion used against you either to prevent you from doing
this or to punish you after the fact?
1.2 The types of relationships that are most likely to be Gemeinschaft (that is,
personal and close) are friend–friend, wife–husband, minister–parishioner,
and parent–child. The types of relationships most likely to be Gesellschaft
are doctor–patient, retailer–customer, and worker–boss.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 27mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 27 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
28 CHAPTER 1 RESPONDING TO CHAOS
1.3 Why would banks advertise as if they had Gemeinschaft relations with
their customers? Probably because they know that people would choose to
interact with friends rather than cold and impersonal bankers. The thing is,
however, a bank cannot be your friend. The law requires banks, for example,
to treat people equally and to do such things as foreclose on mortgages
when people don’t pay on time. Those are certainly not behaviors one
would expect from one’s friends! The tension between Gemeinschaft and
Gesellschaft relations also explains why many wise people advise against
lending money to friends and family members.
1.4 and 1.5 These two questions could be answered in a number of ways.
By way of example, here are my answers:
1.4 Two things I do for what Weber would call rational reasons:
a. Pay my bills each month. Paying my bills is a clear example of doing
something as a means to an end (keeping a decent credit rating).
b. Show up for class on time. This is a means to a couple of practical
ends: keeping my students calm (of course, they get upset if I’m late
and they don’t get to spend the entire class period with me) and
keeping my chairperson happy.
1.5 Two things I do for what Weber would call nonrational reasons:
a. Build furniture. Building things is a pleasurable activity. It is not
a rational activity because it always costs me more to make
something than it would to buy it. Moreover, although I have sold a
few pieces of my furniture, I never have made more than I paid for
the materials.
b. Do graphics on my computer—it’s fun.
My insight: As I was answering these questions, I stumbled onto an impor-
tant insight: Question 1.5 was really hard to answer. I spent ten  minutes not
being able to think of a single thing that I do for nonrational reasons.
Did you have the same problem? Of course, I do nonrational things;
it’s just that I “rationalize” these activities. Consider one of my answers—
building furniture. I was tempted to say that I build furniture as a means to
an end—carpentry helps me reduce stress, and reducing stress is important
if I am going to be a productive worker. But, really, carpentry is an end in
and of itself; it’s something I do because I enjoy it.
Similarly, I was tempted to claim that I do computer graphics because
they help me teach. But it is simply not rational to spend forty-five
minutes designing the perfect graphic to illustrate one sociological concept.
Again, I do it because I enjoy it. It is a happy coincidence that I can use
graphics in the classroom.
It is almost as if I am reluctant to admit to spending time in nonrational
ways, as if nonrational behavior is wasteful. The fact that I rationalize my
behavior this way suggests that Weber was on to something important
when he observed that life was becoming more rational. I feel almost guilty
when I do stuff for enjoyment and tend not to do fun stuff unless I can
rationalize it—and thereby make it seem rational.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 28mcI26873_ch01_005-028.indd 28 4/9/13 11:34 AM4/9/13 11:34 AM

Confirming Pages
For American sociolo-
gist C. Wright Mills
(1916–1962), the
key to the sociological
imagination was the
ability to distinguish
between personal
troubles and social
issues.
29
2
THE SOCIOLOGICAL EYE
M odern sociologists continue to be inspired by two important qualities stressed by early sociologists: (1) the focus on the
social and (2) skepticism.
The Focus on the Social
It is the focus on the social that allows sociologists to see much
that escapes the notice of other observers; it is what makes soci-
ology unique. But, I should warn you, this focus on the social
makes sociology difficult for newcomers to the discipline because
most of them have been taught to view the world in ways that are
distinctly nonsociological.
Let me explain: People in modern Western societies have been
taught to embrace the principle of individualism. Individualism is
the idea that in life people pursue their own ends, that people
follow their own ideas. Why does Mary get better grades than
Johnny? It must be that Mary is smarter, or works harder, than
Johnny. Why does Chris get drunk every weekend? Well, frankly,
Chris just doesn’t make good choices.
You might be thinking—of course we focus on individuals!
How else can it be? The fact is, in other cultures (and even in our
own in earlier times) individuals are hardly noticeable, but are
treated as extensions of their family, clan, or tribe. If one person
does something heroic, the group receives the credit; likewise, if
one person does something wrong, it is the group that is shamed.
How unlike our own society. Imagine the day when you graduate
from college: Your parents will be proud, but they will be proud
mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 29mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 29 4/9/13 11:41 AM4/9/13 11:41 AM

Confirming Pages
30 CHAPTER 2 THE SOCIOLOGICAL EYE
of your accomplishments. The diploma will have your name on
it; all of the congratulations (and gifts) will be bestowed on you.
Sociologists have taught themselves not to be satisfied with
explanations that focus on individuals, but to look at the social
environment and the ways in which it affects people. What is it
about the social context in which some people grow up and live
that facilitates academic achievement? In what ways do particular
social circumstances encourage some people to drink to excess?
More generally, sociologists understand that individuals make
choices about how they will act, that they do have “free will,”
but sociologists know that it is the social environment that makes
some choices easier and others harder.
Consider the case of the motorist who arrives at an intersection:
Will she go right, left, or continue on? The naive observer might
say that we cannot predict her next move, that it’s her choice. Yet
we can be confident that she will not shift into reverse and back
up; neither will she choose to remain in the intersection for more
than a few moments. Even if she doesn’t want to go right, left, or
ahead, the social circumstances (the rules of the road, not to men-
tion the line of impatient drivers in the cars behind her) will push
her to do so (McIntyre 2005, 19).
Why are sociologists unsatisfied with individualistic expla-
nations for behavior? Allan G. Johnson, who has written a num-
ber of books for sociology students, explains it this way: “The
individualistic perspective that dominates current thinking about social
life doesn’t work”:
Nothing we do or experience takes place in a vacuum; everything
is always related to a [social] context of some kind. When a wife
and husband argue about who’ll clean the bathroom, for example,
or who’ll take care of a sick child when they both work outside the
home, the issue is never simply about the two of them even though
it may seem that way at the time. We have to ask about the larger
context in which this takes place. We might ask how this instance is
related to living in a society organized in ways that privilege men
over women, in part by not making men feel obliged to share equally
in domestic work except when they choose to “help out.” On an
individual level, he may think she’s being a nag; she may think he’s
being a jerk; but it’s never as simple as that. What both may miss
is that in a different kind of society, they might not be having this
argument in the first place because both might feel obliged to take
care of the home and children. In similar ways, when we see ourself
as a unique result of the family we came from, we overlook how
each family is connected to larger patterns. The emotional problems
we struggle with as individuals aren’t due simply to what kind of
parents we had, for their participation in the social system—at work,
in the community, in society as a whole—shaped them as people,
including their roles as mothers and fathers.
mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 30mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 30 4/9/13 11:41 AM4/9/13 11:41 AM

Confirming Pages
The Focus on the Social 31
An individualistic model is misleading because it encourages us
to explain human behavior and experience from a perspective that’s
so narrow it misses most of what’s going on. (Johnson 1997, 20–21)
This is not to say that sociologists are uninterested in the behavior
of individuals. Many of us (myself included) are just as interested
in the goings-on of the people we encounter as you are; many of
us (myself included) watch and wonder about the antics of our
neighbors, colleagues (and, yes, our students) and seek expla-
nations for what we see. The quality that makes sociologists
different from other people is the conviction that our ability to
understand and explain what we observe will be enhanced if we
look past the individuals involved to examine the impact of their
social and historical contexts.
The American sociologist C. Wright Mills sharpened the socio-
logical perspective with his concept of the sociological imagination.
The defining quality of the sociological imagination, Mills said, is
the ability to look beyond what he called the personal troubles of
individuals to see the public issues of social structure —that is, the
social forces operating in the larger society.
The first fruit of this imagination—and the lesson of the social
science that embodies it—is the idea that the individual can
understand his own experience and gauge his own fate only by
locating himself within his period, that he can know his own
chances in life only by becoming aware of those of all individuals
in his circumstances. (1959, 5)
Mills observed that people in our society “often feel that their
private lives are a series of traps. They sense that within their
everyday worlds, they cannot overcome their troubles.” In other
words, people feel unable to alter their circumstances. And, Mills
suggested, in this feeling of being trapped and impotent, people
“are often quite correct.”
Mills suggests that people often misunderstand their own
circumstances because they have an individualistic bias. The indi-
vidualistic bias leads people to think that their own situations are
wholly a result of their own behavior. They don’t notice that there
are larger entities, forces outside of themselves, that shape their
behaviors.
Without guidance from the sociological imagination, our indi-
vidualistic bias leads us to treat individuals as the source of prob-
lems. Of course, people frequently do make bad choices. But the
individualistic bias prevents us from discovering that some of our
worst problems are the result of social forces.
Consider John and Jill who, after nine years of marriage, have
just divorced. Jill is feeling like a failure. When she vowed “ ‘til
death do us part,” she meant it! Where did she go wrong? Her
mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 31mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 31 4/9/13 11:41 AM4/9/13 11:41 AM

Confirming Pages
32 CHAPTER 2 THE SOCIOLOGICAL EYE
own parents are still married after 32 years! John, too, is at a loss.
Jill doesn’t seem at all like the woman he fell in love with; she’s
changed. The passion is gone and they’ve grown apart.
John and Jill entered marriage with the understanding that it was
up to them to make the union a success. As a result, as Mills would
say, John and Jill regard the failure of their marriage as purely a
personal trouble —a result of something they did or did not do.
Mills would understand John and Jill’s point of view, but
suggest it might be misguided. He pointed out that “inside a
marriage a man and a woman may experience personal troubles,”
but when the divorce rate escalates, “this is an indication of a
structural issue having to do with the institutions of marriage
and the family and other institutions that bear upon them.” John
and Jill experience their divorce as a personal trouble, but current
social arrangements (such as an economy that requires families
to have two wage-earners and forces employees to work lots of
overtime) has made marriage more difficult. Under such circum-
stances, Mills points out, “the problem of a satisfactory marriage
remains incapable of purely private solution.”
Here is the crucial sociological punch line: If people in society
are concerned about the divorce rate and want to fix it, they must
not focus on individuals; they must focus on the social structures
and social arrangements that make marriage difficult.
Mills argued that most individuals feel trapped by the prob-
lems they encounter—and that their sense of entrapment comes
from believing that their personal troubles are necessarily of their
own making. Mills believed that the sociological imagination can
help rescue people from such traps.
Without guidance from the sociological imagination, we are
tempted to attack all problems by treating individuals. Again,
this is because of our individualistic bias, which makes it hard for
us to see beyond our own personal and immediate circumstances.
With such a limited perspective, it’s hard to see that some of our
worst problems are a result of social forces.
The advantage of the sociological imagination or perspective,
then, as Mills discovered, is that it opens up new resources for
problem solving. Many of the most serious problems experienced
by individuals, such as unemployment, have social causes, so it is
futile to try to remedy or fix them at the individual level.
When, in a city of 100,000, only one man is unemployed, that is his
personal trouble, and for its relief we properly look to the character
of the man, his skills, and his immediate opportunities. But when in a
nation of 50 million employees, 15 million men are unemployed, that
is a [social] issue, and we may not hope to find its solution within
the range of opportunities open to any one individual. . . . Both the
correct statement of the problem and the range of possible solutions
mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 32mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 32 4/9/13 11:41 AM4/9/13 11:41 AM

Confirming Pages
The Focus on the Social 33
require us to consider the economic and political institutions of
society, and not merely the personal situation and character of a
scatter of individuals. (1959, 9)
As mentioned briefiy in chapter 1, the French sociologist Émile
Durkheim applied the sociological perspective to the problem of
suicide. To most of Durkheim’s colleagues, the decision to kill
oneself seemed to be the most personal and individual of deci-
sions. But, said Durkheim, suicide is also a social issue. From study-
ing the differences in suicide statistics across different European
countries, Durkheim found that the rate of suicide tended to vary
with the degree of social integration in a particular society. In other
words, the rate of suicide varies with the degree to which people have
strong ties to their social groups.
More specifically, Durkheim found that people with weaker or
fewer ties to their social groups were more likely to commit sui-
cide. This finding helped to explain the fact that single people had
higher rates of suicide than married people. Likewise, understand-
ing the relationship between suicide and social integration helped
to explain why Protestants (who are encouraged by their religion
to be independent) had higher suicide rates than Catholics.
The sociological perspective of Durkheim, or what Mills later
called the sociological imagination, suggested that suicide is not
simply an individual problem, or personal trouble. Durkheim him-
self argued that the rate of suicide would decrease if more empha-
sis were placed on integrating people into society. To put it another
way, according to Durkheim, the rate of suicide would drop if
people were given more opportunities to bond with one another.
It is easy to find examples of situations in which the sociological
imagination or perspective adds to our understanding. Soci-
ologists who study organizations, for example, have discovered
that working in a bureaucracy can have a tremendous impact
on people’s behavior. Regardless of how warm and caring peo-
ple are off the job, their “on-the-job personalities” can be rigid,
authoritarian, and uncaring—because that is how the structure of
the organization forces them to be. People who work in bureau-
cracies have to follow the rules and act without regard for differ-
ences among individual clients. (Just remember this the next time
you visit the registrar’s office! If you want to make the system
work for you, you need to take into account the ways in which the
person across the counter is constrained by his or her position.)
Likewise, sociologists who study social inequality have exam-
ined the fact that people of different races are treated differently
in most societies. This inequity should come as no surprise to
you. But what may surprise you is that racial discrimination is
not merely a matter of individuals being nasty to one another.
Frequently, racism is a result of factors built into social systems.
mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 33mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 33 4/9/13 11:41 AM4/9/13 11:41 AM

Confirming Pages
34 CHAPTER 2 THE SOCIOLOGICAL EYE
Because of this institutional racism, 1 individuals may get locked
into a larger pattern of racist behavior, perhaps without even
being aware of it, let alone being able to resist it. The admissions
officer at the exclusive private university who is told to give pref-
erence to the children of alumni is perpetuating racist admissions
policies (because most of the alumni are white), even though he
or she may personally abhor racism. The loan officer at the bank
who is told not to approve loans for homes in certain parts of the
city (populated mainly by African Americans) may not be racist,
but her institution forces her to act as if she is. This does not, of
course, excuse racist activities, but it does suggest that the fight
against racism has to involve more than educating individuals.
We have to treat this problem (or, as Mills would say, this public
issue ) at a higher level.
For most beginning sociology students raised in Western soci-
ety, this idea of sociological imagination is a tough one. Because
of their individualistic bias, Westerners tend to be unaware
of the ways in which larger social forces affect people’s beliefs
and behaviors. If you find it difficult to understand this idea of
1 The term “institutionalized racism” was coined in the 1960s by Stokely Carmichael,
a prominent black activist.
2A caveat is a warning or a caution.
Agency and Structure
A caveat2
As you learned in the preceding material, the focus of this text is
on the power of the social environment to influence individuals.
Does that mean that sociologists do not believe that individuals
have agency—that is, that individuals do not have the capacity
to make decisions on their own and act to change their circum-
stances? While sociologists continue to argue how much agency
individuals have, none doubt that people are capable of “criti-
cally evaluating and reconstructing the condition of their own
lives” (Emirbayer and Mische 1998, 964)—that people have the
capacity to act and influence their environment.
One goal of this text, however, is to persuade you that social
factors influence the kinds of choices from which individuals
choose. Typically, we do not even realize how much our choices
are influenced by our social environment, and because of this,
we may have trouble understanding why people act the way
that they do.
mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 34mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 34 4/9/13 11:41 AM4/9/13 11:41 AM

Confirming Pages
Skepticism 35
a sociological imagination, take heart: The following chapters of
this book will give you the tools you need to develop your own
sociological imagination.
2.1 Describe the difference between crime as a personal trouble and
crime as a public/social issue.
Skepticism
SOURCES OF SKEPTICISM
“Had it not been for the race problem early thrust upon me and
enveloping me, I should have probably been an unquestioning
worshipper at the shrine of the established social order into which I
was born. But just that part of this social order which seemed to most
of my fellows nearest perfection seemed to me most inequitable and
wrong; and starting from that critique, I gradually, as the years went
by, found other things to question in my environment.”
— W. E. B. DuBois (1968)
Like their nineteenth-century predecessors, contemporary sociol-
ogists are skeptical of commonly accepted explanations of things.
Indeed, skepticism is an important foundation of scientific curios-
ity. If one accepts everyday explanations for things, there is no
reason to inquire further. For example, in years past, only those
who were skeptical of the commonly accepted “fact” that humans
could not fly attempted to build “aeroplanes.” Similarly, in the
early nineteenth century, engineers believed that buildings could
not be constructed more than a few stories high. But the skeptics
among them, working with technology and the laws of physics,
designed the immense structures that dominate the skylines of
modern cities.
Sociologists are especially skeptical about the impact of social
things. As an outgrowth of his skepticism, American sociolo-
gist Robert K. Merton provided us with an important research
technique. Merton said that really understanding social things
involves identifying both their manifest (intended and obvious)
and latent (unintended and frequently hidden) consequences.
Merton called these consequences functions.
One of the most obvious examples of the importance of latent
consequences involves the modern experience with prisons. The
manifest function of the prison system is to protect society by
locking up dangerous criminals. As many researchers have found,
however, one of the latent functions of the prison system is the
production of more knowledgeable criminals—that is, convicts
learn from one another in prison about how to commit crimes!

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 35mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 35 4/9/13 11:41 AM4/9/13 11:41 AM

Confirming Pages
36 CHAPTER 2 THE SOCIOLOGICAL EYE
Here are two more examples of manifest versus latent func-
tions. The first has to do with medicine.
In the nineteenth century there were hundreds of medical schools
throughout the United States. The quality of these schools was
uneven: Some offered hands-on training while others stressed only
theory. Some required three years of study after four years of college,
while others required three years of medical study but no college
degree. Some taught traditional (allopathic) medicine, while others
pursued more novel approaches (such as homeopathy, osteopathy,
chiropractic, and botanical medicine). Some had well-endowed
laboratories and libraries, while others did not.
In the early twentieth century, some members of the American
medical profession believed that society would be better off if its
physicians were trained in a more scientific manner. In 1910 the
American Medical Association (AMA) commissioned one of its
members, Abraham Flexner, to conduct a study of medical schools
throughout the country. As he would report to the AMA, Flexner
was appalled at the variety of training methods he encountered.
Citing the Flexner Report as evidence, the AMA lobbied government
officials to clamp down on schools that did not offer a specific sort
of training. As a result, hundreds of medical schools were forced to
close their doors.
The manifest, or intended, consequence of tightening regulations
for medical schools was to produce better-trained physicians. But
this change in regulations had several latent consequences as well.
One latent consequence was that practitioners who could not afford
the more expensive training offered by traditional schools or who did
not agree with traditional notions of medicine were forced out of the
profession. 3 Tightened regulations also forced medical schools that
trained women and African Americans to close their doors because
they could not afford the expensive laboratory equipment and librar-
ies that the AMA rules required. (Note that Flexner presented no
evidence that the patients of physicians trained in alternative schools
without laboratories and libraries were worse off than the patients of
physicians who had trained at, say, Harvard.) And finally, doctors
trained in the traditional manner no longer had to compete with the
oftentimes more popular nontraditional practitioners.
3 It is important to point out that even in the early twentieth century, regular (allo-
pathic) medical practitioners could not successfully treat diseases like tuberculosis,
syphilis, and polio. Nor were such things as the importance of wearing rubber gloves
universally accepted among medical personnel (many hospitals did not provide gloves
for surgeons, and most surgeons did not want the added expense of purchasing their
own). Furthermore, regular medical treatments frequently did more harm than good.
For example, during the nineteenth century, many people died from being “bled” by
their physicians, who had hoped to drain out “bad humors” from the body. Some treat-
ments even called for the letting of more blood than we now know exists in the entire
body (George Washington was said to have met his death this way). In contrast, alter-
native medical approaches generally took a less invasive, more supportive approach.
Thus, ironically, one was generally safer not being treated by regular medical personnel.
mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 36mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 36 4/9/13 11:41 AM4/9/13 11:41 AM

Confirming Pages
Skepticism 37
Here is an example of how unintended or latent functions may
have an impact on one aspect of your life.
New college professors generally must endure a six-year probationary
period. At the end of this time, the quality of the professor’s teach-
ing, research, and service work is evaluated by senior colleagues.
If the accomplishments of the probationary professor are deemed
acceptable, they will grant him or her tenure. But if he or she has not
lived up to expectations, the professor is denied tenure and forced to
leave the university.
In the past few decades, most universities and colleges have
tightened up their tenure requirements. Fifty years ago, tenure
was practically a given. Today, things are different; most junior
professors 4 spend their first years working like crazy to fulfill tenure
requirements. One of the most important requirements is to conduct
research and publish the results. As a rule of thumb, if you don’t
publish a fair amount, you will be denied tenure (hence the so-called
publish-or-perish rule).
The manifest function, or intended consequence, of emphasizing
the importance of research for tenure is to produce more knowledge
of the natural and social world. Universities do not want professors
who simply sit around doing nothing. Professors should be out
there, studying and making scholarly contributions. The latent
Nail Down That Distinction
Between Manifest and Latent Functions!
University Education
Manifest function: Educate young adults.
Latent function: Keep young adults out of the job market,
thereby easing competition for older adults.
Mother’s Day and Father’s Day
Manifest function: Provide an opportunity to express gratitude
to parents.
Latent function: Help greeting-card companies boost sales in
the spring and summer months.
Carrying a Briefcase
Manifest function: Carry stuff.
Latent function: Indicate occupational status (for example, not
manual laborer).
4 Untenured professors typically are called assistant professors. Among the senior
professors who have tenure, there are two ranks: associate professor and full professor.
mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 37mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 37 4/9/13 11:41 AM4/9/13 11:41 AM

Confirming Pages
38 CHAPTER 2 THE SOCIOLOGICAL EYE
function or consequence, however, is that some professors neglect
their teaching responsibilities to do their research. 5
This is not to say that all latent functions or consequences have
a negative impact on society’s usual functioning or are, as sociolo-
gists would put it, dysfunctional. 6 The unintended consequence of
an action can be positive, or functional. For example, the manifest
function of a neighborhood party is to have fun; a latent function
can be to bring neighbors together or promote crime fighting. The
manifest function of riding bicycles to work is to increase rid-
ers’ fitness; a latent function can be fewer cars on the road or less
air pollution.
Merton’s distinction between manifest and latent functions is
important. It reminds us to look beyond the obvious—frequently,
the least obvious consequences are the most important ones.
2.2 For each of these common social events, list as many manifest and
latent functions as you can:
a. college athletics
b. attending church
c. attending sociology class
Chapter Review
1. Below I have listed the major concepts discussed in this
chapter. Define each of the terms. ( Hint: This exercise will be
more helpful to you if, in addition to defining each concept,
you create an example of it in your own words.)
individualism
C. W. Mills, sociological imagination
Émile Durkheim, suicide rates and integration
institutional racism

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
5 Fortunately, as we begin the twenty-first century, university officials seem to
be backtracking a bit and are once again beginning to emphasize the importance of
teaching. At my own university, for example, candidates for tenure and promotion are
required to show a measure of success in both teaching and research.
6 Notice the spelling of dysfunctional. The dys prefix, which has its roots in the Greek
language, suggests that something is defective, difficult, or painful. This prefix is fre-
quently encountered in medicine—for example, dysentery (painful intestine), dyspeptic
(painful digestion), or dystrophy (abnormal growth). On the other hand, the dis prefix,
which is derived from Latin, tends to mean apart, asunder, or deprived of—for exam-
ple, dissemble, disable, or disrespect. So, although the two prefixes are pronounced the
same in English, they carry different meanings.
mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 38mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 38 4/9/13 11:41 AM4/9/13 11:41 AM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 39
Robert K. Merton
manifest and latent functions
functions and dysfunctions
2. Sociologists often have a difficult time persuading lay-
people that there is something to be gained by looking at
divorce, racism, or poverty (or anything else, for that mat-
ter) as a social issue rather than just a personal trouble. In
your considered judgment, why might this be so?
3. What is a possible benefit of looking for latent as well as
manifest functions of things in the social world?
Answers and Discussion
2.1 According to Mills’s perspective, crime as a personal trouble involves
the circumstances and problems of the people who are directly touched by
the crime. For example, Joe Student was arrested for breaking and entering.
Why on earth did Joe do such a thing (seeking the cause of the crime in
Joe’s personal circumstances)?
Crime as a social issue involves looking at the larger aspects of crime and
the ways these are affected by historical and social circumstances. For exam-
ple, the rate of burglaries is on the increase. What is happening in the rest of
society (perhaps in the economic arena) that might be infiuencing this?
2.2
a. Manifest functions of college athletics include enhancing school
spirit, helping students develop physical as well as mental skills, and
increasing the fame of the college or university. Latent functions
include helping students who otherwise would not be able to
attend college (because of poverty, for example) to do so by win-
ning athletic scholarships, acting as a training ground for future
professional athletes, and exploiting the talents of athletes from
underprivileged backgrounds without actually having to provide a
real education for them. (That’s pretty cynical, isn’t it? That last one
might be a dysfunction of college athletics.)
b. Manifest functions of church attendance include worshiping and
joining with others to celebrate important beliefs. Latent func-
tions include having an opportunity to dress up and see what other
people are wearing and how their children behave.
c. Manifest functions of attending class regularly include learning the
assigned material more thoroughly and having the opportunity to
hear brilliant lectures by your professors. Latent functions include
impressing your professors with the sincerity of your quest for
knowledge and having more opportunities to make friends with
other students, or even having a quiet time to write a letter.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 39mcI26873_ch02_029-039.indd 39 4/9/13 11:41 AM4/9/13 11:41 AM

Confirming Pages
40
3
SCIENCE AND FUZZY OBJECTS
Specialization in Sociology
“It is difficult to paint a clear picture of a fuzzy object.”
— Ludwig Josef Wittgenstein (1959)
T he first time I read Wittgenstein’s statement, 1 I was struck by how profoundly it applied to sociology. As far as I was con-
cerned, there was hardly anything more fuzzy than sociological
phenomena. Many of my colleagues would probably not want to
admit that what they do is study fuzzy stuff, but Wittgenstein’s
observation does help to explain why sociologists rarely make
statements like “this causes that” or “if you do that, then this
definitely will happen.” Generally, sociologists do not like to
commit themselves that far; they are more likely to say some-
thing to the effect that “if that happens, then it is likely that this
will happen.”
This really bugs some sociology students—the ones who like
things cut and dried, who want their knowledge to be clear, defi-
nite, and certain. Unfortunately for these students, there is not
much of that sort of knowledge in sociology.
I hasten to point out that the fact that many of sociologists’
predictions about what will happen are probabilistic rather
than certain is in no way the fault of sociology! That’s where
Wittgenstein’s point that it is hard to paint a clear picture of a
fuzzy object comes in. The stuff that sociologists study is some of
the fuzziest in the universe.
Most sociologists long ago accepted that to understand a par-
ticular social event or interaction, they must take a multitude
of factors into account. They also accepted that generally it is
impossible to make predictions with absolute assurance. We can
1 The philosopher Wittgenstein (VIT-gen-stine) was born in Vienna in 1889 but
became a naturalized British subject in 1938. Before turning to philosophy, Wittgenstein
had studied engineering.
mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 40mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 40 4/9/13 11:46 AM4/9/13 11:46 AM

Confirming Pages
In 1926, Albert
Einstein rejected
Heisenberg’s
uncertainty principle
on the grounds
that “God does
not play dice with
the universe.” One
suspects, then, that
Einstein—his hair not
withstanding—was
not comfortable with
fuzzy objects.
Five decades later,
physicist Stephen
Hawking, referring to
black holes in space,
said this: “It appears
that not only does
God play dice, . . . he
sometimes throws
the dice where they
cannot be seen.”
Science and Fuzzy Objects 41
frequently predict what most people will likely do under particu-
lar sets of circumstances, but we can offer no guarantees.
Of course, sociology is not the only science that studies fuzzy
objects. But many of those working in other disciplines have
demonstrated a tremendous ability to ignore the fuzzy qualities
of the subjects that they study.
There have been important exceptions, however. In 1927,
physicist Werner Heisenberg published his account of what he
called the uncertainty principle. Heisenberg argued that there
are important limits on science’s ability to measure and pre-
dict the behavior of physical objects. To support his argument,
Heisenberg demonstrated that “it is impossible to measure, predict,
or know both the position and momentum simultaneously of a particle,
with unlimited precision in both quantities.” (For example, to mea-
sure a particle’s position, one must interfere with its momentum.)
Heisenberg’s point stunned many physical scientists:
[Many physicists believed] that if the positions and velocities of all
the bits of matter in the universe were known at one time, and if
all the various force laws were known, the positions and velocities
of all these bits of matter could be calculated and predicted for any
future time. All future effects would be the result of earlier causes.
Even if the task of measuring all these positions and velocities were
humanly impossible, and even if the discovery of all appropriate
laws were impossible, nevertheless the positions and velocities did
exist at a previous time and the laws do exist; therefore the future is
predetermined.
But Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says this is not so. It is, in
principle, impossible to make the measurements with sufficient
precision or even to calculate them from the future positions and
velocities because we cannot know the future positions and
velocities. (Speilberg and Anderson 1987, 218–219)
This was unsettling news to many physicists who wanted to
believe that if they kept working at it, they would someday (at
least theoretically) be able to measure and predict everything in
the cosmos.
How have scientists learned to cope with the fuzziness or inde-
terminacy of the physical world? Some physical scientists seem
simply to ignore it. And, in point of fact, a great deal of scientific
progress can be made by treating phenomena as if they are pre-
dictable. Recently, however, some scientists have become more
receptive to the unpredictable or chaotic nature of the world.
And, once they open their eyes,
chaos seems to be everywhere. A rising column of cigarette smoke
breaks into wild swirls. A flag snaps back and forth in the wind. A
dripping faucet goes from a steady pattern to a random one. Chaos
mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 41mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 41 4/9/13 11:46 AM4/9/13 11:46 AM

Confirming Pages
42 CHAPTER 3 SCIENCE AND FUZZY OBJECTS
appears in the behavior of the weather, the behavior of an airplane
in flight, the behavior of cars clustering on an expressway, the
behavior of oil flowing in underground pipes. . . . That realization
has begun to change the way business executives make decisions
about insurance, the way astronomers look at the solar system, the
way political theorists talk about the stresses leading to armed
conflict. (Gleick 1987, 5)
Chaos theorists work forward from the principle they call sen-
sitive dependence on initial conditions —that is, the idea that a very
small initial difference may lead to an enormous change to the
outcome. In meteorological studies (studies of the weather), this
principle is sometimes called the Butterfly Effect, based on the
notion that a butterfly stirring the air today in Seattle can trans-
form storm systems next month in Singapore.
You might be wondering why I have taken us so far afield from
sociology. Why discuss physics? I do have a point: We must not
dismiss scientific explanations and predictions merely because
they do not pan out in all instances. The inability of physicists to
predict both the position and momentum of particles with abso-
lute accuracy does not undermine physics’ claim to being a sci-
ence. Likewise, the fact that sociologists cannot offer predictions
with absolute certainty does not make their work less scientific.
As many scientists in all disciplines are now learning, one must
learn to accept the existence of fuzzy objects.
Dividing Up the Task
In addition to being fuzzy, the social world is big—so big that it
is impossible to look at the whole of it at once. Therefore, most
sociologists specialize by taking chunks of society and making
these their particular concerns. Sociologists also tend to specialize
in how they approach the study of their chunks. Understanding
how sociologists divide things up will help you to understand
how sociologists approach their work.
There are three sorts of divisions. The first has to do with what
chunk of society a sociologist chooses to study; the second and
third are a bit more complex and have to do with how particular
sociologists approach their research.
What Sociologists Study
1. Topic area or subject matter
How Sociologists Study
2. Theoretical perspectives (paradigms)
3. Levels of analysis
mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 42mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 42 4/9/13 11:46 AM4/9/13 11:46 AM

Confirming Pages
Theoretical Perspectives (Paradigms) 43
Topic Area or Subject Matter
There are many topic areas within sociology—indeed, some soci-
ologist, somewhere, probably is studying every social thing that
exists. Table 3.1 lists some of the more popular subjects that are
of interest to sociologists. Some sociologists focus their attention
on only one area; others may divide their attention between two,
three, or more areas. For example, my own major area of research
is law, but I also study the family and work.
Theoretical Perspectives (Paradigms):
Functionalist, Conflict, and Symbolic
Interactionist
A more abstract way to divide up the discipline or field of soci-
ology is in terms of theoretical perspectives, or paradigms (pro-
nounced “PAIR-a-dimes”). A paradigm is akin to a framework or
model of the world.
There are three major theoretical perspectives, or paradigms:
functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist. The differ-
ences between these perspectives mostly have to do with the sets
of assumptions about the nature of the social world on which
each paradigm is based.
THE FUNCTIONALIST PARADIGM
Sociologists who work from a functionalist paradigm tend to share
three major assumptions about the nature of the social world:
1. Within a particular society, there is a great deal of consensus
about what values and norms are important. In a particular
Table 3.1 Popular Topic Areas within Sociology
Age Family and sex Religion
Art Formal organizations Science and technology
Collective behavior Gender Small groups
Culture Health care Social change
Demography Law Social movements
Deviance Mass media Socialization
Economy Military Sports
Education Political institutions Stratification
Environment Race and ethnicity Work and occupations
mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 43mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 43 4/9/13 11:46 AM4/9/13 11:46 AM

Confirming Pages
44 CHAPTER 3 SCIENCE AND FUZZY OBJECTS
society, for example, there may be consensus that working
hard is important, that murder is bad, that obtaining a lot
of wealth is good, and so on. Regardless of the nature of the
values and norms, functional perspectives assume that there
is a general consensus about them in society.
2. Society is an entity or whole that is made up of many inte-
grated parts. Because all the parts are integrated, or tied
together, when one part of society changes, other parts will
change in response. For example, if the economic system
changes, then the education and family systems will change
as well.
3. Society tends to seek stability and avoid conflict. Conflict is
not normal, but is dysfunctional or pathological.
THE CONFLICT PARADIGM
Theories that emerge from the conflict paradigm tend to be based
on assumptions that seem opposite to theories that grow out of
the functionalist paradigm:
1. Within any particular society, there are subgroups of people
who cherish different beliefs and have conflicting values and
goals.
2. Society is made up of subgroups that are in ruthless compe-
tition for scarce resources.
3. Society is never harmonious; conflict is normal in a society.
THE SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST PARADIGM
Symbolic interactionists are sometimes called social construction-
ists because of their interest in how people construct their own
social worlds. The kinds of questions that symbolic interactionists
ask have to do with such issues as how people use symbols to
make sense of their environments. Most symbolic interactionists
share four basic assumptions about the nature of the social world:
1. How people act depends on how they see and evaluate reality.
2. People learn from others how to see and evaluate reality.
3. People constantly work to interpret their own behavior and
the behavior of others to determine what these behaviors
“mean.”
4. When people do not attach the same meanings to behaviors
or perceive reality in the same way, there will be misunder-
standing and conflict.
mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 44mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 44 4/9/13 11:46 AM4/9/13 11:46 AM

Confirming Pages
Which Paradigm Is Correct? 45
Which Paradigm Is Correct?
Many students are confused especially by the differences between
the conflict and functionalist paradigms. They seem so opposite
to one another—how can both be valid? That’s a good question. A
few sociologists would answer by stating that one of the two per-
spectives is wrong. But others (including me) would say that both
are right—that there is both consensus and dissent in society, and
that both consensus and conflict need to be studied. In my experi-
ence, the paradigm adopted depends on which of these aspects of
society one judges to be the more interesting and important.
As you might guess, sociologists tend to ask different kinds of
questions about their subject matter depending on the paradigm
or perspective they hold. Those who have adopted the functional-
ist or consensus perspective tend to focus on what holds society
together and on how changes in one part of society lead to changes
in other parts. Those who have adopted the conflict perspective
tend to focus on the kinds of things that create tension and con-
flict between people and groups and on the ways people from one
group may exploit people from another group. Those who adopt
the symbolic interactionist paradigm tend to look at how ideas
emerge from social interaction and then affect that interaction.
Let me offer an example from two of my favorite subject areas:
law and family. Here are some questions that sociologists work-
ing from the different paradigms might ask:
Functionalists
Law: As societies move from agricultural to industrial-based
economies, how does this affect the functioning of their legal
systems? How does the legal system function to help the economic
“But your honor—I’m so broke I don’t even have a paradigm.”
mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 45mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 45 4/9/13 11:46 AM4/9/13 11:46 AM

Confirming Pages
46 CHAPTER 3 SCIENCE AND FUZZY OBJECTS
system run smoothly? How does law function to help build consen-
sus and preserve order in society?
Family: What are the ways in which families contribute to the
stability of society? How have changes in the law (e.g., divorce law)
affected family?
Conflict Theorists
Law: How do people with power use the law to maintain their
power? For example, how do rich people use property laws to keep
poor people from making financial gains? How do powerful people
use the law to force less powerful people to share the values of the
rich (even when those values might have negative consequences for
poor people)?
Family: How has the social organization of the family contributed
to perpetuating sex discrimination in society?
Symbolic Interactionists
Law: How do the rules of evidence affect the way people can tell
their stories in court? How do attorneys learn to plea bargain how
much prison time a particular defendant should get? How are these
bargains negotiated between defense attorneys and prosecutors?
Family: What behaviors are expected of different family members,
and how are these negotiated between adults and children in the
family? Given the changing roles of women and men in society, how
do newlyweds negotiate their roles as wives and husbands?
Sociologists can become very attached—sometimes too
attached—to one of these theoretical perspectives. Becoming
too attached means forgetting that there is value in each of the
three paradigms. Truth be told, understanding any complex phe-
nomenon may require the sociologist to make use of the insights
offered by all three paradigms. It is probably impossible, for
example, to have a society in which there is no consensus or no
dissent. Furthermore, in all societies, people have to work to com-
municate and negotiate the meaning of things. Therefore, because
each paradigm offers a different window on the social world,
each paradigm enhances our understanding.
3.1 In your own words, summarize the three major theoretical
perspectives/paradigms used in sociology.
Levels of Analysis: Microsociology
and Macrosociology
The third and most abstract way that sociologists divide up their
discipline is to distinguish between different levels of analysis.
Roughly speaking, depending on the level of analysis used, a

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 46mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 46 4/9/13 11:46 AM4/9/13 11:46 AM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 47
sociologist might be doing microsociology or macrosociology. Micro-
sociologists generally focus on the interactions of individuals and
the context of those interactions. Macrosociologists, on the other
hand, focus on broader social phenomena, such as whole social
structures, systems, and institutions.
A sociologist who studies the family from a microsociological
perspective might ask questions about the relationships between
family members. For example, what kind of division of labor exists
in the average American family? In other words, who does the
dishes? Who makes the financial decisions? Who has primary
responsibility for child care?
A sociologist who studies the family from a macrosociological
perspective might look at the impact of economic change on divorce
and birth rates in a particular society. Are advances in technology,
for example, related to lower birth rates? Do changes in the occu-
pational structure of a society have an impact on the divorce rate?
Although most sociologists tend to do either macrosociologi-
cal or microsociological research (rather than combine the two),
nearly everyone realizes that both kinds of work are important.
If we want to gain an understanding of the family, or crime, or
religion, or whatever, it is important to study the phenomenon
from both perspectives.
3.2 In your own words, explain the difference between microsociology
and macrosociology.
Chapter Review
1. Below I have listed the major concepts discussed in this
chapter. Define each of the terms. (Hint: This exercise will be
more helpful to you if, in addition to defining each concept,
you create an example of it in your own words.)
Ludwig Wittgenstein on fuzzy objects
fuzzy objects in the physical sciences
Werner Heisenberg, uncertainty principle
Albert Einstein
Stephen Hawking
chaos theory
topic areas in sociology
paradigms in sociology
functional
conflict
symbolic interaction
microsociology
macrosociology

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 47mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 47 4/9/13 11:46 AM4/9/13 11:46 AM

Confirming Pages
48 CHAPTER 3 SCIENCE AND FUZZY OBJECTS
2. Assume you were interested in gaining an understanding of
the relationship between teachers and students in your college
or university. What two or three questions would you ask if
you were guided by a functionalist perspective? If you were
guided by a conflict perspective? How about the symbolic
interactionist perspective?
3. Look back over the questions you constructed in response to
question 2. Do these tend to be the kinds of questions that a
microsociologist would ask or a macrosociologist? Explain
how you reached your conclusion.
Answers and Discussion
3.1
a. Functionalist (also known as the consensus perspective): Sociolo-
gists who operate from this perspective assume that there is a
lot of consensus about values, goals, and so on in society. They
focus on the kinds of things that help to maintain this consensus.
For example, if a functionalist were interested in understanding
the role of schools in society, he or she might examine the ways
in which our schools help out the larger society (such as teach-
ing the values and skills that adults believe children need in order
to succeed). Functionalists see conflict as pathological; if it exists,
then, something is wrong with the society.
b. Conflict: These sociologists assume that many groups with different
values compete in society. Conflict is thus a normal part of social
interaction. Conflict theorists focus on the nature of this conflict
and the way it works. For example, how do men maintain their
superior place in the labor market over women? In what ways
do social institutions—like the criminal justice system—serve the
needs of the powerful over the powerless?
c. Symbolic interactionist: These sociologists assume that people con-
struct their own worlds and ask how this process takes place.
How do people come to agree on what symbols mean? Symbolic
interactionists assume that the process is one of negotiation. How
does this work?
3.2 Microsociologists always include individuals somewhere in their focus;
macrosociologists don’t. For example, many sociologists study work. A
microsociologist would be interested in how individuals select and learn
their jobs, how they get along with their bosses, and how men and women
relate in the workplace. A macrosociologist, on the other hand, would
rather look at how, for example, changes in the political system affect the
labor market or how technological changes affect the unemployment rate.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 48mcI26873_ch03_040-048.indd 48 4/9/13 11:46 AM4/9/13 11:46 AM

Confirming Pages
49
4
WHO’S AFRAID OF SOCIOLOGY?
Challenges to Skepticism
“All of us cherish our beliefs. They are, to a degree, self-defining. When
someone comes along who challenges our belief system as insufficiently
well-based—or who, like Socrates, merely asks embarrassing questions
that we haven’t thought of, or demonstrates that we’ve swept key
underlying assumptions under the rug—it becomes much more than a
search for knowledge. It feels like a personal assault.”
—Carl Sagan (1996)
O nce, on about the third day of the semester, a student in my introductory sociology class walked up to me and said,
“Sociology is the work of the devil.” Then he left.
I never saw that student again. But had he given me the
chance, I would have told him that I disagreed with his assess-
ment. In fact, I am sure that the devil hates sociology more than
most things.
It is true that sociology emerged at a time in history when
many individuals (including some sociologists) were question-
ing the authority of religious leaders. It is likewise true that a
few of those early sociologists even thought that sociology might
someday replace religion. But there is nothing inherently anti-
religious about sociology. Of course, the skepticism and question-
ing attitude of sociologists do threaten some people in authority.
(Whether that is a bad thing is for you to judge. In any case, as
I will discuss shortly, whether something is good or bad is not a
proper sociological question.)
mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 49mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 49 4/9/13 11:54 AM4/9/13 11:54 AM

Confirming Pages
50 CHAPTER 4 WHO’S AFRAID OF SOCIOLOGY?
As much as sociology may threaten religious leaders, it is not
really a threat to the social institution of religion—and certainly
it is no threat to God (just imagine!). Sociologists are concerned
with issues of observable facts. In other words, sociologists (like
other scientists) tend to be preoccupied with the empirical world.
The Empirical World and Inconvenient Facts
This concept of empirical is an important one in science. Empiri-
cal refers to things that can be observed through the use of
one’s physical senses—sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.
If a thing cannot be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled—
or, more specifically, if it is not observable —it is of little interest
to sociologists.
For example, a sociologist doing research might well ask, “Do
people in a particular society believe in God?” or, “What impact
do religious beliefs have on a person’s behavior?” or, “What are
the manifest and latent functions of religion in society?” But no
working sociologist would ask, “Is there a God?” or, “Is God more
fond of Buddhists, Christians, Jews, or Muslims?” or, “Is reli-
gion X more correct in its beliefs and practices than religion Y?”
These are not sociological questions.
Admittedly, anyone who preaches unquestioned obedience to
authority will be troubled by sociology. This is well evidenced by
the fact that in the twentieth century, whenever a dictator came
into power, one of his first acts was to reassign or fire all the
sociologists—anything to keep them from making trouble by ask-
ing questions. Obviously, you cannot have a successful dictatorship
as long as people are questioning authority and being skeptical
about its claims. Sociology can flourish only in a free society.
I remember that my first sociology course was quite an awak-
ening. Like my classmates, I frequently was appalled to learn
some of the stuff that sociologists have uncovered about society.
Still, that was in 1972, and in those days we were just learning not
to be shocked when we found out that there is a dysfunctional
underside to society.
As a sociology professor, I have observed that some students
become uncomfortable when they encounter the results of socio-
logical research. I guess that even now it can be shocking to dis-
cover that many of the things you always accepted as true are, in
fact, false.
Max Weber had a term for those pieces of evidence that con-
tradict what you have always believed and/or want to believe
about the social world; he called them inconvenient facts. As far as
Weber was concerned, it was the sociologist’s duty to deal with
mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 50mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 50 4/9/13 11:54 AM4/9/13 11:54 AM

Confirming Pages
The Empirical World and Inconvenient Facts 51
inconvenient facts. Indeed, Weber argued that one of the best
things a sociology teacher could do
is to teach his students to recognize inconvenient facts—I mean
facts that are inconvenient for their party [that is, political] opinions.
And for every party opinion there are facts that are extremely
inconvenient, for my own opinion no less than for others. I believe
the teacher accomplishes more than a mere intellectual task if he
compels his audience to accustom itself to the existence of such facts.
(Weber 1918/1958, 147)
Here are some empirical facts that have upset some beginning
sociology students; in the Weberian sense, these are examples of
inconvenient facts. Keep in mind that each of these facts about life
in the United States has been validated by a great deal of research.
Even when they do the exact same jobs and have the exact same
educational background, men tend to earn more money than women,
and whites tend to earn more than African Americans. (See, for
example, chapter 14 of this book.)
The majority of adults who sexually abuse children are
heterosexual. (See Greenberg 1988; Sullivan 1995.)
Whether students get into college has more to do with their
parents’ socioeconomic standing than with their own intelligence
or high school grades. (See chapters 12 and 13 of this book.)
Friendships between people of different races are as stable as
friendships between people of the same race. (See Hallinan and
Williams 1987.)
When they hear such things in lectures or read them in articles
or books assigned in sociology classes, some students react as if
the professor (me) is trying to pull a fast one: How can it be true
that there is still salary discrimination based on gender and race?
How can it be true that most child molesters are heterosexual?
How can it be that money and status will get you into college
over brains and knowledge? How can such things happen in a
society that promotes equality, or in which the supposed corrupt-
ing influence of homosexuals is so feared, or in which people are
supposed to succeed on their own merit?
Our society, like all societies, aspires to many things. But, as
with all societies, there can be discrepancies between the ideal
world and the real world. It may be disturbing to learn of these
discrepancies, but hiding from them will not make the world a
better place.
It is important to remember that the goal of sociology is not
to undermine society or people’s beliefs. Still, I can assure you of
one thing: Any belief that can’t stand up to objective scrutiny is
hardly worth having. Sociologists cultivate the skill of examining
beliefs about the nature of the social world and seeing which ones
stand up to the evidence.
mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 51mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 51 4/9/13 11:54 AM4/9/13 11:54 AM

Confirming Pages
52 CHAPTER 4 WHO’S AFRAID OF SOCIOLOGY?
4.1 What did Weber mean by the term inconvenient fact?
Ethnocentrism
The most difficult thing about doing sociology is examining peo-
ple whose customs and traditions differ from our own. Each of
us likes to believe that his or her own people’s customs and tra-
ditions are best. And when we encounter people whose ways of
life are different, our tendency is to make a value judgment. More
specifically, we generally do not see difference as merely differ-
ence, but as an indication of inferiority.
The human tendency to judge others as inferior is very much
evident in the written records of those who were the first to
explore other countries and to encounter “foreigners.” When
Europeans first met Africans, for example, they found African
customs so different from European ones that they doubted that
the Africans were even human. It seems likely that the Africans’
first responses to the Europeans were similar.
To the ancient Greeks, the language of foreigners sounded like
nonsensical stammering, like “bar-bar-bar.” Because of this, the
ancient Greeks came to call all foreigners “barbarians.” Similarly,
the Aztec peoples called their own language nahuatl, meaning
“pleasant sounding,” but called other people’s languages nonotl,
meaning “stammering.” Modern languages reflect a similarly
near-universal disdain for foreign peoples:
In Japanese, the word for foreigner means “stinking of foreign hair.” 1
To the Czechs a Hungarian is “a pimple.” Germans call cockroaches
“Frenchmen,” while the French call lice “Spaniards.” We in the
English-speaking world take French leave, but Italians and Norwegians
talk about departing like an Englishman, and Germans talk of
running like a Dutchman. Italians call syphilis “the French disease,”
while both French and Italians call con games “American swindle.”
Belgian taxi drivers call a poor tipper “un Anglais.” (Bryson 1990, 17)
This process of judging other peoples and their customs and
norms as inferior to one’s own people, customs, and norms is

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
1 A close reader of the first edition of this book told me that the Japanese word for
foreigner is gaikokujin, or more frequently gaijin, “which translates to ‘foreigner’ or
‘outsider.’” But, according to my reader, either word is “pejorative, and no one would
use it in public except children who haven’t been socialized not to repeat in public what
their parents say in the home.” I confess that my knowledge of Japanese is very limited;
but I did quiz more than a dozen of my students who are from Japan. When I asked,
“What word do the Japanese people use to refer to people from other countries?” each
one told me gaijin. I am still investigating this matter!
“[Ethnocentrism is
the view] of things
in which one’s own
group is the center
of everything and all
others are scaled and
rated with references
to it. . . . Each group
nourishes its own
pride and vanity,
boasts itself superior,
exalts its own
divinities, and looks
with contempt on
outsiders.”
—William G. Sumner
(1906)
mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 52mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 52 4/9/13 11:54 AM4/9/13 11:54 AM

Confirming Pages
Ethnocentrism 53
called ethnocentrism. Table 4.1 lists common ethnocentric attitudes
toward one’s own group and toward outsiders.
The positive side of ethnocentrism is that it brings together
people and builds solidarity within a particular society. It is simi-
lar to believing that your team is the best team. Much as believ-
ing that one’s team is the best helps to unite students and boost
school spirit, believing that one’s culture is the best helps to unite
people in society. To use Durkheim’s phrasing, ethnocentrism
promotes social solidarity.
The negative (or dysfunctional) side of ethnocentrism is that it
can lead to nasty consequences: prejudice, discrimination, even
genocide or “ethnic cleansing.” 2 For example, in 1619, a group of
religious dissidents in England sought a place where they could
have religious freedom. These Pilgrims chose North America.
Why? Because no “people” lived there! Here’s how one of their
leaders, William Bradford, explained the Pilgrims’ rationale:
The place [the Pilgrims] had their thoughts on was some of those vast
and unpeopled countries of America, which are fruitful and fit for
habitation, being devoid of all civil inhabitants, where there are only
savage and brutish men which range up and down, little otherwise
than the wild beasts of the same. (Quoted in Holmes 1891, 36)
Because the native inhabitants of North America had different
customs and lifestyles, they were seen by these English as less
than human and more like “wild beasts.” This sort of reason-
ing allowed many European settlers (and their descendants) to
believe that they were as justified in killing Native Americans as
they were in killing any dangerous animal.
Table 4.1 Ethnocentric Attitudes—toward One’s Own Group
and toward Outsiders
Toward Own Group Toward Outsiders
See members as virtuous
and superior
See outsiders as contemptible, immoral,
and inferior
See own values as universal
and intrinsically true
See outsiders’ values as false (where
they differ from own group’s values)
See own customs as original
and centrally human, as reflecting
true “human nature”
See outsiders’ customs as suspicious,
ignorant, and lacking in humanity
For an excellent introduction to the issue of ethnocentrism, see Levine and Campbell 1972.
2 The term genocide was introduced by Raphael Lemkin. In 1944, in his study of the
Axis (German–Italian) rule of occupied Europe during World War II, Lemkin proposed
the term to denote the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group. He coined the word by
joining the ancient Greek word genos (“race, tribe”) with the Latin term cide (“killing”).
mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 53mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 53 4/9/13 11:54 AM4/9/13 11:54 AM

Confirming Pages
54 CHAPTER 4 WHO’S AFRAID OF SOCIOLOGY?
In my own experience, many people who live in the United
States are ethnocentric about being ethnocentric! What I mean is
that people in our society seem to think that we are the only ones
who are ethnocentric—implying, perhaps, that we are the only
ones who have any right to feel superior.
It comes as a shock to many North Americans to find, for
example, that we smell bad to many Asians (it’s because of all the
dairy products we consume). Likewise, when the Thonga people
of Africa first saw visiting Europeans kissing, they reacted with
horror and disgust: What sort of people would engage in “eating
each other’s saliva and dirt” (Hyde 1979, 18)?
On his Web site “EduPASS,” Mark Kantrowitz cautions inter-
national students coming to the United States: “Don’t believe all
of the stereotypes you may have heard about Americans. Even
the ones that are true in general may not be true about specific
individuals or a large segment of the population.” He says, “rid
yourself of any preconceived notions of American behavior
before you arrive.”
Kantrowitz helpfully lists the “common stereotypes of American
citizens”; these include, “boastful and arrogant, disrespectful of
authority, drunkard, extravagant and wasteful, generous, insen-
sitive, lazy, loud and obnoxious, promiscuous, racist, rich and
wealthy, rude and immature, snobbish,” and more.
What do you think are the origins of these stereotypes?
For sociologists, ethnocentrism is especially dangerous because
it gets in the way of understanding. If we really want to under-
stand why people in society X act the way they do, how their insti-
tutions work, and what their customs are, we have to see them
in the context of their society. Ethnocentrism hinders such under-
standing because it means we are viewing society X in terms of
our own society.
Avoiding Ethnocentrism Can Be Difficult
Even when we tell ourselves sternly that we must be objective,
that we must examine the people of other cultures in terms of
their cultures, it is difficult. Anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon
gives a startling example of how difficult it can be to avoid being
ethnocentric. Chagnon studied the Yanomamö Indians of South
America by living among them for more than a year. Here’s part
of what he wrote about his first day in the field. Imagine yourself
in his shoes: Could you have remained “objective”?
My first day in the field illustrated to me what my teachers meant
when they spoke of “culture shock.”. . .
mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 54mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 54 4/9/13 11:54 AM4/9/13 11:54 AM

Confirming Pages
Avoiding Ethnocentrism Can Be Difficult 55
We arrived at the village, Biaasi-teri, about 2:00 P.M. and docked
the boat along the muddy bank at the terminus of the path used by
the Indians to fetch their drinking water. It was hot and muggy, and
my clothing was soaked with perspiration. . . .
I looked up and gasped when I saw a dozen burly, naked, filthy,
hideous men staring at us down the shafts of their drawn arrows!
Immense wads of green tobacco were stuck between their lower
teeth and lips making them look even more hideous, and strands of
dark-green slime dripped or hung from their noses. We arrived at
the village while the men were blowing a hallucinogenic drug up
their noses. One of the side effects of the drug is a runny nose. The
mucus is always saturated with green powder and the Indians
usually let it run freely from their nostrils. My next discovery was
that there were a dozen or so vicious, underfed dogs snapping at
my legs, circling me as if I were going to be their next meal. I just
stood there holding my notebook, helpless and pathetic. Then the
stench of the decaying vegetation and filth struck me and I almost
got sick. I was horrified. . . .
The whole situation was depressing, and I wondered why I
ever decided to switch from civil engineering to anthropology
in the first place. I had not eaten all day, I was soaking wet from
perspiration, the gnats were biting me, and I was covered with red
pigment, the result of a dozen or so complete examinations I had
been given by as many burly Indians. These examinations capped
an otherwise grim day. The Indians would blow their noses into
their hands, flick as much of the mucus off that would separate
in a snap of the wrist, wipe the residue into their hair, and then
carefully examine my face, arms, legs, hair, and the contents of
my pockets. I asked Mr. Barker [a local missionary and Chagnon’s
temporary guide] how to say “Your hands are dirty”; my comments
were met by the Indians in the following way: They would “clean”
their hands by spitting a quantity of slimy tobacco juice into them,
rub them together, and then proceed with the examination.
(Chagnon 1977, 4–7)
Our initial reaction to the Yanomamö likely would be one of
horror and disgust—just as it was Chagnon’s reaction. In time,
however, if we tried to keep an open mind, we too could become
accustomed to the Yanomamö ways—once we saw these in the
context of their entire living situation.
Mr. Barker and I crossed the river and slung our hammocks. When
he pulled his hammock out of a rubber bag, a heavy, disagreeable
odor of mildewed cotton came with it. “Even the missionaries are
filthy,” I thought to myself. Within two weeks everything I owned
smelled the same way, and I lived with the odor for the remainder
of the field work. My own habits of personal cleanliness reached
such levels that I didn’t even mind being examined by the Indians,
as I was not much cleaner than they were after I had adjusted to the
circumstances. . . .
Encounters with
different cultures
challenge one’s
taken-for-granted
assumptions about
the way things are
and ought to be.
Social scientists
refer to the
resulting feeling of
disorientation as
culture shock.
mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 55mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 55 4/9/13 11:54 AM4/9/13 11:54 AM

Confirming Pages
56 CHAPTER 4 WHO’S AFRAID OF SOCIOLOGY?
I discovered that it was an enormously time-consuming task to
maintain my own body in the manner to which it had grown
accustomed in the relatively antiseptic environment of the northern
United States. Either I could be relatively well fed and relatively
comfortable in a fresh change of clothes and do very little fieldwork,
or, I could do considerably more fieldwork and be less well fed and
less comfortable. (Chagnon 1977, 4–7)
It could certainly be argued that Chagnon’s experiences were
extreme, that most social scientists do not venture into such exotic
locales. But one does not have to go very far to experience the
shock of cultural differences. Probably, even in your own city or
town, there are groups of people who live their lives very differ-
ently than you do. Quite possibly, you experienced a bit of culture
shock when you first arrived at college!
When encountering cultural strangers, a person’s first reaction
is likely to be the same as Chagnon’s when he met the Yanomamö.
Ethnocentrism is normal. However, because it gets in the way of
understanding, social scientists work to overcome it.
4.2 What does it mean to be ethnocentric? What’s an example of
ethnocentrism?
4.3 What is culture shock? What’s an example of culture shock?
Cultural Relativism
Sociologists work to overcome their ethnocentrism by practicing
something called cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is the belief
that other people and their ways of doing things can be understood only
in terms of the cultural context of those people. This is based on the
assumption that if our goal is to truly understand people’s behav-
ior, we have to look for clues in their culture.
Some people have misunderstood this notion of cultural rel-
ativity. They suspect that it implies that any one way of doing
things is as good as any other way. As far as sociologists are con-
cerned, however, cultural relativity has nothing to do with assess-
ing which ways of doing things are better or worse. Remember,
“Which way is better or worse?” is not a legitimate sociological
question.
For sociologists, cultural relativity means being objective
enough to understand people’s behaviors in terms of their culture
and social situation. Sociology does not agree or disagree with,
or approve or disapprove of, behavior; sociology seeks to under-
stand and explain behavior. And understanding and explaining
is difficult to do unless one is willing to look at things in their
own context.
“Culture shock refers
to the whole set of
feelings about being
in an alien setting,
and the resulting
reactions. It is a
chilly, creepy feeling
of alienation, of being
without some of
the most ordinary,
trivial—and therefore
basic—cues of one’s
culture of origin.”
—Conrad P. Kottak
(1992)

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
Ethnocentrism can
lead to shocking
cases of ignorance.
During a debate
over the merits of
bilingual education,
for example, one
congressman quite
seriously said to
Dr. David Edwards
(head of the Joint
National Committee
on Languages):
“If English was good
enough for Jesus
Christ, it’s good
enough for me.”
—Quoted by Bill Bryson
(1990)
mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 56mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 56 4/9/13 11:54 AM4/9/13 11:54 AM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 57
Chapter Review
1. Below I have listed the major concepts discussed in this chapter.
Define each of the terms. ( Hint: This exercise will be more
helpful to you if, in addition to defining each concept, you
create an example of it in your own words.)
empirical
Max Weber (inconvenient facts)
ethnocentrism
culture shock
genocide
Napoleon Chagnon, experiences with the Yanomamö
cultural relativity
2. What is cultural relativism? Why is it considered crucial for
sociologists?
Answers and Discussion
4.1 Weber used the term inconvenient facts to refer to facts or data that
go against one’s social and political beliefs. For example, suppose you are
very much in favor of imposing the death penalty on convicted murderers.
If that were the case, the following facts might be inconvenient for you:
a. There is no evidence that the threat of the death penalty has any
appreciable effect on a country’s murder rate.
b. In the United States, it costs more to put a person to death than
to keep him or her in prison for life.
By the way, it is amazingly difficult to think of examples of inconvenient
facts. That is not because they aren’t there, but because it is easier to try
to ignore them.
4.2 Your definition of ethnocentrism should include the ideas that it
occurs in situations where we judge other people’s customs and behaviors
against the standards of our own culture. Asking a kilted Scotsman why he
is dressed like a woman is ethnocentric.
4.3 Culture shock is that feeling of disorientation and even squeamishness
that one feels when plunked down into a different culture. Chagnon felt this
as he stood there and let the Yanomamö examine him.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 57mcI26873_ch04_049-057.indd 57 4/9/13 11:54 AM4/9/13 11:54 AM

Confirming Pages
58
5
THE VOCABULARY OF SCIENCE
“To speak of a science without concepts suggests all sorts of analogies—
a carpenter without tools, a railroad without tracks, a mammal without
bones, a love story without love.”
— H. Blumer (1931)
D uring the past century, science has revolutionized the way we live and die. Yet scientists follow a relatively simple method.
First, we specify some concepts of interest to us. Second, we posit,
or suggest, some relationship between those concepts. Third, we
test whether the posited relationship reflects what happens in the
real world. If our testing shows that our posited relationship does
reflect what goes on in the real world, we conclude that we have
succeeded in understanding something about the nature of things
in the world.
Simple, right? Well, you might well ask: If science is so simple,
why is it that scientific reports seem so complex and that reading
and untangling them is so daunting? The answer is that the sim-
plicity of the scientific method becomes clear only when one has
conquered the basic vocabulary used by scientists.
The good news is that science uses a language that crosses
many academic disciplines. Therefore, learning this language not
only is crucial for your sociology course work, but will help you
in other sorts of classes as well.
Concepts and Constructs
Look outside your window—what do you see? There are things
out there. But you do not perceive them as “things,” you see cars,
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 58mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 58 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
Variables 59
apartment buildings, trees, street lamps, and so forth. The terms
with which we organize these things are concepts. More techni-
cally, a concept is a label that is applied to things with similar character-
istics or attributes; things that—in our minds—seem to belong to
the same category.
Whether or not you have used the term concept, you’ve been
taught to think conceptually beginning in primary school. You
may, for example, recognize figure 5.1 from your first-grade lan-
guage skills workbook. When your teacher asked you to mark the
thing that does not belong, he or she was asking you to delineate
a concept.
Some of the things we think about are not easily pictured
because they are not material or tangible in substance: love, intel-
ligence, speed, racism. These are all real in the sense that they
exist and have tangible (empirical) effects on life (that is, they can
make a difference in what happens to people), even though none of
them can be directly observed. The words used to describe things
that exist analytically but are not directly observable are called
constructs —because to observe them we must rely on some con-
structed measure. To observe and measure racism, for example,
we would need to construct a list of observable behaviors that
would allow us to measure whether racism exists. Our list might
include such behaviors as telling ethnic jokes, refusing to asso-
ciate with people of different racial backgrounds, discriminating
against certain categories of people, and so forth.
Variables
The first step in doing scientific research involves picking the con-
cepts or constructs of interest to us. We call these concepts variables.
When sociologists speak or write about their research, they tend
to use the term variable a lot. To call a concept or a construct a
variable means, in the first place, that it is a thing of interest in a
particular piece of research.
Variables are special because they have two important charac-
teristics. First, a variable is something that is thought to influence
or be influenced by another thing. For example, suppose I were to
Figure 5.1
Elementary Exercises
In Conceptualization
Circle the thing in
each box that does
not belong
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 59mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 59 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
60 CHAPTER 5 THE VOCABULARY OF SCIENCE
assert that “income is thought to influence voting behavior.” That
assertion makes reference to two variables: income and voting
behavior. The first, income, is a variable because it is thought to
influence voting behavior. The second, voting behavior, is a vari-
able because it is thought to be influenced by income.
Here are a few more examples. In each case I have italicized the
variables.
Gender is thought to influence occupation.
Religious affiliation is thought to be influenced by income.
Educational attainment is thought to influence income.
Age is thought to influence attitudes toward using computers.
Income is thought to be influenced by race.
The second important characteristic of a variable has to do
with the idea of variation or difference: A variable is a thing that
has varying attributes (an attribute is a characteristic or a quality
that describes a thing).
For example, the attributes of the variable gender vary from,
or include, female and male. The attributes of religious affiliation
vary from, or include, Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, other, and no
religion. The attributes of the variable educational attainment
vary from zero years of schooling to twelve or more years
of schooling (with a number of steps in between those two
extremes). The attributes of the variable income vary from zero
dollars earned a year to $1 million or more earned a year, again
with a number of steps in between.
Depending on the circumstances, the attributes of a partic-
ular variable will be defined in different ways. Table 5.1 illus-
trates two ways of listing the attributes of the variable religious
affiliation.
How you define your list of attributes depends on the nature
of the group you are studying. If the group is known or expected
Table 5.1 Attributes of Religious Affiliation
List 1 List 2
Baha’i Protestant Catholic
Buddhist Roman Catholic Jewish
Confucian Rosicrucian Protestant
Eastern Orthodox Shinto Other
Hindu Tao None
Islamic Other
Jewish None
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 60mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 60 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
Hypotheses 61
to be very diverse, then something like list 1 is appropriate. If the
group is known not to be very diverse (that is, if it is made up of
people from only a few religions), then list 2 is more appropriate,
as long as it includes the names of the religions to which most of
the people you are studying are likely to be affiliated.
You will see right away that list 1 is quite a bit longer than list 2.
But there is one crucial thing that is common to both lists: Each
is totally inclusive—every person in the world has one of these
attributes.
5.1
a. Identify the variables in each assertion.
Example
Marital status is thought to influence a person’s happiness.
i. Number of beers consumed per week is thought to
influence a student’s GPA.
ii. Frequency of tooth brushing is thought to influence the
number of cavities gotten each year.
b. Now go back and list the attributes of each variable.
Examples
Marital status: never married, married, separated, divorced, widowed,
other
Happiness: extremely happy, somewhat happy, somewhat unhappy,
extremely unhappy
c. “Thought question”: One way sociologists define the term
variable is as “a logical grouping of attributes.” Explain what
this definition means.
Hypotheses
Ultimately, scientists are interested in the relationships among
different variables. So, after we identify the variables of interest
to us, we posit a relationship between them. The result is called a
hypothesis. Here are some simple hypotheses:
H 1 : Gender affects occupation.
H 2 : Age affects income.
H 3 : Social class affects voting behavior.
H 4 : Religious affiliation affects attitudes toward abortion.
H 5 : Occupation affects income.
When we create a hypothesis, we are not asserting that it reflects
something true. Hypotheses can be either true or false. We create
them to test whether the posited relationships between the vari-
ables are true or false.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 61mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 61 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
62 CHAPTER 5 THE VOCABULARY OF SCIENCE
Each of the five hypotheses just given follows the same basic
form: Variable X influences variable Y. This format is really a form
of shorthand. The more precise way of stating the hypothesis is
this: Different attributes of variable X are related to different attributes
of variable Y.
Let’s reexamine the first three of our five hypotheses for their
more precise meaning.
Shorthand Version
H 1 : Gender affects occupation.
Longhand Version
H 1 : Differences in gender are related to differences in occupation.
[That is, men and women tend to be employed in different
occupations.]
Shorthand Version
H 2 : Age affects income.
Longhand Version
H 2 : Differences in age are related to differences in income. [That is,
people in different age groups tend to receive different amounts of
income.]
Shorthand Version
H 3 : Social class affects voting behavior.
Longhand Version
H 3 : Differences in social class are related to differences in voting
behavior. [That is, people from higher social classes tend to vote
differently than people from lower social classes.]
5.2 Now you translate the fourth and fifth hypotheses into their longer
versions on a separate piece of paper.
Shorthand Version
H 4 : Religious affiliation affects attitudes toward abortion.
Longhand Version
H 4 : Differences in are related to .
[ That is, .]
Shorthand Version
H 5 : Occupation affects income.
Longhand Version
H 5 : Differences in are related to .
[ That is, .]
In the examples I have used thus far, it has been fairly easy
to identify the variables. Sometimes, however, you might have to

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 62mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 62 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
Kinds of Variables: Independent Versus Dependent 63
ponder a particular hypothesis for a while before you can identify
the variables.
Here I have listed four sets of hypotheses. You should be able
to confirm that the variables are the same for each hypothesis in a
particular set. (Do not assume that the hypotheses in a particular
set mean the same thing, however.)
Set A
H 6 A : Gender influences occupation.
H 6 B : Men and women tend to have different occupations.
Set B
H 7 A : Age affects income.
H 7 B : The very young and the very old tend to have less income
than middle-aged workers.
H 7 C : Younger workers are more likely to earn a minimum wage
than older workers.
Set C
H 8 A : Social class affects voting behavior.
H 8 B : The higher one’s social class standing, the more likely one is
to vote Republican in national elections.
H 8 C : The lower one’s social class standing, the more likely one is
to vote Democrat in national elections.
Set D
H 9 A : Religion influences attitudes toward abortion.
H 9 B : Catholics are more likely to oppose abortion than
Protestants are.
5.3 Read the following hypotheses and identify the variables.
H 10 : Poor people tend to commit street crimes, whereas rich
people tend to commit white-collar crimes.
H 11 : Catholics are more likely to oppose the death penalty than
are Protestants and Jews.
H 12 : Married people are more likely to own pets than single
people are.
H 13 : The hotter the weather, the more ice cream people will buy.
H 14 : Students who earn good grades tend to study more than do
students who earn poor grades.
Kinds of Variables: Independent
Versus Dependent
Remember the first defining characteristic of a variable? (It’s
a thing that is thought to influence or be influenced by another
thing.) The distinction between influence and influenced by is a

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 63mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 63 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
64 CHAPTER 5 THE VOCABULARY OF SCIENCE
clue that there are two kinds of variables: There are variables that
influence other things and variables that are influenced by other
things.
When a variable influences another thing, it is called a cause;
when a variable is influenced by another thing, it is called an
effect. So,
Variables that influence or affect other things  5  causes
Variables that are influenced or affected by other things  5  effects
With this new knowledge about variables as causes and as
effects, let’s look back at our original five hypotheses. Each
hypothesis posits or suggests a cause-effect relationship.
H 1 : Gender affects occupation.
H 2 : Age affects income.
H 3 : Social class affects voting behavior.
H 4 : Religious affiliation affects attitudes toward abortion.
H 5 : Occupation affects income.
Hypothesis 1, for example, posited that being a man or a woman
causes individuals to choose different occupations. To make these
cause-effect relationships more obvious, we could rephrase our
hypotheses this way:
H 1 : Gender differences (cause) occupational differences (effect).
H 2 : Age differences (cause) income differences (effect).
H 3 : Social class differences (cause) voting behavior differences
(effect).
H 4 : Differences in religious affiliation (cause) differences in attitudes
toward abortion (effect).
H 5 : Occupational differences (cause) income differences (effect).
As you might suspect, there are special names for these two types
of variables. A variable that is believed to influence another vari-
able (that is, to be a cause) is called an independent variable. A vari-
able that is thought to be influenced by the independent variable
(that is, to be an effect) is called a dependent variable. Therefore,
Independent variable/cause affects dependent variable/effect
H1: gender occupation
H2: age income
H3: social class voting behavior differences
H5: occupation income
This distinction between independent and dependent variables is
really an important one. If you confuse them, you will make a big
mess out of your analysis of the social world.
How can you remember that the independent variable is the
cause and the dependent variable is the effect? One way is to
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 64mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 64 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
Kinds of Relationships: Directionality 65
recall that the effect depends on the cause just as the dependent vari-
able  depends on the independent variable. Another way to remem-
ber the difference is to think of the word INCA: The IN dependent
variable is the CA use.
It might help to remember that the cause of something always
happens before the effect. So, if one variable obviously comes
before another variable, it will be the cause (INCA 5 independent
variable). (Be careful, however; not all variables that come before
another variable are causes of the variable. For example, one
generally attends kindergarten before attending college, but we
would not say that attending kindergarten is the cause of attend-
ing college!)
5.4 Identify the independent variable (the cause) in each of the following
hypotheses:
H 15 : Education affects income.
H 16 : Income affects vacation choices.
H 17 : Marital status affects vacation choices.
H 18 : Mental health is affected by marital status.
H 19 : Regularity of church attendance is influenced by marital status.
H 20 : People with more education tend to have higher-paying jobs.
H 21 : People with higher-paying jobs tend to own more computers.
H 22 : People with light skin tones tend to sunburn more easily.
Kinds of Relationships: Directionality
Often you will discover that the relationships between two vari-
ables may be one of two types: positive or negative. The differ-
ence is fairly simple: Variables that vary in the same direction have a
positive relationship; variables that vary in the opposite direction have a
negative relationship.
How does this work? Consider the following hypothesis,
which posits a positive relationship between eating and weight:
H 23 : Increased eating causes increased weight.
The relationship between eating and weight is a positive one
because these two variables vary in the same direction. That is,
the more you eat, the more you weigh; and the less you eat, the less
you weigh.
Now consider this hypothesis, which posits a negative relation-
ship between exercise and weight:
H 24 : Increased exercise causes decreased weight.
The relationship between exercise and weight is a negative one
because these two variables vary in opposite directions. That is,

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 65mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 65 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
66 CHAPTER 5 THE VOCABULARY OF SCIENCE
the more you exercise, the less you weigh; and the less you exer-
cise, the more you weigh.
In the abstract, positive relationships look like this:
independent variable dependent variable
or this:
independent variable dependent variable
That is, as the independent variable goes faster, or gets bigger, or
becomes more important, the dependent variable goes faster, or
gets bigger, or becomes more important. Or, as the independent
variable goes slower, or gets smaller, or becomes less important,
the dependent variable does, too.
On the other hand, negative relationships look like this:
independent variable dependent variable
or this:
independent variable dependent variable
5.5 Identify the variables in each hypothesis, and then indicate whether
the posited relationship is positive or negative:
H 25 : The longer you live, the more money you will earn.
H 26 : The higher your social class, the more education you are likely
to have.
H 27 : The higher your social class, the less likely you are to be
arrested for committing a crime.
H 28 : Children are more likely than adults to take naps.
H 29 : The more frequently an individual attends services at a church,
temple, synagogue, or mosque, the more likely that person is to
donate money to religious causes.
H 30 : The more education one has, the less likely one is to be
prejudiced against those of different races.
H 31 : Older people tend to be less fearful of dying than younger
people.
Operational Definitions
After we select the variables of interest and formulate hypothe-
ses, we need to arrange things so that we can test our hypotheses.
Recall our very first hypothesis: Gender affects occupation. When
we set up that hypothesis, we posited a relationship between gen-
der and occupation. To put it another way, we posited that men
and women are likely to have different sorts of occupations. Test-
ing this hypothesis will mean determining whether there is indeed
a relationship between gender and occupation in the real world.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 66mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 66 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
Operational Definitions 67
Before we can test our hypothesis, however, we must create
something called an operational definition for each of our variables.
Many people call this operationalizing the variables. Creating an
operational definition essentially involves transforming the vari-
ables into things that can be observed and measured.
Generally, operationalizing a variable simply means listing its
attributes so that you can count the presence or absence of those
attributes in the real world. For example, in operationalizing gen-
der, we can easily identify two attributes:
Gender
woman
man
Operationalizing occupation is a bit trickier, but we can still do
it in a fairly straightforward manner. Here is one way we might
operationalize occupation:
Occupation
professional
manager or owner of business
skilled laborer
unskilled laborer
not employed
other
Suppose I am interested in looking at the relationship between
a student’s major in college and how many hours per week that
student studies. My hypothesis is that students who major in the
sciences study more hours per week than do students who major
in the humanities or social sciences. So, I have two basic variables:
major field of study and hours per week spent studying. Here’s
how I might operationalize the variables of interest to me:
Primary Major
social sciences
humanities
physical sciences
other
not yet declared
Hours Studied per Week
none
fewer than 5 hours per week
5–15 hours per week
16–25 hours per week
more than 25 hours per week
There are two rules to keep in mind when operationalizing
variables. First, the list of attributes must be exhaustive; that is,
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 67mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 67 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
68 CHAPTER 5 THE VOCABULARY OF SCIENCE
every thing or person being observed must fit into one category.
Second, the list of attributes must be mutually exclusive; that is, no
one person or thing should be able to fit into more than a single
category.
Suppose we wanted to operationalize the variable type of car.
Consider the following list of attributes:
two-door
four-door
station wagon
Is this a good way to operationalize type of car? No. The attri-
butes on this list are not mutually exclusive, because a particular
car could fit into two categories (for example, a two-door station
wagon).
5.6 Operationalize the following variables.
Example
Year in college: freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, other
or
Year in college: first, second, third, fourth, other
a. age
b. race
c. political party affiliation
d. amount of television watched per week
e. attitude toward capital punishment
Tables and Figures
The point of putting data (pieces of information) into a table or
figure (such as a bar graph or pie chart) is to present those data
clearly. Still, until you get some experience, tables and figures can
be quite confusing. When you come across a table or figure in
an article or a book, you might even be tempted to rely on the
author’s explanation of what that table or figure shows rather
than take the time to study the data for yourself. But this can be
dangerous because the author may not have interpreted the data
correctly or may have written a misleading account of those data.
Remember—be skeptical.
Usually, no matter how many pieces of information are packed
into a figure or table, you can figure out what it means by follow-
ing a few steps:
1. Begin by reading the title of the table or figure carefully. A proper
title will, for example, tell you the name of each of the vari-
ables that is described in the table or depicted in the figure.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 68mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 68 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
Tables and Figures 69
(When people misinterpret a table or figure, it is generally
because they skipped this step. The title is so important!) The
title of table 5.2 tells you that the table shows the variable
median (or average) annual incomes of people in the United
States. The title also reveals that the table shows the differ-
ences in the median income for people in different (variable)
categories of gender, race, and educational background.
2. Determine the source of the data. Is it trustworthy? Data in
table 5.2 are drawn from the U.S. Census (which is regarded
as one of the most reliable sources). Would you be as likely
to trust data from a call-in talk show? (I hope not!)
3. Read any notes that accompany the table or figure. Not all tables
or figures have notes, but when they are included, notes give
additional information about the data. The note in table 5.2 ,
for example, explains that the table excludes information
about workers with less than a high school degree as well as
workers with more than a bachelor’s degree.
4. Examine any footnotes. Footnote a in table 5.2 tells you that
Hispanics may be of any race.
Table 5.2 Median Annual Total Earnings for Those 25 Years and Older by
Gender, Educational Attainment, Race, and Hispanic Origins, 2007
Educational Attainment
Demographic Group
High
School
Graduate
Some
College
(no degree)
Associate’s
Degree
Bachelor’s
Degree
Men
Asian $31,545 $41,068 $40,716 $50,048
Black 29,474 32,425 37,398 50,079
Hispanica 29,098 35,372 37,485 45,706
White 35,765 40,864 45,982 60,458
Women
Asian 21,816 25,434 31,643 41,828
Black 21,641 27,853 30,152 40,197
Hispanica 21,018 26,465 29,788 36,117
White 22,593 27,172 30,606 38,641
NOTE: These figures exclude workers with less than a high school degree as well as workers
with a graduate degree.
aHispanic may be of any race.
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement,
2008.
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 69mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 69 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
70 CHAPTER 5 THE VOCABULARY OF SCIENCE
5. Look for any trends in the data. Be sure to look both horizontally
and vertically. What does the table tell you about the relation-
ship between the variables?
a. Horizontally. For example, check the relationship between
how much education workers have and how much money
they make. This table shows that, generally, the more
years of school an individual has, the more money he or
she earns. In other words, there is a positive relationship
between income and years of education. If you don’t see this,
keep looking!
b. Vertically. For example, this table shows that, overall, men
tend to earn more than women and that whites tend to
earn more than Asians, blacks, and Hispanics.
Figure  5.2 shows some of the same data as table  5.2 . To read
figure 5.2 , follow the same steps you did when reading table 5.2 :
Read the title, check the source and any notes, and look for trends.
The primary difference between tables and figures is that with
figures, although the data are less precise, overall trends are eas-
ier to spot.
5.7 Use the data from table 5.2 to determine whether each of the
following statements is true or false.
a. Earnings tend to rise with increases in educational attain-
ment, regardless of race or gender.
Figure 5.2 Median Annual Total Earnings for High School and College (BA) Graduates, by Gender, Race,
and Hispanic Origins, 2007
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2008.
20
0
40
60
80
High School
Degree
Bachelor’s
Degree
Men Women Men Women
M
ed
ia
n
an
nu
al
t
ot
al
e
ar
ni
ng
s
(t
ho
us
an
ds
o
f d
ol
la
rs
)
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 70mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 70 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
Tables and Figures 71
b. White male high school graduates have higher median
earnings than white women with associate’s degrees.
c. White women with bachelor’s degrees have higher median
earnings than white men with associate’s degrees.
5.8 Given the data in table 5.2 , what overall conclusion can you draw
about the differences between men’s and women’s earnings?
5.9 Here’s a more difficult question: Does race seem to make more of
a difference in men’s or women’s earnings?
Table 5.3 Median Weekly Earnings of Selected Occupations, by
Gender, 2008
Males Females
Low-Paying Jobs
Bus Drivers $605 $507
Cashiers 399 349
High-Paying Jobs
Lawyers 1895 1509
Physicians/Surgeons 1911 1230
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008.
5.10 Use the data from table 5.3 to determine whether each of the
following statements is true or false.
a. It’s true that males tend to earn more money than women in
low-paying jobs, but there are only small differences between
the earnings of men and women in high-paying jobs.
b. According to table 5.3 , women are paid less than men because
women are more likely than men to have low-paying jobs.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
Table 5.4 Victims of Intimate Homicide, Rates per 100,000 Population by
Victim Race, Gender, and Type of Intimate Relationship, 1993, 1998, 2003
White Victims Black Victims
Spouse or
Ex-Spouse
of Offender
Boyfriend or
Girlfriend
of Offender
Spouse or
Ex-Spouse
of Offender
Boyfriend or
Girlfriend
of Offender
Year Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
1993 0.43 1.29 0.60 2.46 4.52 6.04 4.96 6.70
1998 0.28 1.21 0.46 1.96 1.84 1.96 3.08 4.73
2003 0.17 0.98 0.39 1.85 1.39 3.04 2.12 3.92
NOTE: Homicide and population data are for persons aged 20–44.
SOURCE: Bureau of Justice Statistics, FBI, Supplemental Homicide Reports, 1976–2004.
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 71mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 71 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
72 CHAPTER 5 THE VOCABULARY OF SCIENCE
5.11 Use the data in table 5.4 to determine whether each of the
following statements is true or false.
a. The rates of fatal violence between intimates increased
between 1993 and 2003.
b. Overall, a female is more likely than a male to be killed by an
intimate partner.
c. For both men and women, there is less risk of being murdered
by a spouse or ex-spouse than by a boyfriend/ girlfriend.
d. The rate of violence between intimates older than 44 years of
age has decreased since 1998.
Table 5.5 Victim and Offender Relationships, Nonfatal Crimes of
Violence, by Gender, in Percents
Relationship of Offender to Victim
Victim’s
Gender Intimate
Other
Relative
Friend or
Acquaintance Stranger
Don’t
Know Total
Male 2.6 4.6 35.6 54.1 3.1 100%
Female 18.1 7.6 38.7 34.1 1.5 100%
NOTE: Data are for persons age 12 and over. Crimes of violence include rape, robbery,
sexual assault, aggravated assault, simple assault.
SOURCE: Bureau of Justice, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005.
5.12 In 2005, there were about 5.2 million victims of (nonfatal)
violent crime in the United States. Contrary to what you might
suppose, fewer than half (46 percent) of the perpetrators of those
offenses were strangers to their victims. In other words, people
were more likely to be victimized by people known to them than
by strangers. However, were men and women equally likely to be
victimized by strangers? Find out by examining the data in table 5.5 .
A NOTE ON COMMON STATISTICS
The data shown in figures 5.3 and 5.4 is from a recent survey of col-
lege students. Each figure shows the “average” credit card debt of
U.S. college students. Figure 5.3 shows the “mean” credit card debt
and figure 5.4 shows the “median” credit card debt. Why are these
two averages, mean and median, so different? How does this work?
Suppose you conduct research to determine how many times
a day people in a work group send personal e-mails during the
workday. Here are your results:
Jamal 1 Judy 4
Brian 1 Harold 4
Arthur 1 Mary 5
Traci 1 Hugh 160
David 3

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 72mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 72 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
Tables and Figures 73
Mean As you no doubt know, to calculate a mean you simply add
up all the values and divide the result by the number of cases.
There are nine people in the group, so you have nine cases. Your
calculation should look like this:
Mean 5 1  1  1  1  1  1 1  1  3  1  4  1  4  1  5  1  160 5 180 5 20 So, the mean is 20
9 9
Median The median is simply the number in the middle so that
half the numbers in the set are above and half are below.
Median: 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 4, 4, 5, 160 So, median is 3

Figure 5.4 Average/
Median College
Student Credit Card
Debt, by Year in
School, 2004 and
2008
SOURCE: Sallie Mae, How
Undergraduate Students
Use Credit Cards, National
Study of Usage Rates and
Trend 2009.
$4,500
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
Frosh Sophomore Junior Senior/5th Year
$4,500
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
Frosh Sophomore Junior Senior/5th Year
2004
2008
Figure 5.3 Average/
Mean College Student
Credit Card Debt, by
Year in School, 2004
and 2008
SOURCE: Sallie Mae, How
Undergraduate Students
Use Credit Cards, National
Study of Usage Rates and
Trend 2009.
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 73mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 73 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
74 CHAPTER 5 THE VOCABULARY OF SCIENCE
Mode The mode is the number that occurs most frequently in the
set of numbers.
Mode:  1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 4, 4, 5, 160 So, the mode is 1
Which number best represents how often workers send personal
e-mails during the workday? That depends on your purpose. The
important thing is to notice that, in this case, the mean is much big-
ger than either the median or the mode. That’s because means are
influenced by extreme numbers while the mode and median are
not. This explains why figure 5.3 is so different from figure 5.4 .
Correlation Versus Causation1
One of the traps that researchers (and others!) can fall into is that
of confusing correlation (a measure of association) with causa-
tion. Bottom line: Just because two things are associated does not
mean that one of them causes the other. Before we conclude that
there is a causal relationship between variables, we should ask
these questions:
1. Is there an association between the variables?
2. Does the variable we suspect is a “cause” occur before the
variable we suspect is an “effect”? (In the Western world, we
believe that causes must occur before effects.)
3. Is there something else that might be influencing both
variables?
For example, suppose research shows that there is a strong asso-
ciation between ice-cream sales and deaths by drowning: As ice-
cream sales go up, so too does the rate of death by drowning. Does
it make sense to conclude that eating ice cream causes drowning?
1. There is an association between sales of ice cream and
drowning rates.
2. The sales of ice cream seem to go up before drowning rates do.
3. Another factor explains both: Increase in outside temperatures.
In other words, when it gets hot, more people might cool off by
eating ice cream and by swimming; as the number of people swim-
ming increases the so, too, does the likelihood of more drownings.
Recently, Bob Kingsbury, a state legislator from New Hampshire
announced that his research showed that going to kindergarten
made children more likely to grow up and commit crimes:
1http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/06/does-kindergarten-lead-to-crime-
fact-checking-n-h-legislators-research/
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 74mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 74 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 75
The sources I have is [sic] I went to the [state] Department of Educa-
tion and got a list of kindergartens and I went to the safety depart-
ment and got the crime report. . . . In general, the towns with a
kindergarten have 400 percent more crime than other towns in the
same county. In every county the towns and cities with kindergarten
had more crime. (Szalavitz 2012)
Based on his research, Kingsbury concluded that going to kinder-
garten greatly increased the likelihood that children would turn
to a life of crime. Why? Kingsbury concluded it was because “We
are taking children away from their mothers too soon” (Claffey
2012).
Be skeptical: What other factors might account for the asso-
ciation between kindergarten and crime rates? (If the ques-
tion stumps you, check out this article: http://healthland.time
.com/2012/07/06/does-kindergarten-lead-to-crime-fact-
checking-n-h-legislators-research/#ixzz27896dgmq)
Chapter Review
1. Below I have listed the major concepts discussed in this chap-
ter. Define each of the terms. ( Hint: This exercise will be more
helpful to you if, in addition to defining each concept, you
create an example of it in your own words.)
variables
attributes
hypothesis
dependent variables
independent variables
positive relations
negative relations
operational definitions
tables and figures (how to read them)
averages: means, medians, modes
correlation vs. causation
2. Go to chapter 14 and examine table 14.3.
a. What is/are the dependent variable(s) in this table?
b. What is/are the independent variable(s)?
c. What do the data suggest? (In other words, what are the
relationships between the independent and dependent
variables?)
3. Convert the data in table 14.3 into a figure (see figure 5.1
for an example). Which makes the relationships between the
independent and dependent variables more clear—the table
or the figure?
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 75mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 75 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
76 CHAPTER 5 THE VOCABULARY OF SCIENCE
4. Research shows there is a very strong association/correlation
between sleeping with shoes on and waking up with a head-
ache. Ought we to conclude that sleeping with shoes on causes
headaches?
Answers and Discussion
5.1
a.
i. Number of beers consumed per week is thought to influence a
student’s GPA.
ii. Frequency of tooth brushing is thought to influence the number
of cavities gotten each year.
b. Number of beers per week:
This variable could be operationalized by creating categories or
by the exact number:
none
1–2
3–4
5–8
9–12
more than 12 or 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 . . .
Student’s GPA
0.0–2.0
2.1–2.5
2.6–3.0
3.1–3.5
3.6–4.0 or 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 . . .
Frequency of tooth brushing
never
less than once a day
1 or 2 times a day
3 times a day or more
Number of cavities gotten each year
0
1
2–3
4 or more or 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 . . .
Hint: When you use categories, make sure that they are relevant ones.
If every one of your respondents gets more than five cavities a year,
they will all check the same category. This won’t help you. It may
be that those who brush more frequently do get fewer cavities, but
10 as opposed to 20 cavities. How do you tell what categories are
important? Ask around! Find out what the range is.
c. Attributes are characteristics of a variable. The variable sex, for
example, has two attributes: male and female. If we knew only the

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 76mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 76 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 77
attributes and applied some logic, we could name the variable. For
example, consider these three attributes: felony, gross misdemeanor,
misdemeanor. What’s the variable? (Levels of seriousness in crime.)
Likewise, consider these attributes: private, corporal, sergeant, lieu-
tenant, captain, major, colonel, general. What’s the variable? If you
apply logic, you can figure it out (military rank).
5.2
H4: Differences in religious affi liation are related to differences
in attitudes toward abortion. That is, people who belong to
different religions tend to have different attitudes toward the
issue of abortion.
H5: Differences in occupation are related to differences in income. That
is, people in certain occupations tend to earn less than people in other
occupations.
5.3
H10: level of wealth or poverty, type of crime committed
H11: religious affiliation, attitude toward the death penalty
H12: marital status, pet ownership
H13: temperature, sales of ice cream
H14: amount of time spent studying, grades
5.4 Hint: When faced with a choice between variables, logically the
cause has to come before the effect.
H15: Education affects income.
H16: Income affects vacation choices.
H17: Marital status affects vacation choices.
H18: Mental health is affected by marital status.
H19: Regularity of church attendance is influenced by marital status.
H20: People with more education tend to have higher-paying jobs.
H21: People with higher-paying jobs tend to own more computers.
H22: People with light skin tones tend to sunburn more easily.
5.5
H25:
variables: age, income
direction: positive (that is, as your age increases, your income
increases)
H26:
variables: social class, education
direction: positive (the higher the social class, the higher the
education)
H27:
variables: social class, likelihood of being arrested
direction: negative (the higher the social class, the less likely you are
to be arrested)

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 77mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 77 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
78 CHAPTER 5 THE VOCABULARY OF SCIENCE
H28:
variables: age, likelihood of taking naps
direction: negative (the older a person is, the less likely he or she is
to nap)
H29:
variables: frequency of attendance at religious services, amount
donated to religious causes
direction: positive (the more one attends, the more one gives)
H30:
variables: education, prejudice
direction: negative (the more the education, the less the prejudice)
H31:
variables: age, fear of dying
direction: negative (as age increases, fear decreases)
5.6 (Remember, operationalizing simply means turning a variable into
something that can be observed and measured, which generally involves
coming up with a list of the variable’s attributes. Each list of attributes
must be exhaustive, and the attributes must be mutually exclusive.)
a. Age (either in categories or as straight numbers)
less than 5 years old
5–8 years old
9–15 years old
16–21 years old
more than 21 years old or 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, . . .
b. Race
black
white
Asian
Hispanic
other
c. Political party affiliation
Democrat (You could add to your list the name of
Independent any political party you know of. But always
Republican remember to add the “other” and “none”
other categories. That’s really the only way to
none be sure your list is exhaustive—or inclusive of
every possible person.)
d. Amount of television watched per week
none
no more than 2 hours
2–5 hours
6–10 hours
more than 10 hours or 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, . . .

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 78mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 78 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 79
e. Attitude toward capital punishment
strongly oppose or: On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being
somewhat oppose strongly opposed and 10 being strongly
somewhat in favor in favor, rate your attitude toward capital
strongly in favor punishment.
5.7
a. For the most part, this is true. The only exception is that Asian
men with associate’s degrees earned less than Asian men with only
“some college.”
b. This is true. White males with a high school diploma have average
annual earnings of $35,765; white females with associate’s degrees
have average annual earnings of $30,606.
c. This is false. White women with bachelor’s degrees have average
yearly earnings of $38,641; white men with associate’s degrees have
average yearly earnings of $60,458.
5.8 At every level of education, men tend to earn more than women. This
is true for each racial/ethnic group mentioned in the table.
5.9 This is a more complicated question. In the following table 5.2 a, I’ve
reworked the data to show the earnings of Asians, blacks, and Hispanics as
Table 5.2a Median Annual Total Earnings for those 25 Years and Older by
Gender, Educational Attainment, Race, and Hispanic Origins, as Percent of
Whites’ Earnings, 2007
Educational Attainment
Demographic
Group
High
School
Graduate
Some
College
(no degree)
Associate’s
Degree
Bachelor’s
Degree
Men
Asian 88.2% 100% 88.6% 82.7%
Black 82.4% 79.4% 81.3% 82.8%
Hispanica 56.2% 86.6% 81.5% 75.6%
White 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Women
Asian 96.6% 93.6% 100.0% 100.8%
Black 95.8% 100.0% 98.5% 100.4%
Hispanica 93.0% 97.4% 97.3% 93.5%
White 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
NOTE: These figures exclude workers with less than a high school degree as well as
workers with a graduate degree.
aHispanic may be of any race.
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic
Supplement, 2008.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 79mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 79 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
80 CHAPTER 5 THE VOCABULARY OF SCIENCE
percentages of the earnings of whites. Table 5.2 a shows, for example, that
male high school graduates of Asian descent earn an average 82  percent
of what white men with high school diplomas earn. Study the table and
you will see that there are greater differences in earnings among men than
among women.
5.10
a. This is false. The gap between men’s and women’s salaries for
higher-paying jobs is about as large, if not larger, for lawyers and
physicians/surgeons as for bus drivers and cashiers.
b. This is false. Table 5.3 compares the average weekly earnings of
men and women in the same jobs.
5.11
a. False. The 2003 rates are lower in every category than they were
in 1993. (There was an increase in 2003 in the murders of black
women compared to 1998, although the 2003 rate is still lower
than it was in 1993.)
b. This is true. If you study table 5.4 , you will see that the rate of
intimate-partner killings (whether done by spouses, ex-spouses, or
boyfriends/girlfriends) is in all cases higher for women than for men.
c. This is true. For example, in 2003, white men died at the hands of
their wives or ex-wives at a rate of .17 per 100,000 compared to
.39 per 100,000 at the hands of their boyfriends/girlfriends. Black
women died at the hands of their husbands or ex- husbands at a
rate of 3.04 but at the hands of their boyfriends/girlfriends at the
rate of 3.92.
d. Okay, this was kind of a trick question. If you read the note at the
bottom of the table, you would know that table 5.4 includes no
information about victims older than 44 years of age.
5.12 Table 5.5 shows that, among male victims of nonfatal violent crimes,
more than half of the perpetrators (54.1 percent) were strangers. Among
female victims, only 34.1 percent of the perpetrators were strangers. On
the other hand, notice that female victims of nonfatal violence were nearly
7 times more likely than men to have been victims of violent crimes perpe-
trated by intimates. (Only 2.6 percent of men who were victims of nonfatal
violent crimes were victimized by intimates, compared to 18.1 percent of
women.)

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 80mcI26873_ch05_058-080.indd 80 4/10/13 2:38 PM4/10/13 2:38 PM

Confirming Pages
81
6
DOING SOCIAL RESEARCH
A ny sociologist worth her (or his) salt has a broad repertoire of techniques or methods for finding answers to questions. This
must be so because finding good answers to different kinds of
questions requires different kinds of techniques. So, it will be the
nature of the questions to which you want to find answers that
determines your choice of method.
Two Traditions: Quantitative
and Qualitative Research
There are two major approaches to or traditions of sociological
inquiry. One tradition can be traced back to the work of the French
sociologist Émile Durkheim. As you will recall from chapter 1,
Durkheim saw sociology as the study of social facts. Sociologists, he
said, should study social facts in much the same way that chemists
study chemical facts and biologists study biological facts. Durkheim
was proposing, in other words, that sociology follow the research
model established by natural scientists. As scientists, sociologists
should observe and measure the actions of social facts. For Durk-
heim, the goal of sociology was to discover the laws that govern
social behavior—just as Newton had discovered the laws that gov-
ern planetary behavior. Because research done according to the natu-
ral sciences model gathers data that are easily expressed in numbers,
this research tradition is often referred to as quantitative research.
The second sociological research tradition can be traced back
to the work of the German sociologist Max Weber. Weber, too,
saw sociology as a science, but he argued that because the subject
matter of sociology differs from that of the natural sciences, its
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 81mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 81 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
82 CHAPTER 6 DOING SOCIAL RESEARCH
research techniques should also differ. According to Weber, fol-
lowing the natural sciences model would leave sociological work
incomplete. Human beings have important qualities that set them
apart from the objects of natural sciences investigation—that is,
human beings think and feel, and they frequently do things for
reasons. Thus, said Weber, sociology must go beyond the natu-
ral sciences model and be an interpretative science —it must take
into account the social meanings/reasons attached to behaviors.
Weber proposed that sociologists adopt two goals: predicting and
understanding social behavior. This sort of research is frequently
called qualitative research because it focuses not only on the objec-
tive nature of behavior but on its meaning (or quality) as well.
Although qualitative researchers often use numbers to quantify
certain kinds of data, they are more focused on obtaining data
that are difficult to quantify. Qualitative research reports gener-
ally devote more space to people’s descriptive accounts of their
own experiences than to numbers that quantify these experiences.
In this chapter, I will describe a variety of methods used by
sociologists. Whether they practice in the quantitative or quali-
tative research tradition, sociologists typically follow one of four
basic methods for obtaining data: surveys, observation, and unob-
trusive methods. As you read through the description of each
method, be aware that each method has its own strengths and
weaknesses and is best suited for answering particular types of
research questions.
First Things First: The Lit Review
No matter which research method sociologists ultimately choose,
the first stage is always the same: a review of existing literature
on the topic. Many call this phase of research the lit review. Now,
when you are eager to actually do some research, spending time
in the library doing a lit review may seem a wearisome prospect.
But it is never a waste of time!
In the first place, someone may have already found an answer
to your question—possibly even a good answer. If that’s the case,
wouldn’t you want to know before wasting your time and energy?
Of course, you may indeed find a better answer, but your task will
be much easier if you start by determining what is already known.
American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin once compared the
researcher seeking sociological knowledge to the explorer seeking
out new lands. How tragic for the researcher, Sorokin suggested, to
arrive at his or her destination only to hear, “Been there, done that.”
Not knowing that a certain theory has been developed long ago,
or that a certain problem has been carefully studied by many
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 82mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 82 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
First Things First: The Lit Review 83
predecessors, a sociologist may easily devote his time and energy to
the discovery of a new sociological America after it was discovered
long ago. Instead of a comfortable crossing of the scientific Atlantic
in the short period of time necessary for the study of what has been
done before, such a sociologist has to undergo all the hardships of
Columbus to find, only after his time and energy are wasted, that his
discovery has been made long ago, and that his hardships have been
useless. Such a finding is a tragedy for the scholar, and a waste of
valuable ability for sociology and society. (1928, xviii–xix)
Personally, I think Sorokin missed the most important point: How
embarrassing to arrive back from sailing the theoretical Atlantic
and announce, “The world is flat!” In other words, even worse
than reinventing the wheel is inventing a wheel that will not roll!
Even if your search of the literature reveals no answer to your
particular question, inevitably you will find important clues.
Studying what other people have already done, for example,
may suggest ways of phrasing your questions or focusing your
research in more interesting ways.
The importance of the literature review first really struck me
as I was doing research for my PhD dissertation. My topic was
public defense attorneys—those attorneys who are paid by the
state to defend people who cannot afford a lawyer of their own.
When I began my research, my question was fairly simple: How
could these attorneys defend clients whom they knew to be guilty
of horrible crimes?
So, I did what every good researcher does—I went to the
library and started looking for what other social scientists had
already found out. The time I spent in the library was enlighten-
ing, but in an unexpected way: I found no answers to my research
question because, according to my predecessors, public defense
attorneys really do not defend their clients! What? The sociological
point of view was that because public defenders are paid by the
same agency that pays the prosecutors (the state), they are really
just fake lawyers. Even many of the public defenders’ clients said
that! I particularly recall reading an interview of Eldridge Cleaver
in Playboy magazine in which he stated that PD stands not for
public defender but for “penitentiary dispatcher.” 1
What I personally observed during the first few days in the
courtrooms watching these attorneys work made me very skepti-
cal of the conventional wisdom about public defenders. Indeed, I
would discover a great deal of evidence that public defenders did
about as well for their clients as private attorneys do for theirs.
1 It’s interesting what one gets to read in the course of doing research, isn’t it? A
friend of mine did her dissertation on romantic love in American society. Parts of her
data were gleaned from so-called romance magazines (such as True Romance ) and
tabloids (like the National Enquirer )—all in the name of science.
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 83mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 83 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
84 CHAPTER 6 DOING SOCIAL RESEARCH
To put it baldly, the information I obtained seriously undermined
the work of my predecessors. They, not me, were the flat-earthers
who had fallen for the conventional wisdom.
Does this mean that I regard my time in the library reading the
existing literature as a waste of my time? No way! What I learned
from my lit review forced me to phrase my questions about pub-
lic defenders in much more interesting ways. The issue was not
simply how public defenders defend their clients, but also why
no one thinks they do!
Moreover, what would have happened had I published my
findings without taking the time to discuss previous studies and
to explain why their conclusions were wrong and mine were
right? My readers likely would have thought that I was terribly
naive (at best) or an idiot (at worst).
So, the time spent reviewing the work of others is time well
spent. The more you know about your predecessors’ work, the
better you will be prepared to make your own contribution.
The Survey
The idea of the survey is pretty straightforward: If you want to
get answers to your questions, simply ask! More specifically, if
your research question requires knowing who people are and/or
what they think about something, the survey is a good method.
More technically, a survey is a series of questions asked of
a number of people. Sometimes we ask these questions orally,
either face-to-face or over the phone. Other times, we give peo-
ple the list of questions on paper and ask them to write their own
answers. The first method is generally referred to as an inter-
view; the second method is generally called a self-administered
questionnaire.
The survey method is popular in sociology because surveys
are particularly suited to obtaining information from large num-
bers of people. Indeed, this capability to obtain data from large
numbers of people is the main strength of the survey method.
Frequently, survey researchers can obtain information from hun-
dreds, or even thousands, of people in their research.
Surveys are especially appropriate for discovering basic “demo-
graphic information” (such as age, gender, income, education,
and religious affiliation). 2
2 The term demography is derived from the Greek demos (“people”) and graphein (“to
draw or describe”). It was first used, as near as we can tell, by Achille Guillard in his
1855 book The Elements of Human Statistics. Demographers study such things as the size
of populations and the factors that affect population growth and composition—for
example, the rates of marriage, birth, death, and immigration.
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 84mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 84 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
The Survey 85
Another strength of the survey method is that it allows research-
ers to obtain information about things that cannot be observed
directly, such as attitudes. Using survey techniques allows
researchers to tap into people’s attitudes on a large variety of issues
(for example, “Do you think the president is doing a good job?” or
“Do you approve or disapprove of same-sex marriage?”).
The weakness of the survey method is that, although it can get
at people’s attitudes, it is not a good way to measure people’s
actual behavior. If you want to know about what people do, a sur-
vey might provide you with misleading information.
Information about people’s behavior that is obtained from sur-
veys can be misleading for a number of reasons. For one thing,
people might not want to admit (even to themselves) certain
behaviors. But more important, many people cannot give an accu-
rate account of their behaviors even when they want to. People
may remember, for example, which candidate they voted for in
the last election, but they will probably not be able to remember
how much campaign literature they read and whether it influ-
enced their decision to vote.
TYPES OF SURVEY QUESTIONS
When you ask questions in a survey, it is important to phrase
them in ways that make it possible for respondents to answer.
Survey researchers ask two types of questions: closed-ended and
open-ended.
Using the closed-ended format requires that you not only ask
the question but also provide answer categories. The respondent
answers the question by picking a particular category. Here are
some examples of closed-ended questions:
1. Are you: male female?
2. What is your present marital status?
never married
married
separated
divorced
widowed
Closed-ended questions can be quite complex:
1. Do any children under the age of 18 live with you full time?
no yes
If yes, how many?
1–2
3–4
5 or more
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 85mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 85 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
86 CHAPTER 6 DOING SOCIAL RESEARCH
2. Are you presently employed?
no yes
If yes, is your work:
full time
part time
other
A particular kind of closed-ended question is frequently used
to ask people about their attitudes on sets of issues. This sort of
question is sometimes called a matrix question because the answer
categories look like a matrix, or array of numbers:
Here are some statements that have been made by students from your
college. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with
each by circling the appropriate number to the right of the statement.
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
1. No student should be
allowed to consume
alcohol on campus.
1 2 3 4
2. Students should be
required to study a
minimum of 6 hours
each school night.
1 2 3 4
3. Students who miss
a class more than once
a term should be
suspended.
1 2 3 4
4. Faculty should be
subject to a dress code.
1 2 3 4
To ask a closed-ended question, you have to know what the
appropriate answer categories might be. Sometimes you might
not be able to determine these categories in advance. Or you
might want to hear or read respondents’ answers in their own
words. In such cases, open-ended questions should be used:
1. What is the most important thing you have learned so far in this
sociology class? Why does that seem important to you? (Please
explain.)
2. What is the thing that you like most about your sociology class?
Why?
3. What is the thing that you like least about your sociology class?
Why?
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 86mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 86 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
The Survey 87
Six Guidelines for Crafting Survey Questions
1. Adapt the phrasing of questions to the educational level of
respondents, but do not be insulting. “What is your GPA—that
is, your grade point average?” sounds patronizing, because it
seems to presume that people do not know what GPA stands
for. Yet, we do have to deal with the fact that some people
may not know what a GPA is. To explain the meaning of
your question without sounding patronizing, try rephrasing:
“What is your grade point average, that is, your GPA?”
2. Avoid double negatives in a question. Here’s an example: “Do
you oppose denying students access to their files or not?”
What!?
3. Avoid “marathon” questions. Consider this example: “What
do you think we should do about cheating on campus—
should we abolish take-home exams, even if this means that
students only get tested on writing that they have rushed
through, as in in-class exams, or should we allow take-home
exams even if this means a number of students will cheat?”
Whew!
4. Don’t ask “double-barreled” questions. That is, ask only one
question at a time. Here’s a double-barreled question: “Do
you favor or oppose giving medical care to small babies and
bums?” Well, gee, how can I answer that?
5. Don’t ask “leading” or “loaded” questions. That is, avoid
wording questions in ways that will lead respondents to
answer one way over another in spite of their true opinions.
Here’s a loaded or leading question: “Do you agree with the
Democrats that we ought to keep religion and the state
separate?” As soon as your respondent sees the word
Democrat, it will influence his or her answer. (“What, me
agree with Democrats? No way; I don’t care what the
subject is!”)
6. Don’t ask questions that your respondents cannot answer.
Unanswerable questions range from ones that ask for
inaccessible information (“How many ice cubes did you use
last year?” or “Do you believe that the chaos theory poses a
serious threat to quantum physics?”) to illogical ones (“Have
you stopped beating your wife?” or “Quick, is Mickey
Mouse a cat or a dog?”).
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 87mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 87 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
88 CHAPTER 6 DOING SOCIAL RESEARCH
THE ART OF ASKING QUESTIONS
In his book The Art of Asking Questions, Stanley L. Payne pointed
out that it is pretty cheeky to expect people to answer survey
questions:
People are being exceedingly gracious when they consent to be inter-
viewed. We may ask them to give us anywhere from a few minutes
to many hours of their time in a single interview. We may ask them
to expose their ignorance with no promise of enlightenment. We may
try to probe their innermost thinking on untold subjects. We may
sometimes request their cooperation before telling them who the
sponsor is and before indicating the nature of our questions—for fear
of prejudicing their answers. (1951, 114)
Payne argued that researchers must work hard to not annoy their
respondents but rather to treat respondents graciously.
6.1 Here are five poorly constructed survey questions. Indicate
what is wrong with each of them.
a. Do you agree that pulchritude possesses exclusively cutaneous
profundity?
b. Do you agree that colleges ought to do away with homework
and drinking alcoholic beverages on campus?
c. How old were you when you learned to spell president?
d. At what point will you stop lying to me about your answers to
these questions?
e. Do you approve of the practice of bogarting?
Observation
Of course, all forms of research—even lit reviews—involve some
sort of observation. But when sociologists talk about observational
research, they generally mean a particular research technique
in which the researcher directly observes the behavior of indi-
viduals in their usual social environments, not in a laboratory.
Some sociologists refer to observational research as field research,
because the normal social world is the field in which sociologists
conduct their research.
Different strategies are used in observational or field research.
In one strategy, the researcher acts as a complete participant. The
complete participant essentially goes “undercover” and does not
tell the people being observed that he or she is doing research.
At the other extreme is the complete observer, who views things
from a distance (or from behind a one-way mirror) or somehow
blends into the social scenery. The complete observer is generally
unknown to the people being observed. Finally, midway between

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 88mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 88 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
Observation 89
these two extremes, is the participant observer, who admits to being
a researcher so that people know they are being studied.
The particular strength of observing people in the field is that
this technique enables researchers not only to observe behavior
(that can be done in a laboratory!) but to observe behavior in its
natural context. When we observe behavior in its natural context,
we glean important clues about the impact of context on behav-
ior. Moreover, observational research enables the researcher to
get information about individuals, such as small children who
are not able to fill out questionnaires or respond to oral survey
questions.
The weakness of observational methods includes the fact that
only relatively small groups can be observed at once. Moreover,
observational research is probably the most labor-intensive kind
of research. Finally, the very fact of researcher participation in
field research can influence subjects, and therefore findings, in
what is known as the Hawthorne effect. Here is how the Hawthorne
effect is typically described:
Back in the 1920s, a group of social scientists wanted to investigate
the sorts of things that could influence worker productivity. They
chose to study this issue in a factory that made electrical parts: the
Western Electric Hawthorne Works in Chicago.
A number of workers agreed to go along with the study—even
though they were not told the exact nature and goals of the research.
These workers were divided into control and experimental subjects
and were placed in special rooms in the factory where they could
be easily observed and where the working conditions could be
controlled by the scientists.
The researchers believed that worker productivity could be
improved by introducing better working conditions (for example,
more light, rest breaks, earlier quitting times, meals). So, they
provided the workers in the experimental group with these benefits.
As expected, worker productivity increased.
What was not expected was the increase in productivity that
workers in the control group demonstrated. What was going on
here? Even though these workers received none of the benefits
enjoyed by the workers in the experimental group, their productivity
increased.
As it turned out, what was going on was that the real independent
variable was the increased attention that the workers were receiving
from the researchers! The increase in productivity in both cases was
caused simply by participation in an experiment!
The Hawthorne effect (as it is now called) is an example of what
social researchers call the reactive effects of research. We know now
that reactive effects are not limited to experiments but can take place
when there is contact between researcher and subject or when sub-
jects know they are the objects of research.
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 89mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 89 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
90 CHAPTER 6 DOING SOCIAL RESEARCH
The problem with this description is that it’s essentially
misleading. A series of experiments was done at Western Elec-
tric’s Hawthorne plant but, in retrospect, the research plan was
problematic. For example, the lights were changed always on
Sunday; when workers’ output increased the following day,
their productivity could just as well be explained by the fact that
workers generally produce more at the beginning of the week
than at the end.
Because of the study’s flaws, some social scientists refer to the
Hawthorne effect as nothing more than “a glorified anecdote.”
( The New York Times, 6 December 1998). But social scientists tend
to accept the point of the Hawthorne effect: Care must be taken to
avoid reactive effects that cause the research process to influence
the outcome.
Unobtrusive (Nonreactive) Research
Most research methods have an impact of some sort on the people
being studied. People may respond to surveys in ways they think
the interviewer wants them to respond or in ways they think make
them seem to be better people. As the idea of the Hawthorne effect
suggests, simply knowing that one is being studied can have an
impact on one’s behavior. Unobtrusive methods are strategies for
studying people’s behavior in ways that do not have an impact on
the subjects.
ARTIFACTS
Archeologists use unobtrusive measures. They dig up the sites
of ancient settlements and look for the artifacts that inhabitants
left behind. From these artifacts, they can tell a great deal about
a people’s culture. This sort of unobtrusive research uses what
sociologists call accretion measures. Similar techniques can be used
to build an understanding of contemporary social processes.
On a particular college campus, the dean of students receives
phone calls from parents who are concerned that students might
be drinking too much alcohol. The dean decides to do some
research to determine just how much drinking is taking place on
campus. Her first thought might be, “If I want to know something,
why not simply ask?” So, she designs a questionnaire that asks
about drinking behaviors and sends a copy to each student on
campus. The dean tabulates the responses with a sigh of relief:
99.99 percent of the students say that they rarely drink more than
one beer a week.
The assistant dean (who majored in sociology) warns his boss
that the data from the questionnaire might be biased. It’s possible,
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 90mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 90 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
Unobtrusive (Nonreactive) Research 91
he says, that the students did not wish to reveal the true amount of
drinking because they were afraid of the consequences. It is also
possible that some of the students were so drunk when they filled
out the questionnaire that they had no idea of how much they had
been drinking.
The assistant dean (who got an A in his introductory sociology
class) suggests an alternative: What about taking an unobtrusive
approach to the question? He sketches out a research design and
carries it out. What he finds is that there probably is a drinking
problem on campus and that something ought to be done about it.
So, what was the research design? The assistant dean used a
kind of trace measure to determine the amount of drinking. More
specifically, he got up early one Saturday morning, visited each
residence hall, and counted the beer bottles and cans that had been
left in the recycling bins and garbage cans. There are 600 students in
the school, yet he found 7200 empty beer cans and bottles! Because
he knows that the garbage cans and recycling bins are emptied each
Friday morning, he is fairly confident that the average student in the
college drank 12 cans or bottles of beer sometime between Friday
morning and Saturday morning.
As you might guess, a great deal of information can be obtained
from what people throw away! Next time you think of it, check
your own garbage—I’m betting that you will find clues to your
social class origins, your student status, and possibly even your
grade point average.
USE OF EXISTING STATISTICS
The U.S. government gathers and publishes incredible amounts of
data on everything from how many bedrooms people have in their
houses to how many people are arrested for robbery. These data
are readily available in libraries and through computer searches
and are great starting places for researchers. If you are interested
in the differences between men’s and women’s salaries, for exam-
ple, the data have already been collected. If you are interested in
prisons—their size, their rate of growth, their population—the
data are in the library and online. Businesses and other organiza-
tions gather and publish data, too.
CONTENT ANALYSIS
Content analysis involves subjecting some text to careful scrutiny
to see what it reveals about its author, the times in which it was
written, and so on. The texts that may be studied with content
analysis include personal diaries, literature, television shows,
radio commercials, magazines and newspapers, and even rock
and roll music.
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 91mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 91 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
92 CHAPTER 6 DOING SOCIAL RESEARCH
Children’s books have frequently been subjected to content
analysis, and the results are quite revealing:
Throughout the 1970s, parents and educators conducted studies
to document objectively how men and women were portrayed in
the curriculum. . . . It was easy to investigate, there was no need to
use time-lapse photography to stop the action. The messages were
already frozen on the textbook pages.
[One group of researchers] studied 134 elementary school readers
from 16 different publishers and found the following ratios:
Boy-centered stories to girl-centered stories 5:2
Adult male characters to adult female characters 3:1
Male biographies to female biographies 6:1
Male fairy tale stories to female fairy tale stories 4:1
In a study of award-winning children’s books, the results were
similar:
When girls and women were included, they were typecast. They
looked in mirrors, watched boys, cried, needed help, served others,
gave up, betrayed secrets, acted selfishly, and waited to be rescued.
While men were involved in 150 different jobs, women were house-
wives. When they took off their aprons and discarded their dish-
towels, they worked outside the home only as teachers and nurses.
Children’s literature and school texts routinely included deroga-
tory comments about being female. For example,
“Women’s advice is never worth two pennies. Yours isn’t worth
even a penny.”
“Look at her, Mothers, just look at her. She is just like a girl. She
gives up.”
“We are willing to share our great thoughts with mankind. However,
you happen to be a girl.” (Sadker and Sadker 1994, 69–70)
The strength of unobtrusive methods is that they do not
require the cooperation of the people being studied. Moreover,
the research process itself does not in any way affect the behavior
being studied. Unobtrusive researchers study social things after
they have occurred. The weakness is that unobtrusive research
can study only things that leave traces. Moreover, these traces
must be solid enough to last until they can be observed.
The Importance of Triangulation
Triangulation is a term that social researchers borrowed from
geodetic surveying—a discipline that has developed techniques
for determining the size and shape of the earth and the loca-
tion of specific landmarks. In geodetics, one uses knowledge of
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 92mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 92 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
The Importance of Triangulation 93
Ethnography
Many of those who engage in qualitative field research spe-
cialize in ethnography.3 In the tradition of the best qualitative
work, the goal of ethnography is to make sense of the social
world in terms of the meaning it has for people who inhabit
it. This requires a special mindset because doing good eth-
nography requires “entering the field without totally pre-
defining the domain of interest and without presuming that
you already know what is universal, because most of the time
those presumptive universals are generated out of one’s own
perspective-dependent, context-dependent, and hence local
world” (Shweder 1997, 154).
Successful ethnographers must arm themselves with a variety
of methods—historical, unobtrusive, interviewing, observation—
in order to study people where they live, work and play. Fre-
quently, ethnographers will be dealing with number (quantitative
data) as well.
Ethnography is hard and never fast work: Gaining an under-
standing of the world from someone else’s point of view requires,
to an extent, becoming an insider in their neighborhood, fami-
lies, and work groups.
As you can imagine, this process can involve negotiating such
delicate issues as gaining access to the groups and building trust with
people (often, with people who have reason to distrust outsiders).
Ethnography is labor intensive, but the rewards are impres-
sive. Unlike nonqualitative research methods, the goal is not
proving a theory or testing a hypothesis; the goal is surprise.
Anthropologist Richard Shweder explained it this way: “Eth-
nography is about discovery. Skillful ethnography is about mak-
ing some room for the creative imagination and some disciplined
intuition.
Consider, for example, the events that led up to the tragedy
that befell the astronauts on the U.S. Space Shuttle Challenger in
January 1986: Seventy-three seconds into the flight, the shuttle
began to disintegrate; a fuel tank exploded and all seven astro-
nauts were killed. Those astronauts included Christa McAuliffe,
a teacher from New Hampshire who had been selected as the
first teacher in space.
Six days after the accident, President Reagan created a presi-
dential commission to investigate. The commission, which came
—continued
3From the Greek terms ethnos (people) and grapho (to write).
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 93mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 93 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
94 CHAPTER 6 DOING SOCIAL RESEARCH
to be known as the Rogers Commission (after its chair, William P.
Rogers), issued its five-volume report five months later and con-
cluded that the cause of the disaster was found to be the failure of
an O-ring; an O-ring that was known by NASA engineers to be
flawed.4 The Rogers Commission report faulted both NASA and
its contractor for failing to correct the O-ring design (1986, 40, 120).
Nine months after the Challenger disaster, in October 1986,
the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and
Technology published its report. “As a rule,” the Committee
agreed “with the findings reached by the Rogers Commission”.
However, the House Report located primary blame on the poor
judgment of the people in charge.
Ten years after the disaster, sociologist Diane Vaughan pub-
lished her research on the space shuttle accident—it took her a
long time to do her research:
When I started, it was from the point of view that it was
misconduct.  I kept looking  for “rule violations,” but I didn’t
find any. . . . After about a year I had to throw everything
out and start over. . . . I relied on thousands of documents
in the US National Archives that were placed there by the
government investigation. Many of these were engineering
documents and memos. Doing the research involved learn-
ing engineering and NASA language. In the Challenger case
there is this notion of “levels” of “acceptable risk,” for exam-
ple. These were called “Criticality Levels.” Each part on the
shuttle had to be classified at a Criticality level, meaning the
probability of failure. . . . NASA’s risk assessment procedures
were very complicated. The reality was that every attempt
they made to quantify and clarify risk gave them no help
because there were thousands of technical components on
the shuttle. Instead of clarifying, it was just overwhelming.
(Vaughan, 2008)
Based on what she discovered from those thousands of docu-
ments, as well as from extensive interviews with NASA per-
sonnel, Vaughan concluded that the “real” cause of the disaster
was something built into NASA’s organizational structure—a
“normalization of deviance.” As Vaughan explained the concept:
Social normalization of deviance means that people within
the organization become so much accustomed to a deviant
behavior that they don’t consider it as deviant, despite the fact
that they far exceed their own rules for the elementary safety.
But it is a complex process with some kind of organizational
acceptance. The people outside see the situation as deviant
—continued
4An O-ring is a flat rubber or plastic gasket. It’s used to create a tight seal
between joints.
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 94mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 94 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
The Importance of Triangulation 95
whereas the people inside get accustomed to it and do not.
The more they do it, the more they get accustomed. For
instance in the Challenger case there were design flaws in the
famous “O-rings,” although they considered that by design
the O-rings would not be damaged. In fact it happened
that they suffered some recurrent damage. The first time the
O-rings were damaged the engineers found a solution and
decided the space transportation system to be flying with
“acceptable risk.” The second time damage occurred, they
thought the trouble came from something else. Because in
their mind they believed they fixed the newest trouble, they
again defined it as an acceptable risk and just kept monitor-
ing the problem. And as they recurrently observed the prob-
lem with no consequence they got to the point that flying
with the flaw was normal and acceptable. Of course, after the
accident, they were shocked and horrified as they saw what
they had done. (Vaughan 2008)
trigonometry to locate a third point by taking bearings from two
fixed points that are a known distance apart.
In sociology, we use the term triangulation to refer to a research
strategy that helps us zero in on social phenomena. Because each
research method has both weaknesses and strengths (in other words,
because there are advantages and disadvantages to every method),
whenever possible, researchers use more than one method to obtain
data. More specifically, researchers try to use methods whose
strengths and weaknesses balance out. When methods are com-
bined so that the strengths of one method overcome the weaknesses
of another method, we speak of triangulating research methods.
For example, my interviews with public defenders (of all ranks)
suggested that they were paid less than prosecutors. Even the
prosecutors agreed. But I was suspicious about the validity of this
notion because how much people earn tends to be a closely held
secret. I triangulated by checking the official budgets for the public
defenders’ and prosecutors’ offices. What I found was that there
was no appreciable difference between how much public defend-
ers and prosecutors were paid. However, I did find some important
clues to why the lawyers might feel differently rewarded for their
work. The budget for the prosecutors’ office included a lot more
money for amenities (phones, photocopying, law journals, inves-
tigators, secretaries, and the like). No doubt, the sense that public
defenders were being paid less was tied to their perception that
they received fewer perks and resources for actually doing the job.
Here my triangulation (even though it was really only “bian-
gulation”) was successful. The advantage of using existing statis-
tics (for example, budgets) is that they lay out the facts in a fairly
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 95mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 95 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
96 CHAPTER 6 DOING SOCIAL RESEARCH
reliable manner, whereas data from interviews may not be so reli-
able. However, the facts of the budget did not speak for them-
selves; it was only through my interviews that I discovered the
sense of deprivation that one set of lawyers had when compared
to the others. They were right about being relatively deprived,
just not right about the source of this feeling.
Sampling
After you have selected your method (or, whenever possible, your
methods), you have some decisions to make about whom you will
interview, observe, or experiment on. In other words, you have
to make some decisions about your sample. The sample is that
portion of the larger population that you will study to make infer-
ences about the larger population.
Why not simply study the entire population? Generally, the cost
of studying an entire population is beyond the financial resources of
researchers. Anyway, if one’s sample is selected properly, the results
can be as valid as results obtained from the entire population.
Drawing a sample is both a science and an art. In fact, some
social researchers make their living simply by helping others
draw good representative samples. I will not go into much detail
here, but I will share the basics of this process with you.
How big your sample should be depends on one thing espe-
cially: how diverse the population is. If the population is very
diverse ( heterogeneous ), then you will have to draw a large sample
to get representativeness. Imagine two jars filled with gum balls.
The first one contains 50 gum balls—10 each of 5 different flavors.
The second one contains 50 gum balls of the same flavor. If I drew
only one gum ball from the second jar, my sample would be abso-
lutely representative. But if I drew only one gum ball from the
first jar, I would miss four of the flavors. I would need at least five
different gum balls to accurately reflect the contents of the first
jar. So, as a general rule, we can say that the more diverse a popula-
tion is, the larger the sample needs to be.
When you hear about surveys done before elections, for exam-
ple, you will frequently hear about two sorts: scientific and non-
scientific. The difference usually has to do with the sampling
technique used. Scientific surveys use samples that are drawn
according to the rules of random sampling; unscientific surveys
use nonrandom sampling techniques.
Don’t be confused about this. In science, the word random has
a specific technical meaning— every element in the population has the
same probability of being in the sample. To be able to say that one has
obtained a true random sample of, say, students at Home Town U
requires that every college student who attends HTU have the same
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 96mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 96 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
Sampling 97
probability of being picked to be in the sample. Thus, for example,
if I wanted to pick a random sample of students, I would not use
the dean’s list, because students with low GPAs would not have the
same probability of being included. I would also not draw my sam-
ple only from students who lived in residence halls, because students
who lived off-campus would have no chance of being in the sample.
To get a random sample of students at HTU, I would have to
obtain a list of every student taking college courses and pick from
that.
Standing on the street corner with a clipboard and asking ques-
tions of people passing by is not using random sampling! (This
sort of sample is called a convenience sample. )
6.2 For each of the following research questions, indicate which would
be your first choice of research methods and why.
a. How will people vote in the upcoming municipal elections?
b. How do preschool boys and girls interact with each other
compared to how sixth-grade boys and girls interact?
c. How does a particular secret organization socialize its new
members?
d. What are the effects of increasing wages on employee
productivity?

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
Ethics and Social Research
When researchers make decisions about how to do their research,
they are guided by two important concerns. One concern is,
Which method is best, given the nature of my research problem?
But the second, and more important, concern is, What is the risk
that my research might harm someone—one of the research par-
ticipants or even other people in the community?
This is not to say that research that involves risk cannot be
done. But today’s researcher is required to reduce the risk as
much as possible. And, where risk is necessary and the ben-
efits of the research are great, the researcher is required to
obtain informed consent from any person who participates in the
research. What is informed consent? It is consent that is obtained
after the potential research participant has been told what he or
she will be asked to do, what the benefits will be, and what the
possible harms are.
To help researchers make ethical decisions (and to help ensure
that they do), most universities and colleges have established
Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). These review boards are made
up of members of the faculty as well as members of the commu-
nity. Their job is to examine each research plan to ensure that the
researchers who designed it have given the appropriate amount
of thought to the possible risks and benefits of the research.
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 97mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 97 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
98 CHAPTER 6 DOING SOCIAL RESEARCH
e. Are women or men more likely to have their personal space
invaded when waiting in line (for example, at the grocery store or
bank machine)?
f. To what degree do people who live in the United States believe
that people from other countries are honest?
g. Has the number of children in the average family increased or
decreased since the 1950s?
h. The Ajax company has instituted a program for recycling paper.
Are employees actually recycling paper?
i. Do patients recover from surgery faster when taken care of by
physicians specially trained to have a sympathetic bedside manner?
j. Are professors in the humanities more or less likely to publish
articles and books than professors in the social sciences?
Chapter Review
1. Below I have listed the major concepts discussed in this
chapter. Define each of the terms. (Hint: This exercise will be
more helpful to you if, in addition to defining each concept,
you create an example of it in your own words.)
quantitative research
qualitative research
literature review
survey
self-administered questionnaire
open-ended versus closed-ended questions
matrix questions
demographics
field research
observational research
participant observation
Hawthorne effect
reactive effects
accretion measures
content analysis
unobtrusive methods
artifacts
ethnography
triangulation
sampling
heterogeneity
convenience sample
random sample
ethics
IRB

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 98mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 98 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 99
2. Describe the essential difference between unobtrusive and
obtrusive research strategies.
3. Why is triangulation important in social research?
4. Suppose you wanted to test the following hypothesis (in your
location): College men drink more beer than college women.
a. Which research strategy would be your first choice to test
this hypothesis? Why?
b. Explain how you would triangulate your research and why.
Answers and Discussion
6.1
a. The high-falutin’ phrasing of the question makes it unclear. Simplify
the phrasing: “Do you agree that beauty is only skin deep?”
b. This is a double-barreled question; it asks two questions. It is very
likely that most people would have different opinions on the two
things being asked about, and so they would have trouble answer-
ing this question. If you really want to know people’s views on
these matters, ask two separate questions.
c. This is a good example of a question that asks for information
that will probably not be accessible to the subject. So, you would
probably receive a lot of “I don’t knows” in response—or people
would make some wild guesses.
d. This is not a question that all people could answer. A person who
has been lying to the interviewer could answer this question, but
a person who has not been lying would have trouble answering,
because it’s illogical.
e. This question may be unclear to many respondents because it
uses a slang term (“bogarting” was a term used years ago to refer
to anyone who hogged a marijuana cigarette for too long before
passing it along to the next person in the group).
6.2
a. The best way would be to ask people how they intend to vote.
There really is no other way (that I can think of).
b. A survey probably would not work because the children are
so young that they wouldn’t be able to articulate their interaction
patterns. Observation of boys and girls interacting would be best.
c. This could be tricky. On the one hand, you could ask members
of secret organizations how they socialize their new members.
It is likely, however, that members of such organizations would be
reluctant to tell an interviewer their secrets. It is possible, though
not likely, that you could find some documentation on this, per-
haps a booklet titled How to Socialize New Members of Our Secret
Organization. Ordinarily, such documents published by organiza-
tions are great sources of information, but secret organizations
probably don’t publish much stuff. Of course, many secret

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 99mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 99 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
100 CHAPTER 6 DOING SOCIAL RESEARCH
organizations might publish their secrets to help out their members,
and you might steal such a document. However, the ethics of this are
questionable (at best). The most obvious method would be covert
observation, also ethically questionable.
d. Observation.
e. Probably a survey (either self-administered or interview format).
The survey is a good way of getting at people’s attitudes.
f. The use of existing statistics, such as census data, would be the most
straightforward and reliable method. Why pay to do a survey when
the government has already collected the data?
g. You could ask the employees whether they are following
through, but the best way would be to look in the garbage: Are there
recyclable materials there?
h. Again, you could survey a number of professors. However, many
likely would be “mistaken” about how much they have published or
might exaggerate to look better. It would be better to look at lists
of publications and count for yourself. Or you could ask professors
for copies of their résumés (called curriculum vitae in academia).
Generally, professors are pretty diligent about recording their publi-
cations on their vitae.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 100mcI26873_ch06_081-100.indd 100 4/9/13 12:39 PM4/9/13 12:39 PM

Confirming Pages
101
7
CULTURE
A s I sit down to write about culture, I feel like an ant trying to describe an elephant. The first thing that must be said
about culture is that it’s big. But my task is more difficult than the
ant’s—an ant can turn away from the elephant and not see it. I
cannot escape from culture; it surrounds me, it’s inside of me, and
I take it wherever I go. In short, culture is ubiquitous. 1
Not only is it always and everywhere, but culture makes a dif-
ference in how I live my life. My culture influences what I eat, how
I speak, what I believe, how I behave, and what I value. Clearly
an understanding of culture is essential for anyone who wants to
understand people’s behaviors and interactions with others.
Two eminent anthropologists defined culture this way:
Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for
behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting
the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their
embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of
traditional (i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas [beliefs]
and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the
one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other, as
conditioning elements of further action. (Kroeber and Kluckhohn
1952, 181)
That’s a pretty tough introduction to culture, so in this chapter
I am going to make understanding culture easier by separating
out its various parts.
1 If you don’t know this word, look it up—it’s everywhere!
“No matter how
eloquently a dog may
bark, he cannot tell
you that his parents
were poor but
honest.”
— Bertrand Russell
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 101mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 101 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
102 CHAPTER 7 CULTURE
Material and Nonmaterial Culture
Culture has both material and nonmaterial attributes. Material cul-
ture includes all those things that humans make or adapt from the
raw stuff of nature: computers, houses, forks, bulldozers, jewelry,
telephones, socks, bologna sandwiches, oil paintings, and so on.
As this list suggests, material culture includes some very
sophisticated and complex objects. But to create a piece of mate-
rial culture, one does not have to bring a thing very far from its
natural state. Suppose I pick up a stick in the forest and use it to
help me keep my balance. This walking stick becomes as much a
part of material culture as my personal computer.
There is a difference, however, between my walking stick and
the sticks that I ignored: The sticks that remain on the floor of the
forest are merely sticks. They have no other meaning and are not,
therefore, pieces of material culture.
To put it more technically, I can say that material culture is made
up of artifacts. Artifacts are by-products of human behavior. 2
NONMATERIAL CULTURE
Nonmaterial culture is different first of all because it is made up
of intangible things—and these intangible things also vary from
simple to complex. Our ideas about truth and beauty, about hap-
piness and boredom, about what is funny and what is not, about
right and wrong—all these are part of nonmaterial culture. So,
too, are the words with which we express these ideas. We can
divide up nonmaterial culture into five basic categories: symbols,
language, norms, values, and beliefs.
SYMBOLS
A symbol is anything that represents something else to more than one
person. The symbols on my computer keyboard include $ (dollar),
% (percent), & (and), £ (English pound), § (section), ¶ (paragraph),
© (copyright), and ™ (trademark). Each of these marks is a sym-
bol because it stands for something other than itself—a ¶ is not a
paragraph, but merely symbolizes a paragraph.
Some objects are symbols in that they mean something other than
themselves. In the English language of flowers, giving someone a
red rose means something different from giving someone a lily.
By definition, symbols are social things—if an object has
meaning only to one individual, it is not a symbol. So, let’s say
Humans Are to
Culture as Fish
Are to Water
“The last thing
which a dweller in
the deep sea would
be likely to discover
would be water.
He would become
conscious of its
existence only if some
accident brought
him to the surface
and introduced
him to air. Man,
throughout most
of his history, has
been only vaguely
conscious of the
existence of culture
and has owed even
this consciousness to
contrast between the
customs of his own
society and those
of some other with
which he happened
to be brought into
contact.”
— Ralph Linton (1945)
2The linguistic root of artifact is similar to the Latin root for artificial, which means
“made by humans.”
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 102mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 102 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
Different parts of
a culture system
tend to reinforce
one another.
Notice how these
children’s jumping
rhymes tend to
reinforce traditional
gender-role
expectations.
Material and Nonmaterial Culture 103
that a symbol is anything that at least two people agree represents
something other than itself.
Ugh. That sounds so dry. I want to convey the fact that symbols
are worthy of study by sociologists because in the interaction
between human beings, symbols are powerful things. They are
powerful because we react to them as if they were the real thing. For
example, if someone gives me a rose, I am apt to feel pleasure; if
someone paints a swastika (the symbol of Nazi Germany) on my
synagogue, I will get very angry. Symbols do not simply convey
information—they are powerful enough to invoke emotions!
LANGUAGE
Language is an organized set of symbols, but language is such
an essential part of nonmaterial culture that I think it deserves its
own section. Many sociologists argue, in fact, that without lan-
guage, there can be no culture at all. After all, to have symbols,
we need some means of learning what these objects stand for—
and the best way of conveying such meanings between people is
through the use of language. It would be difficult to sustain non-
material culture without language. Certainly any activity that
requires cooperation between individuals (from hunting game to
building rockets) is facilitated by language.
Language is made up of certain kinds of symbols (spoken or
written words and gestures) and rules (such as grammar and
syntax 3 ) for using these. Language-use rules are important because
words in and of themselves cannot convey complex meanings very
clearly. Although sometimes it might seem as if having to follow
the rules of grammar gets in the way of being able to express our-
selves, without such rules we would be hard-pressed to understand
3Rules of syntax have to do with proper word ordering.
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 103mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 103 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
104 CHAPTER 7 CULTURE
one another. Examine the following pairs of statements; they dem-
onstrate how syntax can make all the difference:
“Man shot in head accidentally dies”
versus
“Man accidentally shot in head dies”
“Congressman sat informally on the carpet and discussed food
prices and the cost of living with several women”
versus
“Congressman sat informally on the carpet with several women
and discussed food prices and the cost of living”
Or how about this headline: “Missouri Pacific to drop passengers
from three trains” (Lederer 1987, 83).
Gestures are part of language as well. Nodding your head up
and down, for example, communicates a different message than
shaking your head back and forth does.
NORMS
In sociology we call rules about behavior norms. Norms also are
part of nonmaterial culture. Some norms, of course, are more
important than others. Consider these three norms about how
women should dress when they attend a church or temple in the
United States:
Women must not wear jeans.
Women must not wear clothing that exposes their navels.
Women must not wear clothing that exposes their breasts.
Compared to the others, the first norm seems pretty trivial.
Someone who violated it would probably only be punished by
a quick glance of disapproval. Depending on the church, some-
one who violated the second norm might get anything from a
long nasty stare to a request to leave. The same can be said for
the second norm—but many would see a violation of the “no
navel” norm as possibly more offensive than a violation of the
“no jeans” norm. However, the woman who arrives at church
with bare breasts will not be able to ignore her punishment. She
will not only receive disapproving looks from other members of
the church but might even be arrested.
This brings us to an important point: The way to judge the
importance of a norm (and even whether it exists) is to observe
how people respond to behavior. Based on the church members’
responses, we can not only identify the norms but also get a sense
of how important they are.
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 104mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 104 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
Material and Nonmaterial Culture 105
TYPES OF NORMS
Having observed lots of norm violations and responses to norm
violators in many societies, social scientists realized that there
were different categories of norms.
In his book Folkways (1906), sociologist William Graham
Sumner divided norms into two categories:
1. Folkways. These represent casual norms; violations are
not taken very seriously. For example, when riding in an
elevator, face the door; do not look at strangers’ faces, do not
enter into strangers’ conversations. At worst, the punishment
for violating a folkway might be a dirty look, rolled eyes, or
disapproving comment.
2. Mores. These are anything but casual. Mores reflect impor-
tant rules, such as the norms against unjustified assaults on
other persons. 4
Later, sociologists added a third category:
3. Taboos. There are norms that are so deeply held that even the
thought of violating them upsets people. For example, in the
United States, there is a taboo against eating human flesh.
7.1 Think of at least one example of each of the following norms:
folkway, mos, and taboo. Explain why your example fits the definition
of each norm.
SANCTIONS
If you violate a norm, you can expect a certain type of response
from others—what sociologists call a negative sanction. The seri-
ousness of this negative sanction depends on the importance of
the norm. Violations of folkways might be sanctioned by a com-
ment or a nasty look. Violations of taboos, on the other hand,
might be sanctioned by expulsion from the social group, impris-
onment, or even death.
The form of the negative sanction can vary as well. Sociologists
distinguish between formal and informal negative sanctions.
Formal sanctions are official responses from specific organi-
zations within society, such as the government, universities, or
churches. Formal negative sanctions meted out by the government
include prison sentences and fines. Formal negative sanctions
Sociologist
Ian Robertson
illustrated the
difference between
folkways and
mores this way:
“A man who walks
down a street
wearing nothing on
the upper half of his
body is violating a
folkway; a man who
walks down the street
wearing nothing on
the lower half of his
body is violating
one of our most
important mores,
the requirement that
people cover their
genitals and buttocks
in public.” (1987, 62)

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
4Mores (pronounced “MORE-rays”) is the plural of mos. Technically one would
write that “the rule against murder is an important mos, and one of the most important
mores.” For some reason, hardly anyone ever refers to a particular mos; generally, the
issue is discussed in terms of the plural—mores.
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 105mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 105 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
106 CHAPTER 7 CULTURE
The Power of Informal Sanctions
As I suggest in the text, there is no necessary correspondence
between the type of a negative sanction (formal or informal) and
its effect or consequences. Nonetheless, many of my students
seem to presume that being at the receiving end of a formal sanc-
tion must be worse than being the victim of an informal sanction.
William James, an early psychologist, knew that informal sanc-
tions can be much more powerful:
If no one turned round when we entered, answered when we
spoke, or minded what we did, but if every person “cut us
dead,” and acted as if we were nonexisting things, a kind of
rage and impotent despair would ere long well up in us, from
which the cruellest bodily tortures would be a relief; for these
[tortures] would make us feel that, however bad might be our
plight, we had not sunk to such a depth as to be unworthy of
attention at all. (1890)
doled out by a university range from library fines to expulsion.
Formal negative sanctions given by a church range from penance
to being excommunicated.
Informal sanctions come from the individuals in social groups.
Informal negative sanctions can range from being laughed at and
made to feel humiliated to being given the cold shoulder by every-
one in the group.
There is no cut-and-dried correspondence between the form of a nega-
tive sanction and its effect or consequences. The formal negative sanc-
tion of a parking ticket is less painful to many than the informal
sanction of being laughed at or ignored by one’s friends or family.
Note, too, that someone who violates a norm can (and fre-
quently does) receive both a formal and an informal sanction.
Students caught cheating in a sociology course, for example, may
receive the formal negative sanction of a failing grade and the
informal negative sanction of expressions of disgust from friends
and family.
Of course, it is not simply norm violating that evokes responses
from others. If your behavior is in keeping with a norm or, espe-
cially, if it goes beyond what is expected, you may be rewarded
with a positive sanction. Positive sanctions also range from small to
large and can be either formal or informal. Formal positive sanc-
tions are those given out officially by some organization and can
range from receiving an A in a sociology course to winning the
Nobel Peace Prize. Informal positive sanctions range from a smile
to a standing ovation.
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 106mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 106 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
Material and Nonmaterial Culture 107
7.2 Using the diagram below as a model, write appropriate examples
of each type of sanction.

S T O P
R
E V I E W
Formal
Positive
Types of Sanctions
Negative
Informal
VALUES
In important respects, norms are one way that people in soci-
ety have of expressing their values. So, after you have identified
a group’s norms, you can begin to see its values. For example,
when you observe a negative sanction being given to someone
who cheated, you might suspect that honesty is a value. (Or per-
haps not getting caught is the thing that is valued.)
Values are general or abstract ideas about what is good and desirable,
as opposed to what is bad and undesirable, in a society. For example, in
a particular society, honesty might be valued over dishonesty, loy-
alty over disloyalty, liberty over restraint, and order over disorder.
The abstractness of values sometimes creates problems of con-
flict. The values themselves might not necessarily conflict, but the
real-world implications might. A group of people might accept
What Do Americans Value?
(Williams 1970)
Achievement and success
Hard work
Efficiency and practicality
Science and rationality
Progress
Material comfort
Equality
Freedom
Democracy
The superiority of their own group
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 107mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 107 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
108 CHAPTER 7 CULTURE
the same values in principle but find that they cannot agree on
how to put these values into practice. For example, if your best
friend asks to copy your test answers, does your loyalty to your
friend win out over your commitment to honesty? 5
Similarly, in our society we value freedom, but we also value
safety and security. For example, should we pass laws that take
away from people’s liberty to preserve order in society? Since its
founding, the U.S. legal system has struggled to balance laws that
protect freedom with laws that protect people’s safety.
5Allow me to interject a personal observation by suggesting that this is no real
dilemma—what friend would ask you to cheat and thereby place you in jeopardy of
failing the course?
Ideology
The concept of ideology generally refers to knowledge that has
been distorted by social, economic, or political interests. The
term was invented at the beginning of the nineteenth century by
the French philosopher Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy,
who used it to distinguish his new science of ideas from both
the old study of philosophy and the study of empirical facts. But
the concept of ideology gained currency only when it was taken
up by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their book The German
Ideology. Marx and Engels used ideology to refer specifically to
the set of ideas found in law, religion, literature, and art that the
upper classes use to maintain their economic superiority:
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling
ideas: i.e., the class, which is the ruling material [economic]
force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.
The class which has the means of material production at its
disposal, has control at the same time over the means of men-
tal production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas
of those who lack the means of mental production are subject
to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expres-
sion of the dominant material relationships . . . ; hence, of the
relationships which make the one class the ruling one, there-
fore the ideas of its dominance. (1845–46/1963, 39)
In 1929 Karl Mannheim (a Hungarian sociologist who estab-
lished the sociology of knowledge as an important field of study)
published a work titled Ideology and Utopia. In that book Mann-
heim expanded on Marx and Engel’s use of the concept. As
Mannheim pointed out, it is not only the ruling or upper class
that has a particular worldview (or, to use the German term, Wel-
tanschauung). The Weltanschauung—or the beliefs, worldviews,
and ideas of people in all sorts of groups (ethnic and racial as
well as economic)—can likewise be distorted by their social,
political, and economic interests.
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 108mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 108 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
How It Adds Up 109
Ponder
Think of some instances of values in conflict. For example,
in what ways might the values of achievement and success
conflict with the value of equality? How about democracy and
freedom?
IDEAS AND BELIEFS
Social scientists use the term belief to refer to people’s ideas about
what is real and what is not real. Beliefs, then, have to do with what
people accept as factual. For example, as I mentioned in chapter 1,
people once believed that the earth was the center of the universe.
Beliefs and values are frequently related. Church leaders were
reluctant to let go of their beliefs about the geocentric nature
of the cosmos because it was in keeping with their values. But
beliefs and values are different, too. Most people in society regard
the preservation of human life as an important value, but many
disagree with respect to their beliefs about who qualifies as a
human being.
How It Adds Up
Having separated out the different elements of culture, it is time
to reexamine that definition of culture. Read it through again—
this time, it should make more sense.
Culture consists of patterns [norms], explicit and implicit, of and
for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the
distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodi-
ments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional
(i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas [beliefs] and especially
their attached values;
Statements of Belief
Men are stronger than women.
God exists.
Hard work leads to personal success.
The earth is round.
Women are smarter than men.
The heart is the seat of emotion.
Germs cause disease.
Two plus two equals four.
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 109mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 109 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
110 CHAPTER 7 CULTURE
As you may recall, there was a final part of the definition:
culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of
action, on the other, as conditioning elements of further action.
[emphasis added]
Let’s explore this final part of the definition by distinguishing
between culture as a product of action and as a conditioning
element of further action.
Culture as a Product of Action
This part is fairly simple: Culture systems (the total package of
material and nonmaterial cultural things) are created by humans
and in this sense are products of action. Because culture is a prod-
uct of human action and interaction, we would expect different
groups of humans to have different cultures. And thus it is that
the content of culture systems varies widely across societies.
That being the case, any examination of a culture system can
reveal a great deal about the people who share in that culture.
Think of how much archeologists have learned merely by exam-
ining the remains of material culture, such as a clay bowl or ham-
mered piece of metal, left behind by peoples long dead. These
artifacts can tell us a great deal about the level of technology in a
society, as well as its members’ norms, values, and beliefs.
The content of language itself reveals a great deal about a cul-
ture. What can you deduce from the fact that the Masai of Africa
have seventeen terms for cattle? That the Ifugeos of the Philippines
have twenty terms for rice? That the residents of the Trobriand
islands of Papua, New Guinea, have a hundred words for yams?
That the people of the Solomon Islands have nine words for coco-
nut? For that matter, what can you deduce from the fact that col-
lege students may have upward of two dozen words for vomit?
Even parts of our language that we assume mimic natural
sounds are cultural. A dog may say “bow-wow” in English,
but Spanish dogs say “gua-gua,” Russian dogs say “af-af,” and
Japanese dogs say “wan-wan.”
It is not just the spoken word that varies across societies. Ges-
tures have different meanings to different peoples as well. Nod-
ding your head up and down means you agree—right? (Nod
your head.) But if you were visiting Bulgaria, parts of Greece,
the former Yugoslavia, Turkey, Iran, or Bengal and you nod-
ded your head up and down, it would be read as disagreement
(Axtell 1991, 60).
So much of what we take for granted as “natural,” as instinc-
tual or genetic, is really a product of culture. For example, linguist
Ray L. Birdwhistell observed that “we have found no gesture or
“Up yours!” “Victory!”
In Great Britain and
in other countries,
these gestures have
distinctly different
meanings.
In the United
States, thumbs-up
means “good job”
or “A-OK.” In
Australia, Nigeria,
and other places,
this is a very rude
gesture.
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 110mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 110 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
Culture as a Conditioning Element of Further Action 111
body motion which has the same social meaning in all societies”
(1970, 35). In his book Word Play, Peter Farb adds that “human
beings every-where rotate their heads upon their necks, blink and
open wide their eyes, move their arms and hands—but the signif-
icance of these nonverbal signals varies from society to society”
(1993, 204).
Norms, values, and beliefs vary from culture to culture, just
as language does. These differences can often result in travelers
feeling a sense of “culture shock.” 6
Culture as a Conditioning
Element of Further Action
The easiest way to explain how culture conditions our actions or
behaviors is to say that culture puts us all in the same rut. For
the most part, it is a reasonably comfortable rut, but it is a rut
nonetheless.
Every society has problems that must be solved, such as pro-
viding shelter, food, and clothing. Once a particular problem has
been solved in a satisfactory way, people tend to stick with that
solution. And their children repeat these solutions, as do their
children. Along the way, of course, the solutions are likely to
become more elaborate, but they do tend to follow the established
path. In other words, once a track through the problems of life is
established, people tend to stay on that track.
This rut, or the influence of culture, is so comfortable to most
of us (after all, most of us have never experienced anything else)
that it is difficult to see until you really look. But it can be seen!
Consider the following examples.
As you drive through town, you will notice (if you look) that most
people have solved the problem of shelter in the same basic ways.
The houses and apartment buildings themselves look remarkably
alike. They all have doors and windows. And in spite of the fact
that there are many colors from which to choose, most people paint
their houses white, gray, light blue, or some “earth tone.”
The next time you go out to dinner, watch the people around
you to see how they have solved the problem of how to eat. In the
United States people tend not to eat Jell-O with their fingers; they
use a spoon. Most people will lick an ice cream cone but not a
bowl of ice cream (even when the bowl is made of edible material).
Tomatoes are served in a green (vegetable) salad but not in a fruit
salad—even though a tomato is really a fruit. And most people eat
the main course before the dessert.
6Recall Chagnon’s response to the Yanomamö (described in chapter 4). That was a
great illustration of culture shock.
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 111mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 111 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
112 CHAPTER 7 CULTURE
Varieties of Cultural Wisdom
Proverbs are one repository of cultural wisdom. You’ve heard
them: “You can’t tell a book by its cover,” “A bird in the hand is
worth two in the bush.” Every culture has them—for example,
Haitians caution, “Do not insult the mother alligator until after
you have crossed the river”; and the Greeks warn that “white
hair is not a sign of wisdom, only age.” The Irish suggest that
“it is better to be a coward for a minute than dead for the rest of
your life,” and according to the Japanese, “The nail that sticks up
gets hammered down.” Finally, a Turkish proverb suggests that
“he became an infidel hesitating between two mosques.”
Notwithstanding their heritage, some of these sayings seem
to provide lessons that are universal; others are harder to under-
stand unless we know more about the culture which gave rise to
them. Consider the following Yiddish proverbs. Which of them
make sense to you?
“When a poor man gets to eat a chicken, one of them is sick.”
“When a father gives to his son, both laugh; when a son gives
to his father, both cry.”
“If God were living on earth, people would break his
windows.”
“One fool can ask more questions than ten sages can answer.”
“What good is a cow that gives plenty of milk and then kicks
over the pail?”
Problems Identified and Resolved
in All Known Cultures
(Murdock 1945)
Beliefs about death
Bodily adornment
Calendar
Cleanliness training
Cooking
Cosmology
Courtship
Dance
Decorative art
Divination
Dream interpretation
Education
Ethics
Etiquette
Faith healing
Numerals
Personal names
Population policy
Property rights
Puberty customs
Religious rituals
Sexual restrictions
Soul concepts
Sports
Superstition
Surgery
Toolmaking
Trade
Weaning
Weather control
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 112mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 112 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
Social Institutions 113
The next time you go to class, look around at your classmates
and see how they have solved the problem of clothing them-
selves. How many of the women are wearing fancy dresses? You
know that a woman is likely to have at least one such dress in
her closet, but even if it is her favorite dress, she won’t wear it to
class. How many of the men are wearing lipstick? Why are sev-
eral people wearing baseball caps, but not a single one is wearing
a football helmet?
The similarities in our solutions to the everyday problems of
shelter, food, and clothing are more than coincidental. The ways
in which we construct our dwellings, eat our food (and even what
we consider to be food), and cover our bodies are not the only
possible solutions to the problems of shelter, food, and clothing.
But they are the solutions chosen by those who have gone before
us, and though we have elaborated on them, these traditions or
customs influence how we live our lives.
Social Institutions
Some solutions to problems are given special status—these
solutions are called institutions. In everyday speech, people may
refer to a specific organization as an institution (“This university
is an institution of higher learning”). But to a sociologist, the term
has a different meaning: an institution is a set of ideas about the way
a specific important social need ought to be addressed. Institutional
responses to problems tend to be justified by important social val-
ues and beliefs, and they tend to be slow to change. An institu-
tion, then, is part of nonmaterial culture.
Another way to put this is to say that after a particular pattern
of responding to important social needs has become established,
it becomes institutionalized. As parts of nonmaterial culture, insti-
tutions vary across societies, but (as you will see in chapter 9) all
societies must address the same core of crucial problems.
Within a particular society, there is some latitude for differ-
ence in responding to basic social needs, but not too much. Take
religion, for example. Even in our society, where people pride
themselves on having freedom of religion, one’s religious prac-
tices cannot stray too far from the accepted institutional pattern.
If your religion requires you to participate in the sacrifice of the
Eucharist or holy communion, that is okay. Sacrificing goats or
chickens is getting a bit too far from the institutionalized line and
may earn you an informal negative sanction. But sacrificing vir-
gins is quite another thing—freedom of religion does not extend
that far even in the United States.
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 113mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 113 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
114 CHAPTER 7 CULTURE
Social Change: Cultural Diffusion
and Leveling
Not every solution to a society’s problems has been inherited
from its ancestors. Depending on the extent of communication
and contact between people of different cultures, people can
adopt some of the solutions to life’s problems from other cultures.
Sociologists call the process by which cultural things are adopted
cultural diffusion. For example, Americans have adopted sushi
bars from the Japanese culture, and the Japanese have adopted
baseball from American culture.
Elements of nonmaterial culture may diffuse, or spread, from
one society to another as well. But the diffusion of nonmaterial
culture is frequently more problematic. It is one thing to adopt
American hamburgers, but quite another to adopt American
ideas about women’s role in society! Adopting a piece of mate-
rial culture is easier because it is often easier to separate tangible
things from their intangible meanings, which may not mesh or be
congruent with a culture’s values.
As cultural diffusion increases, the differences between cul-
tures decrease. When you walk down a street in London, New
York, Moscow, or Singapore and see someone eating a Big Mac
or a Whopper while talking on a cell phone or listening to Nine
Inch Nails on an iPod or Zune, you experience this sense of
cultural  leveling.
Subcultures and Countercultures
Culture is a powerful force not only in shaping people’s behav-
ior, but their thoughts and emotions as well. But it is a mistake
to speak of culture as if it were shared equally by every person
in a particular society—especially in modern societies. There are
groups of people within society whose shared values, norms, beliefs,
or use of material culture sets them apart from other people in that soci-
ety; these groups become subcultures.
Subcultures can emerge for a variety of reasons. Some are occu-
pational: As a result of their work, for example, police officers
tend to see the world in ways that set them apart from civilians,
and many police officers come to feel uncomfortable hanging out
with anyone who is not a member of their ranks.
Deeply felt shared religious beliefs can also bring subcultures
into being. Members of some religious groups have practices and
beliefs that set them apart from the rest of society.
Regional differences also give rise to subcultures. For exam-
ple, people who live in the southern United States tend to have
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 114mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 114 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
Subcultures and Countercultures 115
in common special folkways, food, and even accents that make
them distinct from other Americans.
Subcultures may be based on shared ethnic or racial heritage;
others may be based on age, social class, sexual orientation, politi-
cal beliefs, and even hobbies.
Some subcultures are long-lived. The Amish have managed to
remain within and apart from the larger American culture since
they began their migration from Switzerland to North America in
1720. Many subcultures are less enduring (the “flower children”
or hippies of the 1960s come to mind).
What happens to subcultures? Frequently, subcultures disap-
pear because aspects of their adherents’ beliefs, values, or use of
material culture are adopted by members of the larger culture,
thereby leveling the difference between what was once a subcul-
ture and its parent culture. To the degree that middle-class youth
begin to adopt the clothing, mannerisms, and argot 7 of hip hop,
for example, hip hop loses much of what sets it apart from the
larger culture. In other cases, members of a subculture may take
steps to level the differences between themselves and those of
the larger culture. For example, when the leaders of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (commonly known as the
Mormon Church) outlawed plural marriage, they took a signifi-
cant step toward bringing the culture of their church into line
with mainstream American culture.
A counterculture is a special form of subculture (Yinger 1960,
1977). When members of a subculture hold values, share norms, or
utilize material culture in ways that not only set them apart from
the larger culture, but are perceived to threaten the parent culture,
they have what’s called a counterculture. The Ku Klux Klan is a
famous example: it proclaims a racism that most Americans find
repugnant. The Klan has birthed more modern countercultures—
including much of the contemporary militia movement: “Many
members of the militia movement are hard-core racists and
neo-Nazis; weekend warriors who wear camouflage fatigues,
revel in paramilitary activities, threaten and commit violence
and who are determined to defy the federal government. . . . One
could call [them] the Khaki Klan” (Wade 1987, viii).
I must admit that the concept of subculture is a fuzzy one. At
what point does the culture of a particular group (i.e., its val-
ues, norms, beliefs, and use of material culture) become distinct
enough to qualify it as a subculture? For sure, the Amish are a
subculture, but are members of a college sorority? How about
Freemasons or Rotarians?
7Argot is a sociological term of art (i.e., a piece of jargon); the term refers to the
specialized language of a particular group.
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 115mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 115 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Rev. Confirming Pages
116 CHAPTER 7 CULTURE
The distinction between subculture and countercultures is
likewise fuzzy: Who determines when the values of a subculture
are not only distinct from but also in opposition to those of the
parent culture? It is obvious (to most people) that the Ku Klux
Klan is not only a subculture but a counterculture as well, but
what about Goths? Ravers? Vegans?
Yet the fuzzy quality of these concepts does not render them
useless; arguably, the fuzzy nature of these concepts merely
reflects the fuzzy nature of social reality.
Finally, it must be observed that although members of any
subculture hold values (and so forth) that set them apart from the
larger culture, their members do not totally escape the power of
the parent culture. Even the Hells Angels, 8 that motorcycle “club”
whose members’ values and beliefs would seem to be in complete
opposition to the larger American culture has not been entirely
able to escape its influence:
They call themselves the one-percenters, “the one percent that don’t
fit and don’t care.” They refer to members of the “straight” world
as “citizens,” which implies that they themselves are not. They have
opted out of the structural system. Nevertheless . . . they constitute
a formal organization complete with complex initiation ceremonies
and grades of membership emblematized by badges. They have a
set of by-laws, an executive committee, consisting of president, vice-
president, secretary, treasurer, and sergeant-at-arms, and formal
weekly meetings. (Turner 1969, 194)
Moreover, Hells Angels appears to have adopted American capi-
talism: Even “civilians” can go online and purchase their stuff—
pins, t-shirts, and beanies (at chapter Web sites or on eBay). In
2006, the Hells Angels announced they were going to sue the
Disney Company for infringing on its trademark—for developing
a film called Wild Hogs. (The Death head logo is also a registered
trademark of the Hells Angels.)
Idiocultures
Although whether or not a group is a subculture (let alone a coun-
terculture) is sometimes difficult to tell, I can say with certainty
that not all groups constitute subcultures. Indeed, culturally
8In previous editions of this book, I mistakenly wrote “Hell’s Angels.” The next year
I received an e-mail from a member of the Hells Angels who informed me that my use
of the possessive apostrophe was wrong. I wrote him to thank him for his correction
and to inquire how it came to be that a member of the Hells Angels was reading a soci-
ology textbook. He never responded. Perhaps I offended him by implicitly stereotyping
Hells Angels as nonsociologists.
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 116mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 116 4/19/13 12:45 PM4/19/13 12:45 PM

Confirming Pages
Idiocultures 117
speaking, most groups are simply microcosms of the larger soci-
ety. In other words, the culture of most groups mirrors that of the
larger culture. That doesn’t mean, for example, that there is noth-
ing worth noting about the culture of groups that don’t qualify as
subcultures.
Noted sociologist Gary Alan Fine reminded us that “every
group has to some extent a culture of its own.” He called these
groups idiocultures:
Idioculture consists of a system of knowledge, beliefs, behaviors,
and customs shared by members of an interacting group to which
members can refer and employ as the basis of further interaction.
Members recognize that they share experiences in common and these
experiences can be referred to with the expectation that they will
be understood by other members, and further can be employed to
construct a social reality. (Fine 1979, 734)
Over time, as people interact on a regular basis, they develop
shared knowledge, beliefs, and customs, and these become
important to their future interactions. To illustrate the con-
cept, Fine shared the results of his own research—three years
of participant observation of five Little League baseball teams.
He found that each team developed its own norms (e.g., gum
chewing allowed or not) and customs (e.g., appropriate joking
topics and nicknames). By the end of the season, each group
had developed its own distinct group culture—that is, its own
idioculture.
It might be difficult for you to conceive of a group to which
you belong having a culture (like the fish that doesn’t notice
the water), but what about your family? Different families have
different customs about how to celebrate holidays, for example.
My dad grew up in the Depression and (for some reason) had
fond memories of eating such things as rutabagas and turnips.
The kids in my family referred to those as “Depression veg-
etables,” and refused to eat more than a token amount (or, in
my case, none). Yet, on rare occasions when we get together
to share a holiday meal, the rutabagas and turnips appear on
the table. 9 Everyone in the family knows the meaning of those
vegetables, and they are a running (through the generations)
joke. 10
9Rutabagas apparently lost favor with most Americans after they had consumed
so many during food shortages during WWI. In modern Europe, these vegetables are
grown extensively as animal feed.
10One semester, the students in one of the sections of my sociology class seemed
to have a fairly well-developed idioculture: They started a facebook group to honor
their graduate student discussion leader; the group’s officers have such names as “The
Sociological Imagination,” “The Taboo,” and “Role Strain.”
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 117mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 117 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
118 CHAPTER 7 CULTURE
7.3 Distinguish between subculture and counterculture. Give at least
two examples of each.
7.4
a. Margaret Visser states, “The extent to which we take every-
day objects for granted is the precise extent to which they
govern and inform our lives.” What did she mean by that?
b. Think of at least five ways in which culture has influenced
your behavior today.
Chapter Review
1. Below I have listed the major concepts discussed in this chap-
ter. Define each of the terms. (Hint: This exercise will be more
helpful to you if, in addition to defining each concept, you
create an example of it in your own words.)
culture (defined)
material culture (artifacts)
nonmaterial culture
symbols, language/gestures
norms
William Graham Sumner
folkways
mores/mos
taboos
sanctions (formal and informal)
values
beliefs and ideology
social institutions
cultural leveling and diffusion
subculture
counterculture
idioculture
culture as a product of action
culture as a conditioning element of action
2. Explain how culture can be both a product of action and a
producer of action.
3. Was the author of the following sentence exhibiting enthno-
centrism or cultural relativity? What do you interpret the
quotation to mean?
“Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits are objects of
scorn to smart Americans who blow horns to break up traffic
jams.”

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 118mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 118 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 119
4. New norms must be created in response to changes in society.
Describe the norms that have evolved governing the use of
cell phones or e-mail. As far as you have observed, how wide-
spread are these norms? What sanctions come to people who
violate these norms?
5. In your judgment, which of the following are subcultures?
Justify your answer.
Goths
Nudists
Ravers
Skaters
Starbucks customers
Vegans
Yoga practitioners
Answers and Discussion
7.1 Check your examples. Is your example of a folkway a “gentle
rule” about how things are usually done (blowing your nose in your
handkerchief, not on your sleeve; eating with a fork, not a knife)? How
about your example of a mos—is it a rule about something that is impor-
tant? Is your example of a taboo something that is so disgusting you can’t
even imagine violating it (having sex with your brother)?
Remember, folkways, mores, and taboos are all types of norms. So,
norm is the generic term for social rules of behavior.
7.2 There are many ways to answer this question. Here is how I filled in
the boxes:
Formal Good conduct medal
Promotion on job
Cheers
Being toasted
Getting fired
Being fined
People not talking to you
Being glared at
Being hissed
Positive
Types of Sanctions
Negative
Informal
Here are some things to remember about sanctions: They can be positive
or negative, formal or informal. Formal positive sanctions are not neces-
sarily better than informal positive sanctions; formal negative sanctions

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 119mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 119 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
120 CHAPTER 7 CULTURE
are not necessarily worse than informal negative sanctions. The point
of sanctioning people—positively or negatively—is to encourage/force
them to comply with social norms.
7.3 A subculture is a group of people whose values, language, dress, and
so on set them apart from the larger society. A counterculture is a sub-
culture whose values, language, dress, and so on are not only different from
but are in opposition to those of the dominant culture. Most occupational
subcultures (police, academics, and so on) are not countercultures. “Out-
law” groups (the Hells Angels, the KKK) are subcultures that are also
countercultures.
Because the defining characteristic of a counterculture is that it is in
opposition to the dominant culture, you have to know something about the
dominant culture to determine whether a subculture is also a countercul-
ture. For example, in a communist or socialist country, a group of Young
Republicans would be seen as a counterculture but not so in U.S. society.
7.4
a. The power of everyday objects has to do precisely with the fact
that we feel as if we can’t live without them. I don’t feel quite com-
fortable sitting on a chair that’s lower than knee high. No matter
how hungry I am, before I start on that baked potato, I have to
find a fork. A spoon might work as well, but it wouldn’t feel right.
(Although I will use chopsticks when I am eating in a Chinese res-
taurant, I never feel as comfortable with them because I can’t eat
without thinking about what I’m doing.) Even though I keep my
office door open and am not generally bothered by traffic in and
out, I know I would be constantly annoyed if my colleague, whose
office is next door, had to pass through my office to reach his—no
matter how quietly he did so. Visser goes on to say that having
these things now prevents us from being different.
b. If you had trouble with this one, look back to the quote from
Ralph Linton. His point is that culture is everywhere, so it’s hard
to see (just as a fish likely would never have cause to notice it
was swimming in water). Culture influences almost everything you
do—so, what have you done today?
I got up in the morning (instead of sleeping through the day).
My culture demands that I participate during daylight hours!
I ate breakfast. I wasn’t particularly hungry, but “it’s the most
important meal of the day.”
I didn’t take a nap. Naps are not prescribed for adults in my
culture.
I ate with a fork. I didn’t have fried cat for lunch or dinner.
I came to school and went to class. I spoke English all day.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 120mcI26873_ch07_101-120.indd 120 4/9/13 1:14 PM4/9/13 1:14 PM

Confirming Pages
121
8
SOCIAL STRUCTURE
W hen sociologists look at societies, or smaller groups such as colleges, or even families or Cub Scout troops, they see
more than just assemblies of people; they see social structures. A
social structure is a set of relatively stable roles, that is, patterned
relationships among statuses. The definition is complicated,
but in this chapter you will find the keys that will unlock that
complexity.
Statuses
A social status is simply a position that a person occupies in a
social structure. In modern Western societies, there is a wide
variety of social statuses. These include family statuses (mother,
father, child, grandparent), occupational statuses (president of
the United States, lawyer, physician, firefighter, computer pro-
grammer), social class statuses (upper class, middle class, lower
class). Other statuses are based on age, race, sex, ethnicity, and
the like.
How do individuals come to occupy certain statuses? As you
might guess from the examples given in the preceding paragraph,
it varies. Some statuses are achieved by individuals. Achieved sta-
tuses in modern Western society might include being a spouse,
a sociology major, a college graduate, a chamber of commerce
member, a lawyer, or a convicted mass murderer. These are
all positions in the social structure that individuals achieve for
themselves (though, as in the case of the convicted mass mur-
derer, not always on purpose). Other statuses are ascribed. That is,
mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 121mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 121 4/9/13 1:17 PM4/9/13 1:17 PM

Confirming Pages
122 CHAPTER 8 SOCIAL STRUCTURE
individuals are placed, generally at birth, in a status—sex, race,
ethnicity, age, and so on—that they cannot escape.
Understanding where people fit within a social structure is
crucial to everyday life. For this reason, when we meet new peo-
ple, our first inclination is to find out something about their social
statuses. Knowledge of the social positions or statuses that people
occupy helps us to know how to interact with them.
Imagine you’re at a party where strangers are forced to mingle.
What sorts of questions do people ask of one another under those
circumstances? “What do you do for a living?” “Are you mar-
ried?” “Do you have children?”
These are all questions about social status or position in the
social structure: “What do you do for a living?” translates into
“What is your occupational status?” Similarly, “Are you mar-
ried?” translates into “What is your marital status?” And “Do you
have children?” becomes “What is your parental status?”
The nature of your response to others is likely to depend on
what you know (or assume) about their social statuses. Probably
you will respond differently to someone who is married than
to someone who is single. If someone tells you that she is the
governor, you are likely to respond to her differently than if she
says she is a carpenter.
Even if we do not have an opportunity to ask others about their
social statuses, we can detect many clues simply by watching and
listening. These clues are status symbols. The police officer’s uni-
form is a symbol of his occupational status; his wedding ring is a
symbol of his marital status. The microphone the professor wears
while lecturing is a clue to her status. A book bag might be a sym-
bol of the status of student, though it is not as clear a symbol as a
wedding ring.
After we know something about people’s statuses, we gen-
erally feel more comfortable interacting with them. The reason
for this is that each status is accompanied by certain expecta-
tions about how the incumbent (that is, the individual occupying
the status) is supposed to behave and how others are to behave
toward the incumbent. In other words, when we know an indi-
vidual’s status, we have some good ideas about how he or she
may act and expect to be treated.
Usually we find out about people’s statuses and respond
appropriately without even being conscious of what we are
doing. Things get interesting, however, when we arrive at the
wrong conclusion about someone else’s social status—because
they withheld crucial status information or provided misleading
data or simply because we misread the clues. The results can be
embarrassing and make clear that it is really a myth that we treat
people equally in this society.
mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 122mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 122 4/9/13 1:17 PM4/9/13 1:17 PM

Confirming Pages
Roles 123
I can recall a number of occasions on which people have misguessed
my status and I have found it can be embarrassing not only for me
but for them! When I started driving, I was always losing the car
keys. Finally my mother gave me a key ring that would attach to
the belt loop on my jeans. I’ve had that same key ring for more than
25 years now—and I still frequently wear it attached to the belt loop
on my jeans. Of course, now that I am fully adult, I have a lot more
keys (one of the status clues to adulthood?). And, when I attach these
to my belt loop, they make a lot of noise. Because of this, and because
of my casual attire, I have on several occasions been mistaken for
one of the janitors or maintenance engineers on campus by people
looking for someone to fix a light fixture or unplug a toilet! (A couple
of times, I have helped to change a light bulb, but I’ve stopped short of
helping to fix toilets.)
8.1
a. List two of your ascribed statuses.
b. List two of your achieved statuses.
Roles
Sociologists define a role as the sum total of expectations about the
behavior attached to a particular social status.
Consider my sociology class. In that social structure, my status
is professor. My role is to teach—I’m expected to stand up in the
front of the classroom and say things that will provoke students
into thinking profound thoughts about the nature of society. 1
I am also expected to give assignments that I will evaluate and
grade. These are some of the expectations that are attached to my
professorial status; these are some parts of my role.
You occupy the status of student, and the behavior expecta-
tions attached to your status are different. That is, your role is
different. Your role is to come to class, be properly appreciative
of your teacher’s sociological insights, think profound thoughts
about the nature of society, and prepare and turn in assignments.
Here is an important fact about statuses and roles: They exist
independently of their incumbents or occupants. Regardless of
who the professor is, he or she must meet certain minimal role
expectations. If you were to look for the common denominator
among all professors—putting their idiosyncrasies aside—you
would discover the role of the professor.
Sociologists are interested in such things because knowing an
individual’s statuses and understanding his or her roles reveal

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
1 A social structure is made up of social statuses and roles. A status is a position in a
social structure; a role is the sum total of expectations attached to a status.
mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 123mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 123 4/9/13 1:17 PM4/9/13 1:17 PM

Confirming Pages
124 CHAPTER 8 SOCIAL STRUCTURE
a great deal about the life of that individual and how he or she
is expected to behave. Sometimes living out one’s statuses and
playing the accompanying roles is fairly straightforward. But
sociologists have identified three major problems that come up—
what I call “tricky situations”—role strain, status inconsistency,
and role conflict.
TRICKY SITUATION 1: ROLE STRAIN
Some statuses are accompanied by very demanding roles. Take
the status of student. Expectations about how students should
act—that is, the student role—can be very demanding. You may
have five different professors who seem to think that their class
is the only one in which you are enrolled. And they expect you
not only to attend class regularly but to come to class prepared, to
write papers, and to study for exams.
As if all that were not enough, any incumbent in the status of
student knows that the role involves more than completing course
work. It also requires “extracurricular” activities—participating
in residence hall or Greek events, going to football and basketball
games, and attending to a variety of other time-consuming activi-
ties. Then there is that part-time job that helps keep the student
in school.
According to sociologists, when the demands of a particular
role are such that the incumbent is hard-pressed to meet them all,
role strain is likely to occur.
Many occupational statuses expose incumbents to role strain.
Consider the police officer who is expected to fulfill his or her
quota of traffic tickets, respond to emergencies, solve crimes, and
protect the rights of suspects. At times, it must seem to the police
officer that these demands are impossible!
My mother, who is not a sociologist, nonetheless had a good
sense of what role strain involved. I can remember her mentioning
that being a parent involved (as she put it) “wearing many hats.”
She not only shopped for the groceries, cooked meals, cleaned
house, and washed and ironed the clothes, but also chauffeured
us to music and dance lessons, was a den mother when my
brothers were Cub Scouts, was my sister’s Camp Fire leader, and
presided over the PTA for a couple of years.
TRICKY SITUATION 2: STATUS INCONSISTENCY
It’s bad enough having to cope with one particular role that is
very demanding. When you realize that most of us occupy more
than one status and therefore have to play more than one role,
you start to imagine how tricky that can be.
mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 124mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 124 4/9/13 1:17 PM4/9/13 1:17 PM

Confirming Pages
Roles 125
The problem of status inconsistency occurs when an individual
comes to occupy multiple statuses that, in combination, do not
mesh with social expectations. For example, consider the case of
a 50-year-old man, John Jones, who returns to college to obtain
his degree. When he enrolled in school, Jones took on the status
of student. The student’s role is to study and to be deferential to
the teachers. But Jones still retained his previous status of middle-
aged man, as well as husband, father, and businessperson.
Suppose Jones has a professor who is half his age. Normally
this middle-aged man expects 25-year-olds to be deferential to
him. But Jones is now in a situation in which this young man (the
professor) refers to him as John, and he (Jones) must address this
kid as Mr. Smith.
Status inconsistency generally involves a situation in which a
person with a particular ascribed status achieves an inconsistent
status. For example, status inconsistency frequently exists when
a woman (ascribed status) goes to work as a truck driver (a status
traditionally achieved by men). Likewise, a man (ascribed status)
who becomes a nurse (a status traditionally achieved by women)
is viewed as having inconsistent statuses. So, just as with the
phrase nontraditional student (which means students older than
usual college age), when you hear the phrase nontraditional work
roles, you can assume there is a perception of status inconsistency.
The basis of this status inconsistency is the belief that the statuses
that one achieves are not congruent with the statuses that others
have ascribed to the individual.
There is nothing inherently contradictory about being a stu-
dent and being middle-aged; nor is there anything contradictory
about being a woman and a truck driver or being a man and a
nurse. The inconsistency is not in the combination of statuses
itself but in how people perceive particular combinations of
statuses.
One very telling example of status inconsistency involved
Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to sit on
the Supreme Court of the United States. He used to tell of one
time when he was in the elevator that justices used to get to their
offices. A couple of lost tourists got on the elevator and instructed
Marshall to take them to a particular floor. (He did, and only
later did the tourists discover that Marshall was not an elevator
operator but a justice of the Supreme Court.)
TRICKY SITUATION 3: ROLE CONFLICT
Not only are some combinations of statuses perceived as incon-
sistent, but the actual demands of their roles can clash. Sociolo-
gists call this role conflict.
mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 125mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 125 4/9/13 1:17 PM4/9/13 1:17 PM

Confirming Pages
126 CHAPTER 8 SOCIAL STRUCTURE
Consider the juvenile court judge who is also a parent. The sta-
tus of judge in our society requires the incumbent to play a role
in which he or she treats all defendants alike. The role of parent
is different. Parents are supposed to be loyal to and love their
children, and when their child gets into trouble, the parents are
expected to be that child’s advocate!
A serious role conflict would exist if Belinda Smith, daughter of
Judge Smith, was arrested and brought into Judge Smith’s court.
No one would believe that Judge Smith could act as an impartial
judge in such a case because of the conflict between the roles of
parent and judge.
Role conflicts are not always so dramatic. Suppose you are
baby-sitting some night for a 7-year-old kid. You have thus taken
on the status of baby-sitter. The role expectations that accompany
the status of baby-sitter are well known: watch and entertain the
child and especially keep that kid out of trouble. But what if the
person you are seeing calls and wants to come over to spend
the evening with you. Now, the status of lover (or boyfriend or
girlfriend) has its own role expectations, and these are in obvious
conflict with the role demands of baby-sitting. You cannot play
the roles of baby-sitter and lover at the same time. Attempting to
mesh these two roles can only get you into serious trouble.
8.2 Define each of the following and give at least one example.
a. role strain
b. status inconsistency
c. role conflict
Master Status
Sociologists know that most of us occupy a number of different
statuses, and therefore we must play a number of different roles.
But not all statuses are weighted the same in the minds of indi-
viduals (Hughes 1945).
I am a sociology professor, as is my colleague Jim. I have heard
students refer to Jim as a sociology professor but refer to me as a
female sociology professor. That is a clue to the fact that in those
students’ minds, my status as a woman “filters” their perception
of me as a sociology professor. This suggests as well that because
I am a woman professor, these students may be tempted to treat
me differently than they treat Jim and they expect me to act dif-
ferently than they expect Jim to act. To the degree that students
see me as a woman professor, rather than simply as a professor,
they are treating my gender as my master status. In their minds, it
seems, my gender affects expectations about how I ought to and
will play my role and how they ought to and will respond.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 126mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 126 4/9/13 1:17 PM4/9/13 1:17 PM

Confirming Pages
Groups 127
In modern society, gender is not the only master status. An
individual’s race or ethnicity can also be a filter through which
other statuses are perceived. When you hear someone say, “He’s
an African American doctor,” or “She’s an Asian American
lawyer,” you can assume that racial and ethnic statuses influence
people’s perceptions of occupational roles.
In our society, we like to think that our achieved statuses
are more important than our ascribed statuses. For this reason,
when our master status is linked to a quality that is ascribed
to us rather than to something that we have achieved, it can
be upsetting. If I want to be taken seriously as a professor, it
is annoying to be called a “professor-ette”—even if the per-
son calling me that means no disrespect. (When I was doing
research in the criminal courts of Cook County, Illinois, one of
the [male] judges used to refer to any female lawyer as “little
lady” but to her male counterpart as “counsel” or “Mr.” As you
can imagine, this mode of address really annoyed those profes-
sional women.)
Groups
A careful inspection of the list of statuses you occupy should lead
you to an important sociological discovery: These statuses define
who you are. Moreover, who you are (or so I predict) is frequently
a result of your membership in groups: a family group, a mar-
riage, a friendship group, some club or organization, some work
group, and so on.
We do not spend our lives among random assortments of indi-
viduals. Rather, most of us live our daily lives in groups—that
is, with one or more other individuals with whom we share some sense
of identity or common goals and with whom we interact within a specific
social structure. Group membership is so important to people that
sociologists tend to focus almost exclusively on individuals in
groups (large and small). Our assumption is that we can under-
stand individuals’ behavior only if we study individuals within
the context of their own social groups.
There are, of course, many different sorts of social groups,
and these vary in size and degree of intimacy among members,
as well as in how open or closed they are to new members. But
social groups are always something more than mere social aggre-
gations. A social aggregation is some collectivity of people who happen
to be in the same place at the same time. The aggregations of fans who
gather at a football game or rock concert are not social groups,
although the five guys who paint their faces and sit together may
be a social group.
mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 127mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 127 4/9/13 1:17 PM4/9/13 1:17 PM

Confirming Pages
128 CHAPTER 8 SOCIAL STRUCTURE
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY GROUPS
Sociologists typically distinguish between primary and second-
ary groups. The concept of primary group comes to us from the
work of sociologist Charles H. Cooley (1864–1929). Cooley was
particularly interested in how humans become socialized —that is,
how they are taught to be functioning members of social groups. Cooley
believed that the most important kinds of socialization took place
in primary groups like the family and friendship groups. In such
primary groups, said Cooley, people learn the rules of social life
and cooperation.
Secondary groups are different. Your family is a primary group,
but your sociology class is a secondary group. You and your best
friends are a primary group, but the university is a secondary
group. The distinction between primary and secondary groups
is, in part, frequently a matter of the size of each group—but
only because it is impossible to experience the kind of intimacy a
primary group affords with large numbers of people. However,
the most important difference between primary and secondary
groups has to do with the kinds of relationships that exist within
them. Secondary relationships, or relationships in secondary
groups, tend to be means-to-an-end relationships. Other members
of the secondary group view you first as a member, or a worker,
or a student, and only incidentally as a person with individual
needs. In a secondary group, you may be little more than a spot
on the organizational chart. In other words, in a secondary group,
what is important is your status, not your personal characteristics.
Table  8.1 summarizes the key differences between primary and
secondary groups.
Recalling the distinction that Tönnies made (see chapter 1),
we can say that secondary groups tend to be Gesellschaft while
primary groups tend to be Gemeinschaft. Here is how Cooley
described the primary group. As you read his description, what
sorts of groups come to mind?
By primary groups I mean those characterized by intimate face-
to-face association and cooperation. They are primary in several
senses, but chiefly in that they are fundamental in forming the
social nature and ideals of the individual. The result of intimate
association, psychologically, is a certain fusion of individualities
in a common whole, so that one’s very self, for many purposes at
least, is the common life and purpose of the group. Perhaps the
simplest way of describing this wholeness is by saying that it is
a “we”; it involves the sort of sympathy and mutual identification
for which “we” is the natural expression. One lives in the feeling
of the whole and finds the chief aims of his will in that feeling.
(1909, 23)
mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 128mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 128 4/9/13 1:17 PM4/9/13 1:17 PM

Confirming Pages
Groups 129
Cooley emphasized that primary group relationships are not
always “sweetness and light.” In fact, he said, a great deal of com-
petition will take place between members of a primary group:
It is not to be supposed that the unity of the primary group is one
of mere harmony and love. It is . . . usually a competitive unity,
admitting of self-assertion and various appropriate passions; but
these passions are socialized by sympathy, and come, or tend to
come, under the discipline of a common spirit. The individual
will be ambitious, but the chief object of his ambition will be some
desired place in the thoughts of the others, and he will feel alle-
giance to common standards of service and fair play. So the boy
will dispute with his fellows for a place on the team, but above
such disputes will place the common glory of his class and school.
(1909, 24–25)
8.3 Think of a primary group to which you belong. Which of the
characteristics of primary groups (listed in table 8.1 ) does your primary
group have?
a. What is the name of your group (for example, “my family” or
“friendship group”)?
b. How big is your group (number of members)?
c. What is the nature of members’ attachment? That is, what’s
your motive for staying a member of this group?
d. How long has this group been in existence?
e. What are the demands on individual members? That is, what
sorts of things do others in your group expect of you?

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
Table 8.1 Primary Versus Secondary Groups
Primary Groups Secondary Groups
Examples Family, friendship group,
work group, gang
Corporation, city, university,
nation, sociology class
Size Tend to be small Can be very large
Nature of Members’
Attachment
Socioemotional
(membership an end in
and of itself); personal
Instrumental (membership
often only a means to an
end); impersonal
Duration Long term May be long term but can
also be very short term
Demands on
Members
Greedy; want to take in
entire individual
Limited demands; only
require performance of a
specific role (such as worker)
Nature of
Social Control
Informal Formal
Boundaries Relatively closed; tend to
be hard to enter and exit
Relatively open; tend to be
easy to enter and exit
mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 129mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 129 4/9/13 1:17 PM4/9/13 1:17 PM

Confirming Pages
130 CHAPTER 8 SOCIAL STRUCTURE
f. What is the nature of social control? That is, if a group member
gets out of line, what sorts of negative sanctions might he or she
expect? Give examples.
g. What are the boundaries of the group? That is, how easy is it
for a new person to join or an established member to leave this
group?
FORMAL ORGANIZATIONS AND BUREAUCRACIES
The quintessential secondary group is the formal organization.
Formal organizations come into being when groups of people
band together to achieve a specific goal (for example, to make money
for stockholders or to provide a specific service to the commu-
nity) and formalize their relationships with one another. Generally,
such organizations operate under some sort of charter or consti-
tution that specifies the status positions with the organization
(president, vice president, worker bee) and describes role expec-
tations (job descriptions).
One of the most prevalent types of formal organizations is the
bureaucracy. Max Weber claimed that modern life would come
to be increasingly played out in bureaucracies. The bureaucracy,
according to Weber, is one of the more important manifestations
of the trend toward the rationalization of life.
Weber studied a number of different organizations and
derived what he called the ideal type of bureaucracy (1920/1958).
By ideal type, Weber didn’t mean the best kind of bureaucracy but
rather the pure form of bureaucracy. The ideal-type bureaucracy
is what is left when you strip away all the parts of an organization
that are not necessary to it being a bureaucracy. Real-life bureau-
cracies may have a lot of characteristics that are not necessary for
the organization to be a bureaucracy. In the next section I have
highlighted some of what Weber saw as the most important char-
acteristics of the ideal-type bureaucracy.
IDEAL-TYPE BUREAUCRACIES
I. There is the principle of fixed and official jurisdictional areas, which are
generally ordered by rules, that is, by law or administrative regulations.
People who work within a bureaucracy have specific “jurisdic-
tional areas,” or places in the division of labor. That is, areas of
authority are delegated to individuals. These are the workers’ “official
duties.” Workers must stay within their jurisdictional areas and must
carry out their duties according to the rules. Thus, in the Baker Shoe
Company (see figure 8.1 ) the vice president of sales would never try
to give a command to a factory line supervisor. Moreover, individuals
are expected to become experts within their own areas.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 130mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 130 4/9/13 1:17 PM4/9/13 1:17 PM

Confirming Pages
Groups 131
II. The principles of office hierarchy and of levels of graded authority mean
a firmly ordered system of super- and subordination in which the lower
offices are supervised by the higher ones.
Bureaucracies have strict chains of command or authority
structures. Generally these are shaped like pyramids—with fewer
people at the top of the bureaucracy than at the bottom. Orders or
commands travel from the top of the organization to the bottom.
Every worker has a known supervisor to whom he or she is
responsible. Going over one’s supervisor’s head (to complain, or
whatever) is considered inappropriate.
III. The management of the modern office is based on written documents
(files), which are preserved in their original or draft form.
Every significant move the organization makes (purchases, sales,
hirings, promotions, firings, and so on) is recorded in writing. Orders
or commands may be given verbally, but they are officially valid
only if given in writing. If a subordinate disagrees with the legiti-
macy of a verbal order, he or she may demand that the order be put
in writing and kept on file. (The files are the organization’s “mem-
ory” and help ensure continuity.)
IV. Office management usually presupposes thorough and expert
training.
Hiring and promotion are based on the individual’s ability to do
the job (or on merit), and not on such irrelevant factors as whom the
individual knows. Nepotism (favoring one’s relatives over others) is
frowned on, as is accepting bribes from job candidates. Relationships
within bureaucracies are impersonal, thus ensuring equal treatment
for employees as well as customers and clients.
President
Vice president in
charge of factory
production
Factory line
supervisors
Vice president in
charge of sales
Regional sales
directors
Men and women
of the sales force
Men and women
factory workers
Figure 8.1 The
Baker Shoe Company
mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 131mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 131 4/9/13 1:17 PM4/9/13 1:17 PM

Confirming Pages
132 CHAPTER 8 SOCIAL STRUCTURE
V. Official activity demands the full working capacity of the [bureaucratic]
official.
In a nonbureaucratic organization, such as a one-person shoe
shop, the shoemaker will spend most of his or her time making shoes
and do administrative stuff, like keeping the books, only on the side.
In an ideal-type bureaucracy, however, there is a specialized division
of labor (as noted in characteristic I). Administrative work is a full-
time commitment.
VI. The management of the office follows general rules, which are more
or less stable and more or less exhaustive, and which can be learned.
Knowledge of these rules represents a special technical learning, which the
officials possess.
There is an established procedure or rule covering just about
every situation. Knowledge of these rules and procedures is one
of the tasks of bureaucratic administrators, because having such
knowledge means knowing how to do the job.
Weber thus painted the ideal-type bureaucracy as a fully ratio-
nalized organization. By fully rationalized I mean having an orga-
nizational structure calculated to meet organizational goals most
efficiently. In a rational organization there is a specialized divi-
sion of labor, people follow rules, people are arranged hierarchi-
cally, and those at the top (presumably the most qualified) give
orders to those at the bottom. In a rational organization someone
keeps track of what the organization is doing (by keeping files),
and people are hired, fired, and promoted according to their abil-
ity to do the job.
Again, Weber was talking about the ideal-type or pure-type
bureaucracy. Weber knew that in real life, bureaucracies are
never so pure—that nepotism happens and that people bend the
rules. But his view of the ideal-type bureaucracy gives us a stan-
dard against which to measure the degree to which a particular
organization is bureaucratized.
What we find when we examine a variety of formal organiza-
tions is that some are more bureaucratic than others. And even
within a particular organization, some departments may be more
bureaucratic than others.
It is easier to be highly bureaucratized (for example, to follow
the rule book exactly) when the environment is regular and pre-
dictable. Thus, for example, we would expect that the part of the
university that is organized to bill students to be fairly bureaucra-
tized because the work is routine and predictable.
On the other hand, academic departments, such as the depart-
ment of sociology, are likely to be less bureaucratized. First, you
will likely have a large number of employees with PhDs, and
these folks do not take kindly to others telling them what to teach
or research. In the university, faculty justify their uppity behavior
mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 132mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 132 28/04/13 1:30 AM28/04/13 1:30 AM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 133
by citing such values as “academic freedom.” And such values
tolerate only a minimum of hierarchy and interference. More-
over, the work in academic departments varies from year to year
as student demand for classes ebbs and flows and as professors
come and go on sabbatical or research ventures.
The impersonal nature of the bureaucracy and the reliance
on following rules restricts the ability of any particular super-
visor or department head to act capriciously against employ-
ees. So-called red tape, which we commonly regard as so
annoying, actually helps protect employees and clients from
mistreatment.
Weber was ambivalent about the fact that modern life was
being taken over by bureaucracies. He saw the positive func-
tions of bureaucracies—they were organized to achieve tasks
efficiently. But he also saw that bureaucracies had dysfunctional
attributes—that they could become what he called “iron cages”
of modern life, in which people become so trapped in follow-
ing procedures and rules that they lose sight of the reason they
are working so hard. In addition, if people get bogged down by
procedures, they might lose their ability to adapt to changes in
social circumstances. (Bureaucracies are, in effect, the slugs of
the social world.)
The sociologist Robert Merton observed as well that it is
easy for people who work in bureaucracies to lose sight of their
ultimate purposes. “Paperwork” exists to help to communi-
cate orders clearly, but when finishing the paperwork becomes
more important than the task itself, this can cause problems.
When the process becomes more important than the outcome, Merton
noted, organizations and individuals experience goal displace-
ment. For example, when filling out patients’ charts is more
important to health-care professionals than actually treating the
patients, that’s goal displacement. When doing well on an exam
becomes more important than learning the material, that’s goal
displacement.
Chapter Review
1. Below I have listed the major concepts discussed in this chap-
ter. Define each of the terms. ( Hint: This exercise will be more
helpful to you if, in addition to defining each concept, you
create an example of it in your own words.)
status
achieved versus ascribed status
status symbol
role
mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 133mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 133 4/9/13 1:17 PM4/9/13 1:17 PM

Confirming Pages
134 CHAPTER 8 SOCIAL STRUCTURE
role strain
status inconsistency
role conflict
master status
group versus social aggregate
primary group
secondary group
formal organization
ideal types
bureaucracy, and “iron cage”
goal displacement
2. Sociologists distinguish between ascribed and achieved social
statuses. But do these different types of statuses have different
or similar origins? To what extent can we claim these for our-
selves, and to what extent are they awarded or assigned by
others? Select two of your ascribed statuses and two of your
achieved statuses and discuss their origins.
3. At this stage of your life, what is your master status? What
will be your master status in ten years? In twenty years?
Describe what, if any, consequences your master status will
have on how you live your life.
Answers and Discussion
8.1
a. Remember, ascribed statuses are those that are laid upon you;
frequently they have to do with the circumstances of your birth.
So, your ascribed statuses include your sex, race, and ethnicity.
b. Your achieved statuses are those that you earn through your own
efforts. College student is an achieved status, as is membership in
Phi Beta Kappa or the Girl Scouts.
8.2
a. Role strain exists when the demands of a specific role (that is, the
behaviors attached to a specific status) are very heavy and possibly
even impossible to meet. Having role strain is like trying to juggle
four or five balls while people keep adding more. In the text, I
used the examples of my mother (cook, clean, drive, PTA, Cub
Scouts, Camp Fire Girls) and of the student role (study, work,
recreate, go to class, attend football games).
b. Status inconsistency occurs when you have two or more statuses
that people perceive to be at odds with one another. Several
years ago, there was a television show about a brilliant 16-year-
old who became a physician. He experienced status inconsistency
because people found it difficult to treat a 16-year-old with the
respect that a physician is accorded in our society.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 134mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 134 4/9/13 1:17 PM4/9/13 1:17 PM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 135
c. Role conflict involves a conflict between the expectations of two
or more roles (or the behaviors expected of people who hold
two or more statuses). In the text, I used the example of the
juvenile court judge who was also a parent. She would experience
role conflict if her child were brought into court.
8.3 Your answers to this set of questions will vary depending on the
primary group you choose to analyze. To illustrate, I will analyze my
family as a primary group—as it was when I was in college.
a. This group included seven members: two parents and five
children. (I do not include my grandparents in my primary group
because they live pretty far away and we have never experienced
much “intimate, face-to-face association.”)
b. I am attached to this group simply because they are my family. I
don’t think I could escape them, even if I wanted to. (See part f.)
c. I choose to date this group from the time my oldest brother was
born—in 1948.
d. They expect a lot of me. I am supposed to be a “good
daughter”—which means that I show up for required family
events (parental birthdays, Christmas, Thanksgiving, Fourth of
July). If I can’t be there, I have to have a good excuse, and I must
phone. Once I got into trouble for not calling home on Labor
Day—my dad didn’t believe me when I later told him I didn’t
know that Labor Day was one of the family “biggies.” If something
bad happens to one of the members of the family, I am expected
to return home immediately to share in the somber moments.
Thus, when my father had a heart attack, I dropped out of school
for a quarter and came home. Being in a primary group isn’t
necessarily a full-time occupation, but it is like being “on call”
24 hours a day. If you are needed, you must show up.
e. When I was younger, the negative sanctions were pretty tangible:
“Because you did this, you can’t watch television tonight” or “I’m
taking the cost of that thing out of your allowance!” By the time
I got to college, the negative sanctions were less tangible but still
painful: “What do you mean you are going skiing over Christmas?
Do you want your father to have another heart attack because he’s
disappointed in you?” (I hope that my mother never reads this
book; otherwise, I might experience some negative sanctions for
using her as a source of examples!)
f. There are very definite and rigid boundaries. No one can leave
this group unless he or she dies, and no one can enter this group
without being born into it or marrying into it.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 135mcI26873_ch08_121-135.indd 135 4/9/13 1:17 PM4/9/13 1:17 PM

Confirming Pages
136
SOCIETY AND SOCIAL
INSTITUTIONS
H ere’s a story I tell students in my introductory sociology class:
You’ve got about an hour before your sociology class begins and
that’s just enough time to pick up your scholarship check. So, you
mosey on down to the administration building and wait in line in
front of the comptroller’s office. The line moves slowly, but finally
it’s your turn. The fellow working behind the counter, John Smith,
tells you that your check hasn’t arrived. You mutter to yourself about
the inefficiency of bureaucracies as you leave the building. On your
way out, you encounter Sam Johnson, the president of the university.
Although you don’t really know him, he waves at you and you wave
back. He seems friendly enough, although you’ve heard many stories
to the contrary. You start back through the campus to the classroom
building. You pause for a moment to watch the college marching
band rehearsing for Saturday’s half-time show. Out of the corner of
your eye you notice one of the campus parking cops is giving a ticket
to a car parked illegally.
As you pass the Student Union, you check your watch and find
there’s enough time to get something to eat before class. You enter
the union and the Go-Team Café. A friend of yours, Bill Peters, makes
pizza in the café, and you say hello. After taking the biggest piece of
pizza you can find, you stand in line (again) to pay for it. The cashier
is a woman you know from your biology class, and you chat mind-
lessly with her as she gives you change from your five-dollar bill.
You eat your pizza as you walk to your sociology class, gobbling
the final bite as you enter the classroom. At the front of the room
is Lisa McIntyre, your instructor. She’s chatting with Mary Done,
her teaching assistant, and several of her students about last week’s
quiz. One of the students, you think her name is Sylvia, seems pretty
ticked off—she’s speaking loudly and gesturing. You assume she’s
9
mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 136mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 136 4/9/13 1:19 PM4/9/13 1:19 PM

Confirming Pages
Society and Social Institutions 137
mad about the grade she got on the quiz. Then you spot Michelle
and Aaron, your best friends in the class. The three of you always
sit together in the back row. You settle in for class. McIntyre starts
talking about statuses and roles, and although you should be taking
notes, your mind wanders as you think about calling your parents
and asking them for money to tide you over until your check arrives.
Twenty-five years later: Your daughter, Elizabeth, has about an
hour before her sociology class begins. That’s just enough time to
pick up her scholarship check, so she takes herself on down to the
administration building to wait in line in front of the comptrol-
ler’s office. The line moves slowly, but finally it’s her turn. The
fellow working behind the counter, John Williams, tells her that
her check hasn’t arrived. She mutters to herself about the ineffi-
ciency of bureaucracy. On the way out of the building, she encoun-
ters Lisa McIntyre, the president of the university. Although she
doesn’t know McIntyre, your daughter waves back when McIntyre
waves to her. McIntyre seems friendly enough, but Elizabeth has
heard some stories! Elizabeth starts back through campus to the
classroom building, and pauses for a moment to watch the col-
lege marching band rehearsing for Saturday’s half-time show. She
notices that one of the campus parking cops is giving a ticket to an
illegally parked car.
As Elizabeth passes the Student Union, she checks her watch and
figures she’s got enough time to grab something to eat before class.
She walks over to the student café, chats with Maryanne, the pizza
maker, and picks out the biggest piece. Her pal, Andy, is working
the cash register and gives her change from her hundred-dollar bill.
Elizabeth eats her pizza as she walks over to the classroom building.
When she enters the room, she notices the instructor, Mary Done,
chatting with her teaching assistant and some of the students. One
of the students, Elizabeth thinks his name is André, is speaking
loudly and gesturing. Elizabeth assumes André is probably upset
with the grade he got on last week’s quiz. Elizabeth spots Craig and
Kyoung-Joo, her best friends in the class. They always sit together in
the back of the room. As Professor Done starts talking about statuses
and roles, your daughter’s mind wanders as she thinks about calling
you and asking for money to tide her over until her check arrives.
That night, as Elizabeth describes her day to you over her IV
(interactive video), you reflect that things haven’t changed much.
There’s a new president, new financial-aid officers, new campus
cops, new cooks in the café, and new professors. But things are pretty
much the same.
Amazing, isn’t it? The entire population of the university has
changed: new administrators and police; new faculty, staff, teaching
assistants, students, new everything, except things are pretty much the
same.
Things are pretty much the same because organizations like
your college are more than just groups of people, they are social
structures.
mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 137mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 137 4/9/13 1:19 PM4/9/13 1:19 PM

Confirming Pages
138 CHAPTER 9 SOCIETY AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Sociologists understand that much of the enduring and repeti-
tive nature of social life has to do with the fact that the statuses
(positions in a group) and roles (the scripts that spell out the
rights and duties of people in particular statuses) are enduring
and repetitive. In this chapter we will examine why statuses and
roles tend to be enduring and repetitive. More specifically, we will
examine the nature of social institutions —phenomena that account
for much of the fact that social structures tend to be enduring and
repetitive.
Before we get to the idea of social institutions, however, we
need first to consider the concept of society, because institutions
start with society.
Society came into the English language from socius —the Latin
word for fellowship or companion. The term society has a vari-
ety of uses in everyday language—sometimes people refer to the
upper classes as high society; frequently, groups of people with
similar interests join together as members of societies. (Spend-
ing even a minute on the Internet will demonstrate the incred-
ible variety of these groups—National Multiple Sclerosis Society,
Society for American Baseball Research, Society for Creative
Anachronism, and even the International Ghost Hunters Society.)
When sociologists use the term society, however, generally it is
to refer to the totality of people and social relations in a given geographic
space. These days, societies tend to be coextensive with (i.e., hav-
ing the same boundaries as) nation-states. Thus, for example, we
speak of United States society or Canadian society. The defin-
ing characteristic of society—that is, the thing that distinguishes
a society from any smaller group—is self-sufficiency. No group,
no matter how large, qualifies as a society unless it provides the
resources to answer all of its members’ basic needs.
Sociologist Talcott Parsons explained the self-sufficiency crite-
rion this way:
Self-sufficiency by no means requires that all the role-involvements
of members be carried on within the society. However, a society does
have to provide a repertoire of [opportunities] sufficient for individu-
als to meet their fundamental personal exigencies [needs or require-
ments] at all stages of the life cycle without going outside the society,
and for the society itself to meet its own exigencies. (1966, 17)
Again, what Parsons meant was that for a group to be called a soci-
ety, the group’s resources must be comprehensive enough to meet
all the basic needs of its members (food, clothing, housing, and
so forth). But Parsons suggests something else: Self-sufficiency
also means that the society must have enough resources to meet
its own survival needs (social control, defense, membership
replacement, etc.). This requirement, Parsons notes, means that a
mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 138mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 138 4/9/13 1:19 PM4/9/13 1:19 PM

Confirming Pages
Societal Needs 139
celibate group of monks cannot be considered a society, “because
it cannot recruit new members by birth without violating its fun-
damental norms.”
Societal Needs
No matter how different their peoples and cultures, all societies
(big and small) must be self-sufficient. What this means exactly
bears some thinking about. What do societies need to survive?
Here’s a short list of societal needs:
Have a continuing supply of new members.
Socialize new members.
Deal with members’ sickness and health issues.
Select members for certain jobs and tasks.
Create knowledge.
Control its members.
Defend against its enemies.
Produce and exchange goods and services.
Promote social unity and the search for higher meanings.
How does a society meet these needs? The short answer is through
social institutions. In chapter 7, I defined an institution as a rec-
ognized solution to a societal problem. Here is a more detailed
definition: An institution is an accepted and persistent constellation
of statuses, roles, values, and norms that respond to important societal
needs.
Consider the societal problem of membership replacement.
How is that problem solved? In large part, this societal problem
is solved through the institution of the family. As I illustrate in
table 9.1 , the family is an accepted and persistent constellation of
statuses, roles, values, and norms that together respond to soci-
ety’s need to replace its members.
Here is an important point: The institution of the family
described in table 9.1 is not the best type of family nor even the
normal or average type of family in our society. But the table does
represent what Max Weber would call the ideal-type family (the
term ideal type was introduced in chapter 8). Although it may well
be true that only a statistical minority of families exactly resemble
the ideal-type family, the idea that families ought to follow the
institutionalized pattern is widely accepted. Because of this, mem-
bers of real-life families that depart from the ideal type may be
subject to informal negative sanctions from others. For example,
mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 139mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 139 4/9/13 1:19 PM4/9/13 1:19 PM

Confirming Pages
140 CHAPTER 9 SOCIETY AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS
people who attempt to raise children without marrying will
encounter both informal and formal negative sanctions (from
raised eyebrows to problems with insurance companies);
husbands and wives may feel a sense of shame, and children from
families with single or divorced parents may be pitied as being
from broken homes.
9.1 Describe the difference between a social structure and a social
institution.
As shown in table 9.2 , we can deduce a list of social institutions
from the list of basic societal problems. Figure  9.1 shows how

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
Table 9.1 The Family as an Institution
Statuses Mother, father, son, daughter.
Role expectations Wives and husbands must be sexually faithful to one
another.
Parents protect, instruct, and nourish children.
Children obey their parents, go to school, and do their
chores.
Values “All for one, and one for all.” “Blood is thicker than
water.”
Norms Help one another. Don’t rat on family members.
Parents treat children equally. Children treat parents
with respect.
Table 9.2 Basic Societal Needs and Social Institutions
Societal Needs Social Institutions
Have a continuing supply of new members Family
Socialize new members Family, education, religion
Deal with members’ sickness and health issues Medicine
Select members for certain jobs and tasks Education, labor market
Create knowledge Science, religion
Control its members Law enforcement, judicial
system, religion
Defend against its enemies Government, military
Produce and exchange goods and services Economic system
Promote social unity and search for
higher meanings
Education, religion,
politics
mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 140mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 140 4/9/13 1:19 PM4/9/13 1:19 PM

Confirming Pages
Societal Needs 141
different statuses, roles, values, norms, and related social struc-
tures make up some of the basic institutions of society.
9.2 Using figure 9.1 as a guide, complete the following chart to de-
scribe some of the statuses, roles, values, and norms that are involved
in the social institutions of the military, education, and health care. Then
indicate some social structures (e.g., groups or organizations) that bring
each of these institutions to life.
Family
Social Institution
Institutionalized
Statuses
Institutionalized
Roles
Institutionalized
Values
Institutionalized
Norms
Examples of
Social Structures
Religion
Economy
Grandparent,
mother, father,
daughter, son,
other kin
Support family,
do chores
“Blood is thicker
than water”
Don’t speak of
“private” family
stuff to outsiders,
“leave your
brother alone!”
My family, your
family
Rabbi, cantor,
priest, shaman,
disciple,
worshiper
Teach about the
sacred, worship
the sacred
Respect the sacred
and those who
represent the
sacred
Attend services,
follow the holy
teachings, “thou
shalt not . . .”
Synagogues,
temples,
churches, prayer
groups
Stockholder,
employer,
employee,
customer,
creditor, debtor
Produce goods,
supervise
employees, get
the job done
Profit is good; the
customer is always
right; caveat
emptor (let the
buyer beware)
General Motors,
Bank of America,
Consumer Credit
Counseling
Equal pay for
equal work,
40-hour
work week
Law
Politics
Science
Police officer,
notary, attorney,
judge, citizen
Enforce the law,
resolve disputes,
punish
lawbreakers
Innocent until
proved guilty;
equality before
the law
Tell the truth
under oath, obey
the law
Law firms, courts,
police
departments
Citizen, voter,
elected and
appointed official,
lobbyist
Obey the law,
vote, run society,
look out for
constituency’s
needs
One person, one
vote; the will of
the majority
prevails
Do not stuff the
ballot box, do not
accept bribes
Democratic party,
Republican party,
political action
committees
Scientist,
researcher,
administrator,
journal editor
Seek and publish
knowledge
Do objective and
unbiased research,
disseminate
findings
Universities and
colleges, American
Sociological
Association,
scientific journals
Do not steal
others’ ideas, do
not “fudge” your
data
Figure 9.1 Examples of Institutional Constellations of Statuses, Roles, Values, Norms, and Related Social
Structures

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 141mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 141 4/9/13 1:19 PM4/9/13 1:19 PM

Confirming Pages
142 CHAPTER 9 SOCIETY AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS
The Nature of Social Institutions
In addition to the fact that they respond to societal needs, institu-
tions have other attributes in common:
1. Institutions are generally unplanned; they develop
gradually.
2. Institutions are inherently conservative; they change, but
slowly.
3. A particular society’s institutions are interdependent;
because of this, change in one institution tends to bring
about change in others.
4. The statuses, roles, values, and norms associated with an
institution in one society frequently bear little resemblance
to those in another society.
Let’s take a closer look at each of these attributes.
INSTITUTIONS ARE GENERALLY UNPLANNED;
THEY DEVELOP GRADUALLY
How do institutions come into being? The short answer is this:
Faced with a particular problem, people try a variety of things
to solve their needs. Some of these work better than others. The
“best” way becomes a pattern for subsequent generations to follow.
I use the term best not to suggest the most efficient or even
the most effective way. Institutions are constellations of statuses,
Military
Social Institution
Institutionalized
Statuses
Institutionalized
Roles
Institutionalized
Values
Institutionalized
Norms
Examples of
Social Structures
Education
Health care
mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 142mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 142 4/9/13 1:19 PM4/9/13 1:19 PM

Confirming Pages
The Nature of Social Institutions 143
roles, values, and norms. So, how a society solves its problems
must fit with its existing social values and norms. For example,
social control is a problem that all societies must solve. Perhaps
the most effective and efficient method of social control would be
to just execute everyone who violated a norm. But we don’t do
this because it goes against our values.
How Institutions Begin: A Hypothetical Example
A woman and a man are stranded on opposite ends of the same des-
ert island. Finally, they happen to meet. Realizing that their chances
of survival would be enhanced if they joined forces, they unite to
form a group. As the days pass, they fall into a number of routines
for everyday activities. Perhaps the man begins his day by chopping
wood, and the woman makes the fire. Then the man spends the bulk
of his mornings cooking and weaving grasses into useful domestic
items, while the woman (who has a restless nature) explores the
island and checks the tide pools for fish and other edibles. These
routines quickly become habits and, in time, each morning begins as
the one before without any great deliberation on the part of either the
woman or the man. Occasional disruptions occur in their routines—
one morning the man burns his fingers as he cooks the fish, so rather
than weaving that day, he joins the woman on her inspection of the
tide pools. But as soon as he heals, he returns to his usual routine.
Over time, then, the behavior of these two people has become
habitualized. This habitualization would come as no surprise to a
sociological observer. In their analysis of human interaction, soci-
ologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann explained the trans-
formation of behavior into routine this way:
All human activity is subject to habitualization. Any action that
is repeated frequently becomes cast into a pattern, which can then
be reproduced with an economy of effort and which, ipso facto, 1
is . . . [seen] by its performer as that pattern. Habitualization further
implies that the action in question may be performed again in the
future in the same manner and with the same economical effort. This
is true of non-social as well as social activity. Even the solitary indi-
vidual on the proverbial desert island habitualizes his activity. When
he wakes up in the morning and resumes his attempts to construct
a canoe out of match sticks, he may mumble to himself, “There I go
again,” as he starts on step one of an operating procedure consisting
of, say, ten steps. In other words, even solitary man has at least the
company of his operating procedures. (1967, 53)
Berger and Luckmann explained that following routines provides
benefits to people: Routines free up mental space for thinking
about more important things. (For example, each time I sit down
to eat a bowl of Jell-O, the fact that I need not think anew about
1Ipso facto is a Latin phrase meaning “by that very fact.”
mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 143mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 143 4/9/13 1:19 PM4/9/13 1:19 PM

Confirming Pages
144 CHAPTER 9 SOCIETY AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS
how to eat the stuff allows me time to ponder the lecture I’m
going to give after lunch.)
Not all routines are institutions. Routine behavior is the way
we do it, but institutionalized behavior is the way it must be done.
Why this is so is complicated but important: Our original
islanders developed a routine that dictated that the man chops
the wood and the woman builds the fire, that the man weaves
and the woman fishes. They taught these routines to their chil-
dren, and their children will teach them to their children. Ini-
tially, these routines need no explanation—the routines have
been established, and following a routine makes life easier. The
first generation of children and grandchildren knew how these
routines came about (that the first woman was the restless sort
and needed to walk around the island every day, while the man
liked the intricacy of weaving). But among later generations,
there may well be a child who asks “why must we do things this
way?” His or her parents, who long ago accepted and became
comfortable with the established routines (finding them effec-
tive, safe, and easy), may sense that the child needs to hear more
than just “because that’s the way we do things.” Because the
parents are invested in keeping disruption to a minimum and
want the child to accept their routines, they are likely to answer
in terms of the logic of doing things a particular way as well as
the rightness of it.
Anthropologist Mary Douglas explained that institutions sur-
vive only if their rightness can be explained as both reasonable/
logical and natural (1986, 53). Children’s questions about why
women fish and men weave, then, are not likely to be responded
to with explanations about their great-great-great-grandparents’
preferences. Indeed, the original reason for the routine may
have been forgotten by then. Instead, children will be told that
(1) it is reasonable to have a division of labor between men and
women, and (2) the way labor is divided has to do with the fact
that women, as child-bearers, have a God-given talent for dealing
with nature (including fire), whereas men do not.
9.3 Describe the difference between behavior that is habitualized and
behavior that is institutionalized.
INSTITUTIONS ARE INHERENTLY CONSERVATIVE;
THEY CHANGE, BUT SLOWLY
The fact that institutions are legitimized by both logic and appeals
to the nature of things makes them difficult to change, because any
attempt at change seems to be an attack on nature as well as logic.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 144mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 144 4/9/13 1:19 PM4/9/13 1:19 PM

Confirming Pages
The Nature of Social Institutions 145
Consider the institution of the family in our own society.
In recent times this institution has faced many challenges—
gays and lesbians, for example, have called on the legal sys-
tem to grant them many of the rights that until now have been
accorded only to heterosexual partners. The obstacles faced by
same-sex partners who wish to marry are great because their
adversaries will call on both reason and nature to justify their
opposition.
People who oppose same-sex marriage claim that it is not rea-
sonable (logical) to grant legal rights to same-sex partnerships
because such unions are not recognized as valid by law. Mar-
riages exist to facilitate the reproduction of members ( children),
and it takes a man and a woman to produce children. In case
that logic is not persuasive (as it might not be to someone who
points out that many gay men and lesbian women are parents
and that many heterosexual couples choose not to have chil-
dren), opponents respond by appealing to the belief that such
homosexual unions are immoral by their very nature either
because they are against God’s law or because they are contrary
to nature.
Not surprisingly, then, when the issue of same-sex marriage
first came before the courts in Minnesota (in 1971), that state’s
supreme court ruled that the law prohibiting same-sex mar-
riage is based in both legal statutes and, or so the court implied,
God’s will:
[The Minnesota statute] which governs “marriage” employs that
term as one of the common usage, meaning the state of union
between persons of the opposite sex. It is unrealistic to think that the
original draftsmen of our marriage statutes, which date from ter-
ritorial days, would have used the term in any different sense. The
term has contemporary significance as well, for the present statute
is replete with words of heterosexual import as “husband and wife”
and “bride and groom.” We hold, therefore, that [the Minnesota stat-
ute] does not authorize marriage between persons of the same sex
and that such marriages are accordingly prohibited. . . .
The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman,
uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within
a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. . . . This historic institution
manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary
concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners
[the two men who sued to get the state to allow them to marry]
contend. . . .
Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual
married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or
declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that
this court must read such conditions into the statute if same-sex
marriages are to be prohibited. . . . We are reminded that “abstract
mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 145mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 145 4/9/13 1:19 PM4/9/13 1:19 PM

Confirming Pages
146 CHAPTER 9 SOCIETY AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS
symmetry” is not demanded by [the Constitution]. (Baker v. Nelson
291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W. 2d 185 [1971]).
Two decades after the Minnesota Supreme Court attempted
to lay to rest the issue of same-sex marriage, it came up again.
In 1991, three same-sex couples in Hawaii sued the state depart-
ment of licensing, which had denied them the right to marry their
same-sex partners. The trial court dismissed their case because,
according to the judge, homosexual marriage was not a funda-
mental right under the state constitution. The couples appealed
that decision to the Hawaii Supreme Court, which ruled that the
denial of marriage licenses was unconstitutional unless that state
could justify the ban. In 1996, the case was back before a trial
court, and that court ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage was
unconstitutional. The voters of the state responded by passing an
amendment to their constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage.
The possibility that same-sex marriages might be legalized
sent shock waves through the United States. By law and custom,
marriages granted in one state had been given “full faith and
credit” in other states. Before the Hawaii court ruled, the Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA) was introduced into and subsequently
passed in the U.S. Congress: For purposes of federal law, the
DOMA stipulated, marriage was defined as the union of a man
and a woman. The act also said that same-sex marriages con-
tracted in one state need not be recognized by other states.
The controversy, of course, continues. As of this writing, only
ten U.S. states recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions which
extend the same rights and duties to gay couples as to other mar-
ried couples. (The District of Columbia does not recognize the
validity of same-sex marriages performed in the District, but it
does recognize same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere.)
In each case, the steps toward changing the legal definition of
family have met with spirited opposition. After Massachusetts
legalized same-sex marriage in 2004, for example, James Dobson,
psychologist and founder of Focus on the Family, a nonprofit
organization, claimed that Massachusetts was granting “death
certificates for the institution of marriage” (Badgett 2004).
On the other hand, in the past fifteen years, Canada, Mexico,
and South Africa, as well as eighteen European countries, have
come to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages.
Given the “globalization” of the social world, some propo-
nents of same-sex marriage are suggesting that the changes in
other countries’ laws may have an impact on the institution of
marriage and family in the United States.
How this trend will play out in countries that have not yet recognized
same-sex relationships is still up in the air. Will the United States, for
Recent research
suggests that
“same-sex couples
constitute 1 percent
of coupled households
and 0.6 percent of
all households in
the United States.”
Twenty percent of
same-sex couples
are raising children
under the age of 18.
Nearly one in ten
(9.7 percent) of
people involved in
same-sex marriages
are military veterans
(Romero, et al. 2007).
mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 146mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 146 4/9/13 1:19 PM4/9/13 1:19 PM

Confirming Pages
The Nature of Social Institutions 147
instance, accommodate a major corporation’s desire to have one of
its top executives from Canada move here with her legal spouse? Or
a domestic-partnered diplomat from New Zealand? Or an American
lucky enough to find the man of his dreams while working in South
Africa? Will Sir Elton John’s highly publicized civil union with long-
time partner David Furnish be recognized by a hospital emergency
room in Las Vegas or St. Louis or Salt Lake City should one of them
fall ill on a concert tour? (Ettelbrick 2006)
A PARTICULAR SOCIETY’S INSTITUTIONS ARE
INTERDEPENDENT; BECAUSE OF THIS, CHANGE IN
ONE INSTITUTION TENDS TO BRING ABOUT CHANGE
IN OTHERS
Although institutions are inherently conservative, change does
occur. Technological and economic changes, or even wars, for
example, can require people to disrupt their routines and ulti-
mately can cause institutional change. Once it was conventional
wisdom that women—at least middle-class white women—
should stay in the home and care for the children and household.
In 1900, only about 5 percent of married women worked outside
of the home. As a result of World War II, things started to change.
Millions of men enlisted (or were drafted) into the military ser-
vice, and this left U.S. factories literally unmanned just when they
were gearing up to provide the goods that the country needed to
wage war. Women stepped in to take men’s places. When men
returned to civilian life after the war, women were forced to leave
the well-paying factory jobs. But the wartime experience proved
that women could work outside of the home and that society
would not collapse as a result. So, in the 1950s women began to
respond to the needs of an expanding economy for more workers
by taking jobs.
Today the evidence suggests that most married couples find
it nearly impossible to survive financially unless both wife and
husband work outside of the home. Indeed today, fewer than one
quarter of families in the United States follow the model of the
male being the only earner. This has led to changes in the kinds
of child-care arrangements that parents must make, a (slight)
increase in the amount of work that married men do around the
home, increased pressure (including legal pressure) on employ-
ers to open occupations to women that were traditionally filled
by men, and pressure on the educational system to provide after-
school programs for students. In addition, women’s increased
participation in the labor force has led to many legal changes—
equal opportunity laws and laws prohibiting sexual harassment
in the workplace.
mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 147mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 147 4/9/13 1:19 PM4/9/13 1:19 PM

Confirming Pages
148 CHAPTER 9 SOCIETY AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS
9.4 Suppose that our economy became almost totally reliant on
computers, nearly all goods and services were manufactured by robots,
and most people did their jobs from home. Over time, what impact on
other social institutions might these changes in the institution of the
economy have on other social institutions—for example,
on the institutions of education, family, or even religion?
THE STATUSES, ROLES, VALUES, AND NORMS
ASSOCIATED WITH AN INSTITUTION IN ONE SOCIETY
FREQUENTLY BEAR LITTLE RESEMBLANCE TO THOSE
IN ANOTHER SOCIETY
All societies have similar needs, but the ways in which they insti-
tutionalize their responses to these needs can vary a great deal.
For example, the institutional response to the need to distribute
political authority (i.e., government) may be organized as a mon-
archy (rule by king or queen), aristocracy (rule by the best few),
tyranny (rule by an absolute or oppressive leader), theocracy (rule
by God or God’s representatives), or representative democracy (rule
by representatives of the people).
Likewise, a society’s response to the search for higher mean-
ing or understanding of the sacred takes a variety of institutional-
ized forms: the idea that a life force exists in all living beings and
that people ought to live in harmony with the rest of the natural
world— animism (as practiced by some American Indian tribes);
or the belief in a single supernatural sacred being— monotheism
(as in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam); or the belief in many
gods— polytheism (as in the Hindu religion).
In most of Western society, a family begins with monogamous
marriage—that is, a marriage in which there is one wife and one
husband. 2 In other societies some form of polygamous marriage
serves as the foundation of family life: either polygyny (several
wives with one husband) or, much less frequently, polyandry (one
wife, several husbands). And it is not just the forms of marriage
that may differ; the values and norms that are the foundations of
those forms can vary as well. In our society, people believe that
the normal progression is to fall in love and then marry. In other
societies, things proceed in the opposite direction. For example,
in India most marriages are arranged by the parents of the bride
and groom. Love is expected to be a result of marriage (Sprecher
and Chandak 1992).

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
2It is frequently observed that in the United States, the institution of serial
monogamy is practiced—that is, a monogamous marriage, followed by divorce,
followed by another monogamous marriage, and so on.
mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 148mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 148 4/9/13 1:19 PM4/9/13 1:19 PM

Confirming Pages
Social Change: The Trend Toward Increasing Specialization 149
Social Change: The Trend Toward
Increasing Specialization
Sociologists have found that as a society grows in size and com-
plexity, its institutions tend to become more specialized. One
illustration of this tendency is the fact that, in Western society, the
role of the family used to be much broader than it is today. Prior
to industrialization, the family had responsibility not only for
nurturing children but also for seeing to both their secular (nonre-
ligious) and nonsecular (religious) training. Moreover, the family
was the basic economic unit in society; people in families worked
together in their farms, shops, or trades.
Similarly, the Church’s role has become much more specialized
in the West. A few hundred years ago, the leaders of the Catholic
Church in Europe, for example, had control of such things as
taxation and legal disputes. The Church even had its own armies
and courts of law.
It’s important to understand the idea of institutions—the sta-
tuses, roles, values, and norms that are organized responses to
important societal needs. Understanding institutions is impor-
tant because much of what people do—how they fall in love,
make transactions in the marketplace, respond to lawbreak-
ers, and even how they worship—is in large part in response to
institutions.
Institutions are established and accepted routines; their exis-
tence means that members of each generation need not continu-
ally find new solutions to society’s needs; but by that very fact
institutions also limit people’s choices.
Polygamy and Monogamy
In the 1950s, anthropologist George Murdock (1897–1985) exam-
ined 554 societies and found that most societies allowed polyga-
mous marriages. Here are his results:
415 polygyny
135 monogamy
4 polyandry
Even where polygamous marriages are permitted, in practice
monogamy prevails because having multiple spouses tends to be
more costly than having a single spouse. Morever, in most soci-
eties it seems that the ratio of women to men is such that there
aren’t enough members of either sex available for many people
to have multiple partners. (1957, 59, 664–697)
mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 149mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 149 4/9/13 1:19 PM4/9/13 1:19 PM

Confirming Pages
150 CHAPTER 9 SOCIETY AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Chapter Review
1. Below I have listed the major concepts discussed in this chap-
ter. Define each of the terms. ( Hint: This exercise will be more
helpful to you if, in addition to defining each concept, you
create an example of it in your own words.)
society (defined)
self-sufficiency (as defining attribute of society)
social institution
ideal type
habitualized action
attributes of social institutions
mentioned in passing:
aristocracy
monarchy
tyranny
theocracy
representative democracy
animism
monotheism
polytheism
polygyny
monogamy
polyandry
serial monogamy
2. At the beginning of this chapter, I asserted that the values on
which particular institutions are based must fit with the values
of the larger society. Test this assertion: Look back to chapter 7 to
the box titled “What Do Americans Value?” Then pick two social
institutions described in this chapter. How good is the fit between
the values of that institution and the values of the larger society?
3. Sociologists have found that as societies grow in size and com-
plexity, institutions become more specialized. That same growth
in size and complexity may give rise to new institutions. Some
sociologists have argued that one of the new institutions in
society is the media. Do you agree that the media qualify as an
institution? Explain why or why not. ( Hint: Remember that for
something to qualify as a social institution, it must respond to a
basic societal need, have institutionalized statuses, roles, values, and
norms, and manifest itself in some sort of social structure. )
Answers and Discussion
9.1 A social structure always exists as some form of group—a particular
family, business, platoon, or even society. An institution is a set of

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 150mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 150 4/9/13 1:19 PM4/9/13 1:19 PM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 151
ideas or beliefs about how social structures ought to be organized. Thus,
my family is a social structure, but the family as an institution is made up of
ideas about how the statuses, roles, values, and norms of specific families
ought to be organized.
9.2

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
Military
Social Institution
Institutionalized
Statuses
Institutionalized
Roles
Institutionalized
Values
Institutionalized
Norms
Examples of
Social Structures
Education
Health care
Commander in
chief, general,
sergeant,
private
Give and obey
orders, kill the
enemy
Duty, honor,
country
Obey orders!
Army, navy,
marines,
air force
School board
member,
principal, teacher,
professor, student
Administrate,
teach, learn
All children should
be treated equally,
learning is a
lifelong process,
academic integrity
Prepare for class,
do homework,
have school spirit
Preschool,
elementary school,
high school,
university
Physician, nurse,
medical researcher,
patient
“First, do no harm,”
cure patients,
discover new
medicines
Give best medical
care possible
regardless of
patient’s status
Clinics, hospitals,
drug stores,
American Medical
Association
Be careful, follow
physician’s advice,
pay medical bills
9.3 Habitualized behavior includes any routine that you follow because
that’s the way you like to do things—that is, it’s your personal preference.
For example, it’s my routine to put on both socks before I put on either
shoe; other people routinely put on one sock and then one shoe, then
the other sock and shoe. Institutionalized behaviors are also routines, but
institutionalized routines are ones that we believe we ought to follow. For
example, I routinely prepare my lectures before class because I believe I
ought to carry out my role of professor competently.
9.4 How you answer this depends on how good an imagination you have.
One thing I am sure of, however, is that such a radical change in a single
institution would bring about changes in others. For example, people might
begin to accept “virtual interaction”—not just in the economic arena but
in a variety of situations. Virtual education and perhaps even virtual religion
might become commonplace. But if all this virtual interaction did become
commonplace, and if people worked, learned, and even worshiped from
home—it would undoubtedly have an effect on how parents and their
children interact as a family. People might come to value their privacy more
than ever and build more “walls” around themselves at home. Thus, ironi-
cally, doing everything at home might lead to members of the same family
spending even less quality time together. On the other hand, spending so
much time at home might drive people out of their homes during their free
time and result in a refocusing on community life.
mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 151mcI26873_ch09_136-151.indd 151 4/9/13 1:19 PM4/9/13 1:19 PM

Confirming Pages
152
SOCIALIZATION
A never-ending problem for every society is that people die. If a society is to survive, it must constantly replenish its
membership rolls. Fortunately, humans seem to have a built-in
proclivity for reproducing themselves. But the simple biological
production of new members does not entirely resolve a society’s
problem. The society must have new members who are capable of
functioning effectively within existing social structures. In other
words, a society needs people who can fill positions within the
social structure (statuses) and carry out the behaviors expected
(roles) of status incumbents.
Sociologists refer to the process by which society molds its
members into properly social beings as socialization. More specifi-
cally, socialization is the process by which people acquire cultural com-
petency and through which society perpetuates the fundamental nature
of existing social structures. Although the socialization process is
most intense for young people, it is a lifelong process.
Nature and Nurture:
Biological and Social Processes
To say that infants are not yet social beings is not to say that they
are not human. Of course, babies are human. And, of course,
heredity plays a definite role in who a baby grows up to be. The
color of the skin, eyes, and hair; the adult height and weight;
perhaps even the sexual orientation as an adult—all depend pri-
marily on the baby’s genetic and biological nature.
But the personal attributes that sociologists deem most
important in an adult—that is, the social self, or the values, beliefs,
10
mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 152mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 152 19/04/13 3:56 AM19/04/13 3:56 AM

Confirming Pages
Nature and Nurture: Biological and Social Processes 153
ideas, and decision-making strategies, and the general way in which
people live their lives —are best explained by social rather than
biological factors.
The importance of social factors in the development of
humans is illustrated by stories of children raised outside a real
social environment. “Anna” was a child born out of wedlock,
the second such child to be born to her mother. Anna spent the
first six years of her life locked in an attic-like second-floor room
because her mother did not wish to incur her father’s wrath by
bringing Anna downstairs. Though she was fed, she was not
otherwise nurtured—never really cuddled or talked to. When
Anna was rescued at the age of 6, she could not do any of the
things we expect of 6-year-old children: She “could not talk,
walk, or do anything that showed intelligence” (Davis 1940,
119). Anna died about four years later. During her four years
in the social world, she had progressed only to the level of a
2½-year-old child.
“Isabelle” fared better. Like Anna, Isabelle was born to an
unmarried mother and was kept in seclusion, away from most
human interaction. When she was rescued at the age of 6½, she
responded to people as a wild animal might. But within a cou-
ple of years, Isabelle had managed to catch up with members of
her age group (Davis 1940). Why did Isabelle make more prog-
ress than Anna? One answer might be that Isabelle had better
teachers. But there was another difference: Isabelle had never
been cut off from human contact to the same degree that Anna
had been. Isabelle was nurtured by her mother, and this early
socialization seems to have made a difference—even though
Isabelle’s mother was a deaf-mute who communicated with
Isabelle with gestures. 1
It might be suggested that the real cause of Isabelle’s and
Anna’s deficiencies was not a lack of social contact but rather
physical factors such as malnutrition. Certainly, Isabelle suffered
the effects of a poor diet when she was found to have a severe
case of rickets. 2
But other research suggests that taking good care of an
infant’s physical needs is not enough to produce a healthy child.
1 A more recent case of a child raised in extreme isolation (that of “Genie”) is dis-
cussed in a book by Susan Curtiss (1997).
2 Rickets is a children’s disease caused by a lack of vitamin D and, especially, inade-
quate exposure to sunlight. Rickets is common in the tropics, due to the swaddling of
infants and the confinement of women and children to the home. It causes dysplasia
(an abnormal development) of the growing child’s bones and can result in spinal defor-
mity and distortion of the skull. In extreme cases, the child may grow up to be knock-
kneed or bowlegged. The term rickets, or rhachitis (a synonym), comes from a Greek
word meaning “disease of the spine.” In adults, the same condition is called osteomalacia
(Greek, osteo [bones] plus malacia [softness]) (Berkow 1987, 925).
mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 153mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 153 19/04/13 3:56 AM19/04/13 3:56 AM

Confirming Pages
154 CHAPTER 10 SOCIALIZATION
Psychologist René Spitz (1945) compared the progress of infants
in two different settings. The first was a nursery that had been
established for babies born to women in a prison; the second
was a “foundling” home (orphanage). The children in both
settings were clean, well fed, and attended to by health-care
professionals. The only real difference between the two environ-
ments was the amount of social interaction experienced by the
children. In the prison nursery the infants were cared for mostly
by their own mothers. In the foundling home six nurses cared
for about forty-five infants. The outcome was that the children
in the foundling home did not do nearly as well. Here’s part of
Spitz’s report:
In the ward of the children ranging from 18 months to 2½ years, only
two of the 26 children could speak a couple of words. The same two
are able to walk. A third child is beginning to walk. Hardly any of
them can eat alone. Cleanliness habits have not been acquired and all
are incontinent [not toilet trained].
Spitz and his colleagues found a group of younger children (8 to
12 months) in the prison nursery to be an amazing contrast:
The problem here is not whether the children walk or talk by the
end of the first year; the problem with these 10-month-olds is how to
tame the healthy toddlers’ curiosity and enterprise. They climb up
the bars of the cots after the manner of South Sea Islanders climbing
palms. . . . They vocalize freely and some of them actually speak a
word or two. All of them understand the significance of simple social
gestures. When released from their cots, all walk with support and a
number walk without it. (60)
Sociologists thus believe that without social interaction,
humans find it difficult to survive. Without social interaction,
humans cannot develop a social self, that relatively organized com-
plex of attitudes, beliefs, values, and behaviors associated with an
individual.
How Socialization Works
How does society socialize its members? How do people acquire
cultural competency? As far as sociologists are concerned,
socialization does not simply happen to people; socialization
is a dynamic process of give-and-take between people and oth-
ers in their environment. To say that socialization is a dynamic
process means that people do not receive their social selves
passively. Rather, individuals help to create their selves in the
socialization process.
According to one
of his biographers,
“Cooley’s life was
extremely uneventful.
He shunned
controversy and
contention; any sort
of conflict upset him
and cost him sleep”
(Coser 1971).
mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 154mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 154 19/04/13 3:56 AM19/04/13 3:56 AM

Confirming Pages
How Socialization Works 155
THE LOOKING-GLASS SELF: CHARLES HORTON COOLEY
Sociologist Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929) gave us a great
deal of insight into the socialization process. Cooley empha-
sized that the social self arises through interaction with others.
According to Cooley, based on our perception of how others
see us, we develop our reflected or looking-glass selves. (A look-
ing glass is a mirror.) He explained the dynamic of self-creation
this way:
As we see our face, figure, and dress in the glass [the mirror]
and are interested in them because they are ours, and pleased or
otherwise with them according as they do or do not answer to
what we should like them to be, so in imagination we perceive in
another’s mind some thought of our appearance, manner, aims,
deeds, character, friends, and so on, and are variously affected
by it. (1902, 152)
Cooley’s idea of the social self had three principal elements. First,
we imagine how we look to the other person; second, we imag-
ine that other person’s reaction to our appearance; third, we have
some self-feeling such as pride or shame.
Suppose it’s the first day of class. I walk up to the front of the
room and begin to talk. I look at my students; I imagine how I
must look to them; I imagine the result of their appraisal of me—
and I feel good or bad about myself, depending on what I think
they think of me.
Suppose I trip as I walk into the room. Here’s what’s going
on in my mind: “They saw me trip; they must think I am a total
clod”; I am embarrassed. But suppose, as is more typical, I enter
the room gracefully and spend the class period making some bril-
liant observations about the nature of society and the importance
of sociology. I look at my students and think, “They think I am
brilliant and fascinating”; I am proud.
Cooley argued that the social self is constructed as a result of
this reflective process. According to Cooley, we learn to use this
looking glass, and thus learn who our selves are, in the intimacy
of primary groups—especially the family. Recall (from chapter 8)
what Cooley said about these groups. Primary groups are
characterized by intimate face-to-face association and cooperation.
They are primary in several senses but chiefly in that they are fun-
damental in forming the social nature and ideals of individuals. The
result of intimate association, psychologically, is a certain fusion of
individualities in a common whole, so that one’s very self, for many
purposes at least, is the common life and purpose of the group. Per-
haps the simplest way of describing this wholeness is by saying that
it is a “we.” (1909, 117)
mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 155mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 155 19/04/13 3:56 AM19/04/13 3:56 AM

Confirming Pages
156 CHAPTER 10 SOCIALIZATION
Cooley believed that primary groups—family, friends, play
groups, work groups—were especially potent agents of social-
ization. It is in the primary group, he pointed out, that we learn
to read what other people are thinking and to discover what
happens when we adjust our behavior according to what they
are thinking. Cooley recalls observing his own daughter as she
developed her ability to use the looking-glass self:
In the case of M. I noticed as early as the
fourth month a “hurt” way of crying which
seemed to indicate a sense of personal
slight. It was quite different from the cry of
pain or that of anger, but seemed about the
same as the cry of fright. The slightest tone
of reproof would produce it. On the other
hand, if people took notice and laughed and
encouraged, she was hilarious. At about
fifteen months old she had become “a per-
fect little actress,” seeming to live largely in
imagination of her effect upon other people.
She constantly and obviously laid traps for
attention, and looked abashed or wept at
any signs of disapproval or indifference. At
times it would seem as if she could not get
over these repulses, but would cry long in
a grieved way, refusing to be comforted. If
she hit upon any little trick that made people
laugh she would be sure to repeat it, laughing
loudly and affectedly in imitation [of others’
laughter]. She had quite a repertory of these
small performances, which she would display to a sympathetic
audience, or even try upon strangers. I have seen her at sixteen
months, when [older brother] R. refused to give her the scissors, sit
down and make believe cry, putting up her under lip and snuffling,
meanwhile looking up now and then to see what effect she was
producing. (1902)
Children have strong motives to learn to use the looking-
glass technique well—because it assists them in the competi-
tion for affection from other members of the primary group. As
children age and interact with more and more persons, the self
begins to grow as a result of these interactions. To Cooley, the
child or person who lives in isolation from others is not fully
human. Only with social experience, he argued, do people
become truly human: “In these [primary groups] human nature
comes into existence. Man does not have it at birth; he cannot
acquire it except through fellowship, and it decays in isolation”
(Cooley).
Cooley said that society is made up of people’s
“imaginations” about one another: “Society is an
interweaving and interworking of mental selves.”
People must not only imagine what goes on in
the minds of others but take this into account in
their own behavior. This is not to say that Cooley
believed that people must conform to what others
think. But, said Cooley, people must take into
account and acknowledge what other people think
of them.
Here’s one of my favorite quotations from
Cooley. (My guess is that you will find the quote
easier to understand if you read it aloud to yourself.)
“I imagine your mind, and especially what your
mind thinks about my mind, and what your mind
thinks about what my mind thinks about your mind.
I dress my mind before yours and expect that you
will dress yours before mine. Whoever cannot or
will not perform these feats is not properly in the
game.” (1902)
mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 156mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 156 19/04/13 3:56 AM19/04/13 3:56 AM

Confirming Pages
How Socialization Works 157
THE “I” AND THE “ME”: GEORGE HERBERT MEAD
Sociologist George Herbert Mead’s (1863–1931) conception of the
socialization process was similar to Cooley’s but worked out in
more detail. Mead said that the self actually involves two phases:
the “Me” and the “I.” The Me is that part of the self that is based
on how one sees others as seeing oneself. The Me is what you see
when you put yourself into the shoes of another and look back at
yourself. (This is a tad complicated, so bear with me!) The I is the
part of you that is uniquely you—your personal reactions to the
situation.
The social self is a product of the ongoing interaction between
the Me and the I. Consider the following interaction:
1. I am in class. Some students in the back row are making a
lot of noise. (This strikes at the Me, which should be obeyed
because I am the professor!)
2. I want to yell at them! (That’s the I’s reaction to being “dissed.”)
3. But, I think, how will that make Me look? (The Me thinks
about how a particular behavior will be perceived by
onlookers.)
4. I am not going to yell at the noisy students because it will
seem as if I am out of control.
According to Mead, this sort of dialog between the Me and the I
is ongoing. The Me sees myself as an object, as others see me; the
I is my response to my perception of how I think others see me in
this situation.
Thus, my self is built up through the interaction of my I and
my Me—the interaction between my own impulses (the I) and
my understanding of other people’s reactions to those impulses
(the Me).
Here’s another example:
1. A test is coming up in sociology class. Student X wants to
do well because that’s what is expected. (The wanting to do
well is the Me’s response.)
2. The student decides he would likely do well if he cheats.
(That’s the I, the impulsive response to the demands of the
Me to get an A.)
3. The student says to himself, “But if I cheat, how would that
make me look?” (The Me reacts with disgust.)
4. The student says to himself, “I will study and get an A. Then
I will feel good about myself.”
After graduating
from Oberlin College,
George Herbert
Mead tried his hand
as a grade school
teacher—he lasted
about four months
before being fired. He
was more successful
with older students;
Mead taught at the
University of Chicago
for more than
35 years.
mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 157mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 157 19/04/13 3:56 AM19/04/13 3:56 AM

Confirming Pages
158 CHAPTER 10 SOCIALIZATION
Children are not born with the I and the Me. According to Mead,
these must be developed. Early on, children develop these parts
of their selves and the ability to use them through play and
games.
For Mead, play was an essential part of human development.
By play he meant simple imitative behaviors. The child plays at being
a police officer or astronaut by pretending to take on the role of
police officer or astronaut. Often the child will take on a variety
From: Stephanie Y.
Date: Tue Nov 7 2006 10:45 PM US/Pacific
To: Lisa J. McIntyre
Subject: Mead’s I and Me
The I and Me concepts are very confusing. Is it that the I is
who we are, and the Me is how others perceive us? The whole
thing is very difficult to grasp for me and everyone in my soc
class is confused.
From: Lisa J. McIntyre
Date: Wed Nov 8 2006 7:53 PM US/Pacific
To: Stephanie Y.
Subject: Mead’s I and Me
Stephanie: I am sorry you are having trouble with the I and
Me thing. Try this explanation: Mead would say that you
have both an I and a Me. The I is your impulse about what
to do in a particular situation; the Me represents your inter-
pretation of what other people will think of you if you fol-
low your impulse (i.e., if you do what the I tells you to do).
I: I want to eat that entire box of donuts!
Me: But that will make people think me a selfish pig.
I: Okay, I will eat six donuts.
Me: That will still make me look piggish.
I: Okay, I will have one donut now and then, when
no one is looking, I will eat the rest of the box.
Me: Good, then people will think me a reasonable eater.
Just don’t let anyone see me eat the rest of the box.
So, the I is impulsive—it articulates what you really desire.
But notice, too, that the I can learn from the Me. The Me
explains to the I how it will look if the I has its way. Gen-
erally, the I listens to the Me and you end up modifying
your behavior accordingly. So, the Me is not other people’s
expectations or opinions, but how you interpret those. The
Me learns what to expect by having social interactions with
others. This is why Mead concluded that one’s behavior is the
result of an on-going conversation between the I and the Me.
I hope this helps!
mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 158mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 158 19/04/13 3:56 AM19/04/13 3:56 AM

Confirming Pages
How Socialization Works 159
of roles in the same play period—both police officer and criminal,
both doctor and patient. As they play, children (1) begin to appre-
ciate the perspectives of other people and (2) build up a sense of them-
selves as something that other people look at and make judgments about.
I have this vivid memory of playing “church” with my siblings. On
the mantle in the living room was this enameled goblet. We would
take Necco wafers, a flat candy, and put them in the goblet. Then
I would stand in front of the altar/fireplace and distribute these
wafers to my brothers and sisters. In other words, I would assume
the role of priest and they would assume the role of churchgoers.
(Of course, unless they knelt in front of me, I would not give them a
piece of candy!)
Play is an important phase in children’s development—it is their
first exposure to taking on the roles of others and seeing them-
selves as others might see them. In other words, play is a first
step to constructing a Me. In playing the priest and administering
communion to my siblings, I got a chance to imagine how a priest
would see me when I went for communion.
In play, there are no official rules about how to carry out the
activity; the child makes it up as he or she goes along. On one
occasion, a child might use her toy truck to build roads in a pile of
dirt, on another occasion, she might use her truck to smash bugs.
How play is done is limited only by the child’s (or the children’s)
imagination.
Games are different. Games have rules and specific roles
(batter, pitcher, catcher, outfielder); the rules specify how the
person in each role participates. In Mead’s view, the roles and
the rules in games are “impersonal”—they apply no matter who
occupies the role.
To successfully participate in a game, one must not only know
what is expected but must have the discipline to take that into
account. Thus, a child who competes as part of a baseball team
always has a specific role and must be mature enough to play by
the rules.
Participating in games enhances children’s ability to do role-
taking —that is, to take on the role of another and see how things look
from his or her point of view. As the child begins more and more to be
able to take on the point of view of others, we say that he or she has
acquired a generalized other. As Mead described it, “The attitude of
the generalized other is the attitude of the whole community.” Thus,
for example, in the case of such a social group as a ball team, the
team is the generalized other insofar as it enters “as an organized
process on social activity, into the experience of any one of the mem-
bers” (1934).
Sociologists today also see the social self as a constantly evolv-
ing thing. Socialization is not something that simply happens to
mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 159mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 159 19/04/13 3:56 AM19/04/13 3:56 AM

Confirming Pages
160 CHAPTER 10 SOCIALIZATION
children; it is a lifelong process. The self is not taken in passively.
Rather, as Mead suggested with his description of the self as an
interaction between the I and the Me, the self is a dynamic process.
More specifically, the self evolves continually as it interacts
with a variety of agents of socialization, including the family,
schools, peers, and the workplace.
FAMILY
The family is such a crucial agent of socialization in large part
because it gets first crack at the job. In our society, until they go
to school, most children are wholly dependent on their families.
In this family setting, children acquire some competency in non-
material culture—ways to communicate, a sense of right and
wrong, basic beliefs about the nature of the world—as well as
competency in the use of material culture—tying shoelaces and
buttoning shirts; using forks, tissues, and telephones.
In introducing this topic, I noted that socialization is not only
the process by which individuals acquire cultural competency but
also the process by which society perpetuates its existing social
structure. Again, the family as an agent of socialization plays
an important role in reproducing existing social arrangements.
At a most basic level, the family is the main source of individu-
als’ ascribed statuses. (The concept of ascribed statuses was intro-
duced in chapter 8. If you cannot remember what this concept
means, now would be a good time to review the first page of that
chapter.)
As I show in table 10.1 , depending on their social statuses (that
is, their places in the social structure of society), parents tend to
expect different things of their children as they work to prepare
them for adulthood. The higher the parents’ social status, the
more they expect behaviors of their children that would prepare
them for taking on higher social statuses. Thus, for example,
intellectual curiosity is more valued than being a good student
by parents from higher-status backgrounds. On the other hand,
parents with lower socioeconomic status are more likely to value
obedience. In the real world, such findings suggest this: Intellec-
tual curiosity is the sort of quality that is required to do well in
higher-status jobs; obedience is an attribute that is required if one
is to do well in lower-status jobs.
These findings are illustrative of what social scientists gener-
ally discover when they study socialization. As they raise their
children, parents whose social status is relatively low typically
value obedience to authority, neatness (for example, “coloring
within the lines”), cleanliness, and good behavior. Middle-class
parents, on the other hand, are more likely to stress such qualities
mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 160mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 160 19/04/13 3:56 AM19/04/13 3:56 AM

Confirming Pages
How Socialization Works 161
as creativity, self-discipline, ambition, independence, curiosity,
and self-direction. Thus, parents tend to pass on to their children
the outlooks that are suited to their own experiences in the world. For
example, the more parents are supervised in their lives, the more
they tend to encourage and require obedience and conformity in
their children. This tendency is one way in which the socializa-
tion process helps ensure the perpetuation of the existing social
structure.
SCHOOL
The school is another important agent of socialization, but the
socialization experience it offers is generally quite different from
what the child receives in the family. At home, parents may have
worked hard to treat each child as a unique individual. But in
Table 10.1 U.S. Adults Who Mention Particular Qualities as One of the Three Most Desirable
for a Child to Have, by Adult’s Income, Education, and Occupational Prestige
Quality Mentioned
Adults’ Status
Attributes
1
Good
Sense
2
Obeys
Parents
3
Considerate
4
Intellectually
Curious
5
Good
Student
Income
Less than $4,000 19% 49% 29% 19% 32%
$4,000–$13,999 32 45 35 24 22
$14,000–$34,999 49 35 40 22 14
$35,000 and over 49 25 37 26 15
Education
Less than high school 28 54 29 15 28
High school graduate 43 36 38 23 18
Some college 45 28 40 23 9
College degree 46 26 45 27 11
More than college 58 21 45 42 17
Occupational Prestige
Low 27 49 27 14 22
Lower-middle 41 37 39 23 18
Upper-middle 43 35 36 25 16
Upper 46 23 48 35 11
NOTE: Data drawn from a national probability sample of 1,500 adults in the United States.
SOURCE: Adapted from the General Social Survey (Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, 1986).
mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 161mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 161 19/04/13 3:56 AM19/04/13 3:56 AM

Confirming Pages
162 CHAPTER 10 SOCIALIZATION
school the first lesson one learns is that everyone can expect to be
treated in the same relatively impersonal manner.
The manifest function of the institution of education is to pro-
vide students with the knowledge and skills necessary for success
in the adult world. The kinds of knowledge and skills taught in
school, however, go beyond the academic course work. In every
schoolroom where students recite the pledge of allegiance, for
example, they are being taught the value of patriotism. Part of the
latent function of education (sometimes called the hidden curricu-
lum ) is to prepare students to accept what teachers and adminis-
trators believe will be the students’ places in the social structure.
In some schools, for example, students are “tracked” into special
programs (such as into vocational versus college preparatory
classes). Although it is frequently said that students are tracked
based on their individual aptitudes, there is a fairly strong asso-
ciation between a student’s social class background and whether
that student is, for example, encouraged to apply to college. (We
will discuss this phenomenon of tracking in greater depth in
chapter 13.)
MASS MEDIA
There is a great deal of debate about the degree to which the
media influences a variety of different behaviors. For example,
does watching violent television shows and movies or playing
violent video games diffuse children’s violent urges or cause them
to act upon them? What is not controversial, however, is the fact
that exposure to media influences people’s perceptions of real-
ity. For example, research shows that “television viewing shapes
viewers’ conceptions of social reality. Specifically, the more one
is exposed to television, the more likely one’s interpretation and
perceptions of social reality will reflect the television world,
as opposed to the real and observable world” (Chen 1995, 22).
Although television is hardly the only medium to which people
are exposed, it does seem to be the most pervasive:
By the time an average American student graduates from high
school, she or he will have spent more time in front of the television
than in the classroom. Viewers learn and internalize some of the
values, beliefs, and norms presented in media products. Take the
example of crime. Although beginning in 1991 the FBI reported
declines in violent crime each year for a decade, the number of
crime stories on news broadcasts increased dramatically during
that period, especially during the first half of the 1990s. At the
same time, there has been a considerable increase in the degree to
which American citizens fear violent crime. (Croteau and Hoynes
2003, 14–15 emphasis added )
mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 162mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 162 19/04/13 3:56 AM19/04/13 3:56 AM

Confirming Pages
How Socialization Works 163
Croteau and Hoynes thereby remind us of the lesson of the Thomas
Theorem: “if people define situations as real, they are real in their
consequences.” 3
PEER GROUPS
Unlike the institutions of family and school, which are formally
charged with the task of socialization, the manifest function of
peer groups is simply to have fun. Nonetheless, the latent func-
tion of peer groups is to act as a socializing agent. For the ado-
lescent, the influence of the peer group can loom very large.
Often peer groups grow into fairly elaborate subcultures, as kids
develop their own peculiar values, norms, language, and use of
symbols. As children interact with others in their peer groups,
they learn a great deal about how they are expected to behave.
The peer group is different from either family or school because
it socializes children to become independent from adult author-
ity. Still, much of what children experience in peer groups rein-
forces standard cultural conventions of statuses and roles. In
other words, peer groups, too, can act to reinforce the existing
social structure.
For example, peer groups play a large role in socializing chil-
dren into “appropriate” gender-role behavior. One researcher
found that girls are labeled “slags and sluts for many forms
of independent behavior, such as going places on their own
and talking aggressively to boys who insult them” (Eder 1995,
11). 4 And boys do not escape the socializing influence of their
peers—in fact, one researcher argued that peer groups are
the most important sources of “policing masculinity” in our
society:
The boys themselves often conveyed the importance of toughness
through ritual insults. Many of the names the boys used to insult
each other imply some form of weakness such as “pud,” “squirt,”
and “wimp.” Other names, such as “pussy,” “girl,” “fag,” and
“queer,” associate lack of toughness directly with femininity or
homosexuality. These names are used when boys fail to meet certain
standards of combativeness. (Eder 1995, 63) 5
It is within peer groups that children often encounter their first
experiences with status distinctions: Very early on, children begin
3If you don’t recall the Thomas Theorem, review the Introduction to this book.
4Researchers have found that whereas more than 200 English words exists (includ-
ing slang) for sexually promiscuous women and girls, there are fewer than two dozen
words for sexually promiscuous men and boys.
5Such efforts at social control are not confined to the junior high playground; I have
frequently heard college men taunt each other with such remarks as “What are you,
chicken?” and “Are you a fag, or something?”
mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 163mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 163 19/04/13 3:56 AM19/04/13 3:56 AM

Confirming Pages
164 CHAPTER 10 SOCIALIZATION
to distinguish between the kids who are valued and those who are
not. In her study of adolescent culture, Donna Eder found many
examples of this phenomenon in her interviews with middle-
school students:
Eighth-Grade Interview (School Cafeteria)
Julie: And those kids who are poor and can’t afford expensive clothes
sit over there. [Points to the other side of the cafeteria]
Bonnie: Most of them . . .
Julie: [Laughs]
Donna: How does that get started? How does it get started that cer-
tain people sit over there and certain people sit at this table?
Bonnie: Like if there’s a gross dirty kid that came and sat by this
girl that was real clean and everything she’d go, “Oh, gross. You
smell,” or something like that. So they’d get up and go over there
and most of those guys over there think that everybody over here
is a snob and they don’t want to sit by them.
Julie: Most of them are. (1995, 41)
THE WORKPLACE
Socialization does not end with childhood but is ongoing
throughout an individual’s life. For adults, a major agent of
socialization is the workplace. Sociologists have found that
workplace socialization involves several steps, some of which
take place before the worker even finds a job! The first step is
to make a career choice, that is, to decide what you want to be
when you grow up. The second step, called anticipatory social-
ization, involves learning about and even playing at a work role
before entering it. Young children may play at storekeeping or
teaching. Adolescents may join the Future Farmers of America to
gain experience in agricultural jobs. High school and college stu-
dents may do volunteer work, undertake internships, or research
a particular sort of job. These activities constitute a rehearsal for
the future in that they allow an individual to begin to identify
with a work role and learn something about its expectations and
rewards.
Finally, the individual finds employment and begins to learn
the reality of the job—all of its disadvantages and advantages.
This final stage can involve some difficult moments because
workers generally find that no job is all that it’s cracked up to be.
New nurses may enter the hospital ward wanting to spend their
time comforting the sick and injured but find they must spend
most of their time doing administrative work and overseeing the
work of nurses’ aides. New college professors may expect that
they will educate young adults to take their places in the world
and then find that no one seems to be listening to their lectures.
Socialization in the
workplace “has
diverse psychological
consequences,
including effects on
intellectual flexibility,
self concept, world
view, and affective
states” (Miller 1988).
mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 164mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 164 19/04/13 3:56 AM19/04/13 3:56 AM

Confirming Pages
How Socialization Works 165
Factory workers may discover that the work is tedious beyond
anything they could have imagined. And so it goes. Individuals
have to find ways of coping with the reality of their jobs; gener-
ally, they learn these from more experienced co-workers. So, part
of the on-the-job socialization involves not merely learning to do
the work but learning to cope with doing the work.
Sociologists have found that people tend to become heavily
invested in their work. Work is not simply another role to play in
the social structure; work may become one’s master status. Many
adults, for example, when asked to explain who they are, preface
all their other remarks by noting their occupation. Here’s how
one observer put it:
Work is our calling card to the rest of the world. Men and women
alike use their work to identify themselves to others. Picture yourself
silently circulating at a cocktail party and eavesdropping on how
people introduce themselves to one another. I guarantee that you
are not going to hear anything like the following: “Hi, I’m Bob, and
I’m an Episcopalian”; “Hello, I’m Patty. I’m active in the Democratic
Party”; “Howdy, I’m Susan, and I support Habitat for Humanity.” It
just doesn’t happen that way. Workers describe themselves first by
“name, rank and serial number,” that is, by name, occupation, and
title. It is only later, if at all, that they might divulge what they like,
what they value, and how their lives are structured outside of work.
(Gini 2000, 9)
Rites of Passage
Many steps in the process of socialization are marked by rites
of passage. These are ceremonies or rituals that mark important
transitions from status to status within the life cycle. Anthropol-
ogist A. Radcliffe-Brown described part of the rite of passage of
boys-to-men among the people of the Andaman Islands:
The boy kneels down and bends forward until his elbows
rest on the ground in front. One of the older men . . . makes
a series of cuts on the boy’s back. Each cut is horizontal, and
they are arranged in three vertical rows, each row consisting
of from 20 to 30 cuts. When the cutting is finished the boy sits
up, with the fire at his back, until the bleeding stops. During
the operation and a few hours following it the boy must
remain silent. (1922/1948)
In a particular society, different rites of passage may be more
important than others. In ancient Greece women counted their
age from the date on which they were married, not from the day
they were born, thus signifying that the wedding was the start of
a woman’s real life.
mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 165mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 165 19/04/13 3:56 AM19/04/13 3:56 AM

Confirming Pages
166 CHAPTER 10 SOCIALIZATION
Resocialization and Total Institutions
Most socialization processes take place in the context of everyday
life—in our families and peer groups, in school, in the workplace.
But in some cases, socialization takes place in what sociologists
call total institutions. This phrase was coined by Erving Goffman,
who studied such places as mental hospitals and prisons. He
found that in these kinds of organizations, an intense socialization
experience takes place: “[A total institution is] a place of resi-
dence and work where a large number of like-situated individu-
als, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable period of
time, together lead an enclosed, formally administered round of
life” (Goffman 1961, xiii).
In a total institution, people are cut off from the rest of soci-
ety and stripped of their individuality. They are no longer per-
sons but objects; not men or women but “inmates,” “patients,”
or “recruits.” The goal of the total institution is to take away the
individual’s self and give him or her a new one more in keeping
with the needs of the total institution. In other words, the goal is
resocialization.
By way of example, Goffman offered this account of the re-
socialization of cadets in a military academy:
For two months . . . the swab is not allowed to leave the base or to
engage in social intercourse with noncadets. This complete isolation
helps to produce a unified group of swabs, rather than a heteroge-
neous collection of people of high and low status. Uniforms are issued
on the first day, and discussions of wealth and family are taboo.
Although the pay of the cadet is very low, he is not permitted to
receive money from home. The role of the cadet must supersede other
roles the individual has been accustomed to play. There are few clues
left which will reveal social status to the outside world. (1961, 46)
Sociologist Peter Rose and his colleagues (1979) discovered
a similar process in their study of Marine Corps recruits. Their
account of the process reminds us that resocialization is generally
begun by subjecting the individual to what sociologists call
“degradation ceremonies.” The goal of these is to degrade the
individual, that is, take away the individual’s self in preparation
for giving him or her a new one.
Part of the Marine Corps resocialization began with deperson-
alization. The young men were no longer called by their names,
their possessions were taken away, and they were subject to
many new rules. Merging with the group was stressed: Recruits
were no longer treated as individuals but had to speak, look,
and act like every other recruit—or else. Uniforms and haircuts
were important components of the transformation. To accom-
plish depersonalization, the men had to do some unlearning. It
mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 166mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 166 19/04/13 3:56 AM19/04/13 3:56 AM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 167
no longer mattered whether the recruit had been a high school
football star, a talented carpenter, a big man on campus, or his
parents’ pride and joy. Former roles and identities simply did
not count. The sooner they were forgotten, the better the recruit
would get along.
It is important to understand that total institutions frequently
fail to meet their goals; in fact, it is likely that no total institution
has the power to completely erase its inhabitants’ individuality.
The process of resocialization seems to work best in instances
where newcomers want to be resocialized (as in the military or
religious settings). Likewise, for resocialization to be successful,
the total institution must not just tear down the newcomer, but
build him or her back up. Hence, military boot camp tends to
be more successful in resocialization than, say, prisons because
boot camp stresses pride in the identity it is offering. (Of course,
the military also has the advantage of being able to discharge its
failures, an option not enjoyed by prisons.)
10.1 Match the total institution on the right with the appropriate
description on the left:
a. for the incapable and harmless i. monasteries
b. for the incapable and
unintentionally harmful
ii. prisons
c. for the capable and
intentionally harmful
iii. boarding schools,
boot camps

d. for the more efficient pursuit of
tasks

iv. mental institution
e. retreats from the world
v. nursing homes
Chapter Review
1. Below I have listed the major concepts discussed in this chap-
ter. Define each of the terms. ( Hint: This exercise will be more
helpful to you if, in addition to defining each concept, you
create an example of it in your own words.)
socialization, defined
social self
Charles Horton Cooley, looking-glass self

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
Ponder
How might the central role of work in an individual’s life
increase the problems of socialization in retirement?
mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 167mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 167 19/04/13 3:56 AM19/04/13 3:56 AM

Confirming Pages
168 CHAPTER 10 SOCIALIZATION
George Herbert Mead, I and Me
play and games
role taking
generalized other
agents of socialization
family
school
hidden curriculum
mass media
peer groups
workplace
rites of passage
anticipatory socialization
total institution
resocialization
degradation ceremony
depersonalization
2. What is the most recent rite of passage in which you have
participated (as the one making the passage)? Explain in
what respects it was a rite of passage. What is the next rite of
passage in which you anticipate you will participate?
3. Pick one of the following statements and discuss the extent
to which a sociologist would agree with the sentiment
expressed:
a. “All children are essentially criminal” (Denis Diderot,
1713–1784).
b. “I have never understood the fear of some parents about
babies getting mixed up in the hospital. What difference
does it make as long as you get a good one?” (Heywood
Broun, 1888–1939).
4. I’ve attended many university meetings with students and
noticed that whenever we go around and introduce ourselves
to others in the group, students introduce themselves this way:
“Hi, I’m Al, and I’m a psych major,” or “I’m Tara, and I’m
majoring in business.” What information does knowing some-
one’s occupation convey? Does knowing someone’s major con-
vey the same sort of information? Explain your reasoning.
Answers and Discussion
10.1
a. nursing homes
b. mental institutions
c. prisons
d. boarding schools, boot camps
e. monasteries

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 168mcI26873_ch10_152-168.indd 168 19/04/13 3:56 AM19/04/13 3:56 AM

Confirming Pages
169
11
DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL
D eviance is one of the more intriguing topics studied by sociologists. The sociological study of deviance covers the
gamut of fascinating (if occasionally despicable) behaviors: alco-
holism, mental illness, gambling, murders, adultery, crime, drug
use, stripping, pimping, prostitution, bulimia, suicide, pedophilia,
necromancy, pornography, panhandling—to name just a few. 1
At first glance, gamblers, murderers, prostitutes, and the rest may
seem like strangers among us. They aren’t (as I will discuss in this
chapter, the deviants are us). Moreover, because deviance is the
flip side of conformity, understanding deviance contributes to our
understanding of conformity. Besides, although curiosity about
“perversion” may seem morbid, it’s hard not to be fascinated by
deviant behavior.
The Relativity of Deviance
(What We Already Know)
Because of the close connection between norms and deviance,
it is fair to say that we already have a great deal of sociological
knowledge about deviance.
For one thing, we know that norms vary across societies. So, we
also know that what is considered to be deviant varies across societies.
Different societies have different expectations about how people
ought to behave. A particular act may be regarded as normative
1When I was a college student, people referred to deviance courses as “the sociology
of nuts, sluts, and perverts.”
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 169mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 169 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
170 CHAPTER 11 DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL
in society A but deviant in society B. In some countries (e.g., Bel-
gium, France, Germany, Japan, Spain), it is expected that you
will stop to help a stranger in trouble; fail to help and you might
end up being arrested. In most places in the United States, how-
ever, the law can’t touch you—even if you stand by and watch
a murder.
Travelers to Singapore are warned that anyone
caught spitting in public can be subject to a fine
of more than $500 and that failing to flush a pub-
lic toilet could cost you almost $100. However, a
recent law does allow one to purchase chewing
gum in Singapore, as long as one has a prescrip-
tion. Traveling in the Netherlands, on the other
hand, might be a little more relaxing—if you are
at least eighteen years of age, you can stop in at a
coffee shop and order marijuana with that mocha
latté (one gram for about five or six dollars).
It’s a shocking fact that it is impossible to find any specific act
that is regarded as deviant in every culture. 2
For another thing, we know that norms change over time—even
within a particular culture. So, we also know that what is considered
to be deviant at one time may be considered normative at another time.
For example, in the 1950s college women were expected to wear
skirts or dresses to class and men were expected to wear jackets
and ties; these days things are much more casual (I occasionally
see students wearing pajamas to class). One hundred years ago,
it was a crime to join a labor union. Two hundred years ago, one
person could own another person; today, slavery is considered
very deviant.
Finally, we know that norms vary within a particular society—
that different subgroups have different norms. So, we also know that
what is considered deviant will vary from subgroup to subgroup within
a particular society. For example, according to the norms of many
groups, dancing and playing cards are respectable, normative
behaviors. But in some religious subcultures, dancing and card
playing are regarded as deviant. Generally, drinking alcohol is
normative, as long as the drinker does not drive or become drunk.
But in some adolescent subcultures, on the other hand, “drinking
until you pass out” is normative. (You may recall from chapter 7
Important: To define an act as deviant
is to say nothing about whether that
act is inherently good or bad, or moral
or immoral. Remember, good, bad,
moral, and immoral are not sociological
concepts. (If you need to, review chapter
4 on that point.) To say that an act is
deviant is to say only that it violates the
norms of a particular group of people at
a particular point in time.
2Wait! You might be thinking, what about murder? Isn’t murder regarded as deviant
in all cultures? The trick here is that murder is not an act, but a category of acts that a
society has elected to say are deviant. To put it another way, some form of killing is tol-
erated in nearly every society. But what sorts of killing are called murder and what sorts
are not varies according to society. Similarly, what constitutes killing in self-defense
varies across societies.
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 170mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 170 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
Nonsociological Theories of Deviance 171
that one of the things that defines a subculture is that its norms
vary from those of the larger society.) We also have different
expectations for different kinds of people. Thus, it is considered
deviant for women to chew tobacco but not for men.
11.1 Which of the following statements about deviance are true, and
which are false? Explain your answers briefly.
a. Society can be divided into people who conform and people
who do not conform to social norms.
b. People generally agree on which behaviors are deviant and
which are not deviant.
c. Most people have violated one or more important mores at
some time in their lives.
d. Most deviant behaviors are regarded as deviant in all societies
and at all times.
e. Only acts that are harmful to people are judged deviant.
Nonsociological Theories of Deviance
Deviance has long intrigued social observers. For centuries
many theorized that deviance was simply a product of sin and
was caused by such factors as demonic possession. By the mid-
nineteenth century, however, skeptical social observers began
to look for different causes. The first attempts at scientifically
explaining deviance focused on biological factors. For example,
Cesare Lombroso, a physician who worked in Italian prisons,
argued in 1876 that deviants were, in effect, biological failures.
Claimed Lombroso, “Criminals are evolutionary throwbacks,” or
atavists. 3
But Lombroso’s study overlooked a couple of important fac-
tors. First, owing to heightened scrutiny on the part of police,
Italian prisoners were most likely to be Sicilian—a group of people
who tended to have lower foreheads, more prominent cheek-
bones and protruding ears, and more body hair than the average
Italian. Had Lombroso journeyed to Sicily, he would have found
the same physical characteristics to be present among the general
nonimprisoned population. British psychiatrist Charles Goring and
others later probed the matter more carefully. Comparing thou-
sands of convicts and nonconvicts, they found no evidence of

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
3The term atavism refers to a biological state with a variety of physical manifesta-
tions, including low foreheads, prominent cheekbones, protruding ears, and lots of
body hair.
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 171mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 171 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
“Judge, my client is willing to plead guilty to bank robbery if you’ll drop the
charge of smoking in public.”
Deviance is
relative—acts
considered deviant
today (smoking and
other forms of air
pollution) were
not necessarily
regarded as deviant
in times past.
172 CHAPTER 11 DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL
any physical differences that would distinguish members of one
group from the other.
Other researchers have attempted to identify physical charac-
teristics typical of criminals. In the late 1940s, William Sheldon
contended that a person’s body shape plays a role in criminality.
He distinguished three general body types: (1) ectomorphs (tall,
thin, fragile), (2) endomorphs (short and fat), and (3) mesomorphs
(muscular and athletic). After analyzing the body structures and
criminal histories of hundreds of young men, Sheldon reported
that criminality was linked to mesomorphy. Later researchers
found merit in Sheldon’s findings but argued that he had mis-
understood the cause-effect relationship between body type and
crime. According to these researchers, mesomorphy itself was not
the cause of criminality. Rather, the way mesomorphs tended to
be socialized (to be tougher and to have less sensitivity toward
others) created a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy that encouraged
criminality.
Another category of nonsociological theories treats deviance
as a result of personality factors—especially those arising from
“unsuccessful socialization.” Such researchers hypothesize, for
example, that people with a strong conscience (or superego, to
use Freud’s term) tend to be good, whereas people with a weak
conscience tend to be bad. Psychological theorists may also posit
that some forms of deviance, such as violence, are a manifesta-
tion of an “aggressive personality,” whereas other forms, such
as homosexuality, may be seen as an expression of “psychologi-
cal dependency.” These theories do not explain, however, why
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 172mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 172 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
Sociological Theories of Deviance: Émile Durkheim and Suicide 173
such a small percentage of people with aggressive personalities
commit homicide or why such a small proportion of people with
dependent personalities become homosexual.
Sociological Theories of Deviance:
Émile Durkheim and Suicide
Sociologists tend to be much more impressed by the fact that
deviance is tied to social norms. Because social norms exist out-
side the individual, sociologists look for causes of deviance in the
same place: outside the individual.
THE COLLECTIVE CONSCIENCE
AND STRUCTURAL STRAIN
Émile Durkheim was one of the first researchers to look for the
causes of deviance in terms of social rather than individual fac-
tors. In his early research during the 1880s, Durkheim focused on
the act of suicide. Suicide was an interesting choice in that hardly
anything seems more personal than the decision to kill oneself.
Surely the causes of suicide must be within the individual! (In
point of fact, Durkheim was not really interested in individual
acts of suicide. He was concerned with suicide rates and what
changes in suicide rates indicated about the health of a particular
society.)
As we discussed briefly in chapter 1, Durkheim’s primary
concern was the nature of society and social order. What sorts of
factors hold a society together? What sorts of factors can destroy
a society? Durkheim envisioned society as a system made up of
interrelated parts. Like a well-oiled machine, a well-functioning
society depends on each of its parts working together. Each part
of the social system—the institutions of family, religion, and edu-
cation, for example—work together to make the entire system of
society run well. Because of the close connection among all the
social parts, when one part of this social machine is not working
properly, the entire system ceases to work well.
According to Durkheim, in some societies the social machine
was maintained in smooth working order because of the strength
of what he called the collective conscience —“the totality of beliefs
and sentiments common to the average members of the same
society.” The collective conscience, in other words, was made up
of the values, beliefs, norms, and goals shared by people in a par-
ticular society. The collective conscience was a kind of social oil
that made things work smoothly.
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 173mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 173 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
174 CHAPTER 11 DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL
As we also discussed in chapter 1, in the late nineteenth cen-
tury, many people believed that society was in chaos and about
to fall apart. For centuries society had seemed to be in a hold-
ing pattern, and social change, when it did occur, came slowly—
almost unnoticed. But in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,
social change became a fact of life. That sounds reasonable to us,
because we live in a society in which change is a part of life. But a
couple of hundred years ago, change was new and seemed to be
undermining the very nature of what held society together. There
were many prophets of doom.
To Durkheim, one of the symptoms of this “society falling
apart” syndrome was the high rate of suicide. In many Western
countries, the rate of suicide seemed to be increasing. Whereas
many of his contemporaries were asking what was wrong with
the people who were killing themselves, Durkheim started ask-
ing what it was about society that caused increases in the rate of
suicide. Durkheim argued that changes in suicide rates could be
explained not by focusing on individuals but only by focusing on
different social factors.
Durkheim’s study, titled Suicide (published in 1897), was one
of the first to use statistical analysis. One finding was that the
rate of suicide was higher in industrializing societies than in non-
industrializing societies. This led Durkheim to suspect that sui-
cide rates were manifestations of the amount of structural strain
in a social system.
More specifically, as a result of his analysis, Durkheim argued
that as societies grew larger, more complex, and more special-
ized, the things that traditionally had held people together would
begin to fail. As the division of labor became specialized, people
began to do different kinds of work; these differences meant that
some people achieved a financial success that took them far from
their original lifestyles. However, although people could techni-
cally improve their social class standing, they did not know any
of the norms that accompanied their new stations in life. No lon-
ger was there a great deal of agreement on what values were most
important and on which norms applied to whom.
EGOISM AND ANOMIE
Durkheim identified several sources of suicide, including egoism
and anomie. Each is a manifestation of a different kind of struc-
tural strain. Egoism occurs when people are not well integrated into
society. In a state of egoism, people lack ties to their social groups.
For example, Durkheim found that unmarried people were less
integrated into society than married people, who had ties to
spouses, children, their children’s friends’ parents, and so on.
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 174mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 174 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
Sociological Theories of Deviance: Émile Durkheim and Suicide 175
Durkheim also argued that Protestants (whose religion encour-
aged independent thinking) were less integrated into their social
groups than Catholics (who were encouraged to look to their
priests for leadership). Integration is tied to suicide rates because
people who lack ties to their social groups simply have less to live
for (that is, less reason not to kill themselves).
For example, while both married and unmarried individuals may
occasionally entertain suicidal thoughts, the married have more
social responsibilities, which deters them from committing sui-
cide, than do the unmarried, who have no one to worry about . . . ;
Catholics are socially integrated, they experience social support
(comfort, understanding, and sympathy), which deters them from
committing suicide in times of despair. (Liska 1987, 30)
Increases in suicide rates, according to Durkheim, also were
linked to rapid social change, which resulted in a state of social
confusion he called anomie. The word is taken from the Greek
term for “lawlessness” or “normlessness.” So, anomie (or anomy,
as it is sometimes spelled) is a situation in which people do not
experience the constraint of social norms—either because there
are no norms or because they don’t know the norms. More tech-
nically, anomie is a state wherein society fails to exercise adequate
regulation of the goals and desires of individual members. To put it
yet another way, anomie exists when things like the collective
conscience are not powerful enough to affect the behavior of
individuals. The lack of social constraint from social norms, like
the lack of integration present in egoistic states, creates a situa-
tion in which behavior is not properly regulated and suicide is
thus easier.
Durkheim hypothesized that anomie and egoism were both
major influences on the rate of suicide in modern society. When
people lived in a state of anomie (that is, when the collective con-
science was not powerful enough to regulate their behavior) or
egoism (as when people were not well enough integrated), they
were more likely to kill themselves. 4 In short, Durkheim came up
with structural explanations of suicide rather than individualistic
ones. Durkheim never argued that the decision to kill oneself was
anything other than a private one for the individual. Durkheim
was concerned only with the rate of suicide within a particular
social group. Or, in Mills’s language, Durkheim treated what
many had regarded a private trouble as a public issue and thereby
broadened our understanding of the phenomenon of suicide.
4Durkheim also identified other causes of changes in suicide rates. For example,
he found that just as not enough moral regulation and integration would lead to an
increased suicide rate, so would too much moral regulation. The lowest suicide rates
require a balance between social freedom and social control.
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 175mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 175 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
176 CHAPTER 11 DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL
More Structural Strain:
Robert Merton and Anomie
The American sociologist Robert Merton rediscovered Durkheim’s
ideas about anomie in the late 1930s. Merton was not particu-
larly interested in the problem of suicide, but he suspected that
Durkheim’s conception of anomie might help us to understand
other forms of deviance.
ANOMIE AND MODERN SOCIAL STRUCTURE
Merton continued in Durkheim’s footsteps by focusing on struc-
tural strain as a cause of deviance. But Merton applied the con-
cept of anomie more broadly than Durkheim had. Durkheim
had implicitly assumed that once society completed its transition
from preindustrial to industrial, anomie would go away. From
his twentieth-century perspective, however, Merton realized that
anomie was not about to go away; indeed, as far as Merton was
concerned, anomie is built into the structure of modern society.
Merton refocused the meaning of anomie to make it speak
more directly to twentieth-century society. Instead of seeing ano-
mie as a situation in which there was a lack of norms (as Dur-
kheim had), Merton said that anomie occurs when the norms of a
society do not match its social structure. (This might sound compli-
cated, but don’t give up. Keep reading.)
Merton (1938) began his analysis by noticing that all social
systems have two characteristics. First, they have commonly
accepted goals for their members. These goals are simply socially
valued things worth striving for. As we discovered in chapter 7,
at the top of the list of things that people in the United States tend
to value are achievement and success.
Second, each society establishes what it considers to be legiti-
mate ways, or means, to reach these valued goals. In this society,
for example, education and hard work are the legitimate and
approved routes to achievement and success.
According to Merton, everything is fine in a society in which
there is a good match between the culturally approved goals and
the availability of legitimate means to reach those goals. In a well-
structured society, everyone will understand what the goals are,
and people will be able to reach those goals by following socially
acceptable means.
In modern Western society, however, there tends to be a signif-
icant gap, or disjunction, between goals and legitimate means. Or,
as Merton put it, anomie exists “when a system of cultural val-
ues extols, virtually above all else, certain common success-goals
for the population at large while the social structure rigorously
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 176mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 176 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
More Structural Strain: Robert Merton and Anomie 177
restricts or completely closes access to approved modes of reach-
ing goals for a considerable part of the same population” (1938,
211). Under such circumstances, Merton argued, “deviant behav-
ior ensues on a large scale.”
Merton understood that the American Dream (the idea that
hard work will lead to success) is frequently a myth. 5 As he looked
around, he saw whole segments of society whose access to legiti-
mate means to success was highly restricted. One must have a col-
lege education to achieve the best jobs, for example, and Merton
realized that a college education was out of the reach of many—no
matter how smart they were or how hard they worked. This was
just the sort of situation in which, Merton said, there was a disjunc-
ture between socially approved goals (success) and means (educa-
tion). This disjuncture, for Merton, represented a form of structural
strain—which he called anomie. But Merton did not stop there. He
noted that when there is anomie, or a disjuncture between goals
and means, people may respond (or adapt) in different ways.
These modes of adaptation are summarized in table 11.1 .
RESPONSES TO ANOMIE
Some people in society may not experience any disjuncture
between goals and means. For example, for some people hard
5Merton surely had a well-developed sociological imagination. Had it not been so
well developed, he might never have come to this insight, because everything in his
personal history seemed to be proof of the truth of the American Dream. Merton was
born in 1910 on the “wrong side of the tracks” in north Philadelphia. He worked his
way out of the slums by winning a scholarship to Temple University, where in 1931 he
earned his BA Merton then won a fellowship to Harvard to pursue graduate studies,
and in 1936 he was awarded the PhD in sociology.
Table 11.1 Adaptations to Anomie
Culture Social Structure
Culturally
Emphasized
Goals
Institutionally Available,
Legitimate Means
to Goal Attainment
I. Conformity 1 accept 1 accept
II. Innovation 1 accept 2 reject
III. Ritualism 2 reject 1 accept
IV. Retreatism 2 reject 2 reject
V. Rebellion 6 reject old and substitute
new ones
6
SOURCE: Adapted from Robert K. Merton, “Social Structure and Anomie,” American
Sociological Review (1938): 672–682.
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 177mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 177 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
178 CHAPTER 11 DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL
work may indeed lead to success. 6 In other cases, even when they
keep running into obstacles (as when, for example, someone can’t
afford to pay the costs of a college education), people may ignore
the disjuncture and keep on trying. In other words, they may
continue to accept the goals of success and achievement and the
means of hard work even when it isn’t getting them anywhere.
Merton calls this adaptation conformity.
Other people respond to anomie in a variety of ways. Merton
called the first mode of adaptation that is obviously deviant inno-
vation. Innovators accept and pursue the accepted goals of soci-
ety but, when confronted with a lack of legitimate means, devise
new ones. For example, if in the pursuit of the accepted goal of
wealth, Mary finds she has no legitimate access to wealth, she
might innovate by embezzling from her employer. The innovator,
then, accepts the cultural goals but rejects the legitimate means
for achieving these.
Some people reject culturally approved goals but continue to pur-
sue the means. Merton calls this apparently odd form of behavior
ritualism. Ritualists follow legitimate means without caring about
the goals. Ritualists, then, simply go through the motions. Ritual-
ism is the deviant response sometimes chosen by petty bureaucrats
who, frustrated at not being able to achieve their goals, continue to
stamp papers and file them even when there is no point to doing
so. To the ritualist, following the rules becomes more important
than achieving the goals. The professor who shows up in class but
does not put any effort into teaching is another example of a ritual-
ist who is only going through the motions. Notice that ritualism is
an invisible form of deviance. Because the ritualist goes through the
motions of conforming, he or she may be viewed as a conformist.
Retreatists are noticeably different in that they reject both the
goals and the legitimate means to them. For example, like ritual-
ists, retreatists do not care about the goal of success; but unlike
ritualists, neither do they care about going through the motions.
Some retreatists literally drop out of society by moving, say, to
the mountains of Idaho and living in huts. (A generation ago,
the hippies who “turned on, tuned out, and dropped out” were
splendid examples of retreatists.)
The fifth mode of adapting to anomie that Merton identified was
rebellion. Rebels are deviant in that they reject both cultural goals and
means and then substitute new ones. It is the substitution of new
goals and means that distinguishes the rebel from the retreatist. And
it is the substitution of new goals and means that makes the rebel
6As we will discuss more fully in chapters 13 and 14, such people tend to occupy
specific places in the social structure. Upper- and middle-class people, for example,
are less likely to experience the anomie of blocked opportunities (because they are less
likely to experience blocked opportunities).
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 178mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 178 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
Learning to Be Deviant: Howard Becker’s Study of Marijuana Use 179
seem to be the greatest threat to society. The rebels’ response to strain
in the social structure is to tear it down and to build up a new one.
But Merton overlooked an important question: In a society in
which there is a disjuncture between legitimate means and cul-
turally approved goals, which mode of adaptation will people
choose? How come some people choose to conform or to inno-
vate? Why is it that still others choose to retreat or rebel?
LEGITIMATE VERSUS ILLEGITIMATE MEANS
Two students of Merton, Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd E. Ohlin
(1960; see also Cloward and Ohlin 1959), extended Merton’s analy-
sis by suggesting that just as legitimate means to success are unequally
distributed in society, so are illegitimate means. For example, to inno-
vate successfully, one needs to learn certain skills. Suppose you
want to be a bank robber. If your career is going to last longer
than a few minutes, you need to learn how to select your targets
(for example, banks located near freeway exits are much preferred
to ones located on busy downtown streets). How do professional
bank robbers signal to bank customers and employees that they
are about to participate in a robbery and had best cooperate? How
big a cut should the getaway driver be promised so that he or she
won’t fink to the cops?
Just as legitimate opportunity structures are unequally distrib-
uted in society, so, too, are illegitimate opportunity structures. If
you are poor and illiterate, you probably will not have much of a
future as a computer hacker or bank embezzler. If you are poor
and want to steal, you are pretty much limited to taking on a sin-
gle victim (or possibly two or three) at a time. But as an executive
officer in a savings and loan, you have the unusual opportunity
of swindling hundreds, if not thousands, of people.
11.2
a. Merton wrote about deviance as an adaptation to “structural
strain.” What was the source or nature of this strain?
b. What did Cloward and Ohlin add to Merton’s theory of anomie?
Learning to Be Deviant:
Howard Becker’s Study of Marijuana Use
Merton’s conception of structural strain gives us some insight
into why people might act in deviant ways, but it really does not
tell us how people actually become deviant. Sociologists have
noticed that one generally learns to be deviant through a kind of
socialization—just as one learns to conform through socialization.
In other words, deviance is frequently a learned social behavior.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 179mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 179 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
180 CHAPTER 11 DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL
One sociologist who made this point was Howard Becker. In
addition to being a sociologist, Becker was a professional jazz
musician in the 1950s, and one of the things he noticed was that
jazz musicians tended to smoke marijuana—a practice that was
not only deviant but illegal.
Why did people smoke marijuana? At the time, it was widely
thought that there was something wrong with the personality of
marijuana smokers, that people who smoked marijuana suffered
from some sort of psychological maladjustment. It was believed,
for instance, that people who smoked marijuana did so out of a
felt need for escape or because they were insecure, lacking in self-
control, immature, or simply mentally ill. Conventional wisdom,
then, regarded marijuana smokers as people with distinct
psychological and/or emotional problems.
As a sociologist, however, Becker suspected that to truly
understand the nature of this behavior, we would have to place it
in its social context. And so it was that Becker began a sociological
study of marijuana use. He conducted interviews with dozens
of pot-smoking musicians. From his interviews, Becker found
that marijuana use did indeed have important social qualities.
For example, Becker found that becoming a marijuana smoker
involved three separate social processes: (1) learning to smoke
(gaining proper technique), (2) learning to perceive the effects,
and (3) learning to enjoy the effects.
LEARNING TO SMOKE
According to Becker (1963), the novice smoker does not ordinar-
ily get high the first time he (Becker’s subjects were primarily
male) smokes marijuana. Generally, it is necessary to smoke the
drug several times to achieve a high. One explanation of this is
that the novice does not know how to smoke “properly”—that
is, in a way that ensures a large enough dosage of the drug. Most
of Becker’s interview subjects agreed that the drug cannot be
smoked like tobacco if the user is to get high:
“Take in a lot of air, you know, and . . . I don’t know how to describe
it, you don’t smoke it like a cigarette, you draw in a lot of air and get
it deep down in your system and then keep it there. Keep it there as
long as you can.”
Unless one uses the proper technique, the effects of the drug will
be minimal:
“The trouble with people [who are unable to get high] is that they’re
just not smoking it right, that’s all there is to it. Either they’re not
holding it down long enough, or they’re getting too much air and not
enough smoke, or the other way around, or something like that. A lot of
people just don’t smoke it right, so naturally nothing’s gonna happen.”
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 180mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 180 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
Learning to Be Deviant: Howard Becker’s Study of Marijuana Use 181
Becker’s interview subjects also reported that learning to
smoke marijuana was a social thing:
“I was smoking it like I did an ordinary cigarette. He said, ‘no, don’t
do it like that.’ He said, ‘suck it, you know, draw in and hold it in
your lungs till you . . . for a period of time.’ I said, ‘is there any limit
of time to hold it?’ He said, ‘no, just till you feel that you want to let
it out, let it out.’ So, I did that for three or four times.”
Many reported that as first-time users they had been ashamed
to admit their ignorance and so had pretended to already know
how to inhale:
“I came on like I had turned on [smoked marijuana] many times
before, you know. I didn’t want to seem like a punk to this cat. See,
like I didn’t know the first thing about it. I just watched him like a
hawk—I didn’t take my eyes off of him for a second, because I
wanted to do everything just as he did it. I watched how he held
it, how he smoked it, and everything. Then, when he gave it to me,
I just came on cool, as though I knew exactly what the score was. I
held it like he did and took a toke just the way he did.”
No one Becker interviewed had become a marijuana user with-
out first learning the technique for smoking that allowed one to
inhale a sufficient dosage—one that allowed the effects of the
drug to be evident.
LEARNING TO PERCEIVE THE EFFECTS
Even after the novice learns the proper smoking technique, he or
she may not evaluate the results as “being high.” A remark made
by one smoker pointed to the next step on the road to becoming
a marijuana user:
“As a matter of fact, I’ve seen a guy who was high out of his mind
and didn’t know it.” [Becker asks, “How can that be, man?”] “Well,
it’s pretty strange, I’ll grant you that, but I’ve seen it. This guy got on
[high] with me, claiming that he’d never got high, one of those guys,
and he got completely stoned. And he kept insisting that he wasn’t
high. So, I had to prove to him that he was.”
Becker’s research suggested that getting high involves two
things: (1) achieving the physiological effects of the drug and
(2) recognizing and identifying these effects. Without the sec-
ond element, one is not really high because one does not know
one is high! Becker found that people who believed the whole
thing was an illusion did not continue to use marijuana because
there was no point to doing so. Thus, without social support,
most people would not get beyond their first attempt. Gener-
ally, however, novice users said they had faith that eventually
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 181mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 181 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
182 CHAPTER 11 DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL
7In some important respects, Becker’s portrayal of becoming a marijuana user may
no longer reflect the reality of this process. The active ingredient in marijuana is THC
(tetrahydrocannabinol). Fifty years ago, the level of THC in marijuana was quite low,
and the effects of the drug were relatively subtle. But today, the level of THC in mari-
juana is very high (no pun intended), and the effects of the drug are much more notice-
able. This probably means that it is much easier for novices to perceive the effects of the
drug but more difficult for them to perceive its effects as enjoyable.
they would feel some real effects. Recognizing the effects of the
drug frequently came as a result of interaction with more expe-
rienced users:
“I didn’t get high the first time. . . . I don’t think I held it in long
enough. . . . Probably let it out, you know, you’re a little afraid. The
second time I wasn’t sure, and he [the more experienced smoker]
told me, like I asked him for some of the symptoms or something,
how would I know, you know. . . . He told me to sit on a stool. I sat
on—I think I sat on a stool—and he said, ‘Let your feet hang.’ And
then when I got down my feet were real cold, you know? And I
started feeling it, you know. That was the first time. And then about a
week after that, sometime pretty close to it, I really got on. That was
the first time I got on a big laughing kick, you know? Then I really
knew I was on.”
One frequently reported effect of marijuana is intense hunger.
One novice smoker remembers the first time he felt this:
“They were just laughing the hell out of me because like I was eating
so much. I just scoffed [ate] so much food, and they were just laugh-
ing at me, you know? Sometimes I’d be looking at them, you know,
wondering why they’re laughing, you know, like I’d ask, ‘What’s
happening?’ and all of the sudden, I feel weird, you know. ‘Man,
you’re on, you know. You’re on pot [high on marijuana].’ I said, ‘No,
am I?’ Like I don’t know what’s happening.”
In essence, then, the novice smoker learns from more experi-
enced users to experience the effects of marijuana use as a high.
The ability to perceive the drug’s effects must be achieved if use
of the drug is to continue.
LEARNING TO ENJOY THE EFFECTS
Suppose the user has learned the proper smoking technique and
has learned to identify the effects as a high. A final step is nec-
essary before the user will continue to use the drug: He or she
must learn to enjoy the effects. The sensations of a marijuana high
are not necessarily pleasurable ones. The typical novice smoker
feels dizzy, thirsty, hungry, paranoid, confused about time and
space, and more. Are these responses enjoyable? As you might
guess, the effects of the drug might be downright unpleasant. At
best, the effects of the drug are ambiguous. 7
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 182mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 182 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
The Societal Reaction Perspective: Labeling Theory 183
The “taste” for sensations is in large part a socially acquired
one. Remember your first sip of coffee? Yuck! What about oysters,
green olives, and dry martinis? Double yuck! Yet many people
begin to enjoy these. The same is true for the sensations produced
by marijuana use. But it’s not necessarily easy:
“It started taking effect, and I didn’t know what was happening, you
know, what it was, and I was very sick. I walked around the room
trying to get off, you know; it just scared me at first, you know. I
wasn’t used to that kind of feeling.”
Another user reported:
“I felt I was insane, you know. Everything people done to me just
wigged me. I just couldn’t hold a conversation, and my mind would
be wandering, and I was always thinking, oh, I don’t know, weird
things, like hearing must be different . . . I get the feeling that I can’t
talk to anyone. I’ll goof completely.”
Over time, however, many people come to regard these sensa-
tions as desirable. As an experienced user explained:
“Well, they get pretty high sometimes. The average person isn’t
ready for that, and it is a little frightening to them sometimes. I
mean, they’ve been high on lush [alcohol], and they get higher that
way than they’ve ever been before, and they don’t know what’s
happening to them. Because they think they’re going to keep going
up, up, up till they lose their minds or begin doing weird things
or something. You have to like reassure them, explain to them that
they’re not really flipping or anything, that they’re gonna be all right.
You have to just talk them out of being afraid. Keep talking to them,
reassuring, telling them it’s all right.”
As you can see, what starts as an unpleasant experience
becomes a desirable and sought-after one. In the end, with some
help from one’s peers, the user begins to regard being high as
“fun.” In simple terms, the individual not only has learned a devi-
ant act but has learned to enjoy it as well.
The idea that deviance, like conformity, is learned behavior
has added a great deal to our understanding of human behavior.
The Societal Reaction Perspective:
Labeling Theory
The traditional view of deviance focuses on why and how indi-
viduals commit deviant acts. These theories tend to take for
granted that some acts are deviant and others are not. One impli-
cation of this is that regardless of who commits the deviant act,
they will be responded to in the same way as anyone else who
commits that particular sort of deviance.
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 183mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 183 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
184 CHAPTER 11 DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL
“With all that I’ve learned about sociology recently, establishing who’s naughty
and who’s nice is not as simple as it used to be.”
But sociologists know that this is not true. As William Chambliss
(1973) found in his comparison of different youth gangs, in some
cases it is not what you do but who you are. More specifically,
Chambliss found that lower-class youths were more likely to be
sanctioned than middle-class youths—even though the lower-
class kids committed fewer deviant acts! The societal reaction-
ist perspective in general, and labeling theory more particularly,
focuses not on the one who commits the deviant act but on the
response of the audience.
Labeling theorists take note of the fact that being judged
and labeled deviant has significant consequences for people’s
behavior. The label of deviant is powerful!
Let’s take the hypothetical case of Bob, who has just gradu-
ated from high school. One night Bob and three of his friends
(including Melissa, his girlfriend) decide to steal a car and take
it for a joyride. Actually Bob has chugged so much beer that he
can barely walk, let alone go for a ride. But after listening to his
friends cluck and call him a chicken, he goes along. As soon as
he gets into the car, however, he throws up and passes out.
Meanwhile, John, the guy who’s driving, has had a few too
many beers himself and wanders all over the road. This catches
the attention of the police in a patrol car, which comes up
behind the stolen car with lights flashing. This strikes John as
rude, and so he decides to speed up and outrun the cops. Inevi-
tably, John’s poor coordination lands them all in a ditch. The
other three (who are relatively sober) take off and manage to
outrun the cops. But Bob is still unconscious in the back seat—
and the police are happy enough to arrest him as a reward for
their crime-fighting efforts.
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 184mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 184 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
The Societal Reaction Perspective: Labeling Theory 185
Bob is taken to jail, fingerprinted, and photographed. A few
days later, Bob is brought to court to be arraigned. Being the up-
standing fellow that he is, Bob refuses to fink on his friends, and
so the court throws the book at him. He’s found guilty of grand-
theft-auto (a felony) and sentenced to ninety days in jail, with
another nine months suspended.
Bob serves his summer in jail, but his real sentence is much
longer. First, he loses his college scholarship. However, that
hardly matters because Bob’s only interest in college was so that
he could go on to law school and become an attorney. Bob knows
that convicted felons can’t become lawyers, so what’s the point?
Bob’s girlfriend, Melissa, still loves him, but her parents forbid
her to date him. After all, Bob is a convicted criminal, and they don’t
want their daughter hanging out with an ex-con. His other friends
are sympathetic, but they go off to college and lose touch. Bob tries
to find a job, but every time he fills out an application, he has to deal
with the question “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?”
Bob is the same guy he was before he went along on the
joyride—but this Bob has an entirely different life than the old Bob.
So what if he drinks too much now and gambles away what little
money he has. It’s not like he has any hope of leading a normal life.
Bob is a truly pathetic case, and I’ve exaggerated his circum-
stances to make a point: The label of deviant can trigger a self-
fulfilling prophecy. If you treat people as deviant and cut off their
opportunities to be anything other than deviant, you increase the
chances that they actually will become deviant.
Sociologists would refer to Bob’s initial foray into crime (his
joyriding) as an instance of primary deviance. Primary deviance
may be committed for all sorts of reasons, including, as in Bob’s
case, a desire to fit in with the group. Social labeling theorists
seek to explain the acts of deviance that take place after the indi-
vidual has been labeled as a deviant. These subsequent acts of
deviance are called secondary deviance. Edwin Lemert explained
the difference this way:
Primary deviance is assumed to arise in a wide variety of social,
cultural and psychological contexts and at best has only marginal
implications for the psychic structure of the individual; it does not
lead to symbolic reorganization at the level of self-regarding atti-
tudes and social roles. . . . Primary deviation, as contrasted with
secondary, is polygenetic, arising out of a variety of social, cultural,
psychological and physiological factors. . . .
Secondary deviation is deviant behavior [that results] as a means of
social defense . . . or adaptation to the . . . problems created by the
societal reaction to primary deviance. . . . Secondary deviation refers
to a special class of socially defined responses which people make to
problems created by the societal reaction to their deviance. (Lemert
1967, 17, 40)
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 185mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 185 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
186 CHAPTER 11 DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL
Erving Goffman’s work on social identity helps us to make
sense of the power of labels. Goffman argued that the stigma 8 of
negative social labels can work to spoil a person’s identity. Accord-
ing to Goffman, a stigma is “any attribute that discredits a person
or disqualifies him or her from ‘full social acceptance’” (1963, 3).
Goffman identified three types of stigma. First, there are abomi-
nations of the body —clearly visible physical marks (deformities,
scars, disfiguring injuries). Second, there are blemishes of individual
character —labels of mental disorder, dishonesty, alcoholism, or
bankruptcy. Finally, there are tribal stigmas —or being discredited
for membership in a particular racial, religious, or ethnic group or
subcultural group. In other words, a stigma can be either ascribed
or achieved.
Goffman argued that a stigma can affect one’s social inter-
actions in two ways. When a stigma is visible or known, it can
result in a discredited identity. Like Bob, who because he lived in
a small town was publicly labeled as a criminal and treated as
such people with discredited identities have a tough time being
nondeviant even if they want to be.
Frequently, however, individuals are able to hide attributes
that, if visible, would stigmatize them. In other words, stigmatized
individuals may try “to pass”—that is, to camouflage the attri-
bute that would get them labeled as deviant. Successfully pass-
ing means that the individual is not discredited. But because the
person is vulnerable to being found out, he or she is discreditable —
that is, in danger of feeling the full force of the stigma.
Goffman observed that the results are the same regardless of
whether the person achieves a stigma or has it ascribed to him or
her: “In all of these various instances of stigma the same socio-
logical features are found: an individual who might have been
received easily in ordinary social intercourse possesses a trait that
can intrude itself upon the attention and turn those of us whom
he meets away from him, breaking the claim that his other attri-
butes have on us” (1963, 18).
Others have found that a negative label, or a social stigma, can
easily become a person’s master status (the concept of master
status was introduced in chapter 8). Criminologist Edwin Schur
noted, for example, that such negative social labels as drug addict,
homosexual, prostitute, or juvenile delinquent “will dominate all
other characteristics of the individual. Good athlete, good con-
versationalist, good dancer, and the like are subordinated to or
8The term stigma comes from ancient Greece and Rome, where runaway slaves and
criminals were branded with a hot iron or needle as a sign of their disgrace. These
brands were called stigma, from the Greek verb stizein, meaning “to tattoo.” When the
word became part of the English language in the late sixteenth century, it was used as it
had been by the ancients—to refer to visible signs of disgrace.
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 186mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 186 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
The Functions of Deviance: Maintenance of the Status Quo and Social Change 187
negated by this trait, which is immediately felt to be more central
to the ‘actual’ identity of the individual” (1971, 9).
11.3 Explain the difference between primary and secondary deviance.
Why do some sociologists think it is important to distinguish between
the two types?
The Functions of Deviance: Maintenance
of the Status Quo and Social Change
According to conventional wisdom, society would be much bet-
ter off if it could get rid of crime and deviance. Durkheim started
changing at least sociologists’ minds about this. His reasoning
was this: If people continue to violate norms, their behavior must
offer some benefit to society. What benefit do crime and deviance
confer on society? Well, for one thing, criminals and deviants rep-
resent social enemies, and hating these social enemies can help
unite society. Thus, Durkheim argued,
crime brings together upright consciences and concentrates them. We
have only to notice what happens, particularly in a small town, when
some moral scandal has just been committed. They stop each other
on the street, they visit each other, they seek to come together to talk
about the event and to wax indignant in common. (1893/1933, 102)
Sociologist Kai T. Erikson extended Durkheim’s idea that
crime could be functional by noting that deviance clarifies soci-
ety’s norms and moral boundaries. Typically a group’s norms are
pretty vague, but societal reaction to rule breakers helps to clarify
the limits of normative (appropriate) behavior:
The reaction to some people as rule violators functions to clarify the
meaning of the norm. Others learn “how far they can go.” Consider
the rule, “do not cheat on examinations.” What does it mean for
specific examination situations? In the case of a take-home exami-
nation, it clearly means that a student should not copy another
student’s answer. Does it also mean that students should not work
together or talk over the assignment at all? How does the rule apply
to term papers? Does it mean that students should not seek assis-
tance from other students or other professors? Does it mean that
one term paper should not be submitted in two classes? When some

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
Ponder
Generally speaking, the stigma that results from conviction for
a white-collar crime is less than the stigma that results from
conviction for a street crime. Why do you think this is so?
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 187mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 187 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
188 CHAPTER 11 DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL
Table 11.2 Racial Composition of those Incarcerated for Drug Offenses
in U.S. State Prisons, 2000–2005.
Year
Race/Ethnicity
of Prisoner 2000 2003 2005
White 23.2% 25.9% 28.5%
Black 57.9 53.0 44.8
Hispanic 17.2 20.0 20.2
Other 1.7 1.1 6.5
Total 100% 100% 100%
(N) 251,100 259,900 253,300
SOURCE: Adapted from Marc Mauer, 2009. The Changing Racial Dynamics of the War on Drugs.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
students “go too far” and exceed the academic community’s bound-
aries or tolerance limits, the community reacts, and that reaction
defines specific situational meanings of the rule. (Quoted in Liska
1987, 40)
Finally, deviance encourages social change. Durkheim noted
that deviant people are sources of social change of the sort that
can benefit society. As proved by the American revolutionaries
of the eighteenth century, today’s deviance may become tomor-
row’s morality, today’s deviant may become tomorrow’s hero.
A CAUTION ABOUT CRIME DATA
Sociologists who study crime and deviance use data from a vari-
ety of sources. It’s important to be careful when interpreting
these data. Suppose, for example, you came across table 11.2 . This
table shows, among other things, that in the year 2000 more than
half (57.9 percent) of all people in state prisons for drug offenses
were black. This statistic is made all the more startling given that
blacks make up only about 12 percent of the U.S. population.
A sociologically naive person might conclude that blacks are
more likely to use drugs than whites or Hispanics.
A close inspection of table  11.3 , however, would show how
wrong-headed that conclusion would be. The data in table 11.3
look at the people who are regular drug users. It shows that if
we look at all regular drug users, we find that the percentage of
each group is fairly close to their percentage in the United States.
In other words, whites make up about three-quarters of the U.S.
population and close to three-quarters of those who regularly use
illegal drugs.
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 188mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 188 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
Deviance Is Not Immutable 189
The question is, why are regular drug users who are black or
Hispanic more likely to go to prison? One might be tempted to say
that perhaps black or Hispanic drug offenders commit more seri-
ous drug offenses (i.e., selling as opposed to possession of drugs).
Unfortunately, there are no reliable data on this point; however,
“Persons who use drugs . . . generally report that they purchased
their drugs from someone of their own race” (Mauer 2009, 8).
The differences in incarceration rates is probably explained
by a number of factors. In recent decades, the criminal justice
system has specifically targeted the use of “crack” cocaine 9
with enhanced sentences. Because crack is relatively cheap, it is
attractive to low-income users. Blacks are more likely than whites
to have low incomes and live in communities with “limited access
to treatment and alternative sentencing options” like diversion
programs (Mauer and King 2007, 18).
11.4 In 1955 Rosa Parks, an African American woman, disobeyed an
Alabama state law by not giving up her seat to a white person (as the
law insisted). Parks was arrested, convicted, and fined $10 plus $4
court costs. What function did her deviance play?
Deviance Is Not Immutable10
Deviance is an inevitable part of social life. According to Emile
Durkheim, it is impossible for a society to exist without deviance:
Societies create norms and, inevitably, some people will violate them.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
9Crack cocaine is a kind of cocaine that is produced by dissolving cocaine in water,
mixing it with common household chemicals, and boiling the mixture until “rocks”
appear.
10 Immutable means unchanging and unchangeable.
Table 11.3 Racial Composition of the United States and of Regular
Illegal Drug Users in the U.S., 2000–2005.
Race/Ethnicity
of Drug User
Percent
of Total
Population Year
2000 2003 2005
White 76% 74.8% 71.0% 69.2%
Black 12 11.5 12.3 14.0
Hispanic 9 9.1 12.2 12.4
SOURCE: Adapted from Marc Mauer (2009), and Drug Use Among Racial/Ethnic Minorities,
Revised Edition, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Department of Health and Human
Services, National Institutes of Health. 2003.
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 189mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 189 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
190 CHAPTER 11 DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL
No act, however, is inherently deviant. Any particular behav-
ior is deviant only if people in a society have rules against that
behavior. Moreover, as people change, rules may change and dif-
ferent behaviors may be defined as deviant (or not).
Traditionally, if a student enrolled in a social problems or a
sociology of deviance class, one of the topics listed on the syllabus
would be homosexuality. There was little question that homosex-
ual behavior was deviant.
Indeed, until the early 1960s, homosexual acts, called sodomy
or crimes against nature, were felonies in all state jurisdictions in
the United States. Things began to change in the 1960s and 1970s,
but—as late as 1986, half of the states still had laws prohibiting
sodomy.11 As shown in figure 11.1, in the 1980s, most Americans
believed that homosexual behavior was “always wrong” and
most court decisions reflected that belief. For example, in 1982,
Michael Hardwick was arrested in his bedroom with another
man and charged with violating Georgia’s law against sodomy.
Over the course of the next four years, the case found its way to
Figure 11.1
Percentage of
American Adults
Who Say that Sex
between Two Adults
Is “Always Wrong,”
or “Not Wrong at
All” (1973–2010).
SOURCE: Smith, 2011.
80%
Always wrong
Not wrong at all
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1973 1980 1987 1994 2002 2010
11Technically, sodomy includes any sexual intercourse that does not involve a penis
and a vagina—whether it involves same sex or different sex partners. However, I can’t
find any record of different sex partners being prosecuted.
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 190mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 190 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
Gays in the Military 191
the U.S. Supreme Court, where five of its nine members found
that people who wished to engage in same sex sexual acts have
no constitutionally protected right to do so.
However, in the new century, people’s attitudes began to
change. Then, in 2003, the Court was presented with another
sodomy case. In Lawrence v Texas (2003) a six-to-three majority
ruled that sodomy statutes were unconstitutional violations of
American’s right to privacy.
Did this mean that sodomy laws were taken off the books? No.
At this writing, some fourteen states’ laws criminalize sodomy,
and in many of these states there continue to be prosecutions or,
at least, legal harassment of gays.12
A year after the Lawrence case was decided, in 2004, the Mas-
sachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state’s constitution equal
protection clause required that same-sex couples be allowed to
marry. At this writing, same sex marriage is legal in Connecticut,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
York, Vermont, and Washington State (and Washington D.C.).
Same sex marriage is allowed in several other countries:
Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Por-
tugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden.
Gays in the Military
The 1916 Articles of War prohibited homosexuals from serving in
the military. In World War II, “the military developed procedures
for spotting and excluding homosexual draftees from service:
recruits were screened for feminine body characteristics, effemi-
nacy in dress and manner and a patulous (expanded) rectum.”13
During the Vietnam War, some draftees claimed homosexual ten-
dencies in order to avoid service. “It didn’t always work: in 1968
Perry Watkins, a 19-year-old man, “was drafted despite checking
the ‘yes’ box in the category ‘homosexual tendencies’ during his
pre-induction physical examination. After 16 years of service, the
12In the following states, sodomy is outlawed for both gays and straight people:
Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Virginia,
South Carolina, and Utah. In Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, and Texas, sodomy is only a
criminal act if involves same-sex couples.
13Unlike their male counterparts, lesbians had little difficulty serving in the mili-
tary in WWII. For one thing, those seeking to serve were not asked about their sex-
ual orientation—partly because it was contrary to social norms to ask women such
questions and partly because women service members who displayed male tenden-
cies were considered to probably “be perfectly normal sexually and excellent military
material”(Berube, 1990, 29). After the war, however, women were placed under greater
scrutiny, requiring lesbians, like gay men, to work harder to hide their sexuality if they
wanted to continue to serve.
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 191mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 191 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
192 CHAPTER 11 DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL
military discharged [Sergeant] Perry Watkins for his sexual ori-
entation; he promptly filed a lawsuit” (Webley, 2010). Perry won
the lawsuit and the court awarded him retroactive pay, an hon-
orable discharge, and promotion from staff sergeant to sergeant
first class.
In 1993, the United States Congress passed the Military Per-
sonnel Eligibility Act, informally known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t
Tell.” The act barred the military from asking those seeking to
serve about their sexual orientation. However, contrary to the
common understanding of the law, the act continued to allow the
military to investigate the sexual lives of serving personnel. As a
result, between 1994 and 2010, “more than 12,000 service mem-
bers” were dismissed from the military for their sexual orienta-
tion” (Webley 2010).
In 2010, The U.S. Congress passed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Repeal Act.” The act removed all restrictions against homosexu-
als serving in the military. While surveys suggested most Ameri-
cans (about 60 percent) were in favor of allowing gays to serve,
there was opposition. In 2009, for example, more than 1,000
retired admirals and generals published a statement saying that
“Repeal  .  .  . would undermine recruiting and retention, impact
leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness
of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service,
and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force” (quoted in Belkin,
et al., 2012).
A year after repeal, research suggested that the pessimistic pre-
dictions about allowing gays to serve openly in the military were
wrong: The repeal of DADT has had no overall negative impact
on military readiness or its component dimensions, including
cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale”
(Belkin, et al., 2012, 4). In June, 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon
E. Panetta celebrated “Pride Month” with a video statement
thanking “gay and lesbian service members and lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender civilians for their dedicated service to
the nation” (U.S. Department of Defense, http://www.pentagon-
channel.mil/Home.aspx).
Chapter Review
1. Below I have listed the major concepts discussed in this chap-
ter. Define each of the terms. ( Hint: This exercise will be more
helpful to you if, in addition to defining each concept, you
create an example of it in your own words.)
relativity of deviance
normative behavior
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 192mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 192 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 193
nonsociologial approaches to deviance
demonic possession as a theory of deviance
Cesare Lombroso’s theory of atavism
William Sheldon (ecto-, endo- and mesomorph)
Émile Durkheim, collective conscience
structural strain
anomie and egoism
Robert Merton and anomie
responses to anomie (conformity, innovation ritualism,
retreatism, rebellion)
Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin
differential opportunities to deviate
Howard Becker
deviance as learned behavior
societal reaction/labeling theory
Edwin Lemert
primary and secondary deviance
Erving Goffman
stigma
discreditable versus discredited identity
functions of deviance
2. Review Merton’s typology of adaptation to anomie. Create an
example of each type of adaptation (conformity, innovation,
ritualism, and rebellion) and explain how each of your
examples fits the definition of that type of adaptation. (Don’t
use examples given in the chapter; make up your own.)
3. Durkheim suggested that deviance can be a source of social
change. Give an example of someone who, during your life-
time, was judged to be deviant or criminal but nonetheless
brought about social change.
4. The relationship between conformity to norms and deviance
is frequently a complicated one. Describe a situation in which
conformity to the norms of some smaller group would result in
nonconformity to the norms of the larger society. Then, discuss
what implications this sort of conflict of norms might have for
sociologists who want to understand why people deviate.
Answers and Discussion
11.1
a. False—society cannot be divided into people who conform and
people who do not conform to social norms. If we tried to make
such a division, everyone would be on the same side of the line.
Everyone deviates sometimes, and most people conform most of
the time. (Even chainsaw murderers usually eat dinner with a fork
and use toilet paper in the socially prescribed manner.)

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 193mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 193 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
194 CHAPTER 11 DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL
b. False—people generally do not agree on which behaviors are
deviant and which are not deviant. In fact, there is a great deal
of disagreement in society about what is deviant and what is not.
It varies among subcultures and across time. However, within
a particular society, there may be general agreement on the
most important norms (for example, there is usually pretty solid
agreement on what constitutes taboo behavior).
c. True—most people have violated one or more important mores
at some time in their lives. You may be the exception, but most
of us will violate an important norm at least occasionally.
d. False—most deviant behaviors are not regarded as deviant in all
societies and at all times. As I tried to emphasize, it is very difficult
to identify a particular behavior that is deviant everywhere.
e. False—it is not merely acts that are harmful to people that are
judged to be deviant. There are many acts that really do not harm
anyone but that are still regarded as deviant. It would be accurate,
I think, to say that all deviant behaviors are offensive (if only in
the sense that deviant acts offend social norms). Talking with your
mouth full of food, for example, or picking your nose doesn’t harm
anyone, but these behaviors certainly do offend people.
11.2
a. For Merton, the structural strain that led to anomie was the con-
tradiction between socially approved goals and socially approved
means. In our society, earning lots of money is a socially approved
goal. But there are not enough socially approved/legitimate means
for everyone to achieve this goal. This contradiction leads some
people to deviate.
b. Their contribution was to point out that just as not all people
have the same access to socially approved/legitimate means, not
all people have the same access to illegitimate means.
11.3 Primary deviance is deviance that people commit—on a whim or
owing to particular circumstances. If they are caught and sanctioned for this
act, they may be led to perform secondary deviance. Secondary deviance is
deviance that people perform as a result of being labeled as a deviant.
11.4 She said that she did it because her feet were tired, but when Parks
refused to give up her seat to a white person and was arrested for this
“crime,” she became a symbol that helped launch the civil rights movement.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 194mcI26873_ch11_169-194.indd 194 19/04/13 3:59 AM19/04/13 3:59 AM

Confirming Pages
195
12
STRATIFICATION AND INEQUALITY
I nequality is an inevitable fact of social life. In all societies, people are evaluated on the basis of some characteristic (or
set of characteristics) and placed into higher- or lower-ranking
groups. People in higher-ranking groups tend to receive dispro-
portionately larger shares of valued social stuff (such as wealth,
power, and respect). People in lower-ranking groups tend to
receive correspondingly smaller shares of these social rewards.
Sociologists refer to this evaluation-ranking-reward system and
its results as social stratification. The term stratification is one that
we borrowed from the earth sciences because it conveys the fact
that society is made up of social layers, or strata, that are arranged
in a hierarchy. As figure 12.1 shows, like rocks in the earth, some
people are at the bottom of society, some are in the middle,
and some are at the top.
Be careful: The analogy between social strata and geological
strata can be a little misleading. Yes, groups of people are
arranged by strata in society just as rocks are in the earth. But
geologists do not value a kind of rock simply because it is found
in the top stratum. In every type of social stratification system,
however, the people at the top are considered better than the peo-
ple at the bottom. Sometimes, as I will describe shortly, better can
mean purer, or smarter, or braver. But it always means more of
something that is valued in that society (Barber 1968).
Although every society has some form of stratification, the
forms vary from society to society. Notwithstanding their differ-
ences, all stratification systems have three related things in com-
mon. First, the systems tend to persist for a long time. Second, the
systems are resistant to change. Third, each system is bolstered
by widely accepted legitimating rationales. These rationales help
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 195mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 195 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
196 CHAPTER 12 STRATIFICATION AND INEQUALITY
to account for the persistence of particular social stratification
systems.
In the most general sense, legitimating rationales are widely
accepted beliefs that something is fair and just. With respect to strat-
ification, then, legitimating rationales are widely accepted beliefs
that the inequalities that exist in a particular society (differences in
power, wealth, prestige, and so on) are essentially “right and rea-
sonable” (Della Fave 1980). In other words, the rationales that legiti-
mate stratification systems reflect people’s beliefs about why some
people are ranked higher than others and why this is fair. To the
degree that stratification systems differ across societies, we would
expect them to have different legitimating rationales. Understand-
ing these rationales will help us to make sense of people’s accep-
tance of the kind of stratification that exists in their society.
Though there are perhaps as many forms of stratification as
there are societies, sociologists generally group these into three
major categories: caste, estate, and class.
Caste Systems
In a caste system, one’s rank is determined at birth. In other words, one’s
position in a caste system is based on ascribed characteristics. Caste
membership generally determines a person’s prestige, occupation,
and residence, as well as the nature of his or her social relationships.
The most frequently cited example of a caste system is the one
that originated in India some 4,000 years ago. When Portuguese
explorers visited India in the mid-sixteenth century, they were
very impressed by the fact that each person was born into a par-
ticular subgroup and was more or less allowed to interact only
with people from the same subgroup. The many prohibitions on
interaction led the Portuguese explorers to call the subgroups
Figure 12.1
Perspectives on
Stratification.
Sociologists use the
term stratification to
refer to the different
social strata that exist
in society. People in
higher strata receive
greater rewards
than do people in
lower strata.
Sociological Geological
Upper class
Sandstone and shale
Limestone and gypsum
Siltstone and gypsum
Sandstone
Middle class
Working class
Lower class
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 196mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 196 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
Caste Systems 197
casta —a Portuguese word meaning “pure” or “something that
ought not be mixed.” What the word reflects, then, is the sense
the explorers had that the boundaries between the subgroups in
India were so very strong that it was as if the people in differ-
ent castes belonged to different races. 1 In 1908 Célestin Bouglé,
a French social scientist, defined caste this way:
The caste system divides the whole society into a large number of
hereditary groups, distinguished from one another and connected
together by three characteristics: separation in matters of marriage
and contact, whether direct or indirect; division of labour, each group
having, in theory or by tradition, a profession from which their
members can depart only within certain limits; and finally hierarchy,
which ranks the groups as relatively superior or inferior to one
another. (Paraphrased in Dumont 1970, 21)
In a caste system, no one is allowed to wed, eat food cooked by,
or drink from the cup of anyone from a lower caste. Many kinds
of contact are judged to defile (contaminate) the higher-caste
person. At one time, for example, members of the lowest castes
were forbidden to move about in public during the daylight
hours merely because of the possibility that their shadows might
fall upon an upper-caste person.
The caste system of India finds its legitimating rationale in
the Hindu religion. This rationale begins with the Hindu idea of
transmigration (or what many Western-
ers would call reincarnation ). It is gener-
ally believed that each person is born
into a particular caste as a result of his
or her actions and thoughts in a previ-
ous life. This has to do with the concept
of karma —a Sanskrit word meaning
“work” or “fate.” 2 Those who subscribe
to the Hindu faith view karma as the
inexorable application of the law of cause
and effect. That is, people who lead
a good life, carefully follow the rules of the religion, and fulfill
their dharma, or caste-based duties, will inevitably be born into a
higher caste in the next life. But those who fail to carry out their
dharma will lose caste in the next life (Smith 1958).
According to the Hindu religion, there are four varnas, or “col-
ors” or “grades of being.” As told by the Hindu creation story
found in the Rig Veda (an ancient religious text), the universe
was born from the sacrifice of the male/female entity Purusha.
1 It was in this sense that Charles Darwin, in his On the Origin of Species, referred to
different castes of insects.
2 Sanskrit is the sacred language of the Hindu religion.
According to the Hindu religion, human beings
“do not start life with a clean slate. The soul of every
newborn infant formerly inhabited some other body.
Sometimes the soul came from another human being,
sometimes from an animal. Wherever it had been
before, it accumulated karma. Karma is a little like
dust: it collects on the soul just through the process
of living. Only a very wise and good individual,
aided by ritual purification, can avoid accumulating
a lot of it” (McNeill 1987, 153).
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 197mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 197 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
198 CHAPTER 12 STRATIFICATION AND INEQUALITY
Purusha was dismembered by the gods, and the detached parts
became the stuff from which the entire universe was fashioned.
More specifically, from the different parts of Purusha’s body
came the four varnas: (1) the brahmans, or priests, seers, and
philosophers; (2) the kshatriyas, or warriors, royalty, and admin-
istrators; (3) the vaishyas, or producers, merchants, farmers, arti-
sans, and other skilled workers; and (4) the shudras, or peasants
and unskilled workers. A final group of people, the scheduled
castes, or untouchables, complete India’s stratification system,
though for thousands of years they were deemed too impure to
be part of the caste system itself. 3
Within each varna, or grade of being,
are castes ( jatis ) numbering in the thou-
sands. As with their varna, people’s
membership in a jati begins at birth
and lasts until death. Each jati is associ-
ated with a particular occupation (for
example, shoemaker, teacher, animal
herder, or leather worker). However, it
is no longer the case that all the mem-
bers of a jati necessarily work in that
occupation—especially in urban areas.
In 1949 the concept of untouchables
was outlawed in India, and in 1950
the Constitution of Independent India
outlawed the entire caste system. Did this mean the end of the
caste system in India? No. Systems of inequality are institutions
and, like all institutions, very difficult to change. The changes in
law had very little effect. Because of its tie to important religious
beliefs, the caste system has retained much of its strength and
is still enforced by very strong informal norms and sanctions.
Recently, as some of the former untouchables have sought to claim
their legal rights, these informal sanctions have tended to be quite
violent. In the city, it’s possible to get past some of the constraints
of the caste system because of the anonymity of urban life. In
the countryside, however, everyone knows who belongs to each
caste, and the caste system still has a great deal of power. This is a
good example of how enduring and how difficult to change social
3 During his tenure as the great modern leader of India, Mohandas Gandhi
(1869–1948), nicknamed Mahatma (“the Great Soul”), made some concessions to bring
the untouchables into mainstream society in India. Mahatma called the untouchables
the Harijan (sons of Hari ). Hari is the name commonly used to refer to Vishnu, an impor-
tant Hindu deity. In other words, Gandhi was renaming the untouchables “creatures
of God.” Many former untouchables rejected the renaming as just a cosmetic change,
however. Today, members of this casteless group prefer the less euphemistic term
“scheduled caste” (a term used in the Constitution). Others prefer the name dalit —
meaning “crushed” or “broken down” in Marathi—a language spoken in central India.
“Thousand-faced Purusha, thousand-eyed, thousand
footed—he, having pervaded the earth on all sides,
still extends ten fingers beyond it. Purusha alone is
all this—whatever has been and whatever is going to
be. . . . He is the lord of immortality and also of what
grows on account of food.
When they divided Purusha, in how many different
portions did they arrange him? What became of his
mouth, what of his two arms? What were his two
thighs and his two feet called?
His mouth became the brahman; his two arms were
made into the [kshatriyas]; his two thighs the
vaishyas; from his two feet the shudra was born.”
— Rig Veda
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 198mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 198 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
Estate Systems 199
institutions are. It seems that social institutions will resist changes
as long as participants believe in legitimating principles.
Estate Systems
As in a caste system, a person’s place in the hierarchy of an estate
system is determined at birth. Contacts between members of dif-
ferent estates are permitted, though generally this contact is fairly
impersonal (as between a boss and an employee). So, for example,
marriage between people of different estates is generally forbid-
den by law. The feudal system that prevailed in Western Europe
during the Middle Ages is frequently cited as a good example of
an estate system of stratification.
In England, as in much of the rest of Europe, there were three
estates, or social strata. The highest stratum, the first estate, was
made up of the aristocracy or nobility. The first estate, which
persisted nearly into modern times in England, came into power
after William the Conqueror (also known as William the Bastard)
came from Normandy to proclaim himself king of England (in
1066 C.E. ). William and his soldiers eventually confiscated most
of the property owned by the original English (the Saxons). To
show his appreciation, William granted these lands (or feuds ) to
the men who had helped him to conquer England. The earliest
members of this first estate, then, were those with distinguished
records of loyalty and military service to William (and later, to
subsequent kings). Originally, royal land grants were more like
land loans, and in theory, when the individual grantee died, the
lands reverted to the king, who could then grant them to some-
one else. Over time, it became customary for the king to regrant
the lands to the heirs of the previous owner. In this way member-
ship in the first estate came to be inherited, or ascribed.
The clergy made up the second estate. Like the members of
the first estate, the church had a great deal of power, in large part
because it owned a great deal of land. Membership in the second
estate was not based on ascribed characteristics. But the highest-
ranking churchmen (and churchwomen) came from the ranks of
the first estate, and the lowest-ranking from more common stock.
Originally the third estate included only the peasants (some-
times called villeins, or serfs). These were the people who were
tied legally to specific parcels of land. So, when the king granted a
piece of land to a member of the first estate, the aristocrat—or lord
of the manor—got the people, too! The lord–peasant relationship
was supposed to be for their mutual benefit. The lord of the manor
pledged to protect his peasants from outside threats and keep the
peace. In return, the peasants pledged their labor and loyalty.
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 199mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 199 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
200 CHAPTER 12 STRATIFICATION AND INEQUALITY
A Year in the Life of the Peasant
“From the 29th of September until the 29th of June he must work
two days a week, to wit on Monday and Wednesday; and on
Friday he must plough with all the beasts of his team; but he
has a holiday for a fortnight at Christmas and for a week at Eas-
ter and at Whitsuntide. If one of the Fridays on which he ought
to plough is a festival or if the weather is bad, he must do the
ploughing on some other day. Between the 29th of September
and the 11th of November he must also plough and harrow half
an acre for wheat, and for sowing that half-acre he must give of
his own seed the eighth part of a quarter: Whether that quan-
tity be more or less than is necessary for sowing the half-acre
he must give that quantity, no more, no less: and on account of
this seed he is excused from one day’s work. At Christmas time
he must make two quarters of malt and for each quarter he is
excused one day’s work. At Christmas he shall give three hens
and a cock or four pence and at Easter ten eggs. He must also do
six carryings in the year within the county between the 29th of
June and the end of harvest at whatever time the bailiff shall
choose, or, if the lord pleases, he shall between the 29th of June
and the 29th of September work five days a week, working the
whole day at whatever work is set him, besides carrying corn,
for he shall carry but four cartloads of corn for a day’s work. If
at harvest time the lord shall have two or three ‘boon works,’
he shall come to them with all the able-bodied members of his
family save his wife, so that he must send at least three men to
work” (Pollock and Maitland 1898/1968, 267).
Vocabulary
bailiff: overseer
boon works: days of work the lord could require of a peasant
as a favor
carrying: transporting crops
fortnight: 14 days
harrow: cultivate
malt: barleywater or barley added to water (the first step in
beer making)
plough: plow
quarter: 8 bushels (8 gallons or 4 pecks)
sow: plant seed
Whitsuntide: Whitsunday/Pentecost (a Christian holiday
celebrated in spring)
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 200mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 200 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
Estate Systems 201
Each lord of a manor likewise owed duties to the king or some
other overlord. Typically, these duties could be discharged by pay-
ing off any taxes assessed by the king. But some duties were different:
A Kentishman was required to “hold the King’s head in the boat”
when he should cross the Channel. Even more peculiar was the case
of a certain [minor lord] obliged every Christmas to make before his
lord, unum saltum et siffletum et unum bumbulum (“a leap, whistle and
audible gaseous expulsion”). (Bishop 1968, 111)
In time, the third estate came to include merchants and crafts-
men as well as peasants. When they were few in number, the
merchants and craftsmen were regarded as free men and existed
on the periphery of the estate system. But, beginning in about the
twelfth century, the nobles came to fear the growing power of
these ambitious individuals. To keep them in their place (that is,
below the first estate), the aristocrats enacted laws officially des-
ignating merchants and craftsmen as members of the third estate.
In this way, the third estate came to be the estate of commoners. 4
What beliefs legitimated the feudal system? Early on, the
privileges that came from being a member of the first estate were
justified because of the personal qualities of each aristocrat—his
military prowess, bravery, loyalty, and so on. When rank in soci-
ety (and land ownership) became hereditary, of course, even the
proverbial 90-pound weakling could become lord of the manor.
In time, people came to believe they belonged to the estate that
suited them. As far as the people were concerned, social rank was
assigned by God. As one historian explained, members of the
aristocracy were perceived to be “noble,” and “everyone else was
judged ‘ignoble’ or ‘churlish’”—that is, rude and ill-bred:
The gentleman or nobleman was a man set apart to govern. He was
independent and leisured: he derived his income without having to
work for it, that income made him free from want and from being
beholden to or dependent upon others, and he had the time and
leisure to devote himself to the arts of government. He was indepen-
dent in judgment and trained to make decisions. Not all gentlemen
served in the offices which required such qualities (justice of the
peace, sheriff, militia captain, high constable, etc.). But all had this
capacity to serve, to govern. (Morrill 1984, 297)
As industrialization came to Europe, the estate system broke
down. Industry created new jobs and pulled people away from
the land. Still, remnants of the estate system can be found even
4 Occasionally, people speak of the fourth estate. This refers to the members of the
media/press. The “term has its source from a reference to the reporters’ gallery of the
British Parliament whose influence on public policy was said to equal that of the Par-
liament’s three traditional estates, the clergy, nobility, and commons” (Black 1979, 591).
In the fifteenth-
century, Lady
Luliana Berners
wrote about ‘the
common conviction
that Seth and Abel,
sons of Adam and
Eve, were gentlemen,
but Cain a churl
and ancestor of the
churls of the world.
Christ [she said] was
a gentleman on his
mother’s side.’”
— Morris Bishop (1968,
115)
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 201mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 201 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
202 CHAPTER 12 STRATIFICATION AND INEQUALITY
today. For example, membership in the upper house of the
English Parliament, the House of Lords, is open to all holders of
hereditary peerages, or noble rank—these are the Lords Temporal. 5
Moreover, the upper house includes the Lords Spiritual —the arch-
bishops and the most senior bishops of the Church of England
(other religions are not officially represented in Parliament). At
the same time, membership in the lower house of Parliament, the
House of Commons, is limited to commoners—no one of noble
birth can stand for election to the House of Commons without
repudiating (giving up) his or her title.
Class Systems
The social class system of stratification was made possible by
industrialization and urbanization. Workers moved from farms
and agricultural occupations to cities and factory positions. Geo-
graphic mobility and industry presented many more opportuni-
ties to change one’s life circumstances. A class system seemed to
be an inevitable result.
Recall that in the estate system it was commonly believed that
God placed the best people in the highest ranks. In the class system,
by contrast, it is commonly thought that the best people work their
own way into the highest ranks. In theory, at least, a true class
system is supposed to turn on achieved rather than ascribed char-
acteristics. Those who are smart, talented, and hard-working (and
a little lucky) can rise to the top of the class system. Of course, peo-
ple who are not as smart, talented, or hard-working (or who have
bad luck) can just as easily sink to the bottom. In brief, this is the
sort of belief that justifies class-based stratification systems as fair
and just. To paraphrase James Kluegel and Eliot Smith, the class
system is legitimated by the principle that the opportunity to get
ahead is available to all. According to this logic, the position you
reach in the class system is the direct result of your own efforts,
traits, and abilities, and not the result of economic or social factors.
That your efforts determine where you end up means that you are
personally responsible for the rewards you receive. Thus, the logic
of the class system regards inequality as legitimate because, after
all, people end up where they deserve to be (1981, 29–32).
5 This group does not include those lords who are not yet 21 years of age or who are
disqualified owing to being foreign-born, bankrupt, or in prison for a felony or treason.
Since 1963 women of noble rank have been allowed to sit in the House of Lords. The
Act of Lords in 1999 ended the right of hereditary peers to pass their seats to family
members. Since then, members are mostly appointed by a special committee.
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 202mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 202 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
Theoretical Conceptions of Class 203
Theoretical Conceptions of Class
What it is, exactly, that determines one’s place in a class sys-
tem has been a matter of great debate. One of the first to take
a stand on this matter was Karl Marx. According to Marx, the
most important thing about any society was its economic system,
especially the means by which it produced the stuff that people
needed to survive. In the earliest days of humanity, the means
of production was hunting and gathering; in the Middle Ages, it
was agriculture; in modern times, it is industry. Marx said that
to understand an individual’s resources, personality, values, and
beliefs, we need to understand where he or she stands relative to
the means of production.
From Marx’s perspective, people in a fully developed capitalist
society fall into one of two classes: the proletariat and the bour-
geoisie. The proletariat are those whose place in the means of pro-
duction is to labor; they have only their labor power to sell. The
bourgeoisie are those who own the means of production—the
factories and other large prod uction facilities.6
Marx called the capitalist/owner stratum the bourgeoisie —
a French word meaning “shopkeeper.” In the Middle Ages,
the bourgeoisie were relegated to the third estate. But, as Marx
observed, as the means of production changed from agriculture
to industry, the landowning aristocrats lost power to the spirited
entrepreneurial shopkeepers who had risen up to become the fac-
tory owners.
Marx called the worker stratum the proletariat —from the Latin
proletarius, a term that was used to refer to the lowest class of citi-
zens in ancient Rome.
Max Weber had a different take on the nature of modern strati-
fication. First, he said, Marx’s conception of economic class was
too narrow. The crucial thing was not where one stood in relation
to the means of production (that is, whether one was an owner
6In the Middle Ages, the bourgeoisie were relegated to the third estate. But, as Marx
observed, the means of production changed from agriculture to industry, the landown-
ing aristocrats lost power to the spirited entrepreneurial shopkeepers who had risen
up to become the factory owners. Marx also discussed a class he called the petite (or
petty) bourgeoisie (small bourgeoisie)—owners of small stores and crafts people. The
petit bourgeoisie, Marx predicted, would eventually disappear owing to the compe-
tition from large factories and retailers who could produce and market goods more
cheaply. The petty bourgeoisie “sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their
diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which modern industry is carried
on, and is swamped in the competition with large capitalists, partly because their spe-
cialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. (Marx & Engels,
1848/1964, 70-71).
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 203mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 203 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
204 CHAPTER 12 STRATIFICATION AND INEQUALITY
or a worker), but where one stood in the market situation. Weber
defined class this way:
The term class refers to any group of people . . . [who have the same]
typical chance for a supply of goods, external living conditions, and
personal life experiences, insofar as this chance is determined by the . . .
power . . . to dispose of goods or skills for the sake of income in a given
economic order. . . .  Class situation is, in this sense, ultimately market
situation. (Weber 1920/1958, 180) 7
Marx’s version of class would place major-league baseball
players (for whom, in 2009, the minimum salary is $400,000,
while more than half of the players make in excess of $1 million
dollars) in the same class as secretaries who earn less than $35,000
Ponder
Economist Simon Kuznets suggested that the graphic relation-
ship between the means of production and the level of social
stratification is a parabolic one (that is, one shaped like ù). I’ve
illustrated this relationship in figure 12.2 .
Given your understanding of the different kinds of stratifica-
tion systems, why do you think that industrial societies might
have more equality than agrarian societies (that is, those based
on agriculture)?
Figure 12.2 Kuznets’s Curve—Social Stratification and Technology
Hunting
and gathering
Horticultural
and pastoral
Agrarian Industrial
Primary Means of Production in Society
Very unequal
Very equal
Intensity
of Social
Stratification
7 Weber distinguished between lifestyle and life chances: Lifestyle: distinctive ways
in which people consume goods and services; the social customs associated with each
class. Lifestyle differences tend to reflect people’s financial and social resources. Life
chances: phrase coined by Max Weber to indicate the probabilities concerning the fate
an individual can expect in life. Life chances include the probability that the individual
will obtain good health, education, autonomy, and a long life.
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 204mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 204 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
Theoretical Conceptions of Class 205
a year, because they all earn a living by selling their labor. But
from Weber’s point of view, baseball players would be in a much
higher economic class than secretaries owing to the differences in
their respective market situations.
Furthermore, according to Weber, Marx’s emphasis on eco-
nomic factors to the exclusion of all else was misguided. For Weber,
social stratification was multidimensional, and economic situation
was only one dimension of social position. For example, a college
professor who earns less than $60,000 a year still has a higher social
standing than the building contractor who makes $70,000.
Weber argued that to truly understand the nature of social
stratification, sociologists had to take into account not only eco-
nomics (market system) but also the dynamics of power and sta-
tus in society. As Weber defined it, power “is the probability that
one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry
out his own will despite resistance.” Thus, according to Weber,
power is the ability to impose one’s will or to get one’s way even
when faced with opposition from others.
Weber distinguished between different types of power. Legiti-
mate power (which he called authority ) is power that is seen as
justified. For example, when a police officer stops a bank robber
and takes her loot, this is a legitimate use of power. When a mug-
ger stops a pedestrian and takes his wallet, this is an illegitimate
use of power. According to Weber, the extent to which people
have power (especially authority or legitimate power) has a big
impact on their overall position in the stratification system.
Frequently, money and power are related, but not always. A
local district attorney, for example, will earn less money than
the executive officer of a large corporation, but the DA can exer-
cise the power of her office to prevent the corporate officer from
breaking the law.
Finally, Weber said, we must also take into account the degree
to which people have social status. In this context status has to do
with prestige—or the degree to which an individual has social
honor. 8 Most research on social status or prestige has focused on
occupations. As illustrated in table 12.1 , sociologists have found
that people in different occupations fairly consistently receive dif-
ferent amounts of social honor. 9
8 This may seem confusing to you because in chapter 8 I defined status as “a
position that a person occupies on a social structure.” Weber used the word status
differently—to specify the degree to which a position in the social structure is
respected or deferred to.
9 Occupational prestige is usually determined by asking survey respondents to rank
a number of occupations on a scale of 0 to 100. The average score given an occupation
determines its prestige rating.
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 205mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 205 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
206 CHAPTER 12 STRATIFICATION AND INEQUALITY
SOURCE: Adapted from General Social Survey, Cumulative Code Book, 1972–1990 (Chicago:
National Opinion Research Center, 1990).
Table 12.1 Occupational Prestige Rankings of Selected Occupations
in the United States
Occupation
Prestige
Score Occupation
Pres-
tige
Score
Physician 86 Bookkeeper 47
Lawyer 75 Machinist 47
College professor 74 Mail carrier 47
Architect 73 Secretary 46
Chemist 73 Photographer 45
Aerospace engineer 72 Bank teller 43
Dentist 72 Tailor 42
Secret Service agent 70 Welder 42
Clergy 69 Farm owner 40
Psychologist 69 Telephone operator 40
Pharmacist 68 Carpenter 39
Registered nurse 66 Radio/TV repair 38
Secondary school teacher 66 Security guard 37
Accountant 65 Brickmason 36
Athlete 65 Childcare worker 36
Electrical engineer 64 File clerk 36
Elementary school teacher 64 Hairdresser 36
Veterinarian 62 Baker 35
Computer programmer 61 Bus driver 32
Sociologist 61 Auto mechanic 31
Reporter 60 Sales clerk 30
Police officer 60 Cashier 29
Actor 58 Assembly line worker 29
Dietician 56 Garbage collector 29
Radio/TV announcer 55 Taxi driver 28
Librarian 54 Waitress or waiter 28
Aircraft mechanic 53 Bellhop 27
Fire fighter 53 Bartender 25
Dental hygienist 52 Farm laborer 23
Social worker 52 Household maid 23
Electrician 51 Door-to-door salesperson 22
Funeral director 49 Janitor or cleaner 22
Realtor 49 Shoe shiner 9
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 206mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 206 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
Some Words About Slavery 207
Here’s an important point: In view of what I have just stated,
to refer to our stratification system as one based on class is rather
misleading. So, you should firmly implant the following fact
in your brain: When sociologists use the word class, they tend
to mean more than economic factors. Most sociologists follow
Weber’s example in treating social class as a multidimensional
thing. Thus, for example, when sociologists use the word class,
they frequently mean socioeconomic standing, or SES. Measures of
SES look at people’s income, education, occupational prestige,
and wealth and provide some overall assessment of people’s
place in the social stratification system.
12.1 Mary Beth inherited her parents’ small farm. Her profits range
from $25,000 to $35,000 annually.
Elizabeth graduated from Harvard Law School. Now she works as
an in-house counsel (attorney) for General Motors. She brings home
about $145,000 a year.
a. According to Marx, who occupies the higher class position—
Mary Beth or Elizabeth? Why?
b. What would Weber say about who occupies the higher class
position? Why?
c. Suppose the stock market crashes, times are really tough
economically, and people stop making major purchases.
Who is more economically vulnerable—Mary Beth or
Elizabeth? Why?
Some Words About Slavery
Although slavery is a major source of inequality everywhere it
exists, I have not included it as a system of stratification in and of
itself. The reason for this is that slavery can exist (and has done so)
within caste, estate, and class systems. Slaves are people whose
function is to serve others and who have no political rights of
their own—no right to own property, to sign legal contracts (and
then go to the courts to get their contracts enforced), to legally
marry, or to maintain legal custody of their children. Slaves may
be given certain freedoms by their masters, but these are depen-
dent on the goodwill of the master. In the most extreme form of
slavery, slaves are treated as if they were the property of their
masters, in much the same way as goats or cattle. This extreme
type of slavery is called chattel slavery — chattel being a legal term
for “movable property” (like farm animals) as opposed to “real
property” (like land). This is the sort of slavery that existed in
southern states prior to the Civil War.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 207mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 207 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
208 CHAPTER 12 STRATIFICATION AND INEQUALITY
Slavery is most frequently found in societies that are heavily
agricultural (as opposed to industrial). Depending on the society,
people can be enslaved in a number of ways. The earliest forms
of slavery involved people who had been captured in war or kid-
napped. In many societies, people have been enslaved because
they could not pay their debts (or the debts of a family member).
Often, criminals have been sentenced to slavery. In some soci-
eties, children are sold into slavery by their parents (frequently
as an alternative to infanticide, or infant killing, which usually
involves only girl babies). Finally there is self-enslavement, which
occurs when people sell themselves into slavery as a way to over-
come serious economic insecurity.
Historian Orlando Patterson (1982) found that regardless of
how groups of people originally find their way into the position
of being slaves, if slavery persists in a society for more than a cou-
ple of generations, it tends to become hereditary. In other words,
there is a tendency for slavery to change from being an achieved
to an ascribed status.
Some social scientists have suggested that a slave system is just
like a caste system and that slaves are simply the outcastes. They
have a point—but Patterson argues that there are important dif-
ferences between slaves and outcastes:
There was never any marriage, or even illicit sexual relations,
between the outcaste group and ordinary persons, whereas such
relations were common between “free” males and slave women.
. . . Slaves universally were not only sexually exploited in their
role as concubines, but also in their role as mother-surrogates and
nurse-maids. However great the human capacity for contradiction,
it has never been possible for any group of masters to suckle at their
slave’s breasts as infants, sow their wild oats with her as adoles-
cents, then turn around as adults and claim that she was polluted.
(1982, 50)
Moreover, slaves can be freed, or manumitted 10 —but outcastes
cannot lose their caste status. Finally, in a variety of societies,
slaves were drawn from even the highest caste. “Indeed, in order
to perform the various duties imposed on domestic servants, to
be permitted to cross the threshold of an owner’s dwelling, it was
imperative for the slave to enjoy a degree of ritual purity con-
ferred only by membership in certain castes.” Thus, for example,
in Nepal “even Brahmins were enslaved without losing caste”
(Patterson 1982, 51).
10Manumission was a formal process by which a slave was made free. The term
comes from the Latin manu (hand, power) and mitter (to let go).
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 208mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 208 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
Social Mobility and Open Versus Closed Systems 209
Social Mobility and Open
Versus Closed Systems
At the most abstract level, sociologists distinguish between open
and closed stratification systems. The distinction depends on the
amount of social mobility that the system allows.
Sociologists also distinguish between different types of social
mobility. Horizontal mobility refers to movement, say, from one
occupation to another in the same stratum. Vertical mobility refers
to movement up or down in a stratification system (for example,
from lower to middle class). A truly open system of stratification
will have a great deal of both horizontal and vertical mobility.
A truly closed system will have neither.
Sociologists further distinguish between inter generational and
intra generational mobility. Intergenerational mobility refers to
changes in position in the stratification system by different gen-
erations of family members. When a son attains a higher (or
lower) class than his father, the son has experienced intergenera-
tional mobility. Intragenerational mobility—or career mobility—has
to do with the mobility that occurs within a person’s lifetime.
For example, a woman who starts her life in poverty and grows
up to be a justice of the Supreme Court has experienced intra-
generational, or career, mobility. In an open system of stratifica-
tion, we would expect to see a great deal of intragenerational or
career mobility—people should have opportunities to work their
way up (or down). And we would also expect a great deal of inter-
generational mobility—if a system is truly open, where you start
out (such as poor or rich) should not determine where you end up.
A word of caution is in order here. Recall from chapter 8
Weber’s concept of the ideal type. The ideal type of a thing is that
thing considered in its pure form. As we discussed in chapter 8, the
ideal-type bureaucracy is a step removed from real bureaucra-
cies, because real bureaucracies often are not pure. The concepts
of open and closed stratification systems are also ideal types. No
known system of stratification is either totally open or totally
closed. Table  12.2 lists some of the major differences between
ideal-type open and closed systems.
It is fairly easy to see where each of the major systems of
stratification—caste, estate, and class—would fit in this classifi-
cation. The caste system is the most closed system. In India the
differences between people in different varnas and even jatis are
perceived to be related to differences in the purity of the indi-
vidual’s soul. This means that there is no real chance of changing
one’s caste (or the caste of one’s children) during one’s lifetime.
The estate system is also mostly closed, but there is some room
for advancement. As noted previously, one could change one’s
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 209mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 209 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
210 CHAPTER 12 STRATIFICATION AND INEQUALITY
estate by joining the church. Even men without religious voca-
tions could at least hope for advancement because “here and
there little men became big through astuteness, prowess, or royal
favor. Valiant fighters were knighted on the field of battle.” At
the same time, some not-so-valiant “knights sank into the peas-
antry or lived as robbers” (Bishop 1968, 115). In general, however,
distinctions between the estates were seen as fixed by God.
The class system is the closest thing to a truly open stratification
system. As I suggested, one’s class is supposed to be determined by
what one does, not by who one’s parents are—that is, by achieved
rather than ascribed characteristics. In a class-based system, then,
we would expect to see a great deal of all kinds of mobility—
vertical and horizontal, intragenerational and intergenerational.
The degree to which that is true in real life (as opposed to theory) is
something we will examine in the next two chapters.
12.2 Give two examples of each of the following:
a. vertical mobility
b. horizontal mobility
c. intragenerational mobility
d. intergenerational mobility
Chapter Review
1. Below I have listed the major concepts discussed in this chap-
ter. Define each of the terms. ( Hint: This exercise will be more
helpful to you if, in addition to defining each concept, you
create an example of it in your own words.)
stratification
legitimating rationale

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
Table 12.2 Attributes of Ideal-Type Open and Closed Systems
of Stratification
Open Systems Closed Systems
Boundaries between strata are
permeable (open).
Boundaries between strata
are impermeable (closed).
Positions within the system are
achieved.
Positions within the system
are ascribed.
The opportunity to change
ranks exists.
No opportunity to change
ranks exists.
The law permits exogamy (marriage
outside of a stratum), but informal
norms promote endogamy (marriage
within a stratum).
The law requires endogamy.
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 210mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 210 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 211
caste system, in India
transmigration
karma
dharma
varna
jatis
brahmans, kshatriyas, vaishyas, shudras, dalits (scheduled
castes)
estate system, medieval Europe
feudal
estates, first, second, third
villeins
fourth estate
Marx’s conception of class
bourgeoisie, proletariat
Weber’s conception of class
lifestyle versus life chances
Kuznets’s curve
power versus authority
status and prestige
socioeconomic status
chattel slavery
manumission
social mobility
horizontal and vertical
inter- and intragenerational
open system versus closed system
exogamy and endogamy
2. Suppose that your much younger brother or sister (a 7-year-
old) has just watched a television show about poverty in the
United States that featured many clips of children dressed
in shabby clothes and looking hungry. Your little brother or
sister poses a question to you—“How come some people are
so poor and others have so much money?” Explain how you
would respond.
3. Something terrible happens, and you have to drop out of
college. The only job you can find pays $7.50 an hour. Create
a budget for how you would spend that money—for rent and
other necessities. Would you be able to live a “comfortable”
life? (Check the local paper to find out about rent, visit a
grocery store to discover what different foods cost.)
Then assume that on the same level of wages, you had to
support two children. What would their lives be like?
4. Describe the differences in the kinds of rationales or principles
that justify caste, estate, and class systems.
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 211mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 211 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
212 CHAPTER 12 STRATIFICATION AND INEQUALITY
Answers and Discussion
12.1
a. Marx would say that Mary Beth, the owner of the plumbing firm,
has a higher class position than Elizabeth, the attorney. The rea-
son is that Mary Beth owns (part of ) the means of production,
while Elizabeth makes her living selling her labor.
b. Weber would say that Elizabeth has the higher class position,
because her salary puts her in a better position with respect to
the marketplace. She can purchase more stuff than Mary Beth and
increase the quality of her life chances and lifestyle.
c. This could be argued either way, but in my opinion, it’s possible
that Elizabeth is the more economically vulnerable. During
depressed economic times, General Motors might have to
downsize. And given that lawyers are not necessarily central to
the business of General Motors, they might be the first to be laid
off. Unless she has other sources of wealth, without a regular
paycheck coming in, Elizabeth could experience some financially
stressful times. Mary Beth, on the other hand, is less vulnerable
to economic disaster because even in economic times, people will
still need farm produce.
12.2
a. Vertical mobility occurs when someone goes up or down the
“occupational ladder.” A promotion from typist to executive
secretary is vertical mobility, as is a demotion from executive vice
president to sales representative.
b. Horizontal mobility is movement in which someone changes jobs
but not necessarily for the better or worse. If I quit my present
teaching job and moved to a new university, this would probably
be a horizontal move. Sociologists and other observers of the
modern labor market predict that the current generation of
workers will change careers more than a half dozen times in their
lifetimes. Many of these changes will be horizontal.
c. The prefix intra means “within.” So, intragenerational mobility
is career mobility, or mobility within the lifetime of a person.
Movement from graduate student to instructor, to assistant, to
associate, and then to full professor is intragenerational mobility.
d. The prefix inter means “between.” So, intergenerational mobility is
mobility between generations. Suppose your dad was a blue-collar
worker and you became a physician. You would have experienced
intergenerational mobility. (Of course, it could be that your mom
was a physician and you became a bum. That would be intergen-
erational mobility, too.)

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 212mcI26873_ch12_195-212.indd 212 19/04/13 4:01 AM19/04/13 4:01 AM

Confirming Pages
213
13
INEQUALITY AND ACHIEVEMENT
Social Class
W hen I introduce students to the concept of stratification, they often react as if it’s a topic that is relevant only to other
societies. More specifically, I have observed in my students a ten-
dency to believe that in the United States, there are no such things
as social classes, let alone social class differences.
My students are not unusual in this respect. Many research-
ers have reported that people in the United States are reluctant to
admit the existence of class. This was something that Paul Fussell
discovered early on when he was writing his Class: A Guide
Through the American Status System. The subject of class, he con-
cluded, is “always touchy”:
You can outrage people today simply by mentioning social class,
very much the way, sipping tea among the aspidistras [a kind
of lily] a century ago, you could silence a party by adverting too
openly to sex. When, recently, asked what I am writing, I have
answered, “A book about social class in America,” people tend
first to straighten their ties and sneak a glance at their cuffs to see
how far fraying has advanced there. Then, a few minutes later,
they silently get up and walk away. . . . It is as if I had said, “I am
working on a book urging the beating to death of baby whales using
the dead bodies of baby seals.” Since I have been writing this book
I have experienced many times the awful truth of [economist] R. H.
Tawney’s perception, in his book Equality (1931): “The word ‘class’
is fraught with unpleasing associations, so that to linger upon it
is apt to be interpreted as the symptom of a perverted mind and a
jaundiced spirit.” (1983, 15)
Why is class such a touchy issue in the United States? It’s
touchy because asking questions about social class violates
an important social myth: that people in the United States are
pretty much equal. As one respondent to a survey explained to
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 213mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 213 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
214 CHAPTER 13 INEQUALITY AND ACHIEVEMENT
Figure 13.1
Distribution of
Income in the United
States, 1774, 1860,
2011
SOURCE: Weissmann 2012.
sociologist Richard Scase, “Class is not as important as it used
to be, most people are middle class nowadays” (1992, 1). Indeed,
study after study has found that most everyone (well, anyway, at
least 80 percent) in the United States will describe him- or herself
as a member of the middle class. So, when you ask people about
class and class differences, they will typically respond that such
differences do not exist—at least not where they come from.
Being told that there are no social classes in the place where the
interviewee lives is an old experience for sociologists. “‘We don’t
have classes in our town’ almost invariably is the first remark
recorded by the investigator,” reports Leonard Reissman, author
of Class in American Life (1959). “Once that has been uttered and is
out of the way, the class divisions in the town can be recorded with
what seems to be an amazing degree of agreement among the good
citizens of the community.” (Fussell 1983, 17)
How much inequality is there in the United States? When it is
measured in terms of income, we find that there is a great deal
of inequality. Examine figure 13.1 . It shows that if we divide the
U.S. population into five groups, the highest fifth (the top earning
20 percent of the people) receives half of the money that is paid
out in income each year.
Figure 13.2 shows that the level of inequality of wealth is even
more striking. The top fifth (the richest 20 percent of society) owns
more than 80 percent of the wealth. That means that the remain-
ing four-fifths of the U.S. population share one-fifth of the wealth.
In 2010, the most
affluent (wealthiest)
1 percent of
Americans owned
34.5 percent of
the nation’s wealth.
The top ten
percent owned
74.5 percent of
the nation’s wealth
(Levine 2012, 4).
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Top 20% Middle 40% Bottom 40%
1774
1860
2011
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 214mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 214 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
Inequality and Achievement 215
Thus, there is inequality in terms of both income and wealth,
but more inequality in wealth. What is the implication of this?
Income is the amount of money that an individual or family group
receives in wages, salaries, investments, and so on. Wealth is the
total value of the assets owned by an individual or family group,
minus the amount of debt they have. Wealth, then, is special.
It tends to be more enduring and provides more access to what
Weber called “life chances”:
Wealth signifies the command over financial resources that a fam-
ily has accumulated over its lifetime along with those resources
that have been accumulated across generations. Such resources,
when combined with income, can create the opportunity to secure
the “good life” in whatever form is needed—education, business,
training, justice, health, comfort, and so on. Wealth is a special form of
money not used to purchase milk and shoes and other life necessities. More
often it is used to create opportunity, secure a desired stature and standard
of living, or pass along class status to one’s children. In this sense the
command over resources that wealth entails is more encompassing
than is income or education, and closer in meaning and theoretical
significance to our traditional notions of economic well-being and
access to life chances. (Oliver and Shapiro 1997, 2 emphasis added )
Still, the existence of inequality does not necessarily mean that
class is all that important. And, in fact, for many Americans, class
is not seen as very important because most people believe that
regardless of social class, everyone has about the same chance to
get ahead in society. As we observed in chapter 12, what really
justifies the U.S. stratification system is the notion of “equality of
opportunity.” Ask people and they will tell you: What matters is
how hard you work and how smart you are. Because of our social-
ization, such reasoning is compelling to Americans. Even young
children understand and believe this logic—at least, that is what
sociologists Scott Cummings and Del Taebel discovered from their
survey of school children. Here’s how one of their young respon-
dents explained the logic of the American stratification system:
“People are rich because they have the know-how and the
opportunity, and to an extent most of them are wealthy because of
some type of motivation that causes them not to settle at one step or
one degree; they wanted to reach higher heights. . . . People are poor
Top 1% 35%
28%
14%
12%
11%
Next 4%
Next 5%
Next 10%
Bottom 80%
Figure 13.2 How
the Nation’s Wealth Is
Distributed (2010)
SOURCE: Domhoff, 2012.
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 215mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 215 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
216 CHAPTER 13 INEQUALITY AND ACHIEVEMENT
because they are not educated enough to know that there is something
for them out there; that they can make money. . . . They are ignorant
and uneducated; a lot of them just don’t care. . . . They are happy the
way they are. . . . If you really want to have some money, you can get it no
matter how poor you have been. ” [emphasis added]. (1978, 207)
If equality of opportunity does exist, an individual’s class ori-
gins should not determine the level of his or her economic and
social achievements. That is, if there is equality of opportunity, nei-
ther poverty nor wealth should be necessarily intergenerational;
people who grew up in poor families should be no more likely to
be poor as adults than people who grew up in nonpoor families.
One of the most ambitious attempts to test the validity of this
rationale began in 1968 with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics,
in which researchers followed 5,000 families and their children over
the course of 20 years. As sociologist Margaret Corcoran discovered,
where one begins does have a big effect on where one ends up. Con-
sider figure 13.3 —the data presented there suggest one thing: It mat-
ters if one’s parents are poor, and “it matters a lot” (Corcoran 1995).
Social scientists have extensively documented that parents’ social
class has a tremendous effect on their children’s life chances. Simply
put, people have a greater chance of succeeding in life if their par-
ents are not poor. In what respects are people’s life chances affected
by their class origins? We can focus on four areas in particular:
1. Health: Parental class position has long-term health conse-
quences for children. In general, mortality (death) rates and
morbidity (sickness) rates are negatively related to social
class. For example, studies have demonstrated that pov-
erty is related to delays in children’s physical development.
“Physically underdeveloped and ill children might become
less healthy and hence less employable as adults, a process
“Nobody cares more
about free enterprise
and competition and
about the best man
winning than the
man who inherited
his father’s store or
farm.”
—C. Wright Mills (1959)
Figure 13.3
Intergenerational
Mobility: The
Probability of
Reaching a Given
Income Quintile for
Children Born to
Parents in the Bottom
and Top Quintiles
SOURCE: Isaacs, Sawhill,
and Haskins, 2008.
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Bottom 20% Second 20% Middle 20% Fourth 20% Top 20%
42%
6%
25%
10%
17%19%
8%
20%
9%
39%
Children born to families in the bottom 20%
income group
Children born to families in the top 20%
income group
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 216mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 216 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
Inequality and Achievement 217
perhaps arising from the inadequacies of the physical envi-
ronment that poverty affords or from inadequate treatment of
children’s ailments directly due to lack of economic resources
or indirectly to parental inattention or resignation: better to
ignore things that you cannot alter” (Corcoran 1995, 262–263).
Poor children are also more likely to suffer from serious psy-
chological distress (Braun 1995; Johnson et al. 1991; McLeod
and Shanahan 1993; Nelson 1992).
2. Education: Parental income has an effect on whether children
finish high school and attend and graduate from college. Pov-
erty has an especially strong impact on very young children. In
The Matthew Effect
As figure 13.4 suggests, the advantages that come with wealth
tend to endure even during troubled economic times. The figure
shows that during the 1980s and 1990s, the rich got richer while
the not-so-rich got poorer. This dynamic is one example of what
some people call the Matthew effect (from the passage in the
Gospel of Matthew that says, “For whosoever hath, to him shall
be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever
hath not, from him shall be taken away . . .” [13:12]).
Economist Lester Thurow explained it this way: “Once wealth
is accumulated, opportunities to make more money multiply,
since accumulated wealth leads to income-earning opportunities
that are not open to those without wealth” (1996, 243).
Figure 13.4 Changes in Share of Nation’s Wealth (net worth), 1983–2001
Most households (63 percent) experienced a loss in net worth
between 2007 and 2009. The median percentage decrease in wealth
among these households was 45 percent. The broad-based downward
shift of the wealth distribution between 2007 and 2009 was reflected
by reductions in median and mean summary measures. The drop
in median net worth (23 percent) was greater than the drop in mean
net worth (19 percent), which suggests that households in the lower half
of the wealth distribution were more adversely affected by the 2007–2009
recession than those further up the distribution. (Levine 2012, 5–6).
Highest fifth
Population Group
2nd highest fifth
Middle fifth
Lowest two-fifths
+70.8%
+48.3%
+24.4%
−43.6%
SOURCE: Wolff 2006.
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 217mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 217 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
218 CHAPTER 13 INEQUALITY AND ACHIEVEMENT
1986, for example, only about 25 percent of poor children were
enrolled in a preschool program, compared to 40 percent of
children from more affluent families (Entwisle and Alexander
1993). Children who did not attend preschool have fewer skills
(color identification, counting, etc.), and are disadvantaged
compared to kids who did attend preschool; they are more
likely to be identified by their teachers as having educational
problems and this label is as strong as reading- and math-
readiness scores in predicting success (Duncan et al. 1998).
3. Working life: Men who grew up in poor families tend to work
many fewer hours per year and to earn less per hour than
men who grew up in middle-class homes. Growing up in
poor families reduces men’s annual earnings by more than
40 percent (Corcoran 1995).
4. Crime and justice: Poor people are more likely to be victims
of all kinds of crime. People from the lower classes who
break the law are more likely to be arrested, less likely to be
released on bail, and more likely to be convicted and sent to
prison than people from higher classes who break the law
(Bureau of Justice Statistics 1992, 1993; Tittle and Meier 1990;
Tittle, Villenez, and Smith 1978).
13.1
a. What are some other examples of the Matthew effect?
b. Examine the data in table 13.1 . Do they reflect another
example of the Matthew effect?
Explaining Social Stratification
Most people end up in a class position that is the same as or close
to the one occupied by their parents. Another way to state this is
to say that members of each new generation tend to reproduce

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
Table 13.1 Who Goes to College, by Family Income and High School
Performance
Student’s Family Income
High School Performance Low-Income High-Income
Highest achievers 78% 97%
Second highest achievers 63 90
Third highest achievers 50 85
Lowest achievers 36 77
SOURCE: Gerald and Haycock, 2006.
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 218mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 218 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
Explaining Social Stratification 219
the class structure in which they were raised. When sociologists
try to explain the dynamics that underlie this reproduction of the
class structure, they typically draw on one of two sorts of per-
spectives: cultural or structural.
CULTURAL EXPLANATIONS
Cultural explanations of the reproduction of the class structure
hinge on two assumptions. First, people in different social classes
have different patterns of values, beliefs, and behavioral norms,
which they pass on to their children through the socialization pro-
cess. Anthropologist Allison Davis, writing in the late 1940s, was an
early proponent of this sort of cultural perspective. According to
Davis, “Social class patterning of the child’s learning, as exerted
through the family, extends from the control of the type of food he
eats and the way he eats it, to the kinds of sexual, aggressive and edu-
cational training he receives” (1948, 12). The second assumption of the
cultural perspective is that the values, beliefs, and behavioral norms
of lower classes are not very compatible with success in society.
Probably the most famous advocate of the cultural perspective
on the reproduction of the class system was anthropologist Oscar
Lewis. Based on his studies of the lower classes in a variety of
societies, Lewis coined the term culture of poverty. According to
Lewis and others who have followed in his footsteps, the culture
of poverty turns poverty into a vicious cycle. Once it comes into
existence, he said, the culture of poverty “tends to perpetuate itself
from generation to generation because of its effects on the chil-
dren” (1966, 50). Lewis argued that “by the time slum children are
age six or seven they have usually absorbed the basic values and
attitudes of their subculture. Thereafter they are psychologically
unready to take full advantage of changing conditions or improv-
ing opportunities that may develop in their life time” (1966, 7).
Most proponents of the cultural explanation emphasize that
it is not so much that the values, beliefs, and behavioral norms
of poor people are bad; more to the point is the degree to which
these values, beliefs, and behavioral norms are out of whack with
those of mainstream society. Social psychologist Morton Deutch
argued, for example, that
we know that children from underprivileged environments tend
to come to school with qualitatively different preparation for the
demands both of the learning process and the behavior equipments
of the classroom. There are various differences in the kinds of social-
ization experiences these children have, as contrasted with the
middle class child. The culture of their environment is a different
one from the culture that has molded the school, its educational
techniques and theories. (1964, 172)
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 219mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 219 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
220 CHAPTER 13 INEQUALITY AND ACHIEVEMENT
STRUCTURAL EXPLANATIONS
Structural explanations of the reproduction of the class system
reject the notion that the best way to understand poverty is to
look at cultural attributes of the poor. Proponents of the struc-
tural point of view argue that it is much more appropriate to
focus on the limited access to opportunities that poor people
have compared to the more affluent. They suggest that the dif-
ferences in the values, beliefs, and behavioral norms that seem
to exist are better explained as the consequences of poverty rather
than as the causes. Sociologist Elliot Liebow, who explored the
life of the urban poor in great depth, explained the significance
of what might seem to be cultural differences between rich and
poor this way:
The streetcorner man does not appear as a carrier of an independent
cultural tradition [emphasis added]. His behavior appears not so
much as a way of realizing the distinctive goals of his own subcul-
ture, or of conforming to his [values and beliefs], but rather as his
way of trying to achieve many of the goals and values of the larger
society, of failing to do this, and of concealing this failure from
others and from himself as best he can. (1967, 222)
Again, the structuralist point of view is that it is not their culture
but the lack of opportunities open to the poor that holds them
back. For example, the important thing is not that poor children
tend to be less prepared for the realities of school than middle-
class children, but that the schools themselves are inadequate.
More recently, educator Jonathan Kozol compared schools
in poor neighborhoods to those in more affluent ones. The dif-
ferences he found are reflected in the title of his book— Savage
Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. Here he quotes a teacher
who works in an inner-city high school:
“Very little education in this school would be considered
academic in the suburbs. Maybe 10 to 15 percent of students are
in truly academic programs. Of the 55 percent who graduate,
20  percent may go to four-year colleges . . . another 10 to 20 percent
may get some kind of higher education. An equal number join the
military.” (1991)
It is hard to blame cultural factors when even the most highly
motivated students have a tough time getting an education in
such schools. One young woman told Kozol,
“I don’t go to physics class, because my lab has no equipment. . . .
The typewriters in my typing class don’t work. The women’s
toilets . . . ” she makes a sour face. “I’ll be honest,” she says, “I
just don’t use the toilets. If I do, I come back into class and I feel
dirty.” (1991)
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 220mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 220 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
Explaining Social Stratification 221
13.2 Recently a student shared with me an example of his experiences
with the stratification system in the United States:
“In high school I was an all-American basketball player even though I
played in a ghetto school. . . . I got letters from coaches from top college
programs saying, ‘I’ve heard you are a great player, are you going to any
camps?’ The point was that they didn’t want to come to my school to watch
me play because it’s in a rough place. They were willing to come see me if I
could go to camp. But I wasn’t able to afford to go to any of the camps.”
In your informed judgment, which point of view on the reproduction
of class does this student’s experience support—the cultural or the
structural? Why? In your answer, summarize the two points of view—
cultural and structural.
Kozol observed that things were bad all around at that school and
are not likely to get better in the foreseeable future:
The science labs . . . are 30 to 50 years outdated. John McMillan, a soft-
spoken man, teaches physics at the school. He shows me his lab. The
six lab stations in the room have empty holes where pipes were once
attached. “It would be great if we had water,” says McMillan. . . .
Teachers are running out of chalk and paper, and their paychecks
are arriving two weeks late. The city warns its teachers to expect a
cut of half their pay until the fiscal crisis has been eased. (1991)
The situation in suburban schools tends to be quite different.
Typical was one school where Kozol found, for one thing, that
members of the faculty were not so worried about chalk and paper:
According to the principal, the school has 96 computers for 546
children. The typical student, he says, studies a foreign language
for four or five years, beginning in the junior high school, and for a
second language (Latin is available) for two years. Of 140 seniors,
92 are now enrolled in AP [advanced college placement] classes.
Maximum teacher salary will soon reach $70,000. (1991)
When Kozol asked students at this high school how they felt
about their privileged positions, he found that students not only
understood their advantages but accepted them as just:
“I don’t think that busing students from their ghetto to a different
school would do much good,” one student says. “You can take them
out of the environment, but you can’t take the environment out of them.
If someone grows up in [the inner city], he’s not going to be prone to
learn.” His name is Max and he has short black hair and speaks with
confidence. “Busing didn’t work when it was tried,” he says. I ask him
how he knows this and he says he saw a television movie about Boston.
“I agree that it’s unfair the way it is,” another student says. “We
have AP courses and they don’t. Our classes are much smaller.” But,
she says, “putting them in schools like ours is not the answer. Why
not put some AP classes into their school? Fix the roof and paint the
halls so it will not be so depressing.” (1991)

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 221mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 221 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
222 CHAPTER 13 INEQUALITY AND ACHIEVEMENT
Jennifer, whose family had recently moved up from a poorer
neighborhood, agreed. She pointed out to Kozol that although
her family had managed to bring itself up, some people simply
weren’t prepared to do what it takes to be mobile:
“It has to be the people in the area who want an education. If your
parents just don’t care, it won’t do any good to spend a lot of money.
Someone else can’t want a good life for you. You have got to want it
for yourself.” Then, she adds, however, “I agree that everyone should
have a chance at taking the same course.” (1991)
According to proponents of the structural perspective, the
cultural theories of poverty themselves may be contributing to
the problem.
By stressing the inadequacies of poor people, they seem to
encourage a cover-up of the inadequacies of the structure in which
those poor people live. Sociologist William Ryan called the kind of
reasoning implicit in the cultural perspective a form of “blaming
the victim” (1971). For proponents of the structural point of view,
then, blaming poor people’s culture for their poverty is like blam-
ing the rape victim because she wore provocative clothing; such
blame is simply misplaced. Just as the rapist is the major cause of
rape, the major cause of poverty is a lack of opportunities.
To what extent do these theories obscure more basic reasons for the
educational retardation of lower status children? To what extent do
they offer acceptable and desired alibis for educational default: the
fact that these children, by and large, do not learn because they are
not being taught effectively and they are not being taught because
those who are charged with the responsibility of teaching them do
not believe they can learn, do not expect that they can learn, and do
not act in ways which help them to learn. (Clark 1967, 130–131)
Public education in the United States is supposed to prepare
children to compete with one another in the real world; the
famous educator Horace Mann (1796–1859) called the U.S. public
school system “the great equalizer.” Research by Kozol and oth-
ers suggests that when it comes to schools, the playing fields are
not all that equal.
Even within the same school, the playing field is likely to be
uneven. This unevenness manifests itself in the practice of track-
ing. In Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality, Jeannie
Oakes defined tracking this way:
Tracking is the process whereby students are divided into categories
so that they can be assigned in groups to various kinds of classes.
Sometimes students are classified as fast, average, or slow learners
and placed into fast, average, or slow classes on the basis of their
scores on achievement or ability tests. Often teachers’ estimates of
what students have already learned or their potential for learning
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 222mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 222 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
Explaining Social Stratification 223
determine how students are identified and placed. Sometimes
students are classified according to what seems most appropriate
to their future lives. Sometimes, but rarely in any genuine sense,
students themselves choose to be in “vocation,” “general,” or
“academic” programs. (1985, 3)
Beyond Academics
In 2004, USA Today compiled data from 27 states on who won
state championships in 10 team sports between January 1999
and December 2003. The schools were divided into four groups
according to the income of people who lived in the neighbor-
hoods in which the school was found.
The results were startling to anyone who thinks that sports
championships are won strictly according to the talent and hard
work of the athletes who compete: “Public schools in the wealth-
iest neighborhoods win state team championships at more than
twice the rate of schools in the least wealthy neighborhoods.”
A number of factors are associated with the differences illus-
trated in figure 13.5. “Schools in wealthier neighborhoods often
have booster clubs that raise money beyond what is budgeted by
school districts and that can be used for any number of wish-list
functions. ‘Think about coaches, equipment, weight rooms, and
places to play,’ says Bruce Weber, publisher of Scholastic Coach
and Athletic Director magazine. ‘All those things that money can
buy.’” Athletes who live in wealthy neighborhoods are likely to
have a personal advantage as well: wealthy parents. “As high
school athletes become more specialized and increasingly play
one sport year round, wealthier parents are more able to afford
summer camps and travel teams.” One parent of a talented soft-
ball player told reporters, “I figure it costs me about $5,000 per
year for each of my girls” to play softball at this level. “But it is
well worth it” (Brady and Sylwester 2004, 1, 4A).
Figure 13.5 Percentage of State Team Championships (Boys and Girls)
Won by Schools by Neighborhood Wealth*
*Excludes private schools. Only in Rhode Island did schools in the wealthiest neighborhoods not
win more championships than other schools.
SOURCE: Brady and Sylwester, 2004.
Bottom 25%
(schools in least
affluent neighborhoods)
3rd 25%
2nd 25%
Top 25%
(schools in most
affluent neighborhoods) 40%
22%
22%
16%
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 223mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 223 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
224 CHAPTER 13 INEQUALITY AND ACHIEVEMENT
Although some schools claim that they do not track their students,
Oakes and others have found that most, if not all, schools have
some mechanism by which they divide their student populations
into groups of students who are “alike”: “In fact, this is exactly
the justification some schools offer for tracking students. Edu-
cators strongly believe that students learn better in groups with
others like themselves. They also believe that groups of similar
students are easier to teach” (Oakes 1985, 4).
What are the consequences of tracking? Sociologist Maureen
Hallinan studied research on tracking and summed up the evi-
dence this way:
The general conclusion that can be reached from this research is that
tracking and ability grouping have a negative effect on the achievement
of lower track or ability group students, a negligible effect on students
in the middle groups, and a weak to modest positive effect on high
track and ability group students. . . . Moreover, the research reveals a
considerable number of disadvantages of tracking and ability grouping
for students in the lower groups in terms of the development of nega-
tive attitudes and behaviors related to learning.
In addition to these immediate consequences of tracking and
ability grouping for student achievement, the practice has been
shown to have important consequences for future course selection
and placement and for educational aspirations. . . . The research
shows that placement in a college preparatory track has positive
effects on a number of educational outcomes, including academic
achievement, measure by grades and standardized test scores,
measures of motivation, and educational aspirations and attainment.
And this positive relationship persists even after family background
and ability differences are controlled for. (Hallinan 1988, 260;
see also Thernstrom 1992)
Teachers’ expectations and students’ learning vary by track.
Oakes asked teachers in different tracks, “What are the most criti-
cal things you want your students to learn?” Then she asked stu-
dents, “What was the most important thing you learned in school
this year?” Representative quotes from teachers and students in
the different tracks are given in table 13.2 .
On what basis do schools divide their students into tracks?
School officials report that their tracking systems reflect students’
academic abilities and aptitudes. Yet kids from lower-class back-
grounds are disproportionately placed in lower tracks, whereas
kids from more affluent backgrounds are disproportionately
placed in upper tracks. Often the tracks in which kids are placed
have less to do with their abilities than with their parents’ social
class. A parent from a higher stratum, for example, can ensure
that his or her child is placed on a fast track even if the kid hasn’t
been doing all that well in school. Of course, when that happens,
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 224mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 224 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
Explaining Social Stratification 225
it means there is one less place on the fast track for a less affluent
child who is doing well. The result is a highly stratified school—
and the stratification within the school tends to reproduce the
economic stratification outside of it.
I have this rather vivid memory of the first day of school in the ninth
grade. Mr. Mullen, my teacher, warned us to watch our step—now
that we were in the high school, our every move would be noted and
Table 13.2 High School Teachers’ Goals and Students’ Learning
Experiences, by Track
What teachers say are their most important goals for their students
High Track Low Track
Ability to reason logically, in all
subject areas.
That they know that their paychecks
will be correct when they receive
them. Punctuality, self-discipline, and
honesty will make them successful in
their jobs. They must begin and end
each day with a smile. . . .
Properly planning to ensure favorable
performances.
How to fill out insurance forms,
income tax returns.
Content—minimal. Be realistic about
goals. Develop ones they can achieve.
Practical math skills for everyday
living. A sense of responsibility.
Logical thought processes. Analysis
of given information.
Ability to understand exactly what is
asked in a question.
That their own talents and thoughts
are important.
Development of imagination. Critical
thinking.
To gain some interpretive skills.
Scientific reasoning and logic.
What students report is the most important thing they have learned in
class during the school year
High Track Low Track
To understand complex concepts
and ideas and experiment with them.
Also to work independently.
I have learned that I should do my
questions for the book when [the
teacher] asks . . .
The most important thing that I
have learned in this class is the benefit
of logical and organized thinking;
learning is made much easier when
the simple processes of organizing
thoughts have been grasped.
To learn how to listen and follow the
directions of the teacher.
To be a better listener in class.
The most important thing I have
learned in this class is to always have
your homework in and have materials
ready whenever [the teacher] is
ready.
Learn to get along with the students
and the teacher.
I have proved to myself that I have
the discipline to take a difficult class
just for knowledge, even though it
has nothing to do with my career
plans.
SOURCE: Jeannie Oakes, “More Than Misapplied Technology: A Normative and Political Response
to Hallinan on Tracking,” Sociology of Education.
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 225mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 225 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
226 CHAPTER 13 INEQUALITY AND ACHIEVEMENT
would become part of our PERMANENT RECORD. Whatever we
did from that day forward would have a big impact on our success in
high school and beyond. It was scary to realize that one could have
such a thing as a permanent record. But Mr. Mullen had implicitly
conveyed a more comforting message as well—at least, I remember
feeling relieved that my permanent record had not started earlier
without anyone warning me.
I am glad that I didn’t know it at the time, but most kids’ trajecto-
ries are set as soon as or even before they enroll in the first grade.
And by the time they get to high school, it has practically been set
in stone.
Entering the first-grade classroom is a big step for a child. It can
be a glowing or a devastating experience. The teacher smiles at
the children, looking at them to see what the year will bring. The
well-groomed white boys and girls will probably do well. The
black- and brown-skinned ones are lower-class and will have learn-
ing problems unless they look exceptionally clean. All the whites
who do not look tidy and need handkerchiefs will have trouble. If
the teacher sees a preponderance of lower-class children, regardless
of color, she knows her work will be difficult and unsatisfying. The
teacher wants her children to learn, all of them, but she knows that
lower-class children do not do well in school, just as she knows that
middle-class children do do well. All this she knows as she smiles at
her class for the first time, welcoming them to the adventure of first
grade, measuring them for success or failure against the yardstick
of middle-classness. The children smile back at her, unaware as yet
that the first measurements have been taken. The yardstick will
be used again when they speak to her, as she hears words spoken
clearly or snuffled or stammered or spoken with an accent. And
later they will be measured for readiness for reading or intelligence.
Many times that first year the children will be examined for what
they are, for what they bring with them when they come to school.
(Oakes 1985, 47)
But surely a child’s actual performance is more important
than the teacher’s expectations? So what if the teacher assumes
that little Johnny will have trouble learning? Can’t little Johnny
simply prove her wrong? Possibly. But students’ performances
most often prove teachers’ expectations right. Does this mean
that teachers have especially accurate intuition? Or could it be
that teachers’ expectations influence the way children perform
in school?
13.3
a. In your own words, summarize the major differences between
teachers’ expectations for high- and low-track students.
b. In your own words, summarize the major differences between
the expectations of high- and low-track students.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 226mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 226 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
The Pygmalion Effect: The Power of Expectations 227
The Pygmalion Effect:
The Power of Expectations
In the 1960s, sociologists Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson
conducted an experiment to test the existence of the Pygmalion
effect in schools. 1 These researchers hypothesized that teachers’
expectations influenced children’s performance. The design of
their experiment was simple but elegant: Rosenthal and Jacobson
administered a special test to all the students in a school. The teach-
ers were told that the results of this test could predict how stu-
dents would do in school during the coming academic year. When
teachers were given their class lists for the new school year, each of
them found that about 20 percent of their students were labeled as
being on the threshold of “spurting” or “blooming” academically.
But the “special test” was actually a little-known version of an
intelligence test—it could not predict future achievement. Rosen-
thal and Jacobson had simply randomly assigned one out of every
five children to the spurter/bloomer group. They said nothing at
all about the other children in the class. Really, all these researchers
did was to create an impression in the teachers’ minds that great
things could be expected of some of their students in the coming
year. Then they sat back and waited to see what would happen.
At the end of the year, Rosenthal and Jacobson retested the
students using the same intelligence test they had used the year
before. Most of the students showed some gains in points on the
test (just as we would expect of children as they get older). But
as figure 13.6 shows, the kids who were expected to spurt made larger
gains than nonspurters. On their report cards, the kids who had
been labeled as spurters showed even more improvement com-
pared to the kids who hadn’t been labeled. Figure 13.7 shows the
grade point changes for reading. Similar increases for spurters
compared to nonspurters were found in arithmetic grades.
13.4 What might account for the fact that the differences between
spurters’ and nonspurters’ grade increases were larger than the
differences between the spurters’ and nonspurters’ scores on the
intelligence test?

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
1According to Greek legend, Pygmalion was the king of Cyprus who sculpted a
beautiful woman out of ivory. He fell in love with the statue (Galatea) and prayed to
the goddess Aphrodite to bring it to life. Aphrodite granted his wish, and Pygmalion
married her. In 1913, the George Bernard Shaw play Pygmalion was a big hit (and in 1956
was adapted as a musical called My Fair Lady). In his version, Shaw’s male protagonist,
Professor Henry Higgins, created a fine English lady out of a streetwise Cockney girl,
Eliza Doolittle. The Pygmalion effect, then, refers to situations in which some piece of
raw material (ivory, Cockney girls, elementary school students) are molded by their
creators into something finer.
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 227mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 227 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
228 CHAPTER 13 INEQUALITY AND ACHIEVEMENT
The Fallacy of Hard Work
It is important to recognize that while everyone faces significant
obstacles, some people’s obstacles loom quite large. For many
people, this is a very difficult concept to accept because they are
so socialized into the “work hard and you can succeed” theory of
social life. I am reminded of this periodically when students tell
me what they think about sociological approaches to stratifica-
tion. Last semester a student explained her point of view this way:
“I’m sorry, I just don’t agree. People do have opportunities, it’s just
that some people aren’t willing to work hard and take advantage of
them. Look at me—my parents can’t afford to pay my way through
college, so I work two jobs part time to support myself. If I can do it,
anyone can!”
Her point was a reasonable one. She is putting a lot of effort into
staying in college. I agreed that not everyone would be so willing
to put in the time and effort, and I congratulated her on working
so hard to achieve her goals. However, I also suggested to her that
First Second Third
Students believed to be
“average” by their teachers
Students believed to be
“spurters” by their teachers
Grade Level
−.4
.8 .71
.23
.15
−.27
.71
.16
.6
.4
.2
0
−.2G
ra
de
P
o
in
ts
G
ai
ne
d
Figure
13.7 Spurters’ and
Average Students’
Gains or Losses in
Reading Grades
(Assigned by Teachers)
SOURCE: Adapted from
Robert Rosenthal
and Lenore Jacobson,
Pygmalion in the
Classroom: Teacher
Expectations and Pupils’
Intellectual Development
(New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston,
1968).
First Second Third
Students believed to be
“average” by their teachers
Students believed to be
“spurters” by their teachers
Grade Level
0
30
12
28
7
17
5 5
25
20
15
10
5T
es
t
P
o
in
ts
G
ai
ne
d
Figure
13.6 Spurters’ and
Average Students’
Gains on Intelligence
Test Performance
SOURCE: Adapted
from Robert Rosenthal
and Lenore Jacobson,
Pygmalion in the
Classroom: Teacher
Expectations and Pupils’
Intellectual Development
(New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston, 1968).
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 228mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 228 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
The Fallacy of Hard Work 229
even though she has to work hard, she still has some advantages
that other people do not.
Willingness to work hard is no guarantee that one will succeed
in our competitive social system. In fact, willingness to work hard
doesn’t even guarantee that one can get into the race. Research-
ers Katherine Newman and Chauncy Lennon (1995) studied low-
wage job opportunities in inner-city neighborhoods. Focusing on
minimum-wage jobs at places like McDonald’s or Burger King,
they found that “the ratio of applicants to hires is approximately
14 to 1.” Moreover,
among those people who applied but were rejected for fast-food
work in early 1993, 73% had not found work of any kind a year
later, despite considerable effort. Even the youngest job-hunters in
our study (16- to 18-year-olds) had applied for four or five positions
before they came looking for these fast-food jobs. The oldest appli-
cants (over 25) had applied for an average of seven or eight jobs. . . .
(Newman and Lennon 1995, 66)
Ponder
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859) was a French historian, political
scientist, and lawyer. After touring the United States in the early
1830s, Tocqueville published his thoughts about Americans in a
book titled De la Démocratie en Amerique, or Democracy in America
(1835). Here’s one thing he had to say about the American class
system:
I am aware that among a great democratic people there will
always be some members of the community in great poverty
and others in great opulence; but the poor, instead of forming
the great majority of the nation, as is always the case in aris-
tocratic communities, are comparatively few in number, and
the laws do not bind them together by ties of hereditary [pov-
erty]. . . .
As there is no longer a race of poor men, so there is no
longer a race of rich men; the latter spring up daily from the
multitude and relapse into it again. Hence, they [the rich] do
not form a distinct class which may be easily marked out. . . .
Between these two extremes . . . stands an innumerable mul-
titude of men almost alike, who, without being exactly rich or
poor, possess sufficient property to desire the maintenance of
order, yet not enough to excite envy.
In your own words, summarize Tocqueville’s view of the American
class system. Then, given what you have read in this chapter
about the nature of social inequality in the United States, specify
the degree to which you agree or disagree with Tocqueville, and
state why.
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 229mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 229 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
230 CHAPTER 13 INEQUALITY AND ACHIEVEMENT
Perhaps the rejected applicants were not as qualified as those
who actually got hired? Newman and Lennon suggest that even
in competitions for the lowest-paying jobs, qualifications are not
the only things that count:
The rejection rate for local applicants is higher than the rate for
similarly educated individuals who live farther away [that is, not in
the inner city]. Other studies in the warehouse and dockyard indus-
tries report the same results. These findings suggest that residents
of poor neighborhoods are at a distinct disadvantage in finding
minimum-wage jobs near home. (1995, 67)
According to Newman and Lennon, “it is simply not the case
that anyone who wants a low-wage job can get one. As is true
for almost any glutted labor market, there is a queue [line] of
applicants and employers can be fairly choosy.” In the inner city,
they conclude, people are “locked into a fierce struggle for scarce
opportunities at the bottom.”
Social Mobility, Social Structure,
and Social Change
Those who study social stratification and mobility in the United
States agree that most people do not experience vertical social mobil-
ity either between or within generations. For the most part, people
who start out in blue-collar jobs tend to stay in them their entire
working lives; people who start out in white-collar jobs tend to stay
in them their entire working lives. In other words, most people do
not experience either intergenerational or intragenerational mobility.
Nonetheless, social mobility is not exactly rare in this country.
Overall, there has been a great deal of upward social mobility in
the United States and in many European countries over the past
century. But this mobility generally involves short steps rather
than long leaps. Most occupational mobility, for example, tends to
be between closely related occupations.
One crucial fact: Sociologists have found that most of the
mobility that has occurred over the past century can be better
explained by social factors than by individual effort. For example,
early industrialization created a number of new jobs—jobs that
allowed people to move away from the farm. As industrialization
and technology continued to evolve, larger numbers of the new
jobs were higher paying. Most of the social mobility that took
place in the twentieth century can be accounted for merely by the
increases in good jobs.
Class differences in birth rates have facilitated social mobility as
well. People in the upper classes traditionally have tended to marry
later and have fewer children than people in the lower classes. This
has meant that when new jobs opened up toward the top of the
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 230mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 230 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
Social Mobility, Social Structure, and Social Change 231
occupational structure, the children of the upper classes couldn’t
fill them all. The difference in birth rates, then, has been another
social fact that has drawn people up the occupational ladder.
Finally, immigration has played a role. As new residents settle
in this country, they tend to be relegated to the lowest rungs on
the occupational ladder. This pushes nonimmigrants out of the
lowest jobs and into higher ones (or it does when better jobs exist).
Sociologists refer to mobility that results from such social facts
as changes in the occupational structure, immigration, and birth
rates as structural mobility. Structural mobility has little or noth-
ing to do with changes in the quality of individuals; structural
mobility has to do with changes in the social structure of society.
Most sociologists agree that structural factors will continue to
be crucial determinants of mobility rates. But evidence suggests
Measuring Inequality
One way of measuring how much inequality exists is to use
what’s called the Gini Coefficient (or Gini Index)—invented by the
Italian statistician and sociologist Corrado Gini (1884–1965).
The Gini Coefficient ranges from 0 to 1: If one person in a group
earns all of the income, the Gini Coefficient is 1. If each person in
the group has the same amount of income, the Gini Coefficient is
0. In other words, the higher the coefficient, the more inequality.
Table  13.3 shows Gini Coefficients for ten countries; larger
coefficients indicate more inequality. Table 13.4 shows how the
degree of inequality in terms of income and wealth has changed
over time in the United States.
Table 13.3 Gini Coefficients for Family
Income, Various Nations
Country Gini Coefficient
Belgium .28
Canada .32
Denmark .24
France .27
Germany .38
Japan .38
Mexico .48
United Kingdom .34
United States .45
Haiti .59
SOURCE: CIA World Factbook, May 2009.
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 231mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 231 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
232 CHAPTER 13 INEQUALITY AND ACHIEVEMENT
that the upward trend may not continue. Since the 1970s, for
example, technological change has tended to make obsolete the
lower- and entry-level positions in the occupational structure—
as when robots replace factory workers and computers replace
accountants—while not opening up higher-level ones. In the
1960s and 1970s, most of the newly created positions in the occu-
pational structure paid fairly decent salaries; in the 1980s and
1990s, however, most of the newly created positions paid close to
minimum wage. If this trend continues, we may well see a great
deal of downward structural mobility in the twenty-first century.
Chapter Review
1. Below I have listed the major concepts discussed in this chap-
ter. Define each of the terms. ( Hint: This exercise will be more
helpful to you if, in addition to defining each concept, you
create an example of it in your own words.)
effects of parent’s social class
income
wealth
Matthew effect
cultural explanations of inequality
Oscar Lewis, “culture of poverty”
structural explanations of inequality
“blaming the victim”
tracking, in schools
Pygmalion effect
structural mobility
Gini Coefficient
Table 13.4 Gini Coefficients for U.S. Income and
Wealth, 1989–2007
Year Income
Wealth
(net worth)
1989 .54 .78
1992 .50 .78
1995 .51 .78
1998 .53 .79
2001 .56 .80
2004 .54 .80
2007 .58 .81
SOURCE: Kennickell 2009.
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 232mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 232 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 233
2. As a potential college graduate, you are poised to join an
important American minority group—college graduates. How
did you come to be so fortunate?
a. Create a (brief) cultural explanation of your status as a
potential college graduate.
b. Create a (brief) structural explanation of your status as a
potential college graduate.
c. Briefly describe which explanation you find more believable
and why.
3. Study the data presented in table 13.5 . Then answer the
questions posed below.
a. Briefly describe the relationship between the variables
shown in that table.
b. Then indicate, in your informed judgment, whether these
data tend to lend support to a cultural or to a structural
explanation of social class differences? Explain your
reasoning.
a In 2011, 1,647,123 students took the test.
bSAT scores range from 200 to 800 for each section of the test (total scores range from 600
to 2400). SAT used to be called “Scholastic Aptitude Test,” then it became “Scholastic Assess-
ment Test”; today, the Educational Testing Service (which owns and administers the test) says
“SAT is not an initialism.”
cAS a point of information, the chief executive officer of the Educational Testing Service, Kurk
Landgraf, recently admitted that his test score on the SAT was 1060 out of a possible 1600
(Evans and Glovin 2006).
SOURCE: College Board, 2011 College-Bound Seniors, Total Group Profile Report, 2012.
Average Scores on SAT Sectionsb
Annual Family Incomec
Critical
Reading Mathematics Writing Total
More than $200,000 568 586 567 1721
$160,000–$200,000 543 557 536 1636
$140,000–$160,000 538 552 529 1622
$120,000–$140,000 540 544 520 1594
$110,000–$120,000 526 539 515 1580
$80,000–$100,000 515 527 503 1544
$60,000–$80,000 502 512 489 1503
$40,000–$60,000 487 499 475 1461
$20,000–$40,000 464 480 454 1398
$0–$20,000 434 460 429 1325
All test takersc 497 514 489 1500
Table 13.5 College-Bound Seniors’ SAT Test Scores by Annual Family
Income, 2011a
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 233mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 233 28/04/13 1:32 AM28/04/13 1:32 AM

Confirming Pages
234 CHAPTER 13 INEQUALITY AND ACHIEVEMENT
Answers and Discussion
13.1
a. I first read about the Matthew effect in a book by Robert
Merton titled Sociological Ambivalence and Other Essays (1976).
At one point in the book, Merton made reference to the
Thomas theorem. (As you may recall from the Introduction, the
Thomas theorem is “If people define situations as real, they are
real in their consequences.”) Then Merton attached the
following footnote:
What we may call the Thomas Theorem appears just once in
the corpus [body] of W. I. Thomas’s writing: on page 572 of
the book he wrote with Dorothy Swaine Thomas entitled The
Child in America. I ascribe the theorem to W. I. Thomas alone
rather than to the Thomases jointly not because of his gender
or great seniority but only because Dorothy Thomas has con-
firmed for me what many have supposed: that the sentence
and the paragraph in which it is encased were written by him.
There is thus nothing in this attribution which smacks of “the
Matthew Effect,” “[as] in which cases of collaboration between
scholars of decidedly unequal reputation has us ascribe all
credit to the prominent scholar and little or none to the
other collaborator(s).” (1976, 175 n. 20)
b. Table 13.1 shows that the chance of going to college has as
much to do with the student’s family income as it does with his
or her academic performance in high school. More specifically,
for students at each level of academic achievement, those who
come from high-income families are more likely to go to college
than those who come from lower-income families. In fact, as I
have highlighted in table 13.1 a, the lowest-achieving students
from high-income families attend college at almost the same
rate as the highest-achieving students from low-income families.
How to account for this? As you know, college is expensive
and, as I show in table 13.6 , a majority of students end up
borrowing a great deal of money to finance their educations.
On average, students who borrow tend to end up with similar

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
Table 13.1a Who Goes to College, by Family Income and High
School Performance
Student’s Family Income
High School Performance Low-Income High-Income
Highest achievers 78% 97%
Second highest achievers 63 90
Third highest achievers 50 85
Lowest achievers 36 77
SOURCE: Gerald and Haycock, 2006.
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 234mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 234 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 235
amounts of debt; however, the anticipation of such amounts
no doubt seems daunting to students from lower-income
backgrounds.
13.2 The cultural explanation essentially holds that lower-class people
do not advance because their cultural situation does not prepare them
to advance. The structural explanation suggests otherwise: that there are
social structural obstacles facing people in the lower classes that don’t
hinder people in the more affluent classes. This student seems to have
had the talent and willingness to succeed at basketball; what stood in his
way was a structural obstacle (the fact that he lived in a scary place and
didn’t have enough money to go to camp and thereby showcase his tal-
ents for college coaches).
13.3
a. The teachers’ expectations of the lower-track students are quite
low; it is as if they expect the students to learn only to be obedi-
ent, to be respectful of authority, and to do their work—period.
They expect much more from the higher-track students—they
want them to use higher-order thinking, to learn to work indepen-
dently and creatively, and to ask questions. (One can almost imag-
ine that if a kid in the lower track started doing the things that
the kids in the higher tracks were doing, he or she would get into
trouble!)
b. Not coincidentally, the students’ experiences are closely related
to their teachers’ expectations. Higher-track students report that
they learned to work independently and think abstractly; lower-
track students report that they learned to be obedient little
students.
Here’s an interesting question to ask yourself: Looking back
at table 10.1, do you see any correspondence between the
data presented in that table and the information presented in
table 13.1 ? (You should!)

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
Table 13.6 Percent of Bachelor’s Degree Recipients Who Borrowed
and Median Amount Borrowed, by Family Income, 1992–1993 and
1999–2000
Percent Who
Borrowed
Median Amount
Borrowed
Family Income of
Dependent Students 1992–1993 1999–2000 1992–1993 1999–2000
Less than $25,000 71.1 72.6 $10,557 $15,000
$25,000–$49,999 58.0 69.3 $10,096 $16,000
$50,000–$79,000 34.8 66.7 $9,384 $17,000
$80,000 or more 23.0 49.9 $8,909 $16,165
Total 49.3 65.4 $9,502 $16,500
SOURCE: American Council on Education, 2004. Debt Burden: Repaying Student Debt.
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 235mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 235 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
236 CHAPTER 13 INEQUALITY AND ACHIEVEMENT
13.4 What we might be seeing is another example of the power
of the teachers’ expectations. The test provides an objective measure of the
students’ gains in IQ. The presumption here is that the spurters advanced
more because they were treated differently by the teachers. The reading
scores, because they are assigned by the teachers, are subjective measures
of not only students’ advances but also the teachers’ perceptions of the
degree to which students advanced.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 236mcI26873_ch13_213-236.indd 236 19/04/13 4:17 AM19/04/13 4:17 AM

Confirming Pages
237
14
INEQUALITY AND ASCRIPTION
Race, Ethnicity, and Gender
“Citizens, you are brothers, but God has made you differently. Some of
you have the power to command, having been made of gold; others, of
silver, to be assistants; and others, of brass and iron, to be farmers and
craftsmen.”
— Plato, Republic, c. 400 B.C.E.
R eferences to social inequality are scattered throughout the writings of Western philosophers and political thinkers,
from the ancients to the moderns. In the olden days, however,
the issue of stratification didn’t provoke so many questions. And
why should it? It made about as much sense to question why, say,
Richard Fitzhugh was noble and John Smith common as it did to
wonder why a seed would grow in fertile soil and not in barren
sand. That was simply the way things were.
Centuries later, of course, industrialization changed every-
thing, making traditional understandings of the social hierarchy
obsolete. As industrialization proceeded, the political powers
of the old landowning aristocracy were undercut by the finan-
cial resources of the capitalistic entrepreneurs. At the same time,
the legal and customary restrictions that had kept even the most
talented and determined individuals from being socially mobile
gradually eroded. The principle that “all men are created equal”
made the class system more of an open competition. In modern
industrial society, the highest positions in the stratification sys-
tem were to be won by the most talented and determined indi-
viduals. Money was money, and whoever earned the most of it
would come out ahead—notwithstanding any snobby preten-
sions to aristocracy.
In chapter 13, however, we found that the social system is not
as open as it might seem. If the stratification system is like a foot-
race, some people are given a boost by their parents and get to
start a lap or two ahead of others. Of course, if someone can run
really fast, he or she might still beat the racers who started in front.
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 237mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 237 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
238 CHAPTER 14 INEQUALITY AND ASCRIPTION
Why a Dollar Is Not Always a Dollar
Take a dollar bill out of your pocket and look at it. You would
think that your dollar bill is the same as anyone else’s dollar
bill—right? After all, your dollar cost you the same amount as it
cost anyone else to own a dollar—4 quarters, 10 dimes, 20 nickels,
or 100 pennies. Your dollar will buy the same amount of stuff
as anyone else’s dollar. Everybody knows that, and that’s why
money is believed to be the great equalizer.
Although it is the basis of the conventional understanding of
capitalism, the idea that a dollar is a dollar is misleading. In real-
ity, some people’s dollars cost more and buy less.
Take education, for example. Many people think of education
as an investment. Students (and their parents) are willing to go
into debt to pay tuition because they expect that down the road
the investment will pay off in better jobs that, among other things,
pay higher salaries.
The fact of the matter is, however, that education pays higher
dividends for some people than for others. Look at table 14.1 . The
data show that on average the payoff of a college degree is greater
Table 14.1 Median Annual Total Earnings for Those 25 Years or Over
by Gender, Educational Attainment, Race, and Hispanic Origins, 2007
Educational Attainment
Demographic Group
High School
Graduate
Some
College
(no degree)
Associate’s
Degree
Bachelor’s
Degree
Men
Asian $31,545 $41,068 $40,716 $50,048
Black 29,474 32,425 37,398 50,079
Hispanica 29,098 35,372 37,485 45,706
White 35,765 40,864 45,982 60,458
Women
Asian 21,816 25,434 31,643 41,828
Black 21,641 27,853 30,152 40,197
Hispanica 21,018 26,465 29,788 36,117
White 22,593 27,172 30,606 38,641
NOTE: These figures exclude workers with less than a high school degree as well as workers
with a graduate degree.
a Hispanic may be of any race.
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement,
2008.
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 238mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 238 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Rev. Confirming Pages
Why a Dollar Is Not Always a Dollar 239
for whites than for Asians, blacks, or Hispanics and higher for
men than for women.
Recent research shows that the pay gap begins early in a young
person’s career. As shown in Figure 14.1, Corbette and Hill found
significant differences between what women and men earn just
one year after graduating from college. This is so even for women
and men who chose the same college majors. “Among business
majors, for example, women earned just over $38,000, while men
earned just over $45,000”. Table 14.2 suggests that being female
depresses women’s income throughout their careers.
The next point is this: Even if you have money in hand, it will
buy more or less depending on who you are. For example, in the
early 1990s, the Federal Reserve (the government agency charged
with overseeing the banking industry) found that banks distin-
guished between loan applicants based on criteria other than
money. As figure 14.2 shows, at all levels of income, whites found
it easier to obtain mortgage loans than blacks and Hispanics.
Being fortunate enough to obtain a mortgage does not neces-
sarily resolve the problems faced by minority borrowers. One of
Table 14.2 Median Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers by Occupation and Sex, 2011a
Men Women Ratiob
All full-time workers $832 $684 82¢
Management, professional, and related occupations 1,269 941 74
Marketing and sales managers 1,660 1,127 68
Purchasing managers 1,386 1,026 75
Food service managers 734 599 82
Professional and related occupations 1,211 919 76
Social workers 902 798 88
Lawyers 1,884 1,631 87
Physicians and surgeons 1,935 1,527 79
Service occupations 551 433 79
Police and sheriff’s patrol officers 948 938 99
Chefs and head cooks 601 502 84
Janitors and building cleaners 514 418 81
Sales and office occupations 738 602 82
Cashiers 411 373 91
Dispatchers 728 629 86
Computer operators 853 651 76
SOURCE: Household Data Annual Averages, Table 39. Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed
occupation and sex, 2011. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
a These data exclude self-employed workers.
b Ratio of women’s to men’s earnings (number of cents women earn for every dollar earned by men).
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 239mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 239 4/22/13 11:01 AM4/22/13 11:01 AM

Confirming Pages
240 CHAPTER 14 INEQUALITY AND ASCRIPTION
the major advantages of owning a home is building equity (that
is, the market value of the property minus the value of the mort-
gage yet to be paid off). Equity is a form of wealth, something that
can be turned into cash either by selling the property outright or
by refinancing the mortgage.
Applicants who have
less than 80% of
median national
income
Applicants who have
80%–90% of
median national
income
Applicants who have
100%–120% of
median national
income
Applicants who have
more than 120% of
median national
income
0
10
20
30
40 White
Hispanic
Black
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
o
f a
pp
lic
an
ts
w
ho
a
re
d
en
ie
d
m
or
tg
ag
es
Figure 14.2 Percentage of Applicants Who Are Denied Mortgages, by Income Level and Race/Ethnicity
SOURCE: Federal Reserve Board 1990; Michael Quint, “Mortgage Race Data Show Gap. Fed Has Apprised Bankers of Disparity
in Loan Approvals,” New York Times, October 14, 1991.
Figure 14.1 Average Annual Earnings One Year after College by Undergraduate Major and gender.
SOURCE: Corbette and Collins, 2012.
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
88% 77% 84% 83% 87%
0
Engineering &
engineering
technology
Health
care
fields
Computer &
information
sciences
Business Sciences Education
Women % Women’s earnings as a
percentage of men’s earnings
Men
No significant
differences in earnings
Social
sciences
Other
applied
fields
Humanities
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 240mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 240 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
Why a Dollar Is Not Always a Dollar 241
When it comes to refinancing, some people find that the dollar
amount of the equity they have invested in their homes doesn’t
amount to what it would have had someone else been doing the
investing. More specifically, certain borrowers (i.e., people of
color) are given less advantageous loans—even when their credit
history qualifies them to borrow at better interest rates. These less
advantageous loans, known as subprime loans, are frequently a
result of a process known as “reverse redlining.” 1
Research has shown “pervasive racial disparities in subprime
lending”; such loans tend to “reflect what a lender or broker
thought they could get away with, rather than any careful assess-
ment of actual credit risk” (Acorn 2000, 6):
Lower-income African Americans received 2.4 times as many sub-
prime loans as lower-income whites, while upper-income African
Americans received 3.0 times as many subprime loans as did whites
with comparable incomes.
Lower-income Hispanics receive 1.4 times as many subprime
loans as do lower-income whites, while upper-income Hispanics
receive 2.2 times as many of these loans.
The pattern of subprime lending has continued into the pres-
ent century. Beginning in 2004, all mortgage lenders were
required by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act to report the
full costs of subprime home loans, as well as information about
the people who obtained these mortgages. Analyses of these
data show that African American and Latino borrowers are
30 percent more likely to receive higher-rate loans than white
borrowers with similar credit histories and income (Bocian,
Ernst, and Li 2006).
Moreover, women are more likely to receive subprime mort-
gages than men with similar incomes; in fact, “women with the
highest incomes have the highest disparities relative to men with
similar incomes than women at lower income levels”—even
though women tend to have “slightly higher credit scores than
men” (Fishbein and Woodall 2006). Along with a higher monthly
1This terminology may be confusing. A subprime loan is one with higher than usual
interest rates. Ostensibly, such loans exist to make loans available to “credit impaired”
individuals, but research has shown that they are frequently offered to people with
decent credit histories who happen to be unsophisticated in their knowledge of finan-
cial matters.
Redlining was the (now illegal) practice of financial institutions that refused to lend
money to people who wished to buy property in certain neighborhoods (inevitably,
minority neighborhoods) as if a red line had been drawn around those neighborhoods
on the bank’s map. Reverse redlining is the practice of aggressively offering subprime
loans to people in formerly redlined neighborhoods. In the most egregious cases, these
loans are structured in ways that are calculated to force borrowers to lose their homes—
by setting them up in ways that the lender knows will cause the borrower to fail.
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 241mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 241 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
242 CHAPTER 14 INEQUALITY AND ASCRIPTION
payment, some predatory mortgage lenders “enhance” their
profits with the following sorts of dubious tactics:
Failing to post monthly payments received from borrowers
so that additional fees may be collected;
Using so-called “suspense accounts” to hold the loan payments
which can also result in additional fees and penalties;
Delaying credits and adjustments to the homeowner’s escrow
account, which results in an unnecessary increase in the
homeowner’s monthly escrow payment;
Conducting multiple, unnecessary “drive-by” property
inspections when the homeowner is not in default and then
imposing a charge for each “inspection”; and
Improperly calculating interest on open-ended lines of credit
or variable rate loans. (Hull 2009, 304)
Subprime loans were developed for people who present greater
risk for lenders; the idea is that lenders hedge the risk of lend-
ing to people with bad credit by charging them higher interest
rates. However, race and gender discrimination has led to a situa-
tion in which many people who would have qualified for regular
“prime” mortgages were sold subprime mortgages. Higher inter-
est rates—and, hence, higher monthly payments—made these
homeowners more likely to default and lose their homes because
of the recession. As two law professors observed, “these subprime
loans typically begin with a reasonable interest rate, but then sky-
rocket, or, as the banking industry euphemistically says, ‘adjust,’
to a far higher rate, causing the borrower’s monthly payments to
soar. As monthly payments increase, many borrowers quickly fall
into default on their mortgages and eventually fall victim to fore-
closure” (Aleo and Svirsky 2008, 1).
”RACIAL SURTAX” ON MORTGAGES
Between 2010 and 2012, U.S. mortgage lenders paid more than
half a billion dollars to settle lawsuits brought by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice on behalf of African-American and Hispanic con-
sumers. Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the Civil
Rights Division of the Justice Department, said that the mortgage
brokers where charging what he called a racial surtax:
Between 2004 and 2009, Wells Fargo discriminated by charging
approximately 30,000 African-American and Hispanic wholesale
borrowers higher fees and rates than non-Hispanic white borrowers
because of their race or national origin rather than the borrowers’ credit
worthiness or other objective criteria related to borrower risk. What
did this mean in reality? It meant that an African-American wholesale
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 242mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 242 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
Why a Dollar Is Not Always a Dollar 243
customer in the Chicago area in 2007 seeking a $300,000 loan paid on
average $2,937 more in fees than a similarly qualified white applicant.
And these fees were not based on any objective factors relating to credit
risk. These fees amounted to a racial surtax. A Latino borrower in the
Miami area in 2007 seeking a $300,000 loan paid on average $2,538
more than a similarly qualified white applicant. The racial surtax for
African Americans in Miami in 2007 was $3,657. (Perez 2012)
Ian Ayres and Peter Siegelman (1995) found more evidence for
the differential value of a dollar. Armed with extensive knowl-
edge of the value of cars and techniques of negotiating, a team
of researchers visited a number of car dealerships in a large mid-
western city. Table  14.3 shows what happened. The left-hand
column lists the average initial offers made by the dealer to dif-
ferent types of buyers. White men were offered the best deals—
$1,019 over the dealer’s cost. Of course, the dealer’s initial offer
is only the beginning of the process; it’s a place from which to
start negotiating. But the final outcomes of negotiation were dif-
ferent depending on who the buyer was, as you can see in the
middle column of table 14.3 . Again, whites, and especially white
males, were offered the better deals. More recent investigations
suggest that racial differences in the value of the dollar continue
in the car-buying arena. Since 2001, several major automobile
companies (including Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, Honda, General
Motors, Nissan, and Toyota) have been found guilty of sub-
jecting African American purchasers to more costly loans than
those given to whites with similar credit histories—adding hun-
dreds and even thousands of dollars to the cost of cars. By way
of example, Mark Cohen, a professor of economics at Vanderbilt
University, described the cases of two women who purchased
Nissan Sentras in 2000. “Both women were in [the] first credit
tier and were thus qualified to borrow at 8.25 percent. The first,
who was white, borrowed $15,093 over five years at the prefer-
ential rate of 3.9 percent, with monthly payments of $277.73. The
second, who is black, borrowed only $14,787 over five years, but
she was charged a dealer markup of one percentage point, for
a total interest rate of 9.25. Her monthly payment was $309.94”
Table 14.3 Average Car Dealer Profits, by Race and Gender of Purchaser
Purchasers Initial Offer Final Offer Average Markup
White males $1,019 $564 5.18%
White females 1,127 656 6.04
Black males 1,954 1,665 14.61
Black females 1,337 975 7.2
SOURCE: Adapted Ayres and Siegelman, 1995. Ayres 2008.
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 243mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 243 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
244 CHAPTER 14 INEQUALITY AND ASCRIPTION
(Reuters News Service, 10 February 2004). It seems almost
paradoxical: People who on average earned the least money
were asked to pay the most for their cars.
The same sort of relationship between how much money peo-
ple have and how much they have to pay to purchase consumer
goods holds for less expensive items. Of course, rich and poor
alike will pay $1.99 for some doodad in Smithville’s Bigco Shop-
per store. But the price of milk in the inner-city stores where the
less affluent shop will tend to be noticeably higher than in the
suburbs where many of the more affluent shop. Want a quick
burger? If you live in a neighborhood that’s 50 percent African
American, you’ll pay more at the fast-food place (Graddy 1997).
Moreover, suppose you want to purchase a refrigerator or
tele vision or even a mattress set. If you use a credit card, you
can expect to pay the cost of the item and anywhere from 15 to
20  percent interest on top of that. But what if you don’t have a
credit card? If you don’t have the cash, you might go to a rent-to-
own store and buy one—because rent-to-own stores will sell you
the item and let you pay for it over time. But renting-to-own costs
a lot: In 1997, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group found that
more than half of rent-to-own stores charged at least 100 percent
annual interest, and some charged as much as 275 percent. What
if you want to buy a refrigerator that costs $739.95? If you use
your credit card, that refrigerator will cost you an additional
20 percent or so, or about $120 in interest. But for the same refrig-
erator in a rent-to-own store, a consumer would pay annual inter-
est of 87 percent, or $620.05, in addition to the refrigerator’s listed
price. Because the rent-to-own stores technically do not extend
credit but rather rent their products to consumers, they aren’t
required to follow laws—such as those contained in the Truth in
Lending Act and the Consumer Leasing Act—that exist to pro-
tect consumers. As a result of their investigation, the research-
ers concluded that “purchasing appliances, furniture, computers,
jewelry or other merchandise from rent-to-own stores costs two
to five times as much as buying those items at department or dis-
count stores” (reported in The New York Times, June 13, 1997).
This sort of differential treatment of people based on their gen-
der or race is not only unfair but, according to basic economic
theory, irrational and (supposedly) self-defeating. Let’s say there
are two doodad factories—A and B. The owner of factory A pays
fair wages to all her workers. The owner of factory B pays less
than fair wages to some of his workers.
Common sense suggests that the best workers will apply for
employment at factory A. These workers will produce more
and better doodads. On the other hand, the only workers will-
ing to work at factory B will be those who could not get hired at
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 244mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 244 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
Prejudice 245
factory A. These will be the less qualified/less productive work-
ers who produce doodads of dubious quality. Because of the
difference in quality, consumers will be more likely to buy the
doodads from factory A than from factory B. The owner of factory
A will thus make higher profits than the owner of factory B. In
time the owner of factory B will not be able to compete success-
fully and will go out of business. That’s the way the free market
works—or is supposed to work.
Overcharging consumers is likewise irrational. If store C
charges more for milk than store D, then people will choose to
shop at store D. Eventually store C will either have to lower its
prices or go out of business.
The theory is simple: To compete successfully in the market-
place, one must pay one’s workers fair wages and charge one’s
customers fair prices. There is no need for governments to regu-
late the market; the market regulates itself.
The reality seems to be more complex than the theory. In fact,
businesses do survive even when they pay some of their workers
less than others for the same job (see table 14.2 ). Likewise, some
retailers seem to be able to charge some customers more than oth-
ers. This suggests that some social facts are complicating the more
straightforward economic facts. What’s going on?
Prejudice
The roots of the word prejudice can be traced to the
Latin term praejudicium, which means “prejudg-
ment.” Strictly speaking, then, a prejudice involves
a prejudgment—or a judgment of some thing, per-
son, or situation on the basis of prior experience
with similar things, persons, or situations. There
is nothing inherently wrong with prejudgment. In
fact, prejudgment underlies the whole principle of
learning by experience.
Prejudice has a different flavor from mere
prejudgment, however. As social psychologist
Gordon W. Allport pointed out in his book The
Nature of Prejudice, the difference between prejudice and prejudg-
ment has to do with the fact that prejudice is based on inaccurate
information and/or illogical arguments. To put it another way,
a prejudice is an unjustified prejudgment; that is, prejudice involves
not only pre judgment but mis judgment.
Allport pointed out that one of the things that helps us
to distinguish prejudgment from prejudice is the fact that
people tend to hold onto their prejudices even in the face of
Prejudice is a negative and persistent
judgment based on scant or
incorrect information about people in
a group. Prejudice involves beliefs and
attitudes. More technically, we might
define it this way: Prejudice is
a negative or hostile attitude toward a
person who belongs to a group,
simply because he or she belongs to
that group and is therefore
presumed to have the objectionable
qualities ascribed to the group.
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 245mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 245 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
246 CHAPTER 14 INEQUALITY AND ASCRIPTION
contradictory information. By way of example, Allport cited
an imaginary conversation between Mr. X (who is prejudiced
against Jews) and Mr. Y (who is annoyingly persistent in his
nonprejudice):
Mr. X: The trouble with Jews is that they only take care of their own
group.
Mr. Y: But the record of the [United Way] campaign shows that they
give more generously, in proportion to their numbers, to the gen-
eral charities of the community, than do non-Jews.
Mr. X: That shows they are always trying to buy favor and intrude
into Christian affairs. They think of nothing but money; that is
why there are so many Jewish bankers.
Mr. Y: But a recent study shows that the percentage of Jews in the
banking business is negligible, far smaller than the percentage of
non-Jews.
Mr. X: That’s just it; they don’t go in for respectable business; they
are only in the movie business or run night clubs. (1954, 13–14)
Thus, as Allport concludes, prejudices have a way of “slithering
around” the facts in order to find ways of justifying ill feelings
toward members of another group.
Prejudice is sustained by stereotypes —oversimplified generalized
images about members of a particular group. Stereotyping essen-
tially categorizes all members of a particular group as having a
specific set of characteristics. Stereotypes deny the existence of indi-
vidual differences among the members of a specific social category.
Discrimination
It is crucial to distinguish between prejudice and stereotypes on the
one hand and discrimination on the other. Prejudice and stereo-
types involve attitudes and beliefs; discrimination involves behav-
ior. Moreover, there is no guarantee that prejudiced attitudes will
manifest themselves in discriminatory behaviors:
What people actually do in relation to groups they dislike is not
always directly related to what they think or feel about them. Two
employers, for example, may dislike Jews to an equal degree. One
may keep his feelings to himself and may hire Jews on the same basis
of any workers—perhaps because he wants to gain goodwill for his
factory or store in the Jewish community. The other may translate
his dislike into his employment policy, and refuse to hire Jews. Both
men are prejudiced, but only one of them practices discrimination.
(Allport 1954, 14)
Sociologist Robert K. Merton added another wrinkle to our
understanding of the links between prejudice and discrimination.
As figure 14.3 shows, Merton suggested that just as not all people
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 246mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 246 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
Discrimination 247
who are prejudiced practice discrimination, not all people who
practice discrimination are prejudiced.
Cells 1 and 4 represent the people whose behavior is consistent
with their beliefs. Cell 1 represents that person who is prejudiced
and does discriminate—no matter what. Cell 4 represents the
unprejudiced person who does not discriminate—no matter what.
But cells 2 and 3 represent people whose behavior is not neces-
sarily consistent with their beliefs. Cell 2 represents the person
who is prejudiced but will not discriminate unless it is conve-
nient to do so. So, for example, the store owner who is prejudiced
against minorities but who needs their business may not discrim-
inate against minorities. Merton calls this person a “timid bigot.”
Cell 3 is the final case. This person is not prejudiced but does
discriminate when it’s convenient to do so. Suppose you work at
Benny’s Food Shack as a waiter or waitress. Your boss tells you to
do all that you can to discourage minorities from eating in the res-
taurant (provide really slow service, mix up their orders, overcharge
them, and so on). You don’t want to do this because you aren’t prej-
udiced. However, your boss makes it clear that you will either do
things her way or be fired. You really need this job, so you go along.
Under these circumstances, you are a “fair-weather egalitarian.”
There are many types of discriminatory behaviors. Allport
identified five general categories that range, as he put it, “from
the least energetic to the most”:
1. Verbal rejection (“antilocution”): using derogatory nouns
(“epithets”) to refer to people in particular groups; telling
jokes that put down entire groups of people
2. Avoidance: avoiding interaction with people from particular
groups
3. Active discrimination: acting to exclude members of particular
groups from education, employment, housing, political, or
recreational opportunities
Behavior Dimension
Does the person
discriminate?
Attitude Dimension
Is the person prejudiced?
Yes
1
No
Yes Bigot
Fair-weather
egalitarian
Timid bigot
All-weather
egalitarian
No
3
2 4
Figure 14.3
A Typology of
Prejudice and
Discrimination
SOURCE: Adapted from
Robert K. Merton,
Sociological Ambivalence
and Other Essays
(New York: Free Press,
1976).
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 247mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 247 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
248 CHAPTER 14 INEQUALITY AND ASCRIPTION
4. Physical attacks: using violence or the threat of violence
against members of particular groups or their property, such
as burning churches or desecrating graves
5. Extermination: participating in lynchings, massacres, geno-
cide, or pogroms
Although they vary in seriousness, all the behaviors associated
with these five categories are discriminatory because they involve
treating people unequally because of their membership in some
group.
It is especially important to distinguish between two levels of
discrimination: individual and institutional. Individual discrimina-
tion occurs when an individual discriminates against another individ-
ual (or group of individuals). The apartment house owner who
refuses to rent to someone because of his or her race, religion, or
whatever is practicing individual discrimination.
Institutional discrimination involves a denial of opportunities and
equal rights to individuals and groups that results from the normal oper-
ation of society. This term was introduced in the 1960s by political
activist Stokely Carmichael and his co-writer Charles Hamilton
(1967). Their intent was to distinguish between the outcomes of
the practices of individuals (say, members of the KKK) and the
outcomes of the practices found in everyday society that lead, for
example, to the deaths of young African American children. As
Carmichael and Hamilton pointed out, institutional discrimina-
tion is “built into” the usual operations of society. Unlike indi-
vidual discrimination, institutional discrimination can occur even
when people have “no intention of subordinating others because
of color [or other ascribed characteristic] or are totally unaware of
doing so” (Downs 1970, 5).
Here are two examples of institutional discrimination:
Height requirements in a police or fire department that are geared to
the average height of white males—thereby systematically excluding
most women and male members of some minority groups—even
when height has no bearing on one’s ability to do the job. (The
average Asian, for example, may be judged too short to work as
a fire fighter in many U.S. cities; yet who does the fire fighting
in Asia?) Preferences given to children of alumni (“legacies”) for
admission to prestigious universities (including law and medical
schools)—thereby discriminating against worthy individuals not
fortunate enough to be born into wealthy families.
14.1 Define prejudice and discrimination, and explain how they differ.
14.2 Explain the difference between individual and institutional
discrimination.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 248mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 248 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
Discrimination and “Isms” 249
Discrimination and “Isms”
A particular act of discrimination may be more or less injurious
depending on the social context. Many sociologists group partic-
ularly potent kinds of discrimination into one of the “isms” cat-
egories: ageism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, racism, sexism.
“Isms” are different from ordinary discrimination. For exam-
ple, ageism is not simply age-based discrimination; nor is racism
the same as race-based discrimination, nor sexism the same as
sex-based discrimination. The suffix ism is generally applied to
acts of discrimination that occur at the institutional level or, when
they occur at the individual level, are consistent with institutional
patterns of discrimination. When an African American tells an
anti-white joke, it is as discriminatory as when a white person
tells an anti–African American joke. But, because the patterns
of institutional discrimination in our society tend to be against
African Americans, only the anti–African American joke falls into
the racism category. From the sociological perspective, the ism is
used to signal the differences in potency of different types of dis-
crimination. More generally, then, discriminatory acts are “isms”
when their source is a member of the dominant group and their
target is a member of a minority group in society.
Why make such a distinction? Why not categorize all race-based
discrimination as racism and all sex-based discrimination as sex-
ism? These are crucial questions. We make the distinction because,
as sociologists, we know that when we take into account the larger
social context, the impact of discriminatory acts is different for
minorities than it is for members of the dominant group.
Sociologist Michael Schwalbe came to a similar conclusion as a
result of his study of the “men’s movement” in the United States:
To [some of the men] any word of disparagement by members of
one sex for another was an example of sexism. Women’s joking
about men’s foibles or atrocious behavior was thus supposedly just
as sexist, and just as unacceptable, as anything some men might do
to demean or oppress women. . . . There was blindness here to power
differences. Women as a group do not have the institutional power
to demean, oppress, or exploit men as a group. In the context of male
supremacy, women’s verbal criticism of men is an act of resistance,
not sexism. Similarly, blacks may think of whites as evil, and may
even be “prejudiced against” whites. But it is perverse to call this
racism, since blacks as a group do not have the institutional power
to hurt white people. In fact, when blacks do disparage whites, they
must do it in the safety of their own communities, lest they become
victims of truly racist retaliation. (1996, 266 n. 13)
Understanding the difference between race discrimination
and racism, or sex discrimination and sexism, involves taking
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 249mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 249 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
250 CHAPTER 14 INEQUALITY AND ASCRIPTION
into account the institutionalized relationships that exist between
members of different groups. We can begin by examining the
concepts of minority and dominant groups. What do those terms
mean? Sociologist Louis Wirth explained them this way:
We may define a minority as a group of people who, because of their
physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from the others in
the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment,
and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrim-
ination. The existence of a minority in a society implies the existence
of a corresponding dominant group enjoying higher social status and
greater privilege. Minority status carries with it the exclusion from full
participation in the life of the society. Though not necessarily an alien
group, the minority is treated and regards itself as a people apart.
(1945, 347)
Any person may be the target of discrimination—or of unequal
treatment because of his or her group membership. On the play-
ground, little girls may exclude boys from their jump rope game
just as little boys may place a “NO GIRLS ALLOWED” sign on
their tree house. But overall, the experience of discrimination is
different for members of the dominant group than it is for mem-
bers of minority groups.
For a member of the dominant group, being the target of dis-
crimination is not only upsetting but shocking as well! After all,
the defining characteristic of dominant-group membership is
that one enjoys greater privilege. David Gates (1993), a reporter
for Newsweek, provides a series of revealing quotes in this con-
text. Tom Cole, a retired marketing executive in Chicago, claims,
“The white male is the most persecuted person in the United
States.” Tom Williamson, president of the National Coalition of
Free Men, “complains that Clinton ‘has brought in a feminist
administration that has no conception of men’s problems. They
are self-serving and self-pitying. We’re going to be in for it.’”
A white male firefighter says of minorities, “They stole my pay,
they stole my promotion, and I couldn’t say I didn’t like it. White
guys are being pushed around big time to make up for past
wrongs. If you’re black and belong to a black group, you’re an
activist. If you’re white and you belong to a white group, you’re an
asshole. Nobody supports the KKK— I don’t. But there’s nothing
for a white guy to join.” Then there is Steve, age 29, who “sold his
Jeep CJ7 to put himself through the police academy. . . . He was a
finalist for a job in a rural northern California town, but got
bumped down the list by three women he says didn’t go through
the same application process. ‘When they take the chance that I
had and allot it to three women just because they’re female, that
burns me up,’ he says. ‘I got shot out of the saddle.’”
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 250mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 250 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
Discrimination and “Isms” 251
When Newsweek polled white American men in 1993, it found
that a majority believed they were losing influence in American
society. More to the point, the survey found that the average
white male felt that he was losing his advantage in terms of jobs
and income.
Research suggests that when rights and privileges are extended
to members of minority groups, members of the dominant group
perceive their loss of advantage as discrimination. Moreover, the cost
to dominant groups tends to be exaggerated by them. It is in this
context that we can make sense of statements like “the white male
is the most persecuted person in the United States”—a nonsensi-
cal statement in the light of empirical reality: 2
It’s still a statistical piece of cake being a white man, at least in
comparison with being anything else. White males make up just
39.2 percent of the population, yet they account for 82.5 percent
of the Forbes 400 (folks worth at least $265 million), 77 percent
of Congress, 92 percent of state governors, 70 percent of tenured
college faculty, almost 90 percent of TV news directors. They domi-
nate just about everything but NOW and NAACP; even in the
NBA, most of the head coaches and general managers are white
guys. (Gates 1993, 49)
Generally members of minority groups tend not to be as
shocked when confronted with discrimination—frequently it’s
part of their daily lives. Here’s how a black student at a mostly
white university described the feeling he had as he walked home
each night from a campus job to his apartment:
“Even if you wanted to, it’s difficult just to live a life where you
don’t come into conflict with others. Because every day you walk the
streets, it’s not even like once a week, once a month. It’s every day
you walk the streets. Every day you live as a black person you’re
reminded how you’re perceived in society. You walk the streets at
night; white people cross the streets. I’ve seen white couples and
individuals dart in front of cars to not be on the same side of the
street. Just the other day, I was walking down the street, and this
white female with a child, I saw her pass a young male about 20
yards ahead. When she saw me, she quickly dragged the child and
herself across the busy street. What is so funny is that this area has
had an unknown white rapist in the area for about four years. [When
2The phenomenon that loss of advantage is experienced as discrimination can be
found in other cultures. In India, to help integrate members of scheduled castes and
tribes (the dalit) into the mainstream of society, the government instituted a policy of
“protective discrimination,” or affirmative action, in which some university scholar-
ships and a certain percentage of government jobs are reserved for the dalit. Sociologist
Lelah Dushkin (1979) found that upper-caste members tended to exaggerate both the
costs they were paying (for example, in terms of lost jobs) and the benefits that the dalit
were receiving.
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 251mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 251 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
252 CHAPTER 14 INEQUALITY AND ASCRIPTION
I pass] white men tighten their grip on their women. I’ve seen people
turn around and seem like they’re going to take blows from me.
The police constantly make circles around me as I walk home, you
know, for blocks. I’ll walk, and they’ll turn a block. And they’ll come
around me just to make sure, to find out where I’m going. So, every
day you realize [you’re black]. Even though you’re not doing any-
thing wrong; you’re just existing. You’re just a person. But you’re a
black person perceived in an unblack world.” (Feagin 1991, 111–112)
Being bombarded by discriminatory behaviors can take a big
toll on people. Sometimes it may seem to members of the dominant
group that minorities take “small slights” and blow them out of pro-
portion, because they are “just too sensitive.” Here is one middle-class
black woman’s account of the time that she “overreacted”:
“We had a new car . . . and we stopped at 7-11 [store]. We were going
to go out that night, and we were taking my son to a babysitter. . . .
And we pulled up, and my husband was inside at the time. And
this person, this Anglo couple, drove up, and they hit our car. It
was a brand new car. So my husband came out. And the first thing
they told us was that we got our car on welfare. Here we are able-
bodied. He was a corporate executive. I had a decent job, it was a
professional job. . . . But they looked at the car we were driving, and
they made the assumption that we got it from welfare. I completely
snapped; I physically abused that lady. I did. And I was trying to
keep my husband from arguing with her husband until the police
could come. . . . And when the police came they interrogated them:
they didn’t arrest us, because there was an off-duty cop who had
seen the whole incident and said she provoked it.” (Feagin 1991, 112)
Sociologist Joe Feagin found that most white Americans
believe that these days middle-class blacks can live their lives
substantially untouched by race discrimination. He wanted to
find out whether this was true. In his research, he found evi-
dence that race discrimination against even middle-class blacks
is fairly widespread. It may lack the crudity of the era when
blacks encountered “No Negroes Served Here” signs in restau-
rants, but it is noticeable. One of Feagin’s respondents, a female
black professor at a predominantly white university in the South-
west, explains how she copes when she encounters the police:
“When the cops pull me over because my car is old and ugly, they
assume I’ve just robbed a convenience store. Or that’s the excuse they
give: ‘This car looks like a car used to rob a 7-11 [store].’ And I’ve
been pulled over six or seven times since I’ve been in this city—and
I’ve been here two years now. Then I do what most black folks do.
I try not to make any sudden moves so I’m not accidentally shot.
Then I give them my identification. And I show them my university
I.D. so they won’t think that I’m someone that constitutes a threat,
however they define it, so that I don’t get arrested.” (114)
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 252mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 252 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
Discrimination and “Isms” 253
She explained the overall effect of daily encounters with race dis-
crimination this way:
“[One problem with] being black in America is that you have to
spend so much time thinking about stuff that most white people
just don’t even have to think about. I worry when I get pulled over
by a cop. I worry because the person that I live with is a black male,
and I have a teenaged son. I worry what some white cop is going
to think when he walks over to our car, because he’s holding on to
a gun. And I’m very aware of how many black folks accidentally
get shot by cops. I worry when I walk into a store, that someone’s
going to think I’m in there shoplifting. And I have to worry about
that because I’m not free to ignore it. And so, that thing that’s
supposed to be guaranteed to all Americans, the freedom to just be
yourself, is a fallacious idea. And I get resentful that I have to think
about things that a lot of people, even very close white friends
whose politics are similar to mine, simply don’t have to worry
about.” (114)
Feagin explained that “particular instances of discrimination
may seem minor to outside white observers when considered in
isolation. But when blatant acts of avoidance, verbal harassment,
and physical attack combine with subtle and covert slights, and
these accumulate over months, years, and lifetimes, the impact on
a black person is far more than the sum of individual instances”
(115). Feagin refers to the cumulative impact of encounters with
racist behavior as having a pyramiding effect. Another of his
respondents explained it this way:
“. . . if you can think of the mind as having one hundred ergs of
energy, and the average man uses fifty percent of his energy dealing
with the everyday problems of the world—just the general kinds of
things—then he has fifty percent more to do creative kinds of things
that he wants to do. Now that’s a white person. . . . A black person
also has one hundred ergs; he uses fifty percent the same way a
white man does, dealing with what the white man has [to deal with],
so he has fifty percent left. But he uses twenty-five percent fight-
ing being black, [with] all the problems of being black and what it
means. Which means he really only has twenty-five percent to do
what the white man has fifty percent to do, and he’s expected to do
just as much as the white man with that twenty-five percent. . . . So,
that’s kind of what happens. You just don’t have as much energy
left to do as much as you know you really could do if . . . your mind
were free.” (115)
14.3 Why do sociologists distinguish racism from race-based
discrimination and sexism from sex-based discrimination?

S T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 253mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 253 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
254 CHAPTER 14 INEQUALITY AND ASCRIPTION
The Social Construction of Minority Groups
Louis Wirth stressed that minorities are people who have been
“singled out” as different. Naive observers tend to believe that
the things that distinguish members of minority and dominant
groups are direct reflections of inherent biological or psychologi-
cal differences.
Take, for example, the concept of race. The term race was first
applied to humans in 1775 by the German naturalist and physi-
ologist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. Blumenbach, one of the
founders of anthropology, came up with a taxonomy (classifica-
tion) scheme that divided people into five racial categories: Cau-
casian, Mongolian, Malay, American, and Ethiopian or African.
Although Blumenbach did not make much of racial differences
(instead, he stressed the essential unity of humankind), many of
the scientists who followed him invested the concept of race with
great meaning. In the nineteenth century, in fact, many scientists
adhered to polygenism —or a belief that different races evolved
from different origins, that different races constituted different
subspecies of humanity. 3 Here’s how this was explained by one
such “scholar”:
[The] mass of scriptural and scientific evidence clearly indicates
that the pure-blood White is the creature whom God designed
should perform the mental labor necessary to subdue the earth;
and that the Negro is the creature whom God designed to perform
the manual labor. The Negro, in common with the rest of the
animals, made his appearance upon the earth prior to the creation
of man. With the Negro and the animals of draft, burden and food,
it was possible for [white] man to develop all the resources of
the earth and not personally till the ground. (Carroll 1900/1991,
101–102)
Race has proved to be a slippery concept. Consider the origi-
nal five categories proposed by Blumenbach. His placement of
groups of people within each category does not mesh with con-
temporary conceptions of race. Under the category of Caucasian,
for example, he placed not only Europeans but Hindus. Under the
3Polygenistic theories (that is, theories that claim that people of different races
evolved from different genetic stock) have been invoked in many cultures to justify
discrimination against minorities. In Japan, for example, there are minorities—little
known to outsiders—called the hinin and the eta, or “heavily polluted.” Now called
the burakumin, or “people of the hamlet,” these people were long treated as if they
were not quite human, and certainly not Japanese. As recently as 1965, a government
survey in Japan revealed that 70 percent of the people polled believed that mem-
bers of the burakumin “were of a race and lineage different from the Japanese” (Hane
1982, 40). Yet no empirical evidence can be found to support such a theory. (See also
Howell 1996.)
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 254mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 254 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
The Social Construction of Minority Groups 255
category of Mongolian, on the other hand, he lumped Chinese,
Turks, and Eskimos. 4
Later anthropologists argued for different taxonomies of race.
The English anthropologist Ashley Montague showed that these
taxonomies varied a great deal, including anywhere from 2 to
2000 different racial groups. Montague himself identified some
40 different races (1960, 1964).
In South Africa, the laws of apartheid (“aparthood”) recog-
nized four racial categories: white (those of European descent),
coloured (mixed), Asiatic (including those of Indian descent), and
African (called Bantu ). The categories were strict, but they were
not entirely based on physical differences. For example, Japanese
(who tended to be fairly affluent) could be classified as white.
In the United States, persons of European, African, and North
American ancestry are divided into three races: white, black,
and Native American. In Mexico, however, the same population
would be divided into at least six groups: Negro (black), Indio
(Indian), Hispano (white), mestizo (Indian and white), lobo (Indian
and black), and mulatto (white and black). The term mestizo/mestiza
is particularly revealing with respect to the social nature of race.
Originally, it meant strictly mixed Indian and white heritage; by
the end of the seventeenth century, however, “any person of the
lower or intermediate classes who adopted Spanish culture was
considered mestizo/mestiza, regardless of his or her [biological]
descent” (Appiah and Gates 1997, 455).
Even within the United States, there has been disagreement
about who qualifies as what race. In the days when segregation
was legal and intermarriage forbidden, it was quite important
to know who belonged to which race. But one’s race could vary
from state to state. Who, for example, was black?
In Kentucky, anyone having one-fourth or more Negro blood
(at least one grandparent)
In Indiana and Maryland, anyone having one-eighth or more
Negro blood (at least one great-grandparent)
In Louisiana, anyone having one-sixteenth or more Negro
blood (at least one great-great-grandparent)
Still, in other states the law was quite simple. In Arkansas, for
example, the law stated, “The words ‘persons of negro race’ shall
4Blumenbach’s classification was widely accepted among scientists, but conven-
tional observers tended to modify his taxonomy. For example, for the first several
decades of the twentieth century, it was illegal for foreigners of Asian descent to buy
property. In 1920, a group of Armenians in the United States (whom Blumenbach’s
scheme had classified as Caucasian) had to go to court to prove they were not of
“Mongolian” or Asian descent and thus could legally purchase property.
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 255mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 255 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
256 CHAPTER 14 INEQUALITY AND ASCRIPTION
be held to apply to and include any person who has in his or her
veins any negro blood whatever.” Likewise, in Georgia, “The
term ‘white person’ shall include only persons of the white or
Caucasian race, who have no ascertainable trace of either Negro,
African, West Indian, Asiatic Indian, Mongolian, Japanese, or
Chinese blood in their veins” (Kennedy 1959, 48–50). These states,
then, followed the “one-drop rule”—meaning that a “single drop
of ‘black blood’ makes a person black” (Davis 1991, 51).
What, then, is race? Although the concept of race is not very
useful to biologists, it continues to be an important one for
sociologists—but only because people’s assumptions about race
have tremendous consequences for individuals. Race is a socially
constructed attribute that is tied to beliefs about differences in the
physical makeup of different individuals.
Ethnicity is different. When most people speak of “ethnic dif-
ferences,” they are referring specifically to cultural differences.
Thus, ethnicity has to do with shared cultural heritage. The ties that
bind people together into ethnic groups may be varied and fre-
quently include religion, language, dress, music, and food pref-
erences. Sometimes ethnicity has less to do with shared culture
than with how people in a social group are perceived. That is,
sometimes ethnicity is imposed upon a people. One example
involves Italian Americans. Many of the people who emigrated
to the United States in the 1880s were surprised to find that they
were “Italian.” They had thought of themselves as Venetians,
Neopolitans, Calabrians, Sicilians, or Corsicans. 5 To them there
was no such person as an Italian. But when they came to the
United States, their ethnic distinctions were treated as mean-
ingless by members of the dominant group, who lumped all
Italians into a single ethnicity. As anthropologist Nancy Lurie
put it, “Immigrant communities were not communities when
they came; their ethnic identities were, to a surprising extent,
constructed in America” (1982, 143). In other words, “The Sicil-
ians, the Neopolitans, and the Calabrians thus became conscious
of their common destiny in America” (Schermerhorn 1949,
25). Likewise, it was white Americans who created “Indian”
and “African” as ethnicities out of an incredible diversity of
cultures. 6
In conventional language, ethnic labels are not neutral,
technical devices. If they were, it would make sense to say that
everyone has an ethnicity. But as it is used in society, the con-
cept of ethnicity has connotations of something foreign or exotic.
5Until these separate states were unified in 1861, Italy did not exist.
6The imposition of ethnicity on a minority group by a dominant group is called
ethnogenesis (Greeley 1971).
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 256mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 256 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
Gender 257
Think about it—what is stocked in the supermarket in the aisle
marked “ethnic foods”? If those are ethnic foods, what is it that is
stocked throughout the rest of the store?
Gender
Gender is a social construction as well. If differences between
men and women were biologically determined, then they would
be the same across cultures. But they aren’t.
In 1935, the American anthropologist Margaret Mead pub-
lished her famous study Sex and Temperament in Three Primi-
tive Societies. This book contained an account of the differences
between men and women among the Arapesh, the Mundugu-
mor, and the Tchambuli (pronounced “cham-bully”)—small
societies in New Guinea. 7 As Mead later explained, she had set
out to study the degree to which differences in male and female
temperaments (that is, personalities) were a result of socializa-
tion rather than physical or biological factors. Mead and her
colleagues found that there was what she called a standard-
ized male personality and a standardized female personality in
each culture. But the differences across these three cultures were
amazing. Here is how Mead summarized the nature of male and
female in each society:
We found the Arapesh—both men and women—displaying a
personality that, out of our historically limited preoccupations, we
would call maternal in its parental aspects, and feminine in its sexual
aspects. We found men, as well as women, trained to be coopera-
tive, unaggressive, responsive to the needs and demands of others.
We found no idea that sex was a powerful driving force for men or
for women. In marked contrast to these attitudes, we found among
the Mundugumor that both men and women developed as ruthless,
aggressive, positively sexed individuals, with the maternal cherish-
ing aspects of personality at a minimum. Both men and women
approximated to a personality type that in our culture we would find
only in an undisciplined and very violent male. Neither the Arapesh
nor the Mundugumor profit by a contrast between the sexes; the
Arapesh ideal is the mild, responsive man married to the mild,
responsive woman; the Mundugumor ideal is the violent aggressive
man married to the violent aggressive woman. In the third tribe, the
Tchambuli, we found a genuine reversal of the sex-attitudes of our
own culture, with the woman the dominant, impersonal, managing
partner, the man the less responsible and the emotionally dependent
person. (1935/1950, 205)
7New Guinea is the second largest island in the world (only Greenland is larger).
It’s located north of Australia.
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 257mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 257 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
258 CHAPTER 14 INEQUALITY AND ASCRIPTION
What to make of these findings? To Mead it was clear: “If those
temperamental attitudes which we have traditionally regarded as
feminine—such as passivity, responsiveness, and a willingness to
cherish children—can so easily be set up as the masculine pat-
tern in one tribe, and in another be outlawed for the majority of
women as well as for the majority of men, we no longer have any
basis for regarding such aspects of behavior as sex-linked.” And,
Mead added, “This conclusion becomes even stronger when we
consider the actual reversal in Tchambuli of the position of domi-
nance of the two sexes” (1935/1950, 205).
There are, of course, physical differences between men and
women, and most societies divide their own population into
two groups—male and female—on the basis of these physi-
cal characteristics. What sociologists have found most fascinat-
ing, however, is what different societies have made of these sex
differences. Mead’s research in New Guinea brought home the
fact that we may have overlooked the real source of most differ-
ences between men and women. More specifically, many of the
differences between men and women that people convention-
ally assume are related to biological factors turn out to be prod-
ucts of socialization. Physically, females among the Arapesh,
Mundugumor, and Tchambuli were the same, as were the males
among the three tribes. Nonetheless, what it meant to be a woman
or a man varied tremendously across these groups.
Today sociologists frequently distinguish between sex dif-
ferences (the physical and biological differences between males
and females) and gender differences (which have to do with social
expectations about how males and females ought to act and
their respective rights and duties). To put it another way, sex is
a biological or physical attribute while gender is a social/cultural
attribute.
Which of the differences that we see between men and
women are related to sex and which are related to gender? In
other words, which of the differences between men and women
have to do with their innate biological selves and which have
to do with the kind of socialization they receive? The evidence
increasingly shows that gender differences tend to override sex
differences—that social expectations, for example, are much
more powerful determinants of people’s behaviors than their
physical attributes.
Summarizing the differences between women and men is not an
easy task, once one leaves the obvious biological domains [that is,
differences in reproductive capacities]. . . . The basic repertoires of
women and men are quite similar, particularly when it comes to
social behaviors. Both women and men know how to be aggressive,
how to be helpful, how to smile, and how to be rude. What they
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 258mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 258 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
Gender 259
actually do is determined less by differential abilities than by the con-
text in which they are acting. Attitudes and actions of others affect
what people do. Societal norms and expectations are also influential.
So, too, do people alter their own behavior from one situation to
another, depending on their goals and objectives.
Comparisons of women and men cannot be analyzed in a
vacuum, independent of their social context. Even in the area of
cognitive abilities, the differences between women and men have
shifted over time. Now there are fewer differences than there were
twenty years ago. . . .
No doubt people will continue to ask how men and women dif-
fer. But the answers will never be simple ones. Nor can observed
Sex or Gender?
It is often difficult to distinguish sex and gender differences.
Read through the following lists. In your judgment, which dif-
ferences are a result of biology and which are a result of culture?
For Every 100 Girls . . .
For every 100 girl babies born, there are 105 boy babies born.
For every 100 girls aged 5 to 14 who die, 148 boys die.
For every 100 girls enrolled in ninth grade, there are 101 boys
enrolled.
For every 100 girls enrolled in tenth grade, there are 94 boys
enrolled.
For every 100 high school girls who felt too unsafe to go to
school, 104 boys felt the same way.
For every 100 twelfth-grade girls who engaged in a physical
fight on school property, 214 boys got into a fight.
For every 100 girls in grades 10 to 12 who drop out of high
school, 121 boys drop out of high school.
For every 100 women aged 25 to 29 years who have at least a
bachelor’s degree, 84 men have at least a bachelor’s degree.
For every 100 females aged 20 to 24 who commit suicide,
624 males of the same age kill themselves.
For every 100 women aged 22 to 24 in correctional facilities,
there are 1,430 men in correctional facilities.
For every 100 women aged 18 to 24 living in emergency
and transitional shelters, there are 86 men living in similar
shelters.
SOURCE: Adapted from Tom Mortenson, “‘For Every 100 Girls . . .’ Postsecondary Education
OPPORTUNITY” (Washington, D.C.: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in
Higher Education, 2006). www.postsecondary.org/archives/previous/ForEvery100Girls
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 259mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 259 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
260 CHAPTER 14 INEQUALITY AND ASCRIPTION
differences between the sexes be used as a simple explanation for the
broader gender roles of women and men [for example, the fact that
in our society, women are regarded as having more responsibility
for nurturing children]. Indeed, the causal direction may be just the
reverse: Accepted roles may channel men and women into differ-
ent patterns of behavior. Whatever the patterns observed, most sex
differences will continue to reflect a gendered environment and be
subject to further change. (Deaux 1992, 1753)
What To Do with What You’ve Learned?
Economics was once famously called the “dismal science.” In the
minds of many students, sociology is regarded as the depressing
science. Here’s what one of my students wrote on his end-of-term
evaluation:
Some of the stuff we talked about is interesting, but by the end of the
semester I found the class depressing: All this talk about inequality
and discrimination. Maybe leave those parts out for future students.
(May 2012)
And, it’s not just my students who feel this way. Here’s how
another sociology professor, Sally Raskoff, described her stu-
dents’ reaction to the topic of inequality:
This semester some students reacted with hopelessness. They stated
that they don’t see that anything can change and that we’re doomed
to be subject to these pressures since the power always wins. I was
not surprised at this reaction, as it is a common one in many sociol-
ogy classes. Learning about the depth of stratification and exploita-
tion can be demoralizing and depressing. (Raskoff 2011)
I have long observed the tendency of students to become
depressed when they study the sources of inequality. I suspect
that this sort of depression is especially potent in the United
States where citizens pride themselves on living in a meritocracy.
Some may disagree with me, but in my judgment, there is noth-
ing inherently depressing about inequality. However, it is cer-
tainly depressing to learn that the true nature of inequality differs
from what we have all been taught to believe it is.
The belief that equality of opportunity exists in modern society
is pervasive and strong. So, when you read these final chapters of
Core Concepts, it is likely you were dismayed to discover that few
modern Western societies are meritocracies. And, it is depress-
ing to think about the facts that prove this: That women tend
to earn less money than men who do the same jobs; that people
who aren’t “white” tend to earn less than people who are white—
even when they have the same education and job skills; that just
being female or just being black or Hispanic will mean that, over
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 260mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 260 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
What To Do with What You’ve Learned? 261
a lifetime, you will lose hundreds of thousands or even millions
of dollars for reasons that have nothing to do with your personal
talents, dedication.
And, I think learning about such things in a sociology course
makes it even more depressing because the most important les-
son that you learn in sociology classes is how powerfully society
and its institutions, culture, and social structures affect people’s
live. If the society is imbued with discriminatory beliefs and prac-
tices, what can individuals do?
Professor Raskoff goes on to say, “it is imperative to realize
that one can’t attempt to effectively solve a problem unless one
understands the problem.” Raskoff’s thinking reflects a point
made by C. Wright Mills. Recall from chapter 2 that Mills pointed
out that people in modern societies feel trapped by circumstances
that seem beyond their control. Mills suggested that the way to
escape the trap is to use one’s “sociological imagination” to dis-
tinguish between personal troubles and public issues of social
structure (Mills 1959, 5).
Distinguishing between personal troubles and public issues
allows us to focus our attention on the true source of our prob-
lems. Or, as Mills put it, by using the sociological imagination
“the personal uneasiness of individuals is focused upon explicit
troubles and the indifference of publics is transformed into
involvement with public issues” (Mills 1959, 5). So, while I think
that inequality may be inevitable, the bases of inequality need not
violate the values of the group. Until people know (from taking
courses in sociology?) the real nature of their society’s reward
structure, however, they are powerless.
14.4 Explain the difference between sex and gender.
14.5 When a sociologist says that some phenomenon is a social
construction, what does he or she mean?
14.6 Read each of the research findings reported below. Based on
what you learned from this chapter, indicate whether each finding is
true or false. (Answers follow Chapter Review.)
a. Until the 1970s, there were few women musicians who played
in major professional orchestras. That situation changed when
(in the 1970s and 1980s) orchestras instituted new audition
procedures so that those judging the auditions (and doing the
hiring) could not see the player auditioning. The evidence sug-
gests that the low numbers of female orchestra members had
been a result of gender bias against hiring women.
b. While women may experience discrimination in the major-
ity of occupations, science tends to be the exception. In
a recent study of scientists from a variety of research

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 261mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 261 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
262 CHAPTER 14 INEQUALITY AND ASCRIPTION
universities, scientists were shown an application for the
job of lab manager from a student—randomly assigned a
female or a male name. Then scientists were asked for their
judgment about the student applicant’s (a) competence,
(b) hir ability, (c) salary, and (d) potential for mentoring. The
results showed that the gender of the student applicant had
no significant overall effect.
c. While there was a time when nonwhites were prohibited
from even playing on all-white professional teams in some
sports, things are different today. In fact, the research shows
that African American players earn more than their white
counterparts in the National Basketball Association.
d. In the United States, Asian Americans are more likely to die
in car accidents than people of any other race/ethnicity.
Chapter Review
1. Below I have listed the major concepts discussed in this
chapter. Define each of the terms. ( Hint: This exercise will be
more helpful to you if, in addition to defining each concept,
you create an example of it in your own words.)
a dollar is not always a dollar
prejudice
stereotypes
discrimination
Robert Merton, typology of prejudice and discrimination
Gordon Allport, types of discriminatory behaviors
individual discrimination
institutional discrimination
Louis Wirth, minority group, dominant group
“isms,” distinguished from other types of discrimination
pyramiding effect of discrimination
race as a social construct
ethnicity
gender as a social construct
sex
Margaret Mead, studies of three New Guinea societies
2. Each of the following jokes is an example of sex-based dis-
crimination, but which are examples of sexism? Explain how
you distinguished sexism from sex-based discrimination.
1. Q: What’s the difference between a sorority girl and an
elephant? A: About 10 pounds.
2. Q: Why did the blonde get fired from the M&M factory?
A: Because she threw out all the w’s.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 262mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 262 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 263
3. Q: Why was the blonde happy when she completed the
puzzle in two hours? A: Because it said on the puzzle
box “two to four years.”
4. Q: What’s the difference between men and government
bonds? A: Bonds mature.
5. Q: What did God say after creating man? A: I can do better.
6. Q: What is gross stupidity? A: 144 men in a room.
3. Just a few decades ago, African American adult males were
frequently referred to as “boys.” Today, adult males of all
races are generally referred to as “men.” However, adult
women are frequently referred to as “girls.” In your judg-
ment, what are some of the implications of this for women?
4. How important is your gender to the way you live your life?
Imagine that tomorrow morning you woke up and discov-
ered that, overnight, you had changed from female to male
(or male to female). Describe how the next few days would
go for you. Will there be any change in what you do or how
you behave? (Assume that everyone around you acted as if
your new sex was the one you had always had.) What lessons
would you learn from this experience?
5. This chapter has used race, ethnicity, and gender as examples
of how ascribed statuses are bases of inequality. Those exam-
ples do not, I think, exhaust the list of ascribed statuses that
are linked to social inequality. In your informed judgment,
what other ascribed statuses lead people to be treated differ-
ently in society?
Answers and Discussion
14.1 Prejudice is a negative and persistent judgment, based on incorrect
information, about people in a particular group. Discrimination involves
treating someone differently because of membership in some group. The
essential difference between them is that prejudice involves attitudes and
beliefs while discrimination involves behaviors.
14.2 Individual discrimination occurs when a single person discriminates
against another (for example, an owner of a building refuses to rent to
someone because of his or her race, religion, or whatever). Institutional
discrimination is discrimination that is built into the system; the person
who acts out the discrimination (for example, the bank loan officer or the
college admissions officer) may not intend to discriminate (or even know
that he or she is discriminating).
14.3 Any act that discriminates against another based on his or her race
is race-based discrimination. However, not all race-based discrimination
qualifies as racism. Determining which acts are racist and which are not
requires that one look at the social context in which the act occurs.

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 263mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 263 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
264 CHAPTER 14 INEQUALITY AND ASCRIPTION
If a white building owner discriminates against a Japanese renter, that
is racism, because whites are the dominant group in U.S. society. On the
other hand, if a Japanese building owner discriminates against a white
renter in Tokyo, that would be racism, because whites are in the minority
in Japan.
There is no difference between the actual behavior (and, to the con-
ventional observers, they both are bad). How “bad” the behaviors are, of
course, is not of interest to sociologists. Sociologists distinguish between
the two kinds of acts because of the different kinds of effects they have on
the people who are discriminated against.
Michael Schwalbe (quoted in the chapter) says that it is important to
take into account power differences—that it is perverse to regard all race-
based discrimination as the same, because not all people have institutional
power to make life difficult for others.
14.4 Sex has to do with physical attributes (such as a person’s genitalia).
Gender has to do with the meaning that a particular society attaches to
those physical attributes. For example, long hair on women and short hair
on men are gender attributes (and may vary from society to society).
14.5 To say that something is socially constructed is to say that it
is made by people in society. A norm is a social construction (it has
no other reality). Similarly, according to sociologists, race is a social
construction—the main reality of race is not biological or physical. Race
is a social construction, as is gender.
14.6
a. True. The researchers concluded that “blind auditions served
to help female musicians in their quest for orchestral positions.”
(See, Claudia Goldin and Cecilia Rouse. 2012. Orchestrating
impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians.
The American Economic Review 90: 715–741.)
b. False. In fact, just the opposite happened. These university scien-
tists judged the females as less competent and less hirable than
the male student; and, when they indicated that they would hire
the female applicant, they indicated they would pay her signifi-
cantly less and do less mentoring. (Corrine A. Moss-Racusin,
John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo
Handelsman. 2012. Science faculty’s subtle biases favor male
students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
September. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1211286109)
c. Mostly false. African American players in the National Basketball
Association are, on average, paid more than white players. How-
ever, evidence suggests that there is nonetheless a salary premium
paid to white players compared with the African American players
with comparable productivity (e.g., “shooting, scoring, rebounding,
assists, fouls, blocks and turnover statistics.”). The salary premium
is such that, when controlling for productivity, white players earn
“approximately 24.6% more than nonwhite players.”) See, Kyle
Rehnstrom, business.uni.edu/economics/Themes/rehnstrom
d. False. As shown in Table 14.4:

S
T O P
R
E V I E W
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 264mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 264 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
Chapter Review 265
1Number of deaths among infants less than 1 year of age per 1,000 births, by maternal race and ethnicity, 2006.
2Death rate per 100,000 population, 2007.
3Per 100,000, 2007.
4Percent of families with children without health insurance, 2011. (Data unavailable for American Indian/Alaska Natives.).
52009.
SOURCES: Centers for Disease Control, Health Disparities and Inequalities Report—United States, 2011; National Center for
Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2011, With Special Feature on Socioeconomic Status and Health; National Center
for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2010: With Special Feature on Death and Dying. Income, Poverty, and Health
Insurance Coverage in the United States, 2011, Current Population Reports, issued September 2012.
Table 14.4 Death Rates and Life Expectancy by Race
Infant
Mortality
Rate1
Motor
Vehicle-Related
Deaths2
Death
by
Homicide3
% of Children
without Health
Insurance4
Life
Expectancy
at Birth5
American Indian/
Alaska Native 8.28 29.1 7.8 2 75.1
Asian/Pacific Islander 4.55 7.3 2.4 9.1 87.3
Black, non-Hispanic 13.35 14.6 23.1 10.2 78.0
White, non-Hispanic 5.58 15.0 2.7 6.8 78.7
Hispanic 5.41 13.4 7.6 15.1 83.5
mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 265mcI26873_ch14_237-265.indd 265 19/04/13 4:41 AM19/04/13 4:41 AM

Confirming Pages
AFTERWORD
I nevitably, you will forget at least some of what you have learned in your sociology class. Twenty years from now, you
might hear the word anomie, for example, and draw a blank
because the spot in your mind that anomie occupies will be taken
up with other stuff. That’s okay.
Still, there are at least two major lessons that I hope you not only
remember but also keep supple with use: The first is a tendency
to skepticism. In other words, I hope that you always remember
what Peter Berger called “the first wisdom of sociology”: “things
are not what they seem” (1963, 23). This wisdom applies espe-
cially in Western societies in which most things are explained
in individualistic terms. Sociologists have been persuaded by a
great deal of research that people tend to give too much credit (or
blame, as the case may be) to individuals. Crediting and blaming
individuals makes sense in some circumstances, but individualis-
tic explanations don’t work well if the goal is to understand why
people act as they do. And certainly, having only an individualis-
tic understanding will not work well if we wish to effect change.
This brings me to the second lesson I hope you retain: the
importance of having a sociological imagination. You have many
tools with which to exercise your sociological imagination; I
hope you’ve been persuaded, for example, that human behav-
ior is shaped by culture and social structure; that the ways in
which we carry out our life’s arrangements are shaped by social
institutions—including the systems of inequality that exist in
society; and that if we choose to violate social norms, the ways
in which we deviate frequently are influenced by our social
environment.
The media are rife with stories of events for which individu-
alistic explanations do not seem to tell the whole stories—the
shenanigans of Wall Street brokers, bank managers, and even
(in 2012) Olympic athletes. More locally, there are stories about
cheating, binge drinking, and date rape. Are you satisfied when
these events are explained entirely as the result of individuals’
266
mcI26873_afterword_266-267.indd 266mcI26873_afterword_266-267.indd 266 19/04/13 3:47 AM19/04/13 3:47 AM

Confirming Pages
AFTERWORD 267
bad choices? I hope not. Certainly, individuals do make bad
choices, but frequently there is something going on that tran-
scends individuals and influences their choices.
It is fitting, I think, to end this book as C. W. Mills ended his
treatise on the sociological imagination. People, he wrote, “are
gripped by personal troubles which they are not able to turn into
social issues. They do not understand the interplay of these per-
sonal troubles of their milieux with problems of social structure”
(1959, 187). Understanding the nature of the interplay of personal
troubles with problems of social structure is what having a socio-
logical imagination is all about. And so, Mills exhorts his readers:
Know that many personal troubles cannot be solved merely as troubles,
but must be understood in terms of public issues—and in terms of the
problems of history-making. Know that the human meaning of public
issues must be revealed by relating them to personal troubles—and to
the problems of the individual life. Know that the problems of social
science, when adequately formulated, must include both troubles and
issues, both biography and history, and the range of their intricate
relations. Within that range the life of the individual and the making
of societies occur; and within that range the sociological imagination
has its chance to make a difference in the quality of human life in our
time. (226)
The good news is that, if you are of a mind to save the world
or just make it a little better, having a sociological imagination
can help you succeed. Anthropologist Margaret Mead is reputed
to have said that we should “never doubt that a small group of
thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s
the only thing that ever has.” If those citizens exercise their socio-
logical imaginations in the process, it ups their chance of success.
mcI26873_afterword_266-267.indd 267mcI26873_afterword_266-267.indd 267 19/04/13 3:47 AM19/04/13 3:47 AM

Confirming Pages
268
REFERENCES
Ackernecht, Erwin H. 1982. A Short History of Medicine. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Acorn, 2000. Separate and Unequal: Predatory Lending in America. Accessed
at www.acorn.org/acorn10/predatorylending/plreports/separate.htm .
Alba, Richard D. 1985. Italian Americans. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Aleo, Michael, and Pablo Svirsky. 2008. “Foreclosure Fallout: The
Banking Industry’s Attack on Disparate Impact Race Discrimination
Claims Under the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act.” Boston University Public Interest Law Journal,
18: 1–64.
Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. New York:
Doubleday/Anchor Books.
Appiah, Kwame Anthony, and Henry Louis Gates, Jr. 1997. The
Dictionary of Global Culture. New York: Knopf.
Axtell, Roger E. 1991. Gestures: The Do’s and Taboos of Body Language
Around the World. New York: Wiley.
Ayres, Ian, and Peter Siegelman. 1995. “Race and Gender Discrimination
in Bargaining for a New Car.” American Economic Review 85: 304–321.
Ayres, Ian. 2008. “Discrimination in Consummated Car Purchases.”
pp. 137–148 in Laura Beth Nielsen and Robert L. Nelson (eds.),
Handbook of Employment Discrimination Research. New York: Springer.
Badgett, M. V. Lee. 2004. “Prenuptial Jitters: Did Gay Marriage Destroy
Heterosexual Marriage in Scandinavia?” Slate.com., May.
Barber, Bernard. 1968. “Social Stratification.” Pp. 288–295 in David Sills
(ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Science. New York: Macmillan.
Becker, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance.
New York: Free Press.
Been, Vicki, Ingrid Gould Ellen, and Josiah Madar. 2009. “The High
Cost of Segregation: Exploring Racial Disparities in High-Cost
Lending.” Fordham Urban Law Journal, 36: 361–393.
Belkin, Aaron, Morten Ender, Nathaniel Frank, Stacie Furia, George
R. Lucas, Gary Packard, Tammy S. Schultz, Steven M. Samuels and
David R. Segal. 2012. One Year Out: An Assessment of DADT Repeal’s
Impact on Military Readiness. Los Angeles, CA: Palm Center.
mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 268mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 268 19/04/13 3:53 AM19/04/13 3:53 AM

Confirming Pages
REFERENCES 269
Berger, Peter. 1963. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. New
York: Anchor Books.
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction
of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY:
Anchor Books.
Berkow, Robert, ed. 1987. The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy.
15th ed. Rahway, NJ: Merck Sharp & Dohme Research Laboratories.
Berube, Allan. 1990. Coming Out Under Fire. New York: The Free Press.
Bierstedt, Robert. 1960. “Sociology and Humane Learning.” American
Sociological Review 25: 3.
Birdwhistell, Ray L. 1970. Kinesics and Context: Essays on Body Motion
Communication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bishop, Morris. 1968. Middle Ages. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Black, Henry Campbell. 1979. Black’s Law Dictionary. St. Paul, MN: West.
Blauner, Robert. 1972. Racial Oppression in America. New York:
Harper & Row.
Blumenbach, Johann F. 1775. “On the Natural Variety of Mankind.”
Reprinted in Anthropological Treatise. Trans. T. Bendyshe. London:
Anthropological Society, 1865.
Bocian, Debbie Gruenstein, Keith S. Ernst, and Wei Li. 2006. Unfair
Lending: The Effect of Race and Ethnicity on the Price of Subprime
Lending. Washington, DC: Center for Responsible Lending.
Bouglé, Célestin. 1908/1971. Essais sur le Régime des Castes (Essays on the
Caste System). Trans. D. F. Pocock. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Boxer, Sarah. 1995. “The United States Is the New Bastion of Inequality.”
New York Times, April 23.
Brace, Emma. 1894. The Life of Charles Loring Brace. New York: Author.
Brady, Erik, and MaryJo Sylwester. 2004. “High Schools in the Money
Are Also Rich in Sports Titles.” USA Today, June 17, pp. 1, 4–A.
Braun, Denny. 1997. The Rich Get Richer—The Rise of Income Inequality in
the United States and the World. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
———. 1995. “Negative Consequences to the Rise of Income Inequality.”
Research in Politics and Society 5: 3–31.
Bremner, John B. 1980. Words on Words. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Bricker, Jesse, Arthur B. Kennickell, Kevin B. Moore, and John
Sabelhaus. “Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2007 to 2010:
Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances.” Federal Reserve
Bulletin 98: 2.
Bryson, Bill. 1990. The Mother Tongue: English and How It Got That Way.
New York: Avon Books.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1993. Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying
Crime Victims. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
———. 1992. Criminal Victimization in the United States. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Campbell, Frederick L., Hubert M. Blalock, Jr., and Reece McGee
(eds.). 1985. Teaching Sociology: The Quest for Excellence. Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 269mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 269 19/04/13 3:53 AM19/04/13 3:53 AM

Confirming Pages
270 REFERENCES
Carmichael, Stokely, and Charles Hamilton. 1967. Black Power. New
York: Vintage Books.
Carroll, Chas. 1900/1991. The Negro a Beast. Salem, NH: Ayer.
Center for Community Change. 2002. Risk or Race? Racial Disparities and
the Subprime Refinance Market. Accessed at www.communitychange.org .
Chagnon, Napoleon A. 1977. Yanomamö: The Fierce People. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Chambliss, William. 1973. “The Saints and the Roughnecks.” Society
11: 24–31.
Chen, Chien-Fei. 1995. “The Impact of American Media and
Interpersonal Communication on the Acculturation Process of
Taiwanese Immigrants in the United States.” Unpublished master’s
thesis, Washington State University.
Claffey, Jason. 2012. “NH Lawmaker: Kindergarten Leads to More
Crime.” ExeterPatch, June 27. Accessed at http://exeter.patch.com/
articles/nh-lawmaker-kindergarten-leads-to-more-crime.1 August.
Clark, Kenneth B. 1967. Dark Ghetto. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Cleaver, Eldridge. 1968. Interview. Playboy, December, pp. 89–108, 238.
Cloward, Richard, and Lloyd E. Ohlin. 1960. Delinquency and
Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs. New York: Free Press.
———. 1959. “Illegitimate Means, Anomie, and Deviant Behavior.”
American Sociological Review 24: 164–176.
Cooley, Charles H. 1909. Social Organization. New York: Scribner.
———. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner.
Corbett, Christianne, and Catherine Hill. 2012. Graduating to a Pay Gap.
Washington, DC: AAUP.
Corcoran, Margaret. 1995. “Rags to Rags: Poverty and Mobility in the
United States.” Annual Review of Sociology 21: 237–267.
Coser, Lewis A. 1971. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical
and Social Context. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Craig, Albert M., William A. Graham, Donald Kegan, Steven Ozment,
and Frank M. Turner. 1986. The Heritage of World Civilizations. New
York: Macmillan.
Croteau, David, and William Hoynes. 2003. Media Society: Industries
Images and Audiences. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Cummings, Scott, and Del Taebel. 1978. “The Economic Socialization of
Children: A New Marxist Analysis.” Social Problems 26: 198–210.
Curtiss, Susan. 1997. Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-Day
“Wild Child.” New York: Academic Press.
Darwin, Charles. 1859/1962. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection of the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
New York: Collier Books.
Davis, Allison. 1948. Social Class Influences upon Learning. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Davis, James F. 1991. Who Is Black? One Nation’s Definition. University
Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Davis, Kingsley. 1947. “Final Note on a Case of Extreme Isolation.”
American Journal of Sociology 50: 432–437.
———. 1940. “A Case of Extreme Social Isolation of a Child.” American
Journal of Sociology 45: 554–564.
mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 270mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 270 19/04/13 3:53 AM19/04/13 3:53 AM

Confirming Pages
REFERENCES 271
Deaux, Kay. 1992. “Sex Differences.” In Edgar F. Borgatta and Marie L.
Borgatta (eds.), Encyclopedia of Sociology. New York: Macmillan.
Della Fave, Richard. 1980. “The Meek Shall Not Inherit the Earth: Self-
Evaluation and the Legitimacy of Stratification.” American Sociological
Review 45: 955–971.
Deutch, Morton P. 1964. “The Disadvantaged Child and the Learning
Process.” Pp. 172–187 in Frank Reissman, Jerome Cohen, and Arthur
Pearl (eds.), Mental Health of the Poor. New York: Free Press.
Domhoff, G. William. 2012. “Wealth, Income, and Power”. Who Rules
America. Accessed at http://whorulesamerica.net/power/wealth.html.
Douglas, Mary. 1986. How Institutions Think. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press.
Downs, A. 1970. Racism in America and How to Combat It. Washington,
DC: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
DuBois, W. E. B. 1968. The Autobiography: A Soliloquy on Viewing My
Life from the Last Decades of Its First Century. New York: International
Publisher Co.
Dumont, Louis. 1970. Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its
Implications. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Duncan, Greg J., Wei Jun, J. Yeung, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and
Judith Smith. 1998. “How Much Does Childhood Poverty Affect
the Life Chances of Children?” American Sociological Review
63 (3): 406–423.
Durkheim, Émile. 1904/1950. The Rules of the Sociological Method. Trans.
Sarah A. Solovay and John H. Meuller. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
———. 1897/1951. Suicide. Trans. John A. Spaulding and George
Simpson. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
———. 1893/1933. The Division of Labor in Society. Trans. George
Simpson. New York: Free Press.
Dushkin, Lelah. 1972. “Scheduled Caste Politics.” In Michael Mahar
(ed.), The Untouchables in Contemporary India. Tucson: University of
Arizona Press.
Eder, Donna. 1995. School Talk: Gender and Adolescent Culture. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Emirbayer, Mustafa, and Ann Mische. 1998. “What Is Agency?”
American Journal of Sociology 103: 962-1023.
Entwisle, Doris R., and Karl L. Alexander. 1993. “Entry into School: The
Beginning School Transition and Educational Stratification in the
United States.” Annual Review of Sociology 19: 401–423.
Ettelbrick, Paula A. 2006. “Global Warming to Gay Rights: The
Worldwide Trend of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Likely
Continue.” Los Angeles Times, December 4.
Evans, David, and David Glovin. 2006. “They Flubbed Exams,
Get Hired as Executives of Test Companies.” Bloomberg.com ,
November 3.
Farb, Peter. 1993. Word Play: What Happens When People Talk. New York:
Vintage Books.
Feagin, Joe R. 1991. “The Continuing Significance of Race: Anti-Black
Discrimination in Public Places.” American Sociological Review 56:
101–116.
mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 271mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 271 19/04/13 3:53 AM19/04/13 3:53 AM

Confirming Pages
272 REFERENCES
Fine, Gary Alan. 1979. “Small Groups and Culture Creation: The
Idioculture of Little League Baseball Teams.” American Sociological
Review 44: 733–745.
Fishbein, Allen J., and Patrick Woodall. 2006. Women Are Prime Targets for
Subprime Lending. Washington, DC: Consumer Federation of America.
Fussell, Paul. 1983. Class: A Guide through the American Status System.
New York: Touchstone/Simon & Schuster.
Gamoran, Adam, and Robert D. Mare. 1989. “Secondary School
Tracking and Educational Inequality: Compensation, Reinforcement,
or Neutrality?” American Journal of Sociology 94: 1146–1183.
Gates, David. 1993. “White Male Paranoia.” Newsweek, March 29, pp. 48–53.
Gerald, Danette, and Kati Haycock. 2006. Engines of Inequality:
Diminishing Equity in the Nation’s Premier Public Universities.
Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
Gini, Al. 2000. My Job, My Self: Work and the Creation of the Modern
Individual. New York: Routledge.
Gleick, James. 1987. Chaos. New York: Viking/Penguin.
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled
Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
———. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and
Other Inmates. Garden City, NY: Doubleday/Anchor Books.
Graddy, Kathryn. 1997. “Do Fast-Food Chains Price Discriminate on the
Race and Income Characteristics of an Area?” Journal of Business &
Economic Statistics 15: 391–401.
Greeley, Andrew. 1971. Why Can’t They Be Like Us? New York: Dutton.
Greenberg, David F. 1988. The Construction of Homosexuality. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Hallinan, Maureen T. 1988. “Equality of Educational Opportunity.”
Annual Review of Sociology 14: 249–268.
Hallinan, Maureen T., and Richard A. Williams. 1987. “The Stability of
Students’ Interracial Friendships.” American Sociological Review
52: 653–664.
Hane, Mikiso. 1982. Peasants, Rebels and Outcastes: The Underside of
Modern Japan. New York: Pantheon Books.
Holmes, Oliver Wendell. 1891. Medical Essays, 1842–1882. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Howell, David L. 1996. “Ethnicity and Culture in Contemporary Japan.”
Journal of Contemporary History 31: 171–190.
Hughes, Everett C. 1945. “Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status.”
American Journal of Sociology 50: 353–359.
Hull, Nathaniel R. 2009. “Crossing the Line: Prime, Subprime, and
Predatory Lending.” Maine Law Review 61: 287–319.
Hyde, J. S. 1979. Understanding Human Sexuality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Isaacs, Julia B., Isabel V. Sawhill, and Ron Haskins. 2008. The Economic
Mobility Project of the Brookings Institute. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
James, C. L. R. 1967. “Black Power.” Pp. 362–374 in Anna Grimshaw
(ed.), The C. L. R. James Reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
James, William. 1890. The Principles of Psychology. Boston: Little, Brown.
Johnson, Allan G. 1997. The Forest and the Trees: Sociology as Life, Practice
and Promise. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 272mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 272 19/04/13 3:53 AM19/04/13 3:53 AM

Confirming Pages
REFERENCES 273
Johnson, Charles S. 1941/1967. Growing Up in the Black Belt. New York:
Schocken Books.
Johnson, Clifford M., Leticia Miranda, Arloc Sherman, and James D. Weill.
1991. Child Poverty in America. Washington, DC: Children’s Defense Fund.
Kennedy, Stetson. 1959. Jim Crow Guide to the U.S.A.: The Laws, Customs
and Etiquette Governing the Conduct of Nonwhites and Other Minorities
as Second Class Citizens. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Kennickell, Arthur B. 2009. Ponds and Streams: Wealth and Income in
the U.S., 1989 to 2007. Finance and Economics Discussion Series,
Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Federal
Reserve Board, Washington, DC.
———. 2006. Currents and Undercurrents: Changes in the Distribution of
Wealth, 1989 – 2004. Washington, DC: Federal Reserve Board, Survey
of Consumer Finances.
Kerbo, Harold R. 1991. Social Stratification and Inequality: Class Conflict in
Historical and Comparative Perspective. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kluegel, James R., and Eliot R. Smith. 1981. “Beliefs about Stratification.”
Annual Review of Sociology 7: 29–56.
Kottak, Conrad P. 1992. Assault on Paradise: Social Change in a Brazilian
Village. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kozol, Jonathan. 1991. Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools.
New York: Crown.
Kroeber, A. L., and Clyde Kluckhohn. 1952. Culture: A Critical Review of
Concepts and Definitions. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology. Vol. 47, no. 1.
Lederer, Richard. 1987. Anguished English. New York: Bantam/
Doubleday/Dell.
Lemert, Edwin M. 1967. Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social
Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Levine, Linda. 2012. An Analysis of the Distribution of Wealth across
Households, 1989–2010. Washington, DC: Congressional Research
Service.
Levine, Robert A., and Donald T. Campbell. 1972. Ethnocentrism: Theories
of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes, and Group Behavior. New York: Wiley.
Lewis, Oscar. 1966. “The Culture of Poverty.” Scientific American,
October, pp. 7–25.
Liebow, Elliot. 1967. Talley’s Corner. Boston: Little, Brown.
Linton, Ralph. 1945. The Science of Man in the World Crisis. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Liska, Allen E. 1987. Perspectives on Deviance. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lurie, Nancy Destreich. 1982. “The American Indian: Historical
Background.” Pp. 131–144 in R. Yetmen and C. H. Steele (eds.),
Majority and Minority, 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Mannheim, Karl. 1929/1936. Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the
Sociology of Knowledge. Ed. and trans. Louis Wirth and Edward Shils.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1848/1964. Manifesto of the Community
Party. Edited and with an introduction by Francis B. Randall. New
York: Pocket Books.
———. 1845–46/1963. The German Ideology. New York: International.
mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 273mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 273 19/04/13 3:53 AM19/04/13 3:53 AM

Confirming Pages
274 REFERENCES
Mauer, Marc, and Ryan S. King. 2007. Uneven Justice: State Rates of
Incarceration by Race and Ethnicity. Washington, DC: The Sentencing
Project.
McIntyre, Lisa J. 2005. Need to Know: Social Science Research Methods.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
McLeod, Jane D., and Michael J. Shanahan. 1993. “Poverty, Parenting
and Children’s Mental Health.” American Sociological Review
58: 351–366.
McNeill, William Hardy. 1987. A History of the Human Community. 2nd
ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society: From the Standpoint of a
Social Behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mead, Margaret. 1935/1950. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive
Societies. New York: Morrow.
Merton, Robert K. 1976. Sociological Ambivalence and Other Essays. New
York: Free Press.
———. 1949/1968. “Manifest and Latent Functions.” In R. K. Merton,
Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
———. 1938. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological
Review 13: 672–682. Reprinted in Merton, Social Theory and Social
Structure. New York: Free Press, 1949.
Miller, Joanne. 1988. “Jobs and Work.” Pp. 327–359 in Neil Smelser (ed.),
Handbook of Sociology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Free Press.
Mishel, Laurence, and Jared Bernstein. 1993. The State of Working
America, 1992–1993. New York: Sharpe.
Mishel, Lawrence, Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, and Heidi Shierholz. 2012.
The State of Working America, 12th Edition. New York: Cornell
University Press.
Montague, M. F. Ashley. 1964. The Concept of Race. New York: Free
Press.
———. 1960. Introduction to Physical Anthropology. 3rd ed. Springfield,
IL: Thomas.
Morrill, John. 1984. “The Stuarts (1603–1688).” Pp. 286–351 in Kenneth
O. Morgan (ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Muller, Edward N. 1985. “Income Inequality, Regime Repressiveness
and Political Violence.” American Sociological Review 50: 47–61.
Murdock, George P. 1945. “The Common Denominator of Culture.” In
Ralph Linton (ed.), The Science of Man in the World Crisis. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Murdock, George Peter. 1957. “World Ethnographic Sample.” American
Anthropologist 59: 664–697.
Nelson, M. D., Jr. 1992. “Socioeconomic Status and Childhood Mortality
in North Carolina.” American Journal of Public Health 82: 1131–1133.
Newman, Graeme. 1967. Comparative Deviance: Perceptions and Law in Six
Cultures. New York: Elsevier.
Newman, Katherine, and Chauncy Lennon. 1995. “The Job Ghetto.”
The American Prospect, Summer.
mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 274mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 274 19/04/13 3:53 AM19/04/13 3:53 AM

Confirming Pages
REFERENCES 275
Oakes, Jeannie. 1994. “More Than Misapplied Technology: A Normative
and Political Response to Hallinan on Tracking.” Sociology of
Education 67: 84–89.
———. 1985. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Oliver, Melvin L., and Thomas M. Shapiro. 1997. Black Wealth, White
Wealth. New York: Routledge.
Parsons, Talcott. 1966. Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Patterson, Orlando. 1982. Slavery and Social Death. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Pattullo, E. L. 1992. “Straight Talk about Gays.” Commentary, December.
Payne, Stanley L. 1951. The Art of Asking Questions. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Perez, Thomas. 2012. Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez Speaks at
the Wells Fargo Press Conference. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, July 12. Accessed at http://justice.gov/crt/opa/pr/speeches/2012/
crt-speech-120712.html.
Persell, Caroline. 1977. Education and Inequality: The Roots of Stratification
in American Schools. New York: Free Press.
Pollock, Frederick, and Frederic William Maitland. 1898/1968. The
History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I. 2 vols. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Quint, Michael. 1991. “Mortgage Race Data Show Gap. Fed Has
Apprised Bankers of Disparity in Loan Approvals.” New York Times,
October 14.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1922/1948. The Andaman Islanders. Glencoe, IL:
Free Press.
Rank, Mark P. 1989. “Fertility Among Women on Welfare: Incidence
and Determinants.” American Sociological Review 54: 296–304.
Raskoff, Sally. 2011. “Thinking Sociologically about Advertising,”
December 22. Everydaysociologyblog.com. Accessed at http://
everydaysociologyblog.com/2011/12/thinking-sociologically-about-
advertising.html?cid=6a00d83534ac5b69e20168e4f9b349970c.
Rheingold, Harriet L. 1969. “The Social and Socializing Infant.”
Pp. 779–790 in D. H. Goslin (ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory
and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Robertson, Ian. 1987. Sociology. New York: Worth.
Rogers Commission report (1986). Presidential Commission on
the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. 1986. Report to the
President. Accessed at http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep
/genindex.htm.
Romero, Adam P., Amanda K. Baumle, M.V. Lee Badgett, and Gary J.
Gates. 2007. Census Snapshot December 2007. Los Angeles, CA: The
Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.
Rose, Peter I., Myron Glazer, and Penina Migdal Glaser. 1979. “In
Controlled Environments: Four Cases of Intensive Resocialization.”
Pp. 323–325 in Peter I. Rose (ed.), Socialization and the Life Cycle. New
York: St. Martin’s Press.
mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 275mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 275 19/04/13 3:53 AM19/04/13 3:53 AM

Confirming Pages
276 REFERENCES
Rosenthal, Robert, and Lenore Jacobson. 1968. Pygmalion in the
Classroom: Teacher Expectations and Pupils’ Intellectual Development.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Ryan, William. 1971. Blaming the Victim. New York: Vintage Books.
Sadker, Myra, and David Sadker. 1994. Failing at Fairness. How Our
Schools Cheat Girls. New York: Touchstone.
Sagan, Carl. 1996. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the
Dark. New York: Random House.
Scase, Richard. 1992. Class. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Schermerhorn, Richard A. 1949. These Are Our People. Boston: Heath.
Schur, Edwin M. 1971. Labelling Deviant Behavior. New York: Harper & Row.
Schwalbe, Michael. 1996. Unlocking the Iron Cage: The Men’s Movement, Gender
Politics, and American Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shils, Edward. 1985. “Sociology.” In A. Kuper and J. Kuper (eds.), The
Social Science Encyclopedia. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Shweder, Richard. 1997. “The Surprise of Ethnography.” Ethos 25:
152–163.
Smith, Huston. 1958. The Illustrated World’s Religion: A Guide to Our
Wisdom Traditions. New York: HarperCollins.
Smith, Tom. 2011. General Social Survey Codebook. Chicago, National
Opinion Research Center.
Sorokin, Pitirim A. 1928. Contemporary Sociological Theories. New York:
Harper.
Spalter-Roth, Roberta, Terri Ann Lowenthal, and Mercedes Rubio.
2005. Race, Ethnicity, and the Health of Americans. Washington, DC:
American Sociological Society.
Speilberg, Nathan, and Bryon D. Anderson. 1987. Seven Ideas that Shook
the Universe. New York: Wiley.
Spencer, Herbert. 1864. Social Statics. New York: Appleton.
———. 1852. “A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law
of Animal Fertility.” Westminster Review LVII.
Spitz, René A. 1945. “Hospitalism: An Inquiry into the Genesis of
Psychiatric Conditions in Early Childhood.” Psychoanalytic Study of
the Child 1: 53–74.
Sprecher, Susan, and Rachita Chandak. 1992. “Attitudes about
Arranged Marriages and Dating among Men and Women of India.”
Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology 20 (1): 59–69.
Sullivan, Andrew. 1995. Virtually Normal. New York: Knopf.
Sumner, William G. 1934. Essays of William Graham Sumner. 2 vols.
Ed. Albert G. Keller and Maurice R. Davie. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
———. 1906. Folkways. Boston: Ginn.
Sweder, Richard A., 1997. “The Surprise of Ethnography”. Ethos 25: 152–163.
Szalavitz, Maia. 2012. “Does Kindergarten Lead to Crime? Fact-
Checking N.H. Legislator’s ‘Research.’” Time, July 6. Accessed at
http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/06/does-kindergarten-lead-to-crime-
fact-checking-n-h-legislators-research/#ixzz27896dgmq.
Thernstrom, Abigail. 1992. “Tracking: The Drive for Racially Inclusive
Schools.” Pp. 131–143 in Harold Orland and June O’Neill (eds.),
Affirmative Action Revisited, The Annals, September.
mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 276mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 276 19/04/13 3:53 AM19/04/13 3:53 AM

Confirming Pages
REFERENCES 277
Thurow, Lester C. 1996. The Future of Capitalism: How Today’s Economic
Forces Shape Tomorrow’s World. New York: Morrow.
Tittle, Charles R., and Robert F. Meier. 1990. “Specifying the SES
Delinquency Relationship.” Criminology 28: 271–279.
Tittle, Charles R., W. J. Villenez, and D. A. Smith. 1978. “The Myth
of Social Class and Criminality: An Empirical Assessment of the
Empirical Evidence.” American Sociological Review 43: 643–656.
Tönnies, Ferdinand. 1898/1963. Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Trans.
and ed. Charles P. Loomis. New York: Harper & Row.
Turner, Victor. 1969. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
United Nations Human Development Programme. 1994. Human
Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vaughan, Diane. 2008. Interview with Diane Vaugham, Consulting News
Line. Transcript available online at http://consultingnewsline.com/Info/
Vie%20du%20Conseil/Le%20Consultant%20du%20mois/Diane%20
Vaughan%20%28English%29.html.
Visser, Margaret. 1986. Much Depends on Dinner. New York: Harper
Collins.
Wade, Wyn Craig. 1987. The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Webb, Eugene J., Donald T. Campbell, Richard D. Schwartz, and Lee
Sechrest. 1966. Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social
Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Weber, Max. Bureaucracy. 1920–1958. Pp. 196–266 in H. H. Gerth and
C. W. Mills (eds.), From Max Weber. New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 1918/1958. “Inconvenient Facts.” Pp. 145–147 in H. H. Gerth and
C. W. Mills (eds.), From Max Weber. New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 1904–1905/1958. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
New York: Scribner.
Webley, Kayla. 2010. “Brief History of Gays in the Military.’’ Time,
February 2.
Weissmann, Jordan. 2012. “U.S. Income Inequality: It’s Worse
Today Than It Was in 1774.” The Atlantic, , November 3.
Accessed at . http://theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/
us-income-inequality-its-worse-today-than-it-was-in-1774/262537/.
Williams, Lena. 1991. “When Blacks Shop, Bias Often Accompanies
Sale.” New York Times, April 30.
Williams, Robin M., Jr. 1970. American Society: A Sociological
Interpretation. New York: Knopf.
Wirth, Louis. 1945. “The Problem of Minority Groups.” In Ralph Linton
(ed.), The Science of Man in the World Crisis. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Wolff, Edward N. 2006. “Changes in Household Wealth in the 1980s and
1990s in the U.S.” In Edward N. Wolff (ed.), International Perspectives
on Household Wealth. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishers.
Yinger, J. Milton. 1977. “Presidential Address: Countercultures and
Social Change.” American Sociological Review 42: 833–853.
Yinger, J. Milton. 1960. “Contraculture and Subculture.” American
Sociological Review 25: 625–635.
mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 277mcI26873_ref_268-277.indd 277 19/04/13 3:53 AM19/04/13 3:53 AM

Confirming Pages
278
CREDITS
CHAPTER 2 Allan G. Johnson, excerpt from The Forest and the Trees: Sociology as Life,
Practice and Promise, (1997): 20–21. Used by permission of Temple University Press.
© 1997 Temple University Press. All rights reserved.
CHAPTER 4 Napoleon A. Chagnon, excerpts from Yanomamö: The Fierce People. © 1977
Wadsworth, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission, www
.cengage.com/permissions.
CHAPTER 6 Interview with Diane Vaughan, http://www.consultingnewsline.com.
Copyright © 2008 by ConsultingNewsLine. Used by permission.
CHAPTER 10 René A Spitz, “Hospitalism: An Inquiry into the Genesis of Psychiatric
Conditions in Early Childhood,” p. 60. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Vol. 1
(1945): 53–74, Yale University Press.
CHAPTER 11, TABLE 11.1 From Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure. Copyright
1949, © 1957 by the Free Press; copyright renewed © 1977, 1985 by Robert K. Merton.
Adapted with the permission of Free Press of Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Howard S. Becker, excerpts from Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance.
Copyright 1963 by Howard S. Becker. Reprinted with permission of Free Press of
Simon and Schuster, Inc.
CHAPTER 12 Frederick Pollock and Frederic William Maitland. 1898/1968. The History
of English Law Before the Time of Edward I, 2 vols. Reprinted with the permission of
Cambridge University Press.
CHAPTER 13 Figure 13-1 Jordan Weissmann. “U.S. income inequality: It’s worse
today than it was in 1774.” The Atlantic, November 3, 2012, Chart (3) U.S. Income
Distribution: 1774, 1860, 2011; sources Lindert & Williamson, 2012; Census Bureau,
via Copyright Clearance Center.
Scott Cummings and Del Taebel, “The Economic Socialization of Children: A New
Marxist Analysis.” Social Problems 26 (1978): 207, http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.
Jonathan Kozol, excerpts from Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools.
Copyright © 1991 by Jonathan Kozol. Used by permission of the author, and by
permission of Crown Publishers, a division of Random House, Inc. Any third party
use of this material, outside of this publication, is prohibited. Interested parties
must apply directly to Random House, Inc. for permission.
Jeannie Oakes, excerpts from Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. Copyright
© 1985 by Yale University. Reprinted by permission of Yale University Press.
Erik Brady and MaryJo Sylwester, excerpt from “High Schools in the Money Are
Also Rich in Sports Titles.” USA Today, (June 17, 2004): 1, 4–A.
CHAPTER 14 Figure 14.1 American Association of University Women, Graduating to a
Pay Gap. Used by permission of the AAUW.
Joe R. Feagin, excerpts from “The Continuing Significance of Race: Anti-Black
Discrimination in Public Places.” American Sociological Review 56 (1991): 101–116.
Copyright © 1991. Reprinted with permission from American Sociological Association.
David Gates, excerpt from “White Male Paranoia.” Newsweek, (March 29, 1993): 48–53.
Sally Raskoff, “Thinking Sociologically About Advertising.” Blogpost (December
22, 2011). © W.W. Norton and Company, Inc. Used by permission.
mcI26873_credits_278.indd 278mcI26873_credits_278.indd 278 19/04/13 3:49 AM19/04/13 3:49 AM

Confirming Pages
279
GLOSSARY/INDEX
abominations of the body: Clearly visible
physical marks, 186
accretion measures, 90
achieved status: A status earned by the
individual through his or her own
efforts, 121. See also ascribed status
active discrimination: Acting to exclude
members of particular groups from
education, employment, housing,
political or recreational opportunities, 247
Addams, Jane, 24, 26
agency: The capacity to make decisions and
act to change one’s circumstances, 34
Alexander, Cecil Francis, 9n
Allport, Gordon W., 245–246
American Sociological Association, 23–24
animism: The belief that all living beings
have a life force and that people ought
to live in harmony with all forms of
life, 148
anomic suicide: As described by Durkheim, a
kind of suicide that increases when society
fails to exercise adequate regulation over
individuals’ desires and goals, 174–175
anomie: A state of social confusion caused
by a lack of constraint of social norms; a
situation that occurs when the norms of a
society do not match its social structure,
175, 176–177
adaptations to, 177
responses to, 177–179
apartheid: A type of very strict racial
segregation formerly practiced in South
Africa, 255
argot, 115n
aristocracy: Rule by the best few, 148
Arkwright, Richard, 10
artifacts, 90–91, 102
The Art of Asking Questions (Payne), 88
ascribed status: A status that is bestowed
upon an individual, regardless of his or
her efforts or wishes, 121–122, 160. See
also achieved status
atavist: An individual with characteristics
of distant ancestors, “evolutionary
throwback,” 171
attribute: A characteristic that describes a
thing, 60
avoidance: Avoiding interaction with people
from particular groups, 247
Ayres, Ian, 243
B.C.E.: Before common era, 6n
Becker, Howard, 179–183, 182n
belief: People’s ideas about what is real and
what is not real, 109
Bellarmine, Robert, 8
Birdwhistell, Ray L., 110–111
Bishop, Morris, 201
blaming the victim: Unjustly stating or
believing that the cause of a problem
resides in the individuals or groups who
experience the problem, when the real
source or cause of the problem is the
social environment, 222
blemishes of individual character: Labels of
mental disorder, dishonesty, etc., 186
Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich, 254
Bouglé, Célestin, 197
mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 279mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 279 4/23/13 2:51 PM4/23/13 2:51 PM

Confirming Pages
280 GLOSSARY/INDEX
bourgeoisie: Marx’s term for the class
of people who own the means of
production in modern society, the
capitalists, 21, 203n. See also proletariat
Brace, Charles Loring, 23
Bryson, Bill, 56
burakumin, 254
bureaucracy: A type of formal organization
that is characterized by distinct lines of
authority, 130
ideal-type, 130–133
Butterfly Effect: The idea that very small
changes in one part of the environment
can have very large effects elsewhere, 42
career mobility. See intragenerational mobility
Carmichael, Stokely, 34n, 248
caste systems: A system in which one’s rank
is determined at birth, 196–199
causation versus correlation, 74–75
cause: When a variable influences another
thing, 64
C.E.: Common era, 6n
Chagnon, Napoleon, 54–55, 111n
Chambliss, William, 184
chaos theory, 41–42
chattel slavery, 207
children
and the family, 160–161
games and, 159
the I and the Me and, 158
looking-glass technique and, 156
mass media and, 162–163
nature and nurture of, 152–154
peer groups and, 163–164
play and, 158–159
school and, 161–162
various socialization experiences of, 219
Class: A Guide Through the American Status
System (Fussell), 213
class systems: The belief that the best people
work their own way into the highest
ranks, 202–207 202n. See also social class
theoretical conceptions of class, 203–207
Cleaver, Eldridge, 83
closed-ended question, 85–86
Cloward, Richard A., 179
Cohen, Mark, 243
Cole, Tom, 250
collective conscience: The totality of beliefs
and sentiments common to the average
members of the same society, 13–14, 173
communism, 20–21
The Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels), 21
complete observer: Research strategy in which
the researcher is generally unknown to
the people being observed, 88
complete participant: Research strategy in
which the researcher does not tell the
people being observed that he or she is
doing research, 88
Comte, Auguste, 11–12, 11n
concepts: Terms with which we identify
phenomena of interest, 58–59
conceptualization exercises, 59
conflict paradigm: Model of the social world
that assumes that society is composed of
people or groups of people who are in
competition for scarce resources, 44–46
conformity, as an adaptation to anomie, 178
constructs: Terms applied to phenomena that
are not directly observable, 59
content analysis: Careful scrutiny of text to
see what it reveals about its author and
the times in which it was written, 91–92
convenience sample: A type of nonrandom
sample, 97
Cooley, Charles H., 128–129, 154
on looking-glass self, 155–156
Copernicus, Nicolaus, 6–7, 26
Corcoran, Margaret, 216
correlation versus causation, 74–75
counterculture: Subculture whose values and
beliefs set it not only apart from but also
in opposition to the dominant culture,
115. See also idioculture; subculture
crack cocaine, 189, 189n
crime and justice, social class and, 218
crime data interpretation, 188–189
cultural diffusion: Process by which people
of different cultures borrow elements of
material or nonmaterial culture from one
another, 114
cultural explanations, for social class, 219
cultural relativism: The belief that other
people and their ways of doing things
can be understood only in terms of the
cultural context of those other people; an
antidote to ethnocentrism, 56
mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 280mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 280 4/23/13 2:51 PM4/23/13 2:51 PM

Confirming Pages
GLOSSARY/INDEX 281
cultural wisdom, 112
culture: Patterns of and for behavior acquired
and transmitted by symbols, constituting
distinctive achievements of human
groups, 101–118
as conditioning element of further action,
111–113
ideas and beliefs, 109
ideology, 108
idiocultures, 116–118
language, 103–104
material and nonmaterial, 102–109
norms, 104–105
as product of action, 110–111
sanctions, 105–107
social change, 114
social institutions, 113
subcultures and countercultures, 114–118
symbols, 102–103
values, 107–109
culture of poverty, 219
culture shock: The whole set of feelings
about being in an alien setting, and the
resulting reactions, 56
Cummings, Scott, 215
Curtiss, Susan, 153n
Darwin, Charles, 22, 22n, 197n
Davis, Allison, 219
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 146
Democracy in America (Tocqueville), 229
demography, 84n
dependent variable: A variable that is
thought to be influenced by another
variable, 64–65
depersonalization: The initial phase of
resocialization in which those things that
indicate individual differences (haircuts,
names, clothing) are stripped away, 166.
See also total institution
Deutch, Morton, 219
deviance: Behavior that violates norms
Becker’s marijuana use study, 179–183
functions of, 187–189
nonsociological theories of, 171–173
relativity of, 169–171
sociological theories of, 173–175
dharma: Caste-based duties in the Hindu
religion, 197–198
Dialogue on the Two Great Systems of the World
(Galilei), 7
discredited identity: A social identity that
has been marred owing to stigma, 186
discrimination: Unfavorable treatment of
people based on their membership in
some ill-favored group, 33, 246–248
individual and institutional, 248
“isms” and, 249–262
pyramiding effect of, 253
The Division of Labor in Society (Durkheim), 15
dominant group: The group in society with
the most institutionalized power, 250
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” 192
Douglas, Mary, 144
DuBois, W. E. B., 24–26
Durkheim, Émile, 13–16, 13n, 26, 81
on deviance, 173–175, 187–189
on suicide, 33, 173–175, 175n
Dushkin, Lelah, 251n
dysfunctional: Outcomes of social action that
have a negative impact on the well-being
of people in society, 38
ectomorph: Individual with tall, thin, and
fragile physique, 172
education, social class and, 216–217, 220–222
college-bound seniors’ SAT test scores by
family income, 233
sports championships and, 223
tracking, 222, 224–226
effect: When a variable is influenced by
another thing, 64
egoistic suicide: Durkheim’s term for a type
of suicide whose rates increase when
people are not well integrated into
society; when people lack strong bonds
with one another, 174–175
Einstein, Albert, 41
empirical: Something that can be observed
through the use of one’s physical senses, 50
endomorph: Individual with a tendency to be
short and heavy, 172
Engels, Friedrich, 21
Erikson, Kai T., 187
estate system: A system in which a person’s
place in the hierarchy is determined at
birth, 199–202
ethics, and social research, 97
ethnicity: Shared cultural heritage, 256
mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 281mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 281 4/23/13 2:51 PM4/23/13 2:51 PM

Confirming Pages
282 GLOSSARY/INDEX
gender inequality, 239–242
gender-role behavior, peer groups and, 163
genocide: The murder of an entire people,
53, 53n
geocentric view of the cosmos: Model of the
universe that holds that the earth is at the
center, 7. See also heliocentric view of the
cosmos
Gesellschaft: Tönnies’s term for goal-driven
social relationships, 17–18, 128
Gini, Corrado, 231
Gini Coefficient, 231
Goffman, Erving, 166, 186
Goring, Charles, 171
group, social: Two or more individuals who
regularly interact with one another, share
goals and a sense of identity, 127–133. See
also primary group; secondary group
Guillard, Achille, 84n
habitualized behavior: An action that is
repeated frequently and becomes cast into
a pattern, 143
Hallinan, Maureen, 224
Hamilton, Charles, 248
Hardwick, Michael, 190
Hawking, Stephen, 41
Hawthorne effect: Changes that occur in
people’s behavior because they are
involved as research subjects; can occur
when any obtrusive research technique is
used, 89–90
health, social class and, 216–217
Heisenberg, Werner, 41
heliocentric view of the cosmos: Model of the
universe that holds that the sun is at the
center, 7. See also geocentric view of the
cosmos
Hells Angels, 116, 116n
Heraclitus, 5n
hidden curriculum of schools: The latent
functions of education, 162
homosexuality, 190–192
horizontal mobility: Movement within a
particular social stratum, 209
Hull House, 24
hypothesis: A testable statement about the
relationship between two or more
variables, 61–63
ethnocentrism: Tendency to use one’s own
culture as a standard against which to
judge other people’s cultures, 52–54
avoiding, 54–56
ethnography: A field of study in which the
goal is to make sense of the social world
in terms of the meaning it has for people
who inhabit it, 93–95
Exiguus, Dionysis, 6n
extermination: Participation in lynchings,
massacres, genocide, or pogroms, 248
Facebook, 117n
family
as agent of socialization, 160–161
ideal-type, 139–140
Farb, Peter, 111
Feagin, Joe, 252–253
feudal system, 200–202
field research. See observation
figures, how to read, 68–74
Fine, Gary Alan, 117
folkways: Casual norms, 105
formal organization: Group created and
formally organized to achieve some
specific goal or set of goals, 130
formal sanctions, 105–106. See also sanctions
fourth estate, 201n
functionalist paradigm: Model that assumes
that parts of society work, 43–45
functions: The outcomes of activities or
policies that affect other social groups or
structures, 35–37
Fussell, Paul, 213
Galilei, Galileo, 7–8, 8n
games, 159
Gandhi, Mohandas, 198n
Gates, David, 250
Gemeinschaft: Tönnies’s term for emotion-
based, communal social relationships,
16–18, 128
gender: Social expectations about the
attributes and behaviors of males and
females, 257–260
gender differences: Social expectations about
how male and females ought to act and
their respective rights and duties, 258
mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 282mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 282 4/23/13 2:51 PM4/23/13 2:51 PM

Confirming Pages
GLOSSARY/INDEX 283
interview, 84
intragenerational mobility: Social mobility
experienced during an individual’s
lifetime, 209
ism: Suffix generally applied to any type of
discrimination that is consistent with
patterns of institutional discriminism,
249–253
Jacobson, Lenore, 227
jati: Occupational groups within castes
in India, 198, 209
Johnson, Allan G., 30
Kantrowitz, Mark, 54
karma: The Hindu belief that people who live
good lives will be rewarded by being born
into a higher caste in the next life, 197
Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality
(Oakes), 222
Kingsbury, Bob, 74–75
Kluegel, James, 202
Kopernik, Mikolaj, 6–7
Kottak, Conrad P., 56
Kozol, Jonathan, 220–222
Kuznets, Simon, 204
labeling theory. See societal reaction
perspective
language: An organized set of symbols,
103–104, 110
latent function: Consequences of social action
that are unintended or hidden, 35–37
Law of Three Stages (Comte), 12
Lawrence v. Texas (2003), 191
legitimate means: Socially approved means of
achieving desired goals, 179
Lemert, Edwin, 185
Lemkin, Raphael, 53n
Lennon, Chauncy, 229–230
lesbians, 191n. See also homosexuality
Lewis, Oscar, 219
Liebow, Elliot, 220
life chances: The probabilities concerning the
fate an individual can expect in life, 204n
lifestyle: Distinctive ways in which people
consume goods and services; the social
customs associated with each class, 204n
I and Me: G. H. Mead’s conception of how
individuals acquire and maintain their
social selves. The Me is the self as an object
(as perceived to be seen by others); the I
is one’s unique response to a situation,
157–160
ideal types: A methodological strategy made
famous by Max Weber. An ideal type is an
“analytic construct” (it exists only in the
abstract); bureaucracy, 130–133, 139, 209
ideology: Shared beliefs that are distorted
by economic or political condition, 108
idioculture: Knowledge, beliefs, behaviors,
and customs shared by members of a
small group, used by group members to
facilitate interaction, 116–118
immigration, 231
incumbent: The individual occupying a
status, 122
independent variable: A variable that is
thought to cause a change in another
variable, 64–65
individual discrimination: The practice of
one individual discriminating against
another individual or group, 248
individualism: A focus on the needs and
desires of the individual over the needs
of the group or collective, 29
inequality, 195. See also social class;
stratification, social
wealth and, 214–215
informal sanctions, 106. See also sanctions
informed consent: Consent obtained after the
potential research participant has been
told what he or she will be asked to do,
what the benefits will be, and what the
possible harms are, 97
innovation, as an adaptation to anomie, 178
Inquisition (Roman), 8n
institution. See social institution
institutional discrimination: A denial of
opportunities and equal rights to
individuals and groups that results from
the normal operation of society, 248
institutional racism. See institutional
discrimination
Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), 97
intellectual anarchy, 12
intergenerational mobility: Social mobility
that occurs across generations, 209, 216
mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 283mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 283 4/23/13 2:51 PM4/23/13 2:51 PM

Confirming Pages
284 GLOSSARY/INDEX
Military Personnel Eligibility Act, 192
Mill, John Stuart, 12
Mills, C. Wright, 29, 31, 216, 261
minority group: Group whose members are
singled out from others in society for
differential (worse) treatment owing to
their physical or cultural characteristics, 250
social construction of, 254–257
mode: The number that occurs most
frequently in the set of numbers, 74
monarchy: Rule by a monarch (king or
queen), 148
moncausal theory: Marx’s theory that the
economic system was the driving force
behind all things social, 21
monogamy: Marriage between two people at
a time, 148, 149
monotheism: Belief in a single god, 148
Montague, Ashley, 255
mores: Important rules (norms), 105, 105n.
See also norms
NAACP, 24, 26
National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP), 24, 26
The Nature of Prejudice (Allport), 245
negative relationships between variables: A
type of relationship between two variables
in which they vary in opposite ways, 65–66
negative sanctions, 105, 106. See also sanctions
Newman, Katherine, 229–230
Newton, Isaac, 8–9, 9n
nonmaterial culture: Intangible elements of
culture, 102
nonrational behavior: Weber’s term for
behavior done for its own sake, 19–20.
See also rational behavior
nonreactive research. See unobtrusive research
norms: Socially accepted rules for behavior, 16,
104–105. See also folkways; mores; taboos
relativity of, 169–170
Oakes, Jeannie, 222, 224
observation: Research technique in which the
researcher directly observes people’s
behavior in its natural context, 88–90
occupational prestige: The social honor
accorded people owing to the virtue of
the work they do, 205–206, 205n
Linton, Ralph, 102
Lippershey, Hans, 7
literature review, 82–84
Lombroso, Cesare, 171
looking-glass self: Cooley’s term for the
process by which individuals acquire
and maintain their social selves through
reflective interaction with others, 155–156
loss of advantage phenomenon, 251, 251n
macrosociology: Approach to the study
of society that focuses on relationships
between social structures and institutions
rather than between individuals
themselves, 46–47
manifest functions: Consequences of social
acts that are intended and obvious, 35–37
Mann, Horace, 222
manumission, 208n
marijuana use, Becker study of, 179–183, 182n
marriage, racial restrictions on, 2n
Marshall, Thurgood, 125
Marx, Karl, 20–21, 203
mass media, as agent of socialization, 162–163
master status: The status that others deem
most telling about an individual; acts as
a filter through which the individual’s
actions are judged, 126–127
material culture: Things that humans make or
adapt from the raw stuff of nature, 102
matrix question, 86. See also survey
Matthew effect, 217
Mead, George Herbert, 157–160
Mead, Margaret, 257–258
mean: To calculate by adding up all the values
and divide the result by the number of
cases, 73
mechanical solidarity: Solidarity based on
likeness, 13
median: The number in the middle so that half
the numbers are in the set above and half
are below, 73
Merton, Robert, 35, 38, 133, 176–179, 177n
on discrimination, 246–247
mesomorph: An individual with a physique
that is muscular and athletic, 172
microsociology: Approach to the study of
society that focuses on the nature of
people’s interactions within particular
groups, 46–47
mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 284mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 284 4/23/13 2:51 PM4/23/13 2:51 PM

Confirming Pages
GLOSSARY/INDEX 285
that group and is therefore presumed to
have the objectionable qualities ascribed
to the group racial, 24–26
primary deviance: The kind of deviant acts
that almost everyone does from time to
time; frequently, may go unnoticed and
unsanctioned, 185
primary group: Term coined by C. H. Cooley
to refer to small, intimate groups
in which relationships tend to be
Gemeinschaft, 128–130
proletariat: Marx’s term for the class of people
who survive in modern society by selling
their labor to the bourgeoisie, 21, 203. See
also bourgeoisie
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
(Weber), 20n
Ptolemy, Claudius, 6
public issues of social structure: Mills’s term
for problems whose causes are properly
found in the larger social environment
and not within the individuals who
experience these problems, 31, 34
Pygmalion effect: Effect of teachers’
expectations on students’ performance,
227–228, 227n
pyramiding effect of discrimination: Feagin’s
term for the cumulative results of many
racial slights and insults, 253
qualitative research: Interpretative research;
seeks to gain an understanding of things
from the point of view of the people being
studied, 81–82
quantitative research: Research approach that
gathers data that are easily expressed in
numbers; measures behaviors with little
or no concern for the meaning people
attach to those behaviors, 81–82
race, as social construction, 254
racial inequality, 237–239
and costs of goods, 244
“racial surtax” on loans, 242–245
racial prejudice, 24–26
random sample: A sample in which each
element of the population has the same
chance of being included, 96
Ohlin, Lloyd E., 179
On the Revolutions of Heavenly Bodies
(Copernicus), 7
open-ended question, 85, 86
operational definition: Defining a variable in
such a way that it can be observed and
measured; often accomplished by listing
the variable’s attributes, 66–68
organic solidarity: Solidarity based on
interdependency, 14–15
Origin of Species (Darwin), 22, 22n
Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 216
Parsons, Talcott, 138
participant observer: Research strategy in
which the researcher lets people know
they are being studied, 89
Patterson, Orlando, 208
Payne, Stanley L., 88
peer group: Associates of approximately the
same age and social situation; as agents
of socialization, 163–164
Perez, Thomas, 242
personal troubles: Mills’s term for problems
whose causes originate within the
individual, 31
petite bourgeoisie, 203
The Philadelphia Negro (DuBois), 25
physical attacks: Using violence or the threat
of violence against members of particular
groups or their property, 248
play, 158–159
polyandry: Marriage between one wife and
two or more husbands, 148
polygamy: Marriage to more than one
husband or wife, 148, 149
polygenism: Mistaken belief that people of
different races evolved from different
genetic stock, 254, 254n
polytheism: Belief in more than one god or
deity, 148
positive relationships between variables:
A type of relationship between variables
in which they vary in the same direction,
65–66
positive sanctions, 106. See also sanctions
prejudice: A negative or hostile attitude
toward a person who belongs to a group,
simply because he or she belongs to
mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 285mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 285 4/23/13 2:51 PM4/23/13 2:51 PM

Confirming Pages
286 GLOSSARY/INDEX
Savage Inequalities: Children in American Schools
(Kozol), 220
Scase, Richard, 214
school, as agent of socialization, 161–162
Schur, Edwin, 186
Schwalbe, Michael, 249
secondary deviance: Deviant behavior that
occurs after and because of the fact that
the individual already has been labeled
as deviant, 185
secondary group: Nonintimate group of
people whose relationships tend to be
Gesellschaft-type, 128–130
self-administered questionnaire, 84
self-enslavement, 208
self-sufficiency: In a society, the ability to
meet the basic needs of its members, 138
sensitive dependence on initial conditions:
The idea that a very small initial
difference may lead to an enormous
change in the outcome, 42
Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies
(Mead), 257
sex differences: The physical and biological
differences between males and females, 258
Sheldon, William, 172
Shweder, Richard, 93
Siegelman, Peter, 243
skepticism, 35–38
slavery, 207–208
Smith, Eliot, 202
social aggregation: A collectivity of people
who happen to be in the same place at
the same time, 127
social change, 114, 149
social class
crime and justice and, 218
education and, 217–218, 220–222
hard work fallacy, 228–230
health and, 216–217
social mobility, social structure, and social
change, 230–232
structural explanations, 220–226
as type of stratification system, 203–207
wealth and income and, 214–215
Weber on, 203–205
working life and, 218
social constructionists. See symbolic
interactionist paradigm
Raskoff, Sally, 260–261
rational behavior: Weber’s term for behavior
that is calculating, means to an end
behavior, 19–20. See also nonrational
behavior
rebellion, as an adaptation to anomie,
178–179
redlining, 241n
Reissman, Leonard, 214
religious affiliation, attributes of, 60–61
rent-to-own stores, 244
representative democracy: Rule by
representatives of the people, 148
resocialization: Intense socialization process
that involves stripping away the
individual’s existing social self and then
requiring him or her to learn new roles,
166–167
retreatism, as an adaptation to anomie, 178
reverse redlining, 241
rickets, 153n
rites of passage: Ceremonies or rituals that
mark important transitions from status to
status within the life cycle, 165
ritualism, as an adaptation to anomie, 178
role: The sum total of expectations about
the behavior of people who occupy a
particular status, 123–126, 123n
role conflict: A condition that occurs when
the demands of a person’s roles clash,
125–126
role strain: A condition that occurs when the
demands of a particular role are such
that the incumbent is hard-pressed to
meet them all, 124
Rose, Peter, 166
Rosenthal, Robert, 227
Rules of the Sociological Method (Durkheim), 14
Ryan, William, 222
same-sex marriage, 145–147
sample: A portion of the population that is
studied in order to make inferences
about the entire population, 96–98
sanctions: Visible responses to behavior;
may be positive or negative, formal or
informal, 105–106
Sanskrit, 197n
mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 286mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 286 4/23/13 2:51 PM4/23/13 2:51 PM

Confirming Pages
GLOSSARY/INDEX 287
sociological imagination: Mills’s term
for a kind of outlook on the world
that allows one to look beyond the
circumstances of the individual and see
the effects of larger historical and social
factors, 31, 33
sociology: The scientific study of interactions
and relations among human beings, 2–4
history of, 5–26
specialization in, 40–47
theoretical perspectives in, 43–44
topics in, 43
in the United States, 23–26
sodomy, 190–191, 191n
solidarity: The social glue; a sense of
community and togetherness, 13
Sorokin, Pitirim, 82–83
Spencer, Herbert, 22–23, 22n, 26
Spitz, René, 154
sports championships, social class and, 223
Starr, Ellen Gates, 24
statistics: Numbers used to describe and
analyze data
common statistics, 72–74
use of existing, 91
status. See social status
status inconsistency: Occurs when an
individual’s ascribed and achieved
statuses are deemed (by others) to be
inconsistent, 124–125
status symbols: Visible clues to an
individual’s status, 122
stereotypes: Oversimplified generalized
images about members of a particular
group, 54, 246
stigma: A physical or social attribute that
discredits an individual’s claim to
complete respectability, 186–187, 186n
stratification, social
caste systems, 196–199
class systems, 202–207
defined, 195
estate systems, 199–202
open versus closed systems, 209–210
slavery, 207–208
social mobility and open versus closed
systems, 209–210
structural mobility, 231
structural strain, as a cause of deviance, 174
social Darwinism: The application of Darwin’s
evolutionary ideas to social policy, 22–23,
22n. See also survival of the fittest
social facts: According to Durkheim,
“manners of acting, thinking and feeling
external to the individual, which are
vested with a coercive power of virtue of
which they exercise control over him,” 14
social institution: An institution that is an
accepted and persistent constellation
of statuses, roles, values, and norms that
respond to important societal needs,
113, 139–141
interdependency and, 147
nature of, 142–149
phenomena that account for much of the
fact that social structures tend to be
enduring and repetitive, 138
specialization of, 149
socialization: The process by which society
molds its members into properly social
beings, 152
nature and nurture, 152–154
social mobility, varieties of, 209–210, 230
social phenomena, 16
social relationships, categories of, 16
social research
ethics and, 97
ethnography, 93–95
lit review, 82–84
observation, 88–90
quantitative and qualitative research, 81–82
sampling, 96–98
survey, 84–88
triangulation and, 92, 95–96
unobtrusive (nonreactive), 90–92
social status: Generally, one’s position or
location in a group or social structure,
121–123, 123n
social stratification
cultural explanations, 219
explained, 218–226
social structure: An abstraction; made up of
statuses and attached roles, 121–133, 123n
societal reaction perspective on deviance,
183–187
society: The totality of people and social
relations in a given geographic space, 138
needs of, 139–141
mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 287mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 287 4/23/13 2:51 PM4/23/13 2:51 PM

Confirming Pages
288 GLOSSARY/INDEX
appreciable period of time, together
lead an enclosed, formally administered
round of life,” 166–167
tracking, in school: Process by which school
children receive different education
content based on their perceived
aptitude, 222
transmigration: What many non-Hindus refer
to as reincarnation, 197
triangulation: Research strategy in which
different research methods are brought
to bear on a single research problem;
different methods are chosen so that their
respective strengths and weaknesses
complement one another, 92, 95–96
tribal stigmas: Discreditation of membership
in a particular racial, religious, ethnic, or
subcultural group, 186
tyranny: Rule by a tyrant, 148
uncertainty principle: Physicist Heisenberg’s
idea that the very act of observing
phenomena changes those phenomena, 41
unobtrusive research: Strategies for studying
behavior that do not affect the behavior
of research subjects, 90–92
values: General or abstract ideas about what is
good and desirable, as opposed to
what is bad and undesirable, in a society,
107–109
variables: The concepts or constructs that are
of interest to us, 59–61
important characteristics of, 59–60
independent and dependent, 63–65
operational definitions, 66–68
positive and negative relationships
between, 65–66
varnas: “Colors of being” in the Hindu
religion; refer to the arrangement of
Hindu people into castes, 197, 209
Vaughan, Diane, 94
verbal rejection: The use of derogatory
nouns (“epithets”) to refer to people in
particular groups, 247
vertical mobility: Movement (up or down)
from one social stratum into another, 209
Voltaire, 9n
subculture: A group of people whose shared
specialized values, norms, beliefs, or use
of material culture sets them apart from
other people in society, 114–116. See also
counterculture; idioculture
subprime loan, 241n
suicide, 33, 173–174
Suicide (Durkheim), 14
Sumner, William Graham, 23, 26, 52
survey: Research technique that involves
asking a series of questions of a set of
people, 84–88, 96
art of asking questions, 88
strengths and weaknesses of, 84–85
types of survey questions, 85–87
survival of the fittest: Spencer’s term for the
notion that unfettered social competition
will lead to the betterment of society
since, without help, the weak will lose
that competition and die out, 22–23
symbol: Anything that represents something
else to more than one person, 102–103.
See also language; status symbols
symbolic interactionist paradigm: Model of
the social world that assumes that how
people act depends largely on how they
see and evaluate reality, 44–46
syntax, 103n
tables, how to read, 68–74
taboos: Society’s most important social norms;
even the thought of violating a taboo is
deeply repugnant, 105. See also folkways;
mores; norms
Taebel, Del, 215
Tawney, R. H., 213
theocracy: Rule by God, or God’s
representatives, 148
Thomas, W. I., 3
Thomas theorem: The basic sociological truth
that if people define situations as real,
they are real in their consequences, 3, 163
Thurow, Lester, 217
Tocqueville, Alexis de, 229
Tönnies, Ferdinand, 16–18, 16n, 26, 128
total institution: Erving Goffman’s term for
a place of “residence and work where a
large number of life-situated individuals,
cut off from the wider society for an
mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 288mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 288 4/23/13 2:51 PM4/23/13 2:51 PM

Confirming Pages
GLOSSARY/INDEX 289
on social class, 203–205
on status, 205n
Whewell, William, 12
Williamson, Tom, 250
William the Conqueror, 199
Wirth, Louis, 250, 254
Wittgenstein, Ludwig Josef, 40n
Word Play (Farb), 111
working life, and social class, 218
workplace, as agent of socialization, 164–165
Wallace, Alfred Russel, 22n
Washington, Booker T., 24
Watkins, Perry, 191–192
wealth: The total value of the assets owned by
an individual or family group, 215
Matthew effect, 217
Weber, Bruce, 223
Weber, Max, 16, 16n, 19–20, 20n, 25, 26, 81–82
ideal-type concept, 130–133, 209
on inconvenient facts, 50–51
mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 289mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 289 4/23/13 2:51 PM4/23/13 2:51 PM

Confirming Pages
mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 290mcI26873_glo_idx_279-290.indd 290 4/23/13 2:51 PM4/23/13 2:51 PM

Cover Page
Half Title Page
Copyright Page
Contents
Preface
Introduction
So, What Is Sociology?
The Value of Sociology to Students
Tips for Studying Sociology—and an Invitation
Chapter 1 Responding to Chaos: A Brief History of Sociology
Inquiries into the Physical World
Technology, Urbanization, and Social Upheaval
The Origins of Modern Sociology in France: Émile Durkheim
Excerpt: Émile Durkheim, From Suicide (1897) and The Rules of the Sociological Method (1904)
The Origins of Modern Sociology in Germany: Ferdinand Tönnies, Max Weber, and Karl Marx
Excerpt: Ferdinand Tönnies, From Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (1887)
Karl Marx
The Origins of Modern Sociology in England: Herbert Spencer
Sociology in the United States
Box: One Small Step for Sociology
The Place of Sociology in Modern Society
Chapter Review
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion
Chapter 2 The Sociological Eye
The Focus on the Social
Box: Agency and Structure
Skepticism
Box: Nail Down That Distinction Between Manifest and Latent Functions!
Chapter Review
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion
Chapter 3 Science and Fuzzy Objects: Specialization in Sociology
Dividing Up the Task
Topic Area or Subject Matter
Theoretical Perspectives (Paradigms): Functionalist, Conflict, and Symbolic Interactionist
The Functionalist Paradigm
The Conflict Paradigm
The Symbolic Interactionist Paradigm
Which Paradigm Is Correct?
Levels of Analysis: Microsociology and Macrosociology
Chapter Review
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion
Chapter 4 Who’s Afraid of Sociology?
The Empirical World and Inconvenient Facts
Ethnocentrism
Avoiding Ethnocentrism Can Be Difficult
Cultural Relativism
Chapter Review
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion
Chapter 5 The Vocabulary of Science
Concepts and Constructs
Variables
Hypotheses
Kinds of Variables: Independent Versus Dependent
Kinds of Relationships: Directionality
Operational Definitions
Tables and Figures
A Note on Common Statistics
Correlation Versus Causation
Chapter Review
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion
Chapter 6 Doing Social Research
Two Traditions: Quantitative and Qualitative Research
First Things First: The Lit Review
The Survey
Types of Survey Questions
Box: Six Guidelines for Crafting Survey Questions
The Art of Asking Questions
Observation
Unobtrusive (Nonreactive) Research
Artifacts
Use of Existing Statistics
Content Analysis
The Importance of Triangulation
Box: Ethnography
Sampling
Box: Ethics and Social Research
Chapter Review
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion
Chapter 7 Culture
Material and Nonmaterial Culture
Nonmaterial Culture
Symbols
Language
Norms
Types of Norms
Sanctions
Box: The Power of Informal Sanctions
Values
Box: What Do Americans Value?
Box: Ideology
Box: Ponder
Box: Statements of Belief
Ideas and Beliefs
How It Adds Up
Culture as a Product of Action
Culture as a Conditioning Element of Further Action
Box: Problems Identified and Resolved in All Known Cultures
Box: Varieties of Cultural Wisdom
Social Institutions
Social Change: Cultural Diffusion and Leveling
Subcultures and Countercultures
Idiocultures
Chapter Review
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion
Chapter 8 Social Structure
Statuses
Roles
Tricky Situation 1: Role Strain
Tricky Situation 2: Status Inconsistency
Tricky Situation 3: Role Conflict
Master Status
Groups
Primary and Secondary Groups
Formal Organizations and Bureaucracies
Ideal-Type Bureaucracies
Chapter Review
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion
Chapter 9 Society and Social Institutions
Societal Needs
The Nature of Social Institutions
Institutions Are Generally Unplanned; They Develop Gradually
Institutions Are Inherently Conservative; They Change, but Slowly
A Particular Society’s Institutions Are Interdependent; Because of This, Change in One Institution Tends to Bring About Change in Others
The Statuses, Roles, Values, and Norms Associated with an Institution in One Society Frequently Bear Little Resemblance to Those in Another Society
Box: Polygamy and Monogamy
Social Change: The Trend Toward Increasing Specialization
Chapter Review
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion
Chapter 10 Socialization
Nature and Nurture: Biological and Social Processes
How Socialization Works
The Looking-Glass Self: Charles Horton Cooley
The “I” and the “Me”: George Herbert Mead
Family
School
Mass Media
Peer Groups
The Workplace
Box: Rites of Passage
Resocialization and Total Institutions
Box: Ponder
Chapter Review
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion
Chapter 11 Deviance and Social Control
The Relativity of Deviance (What We Already Know)
Nonsociological Theories of Deviance
Sociological Theories of Deviance: Émile Durkheim and Suicide
The Collective Conscience and Structural Strain
Egoism and Anomie
More Structural Strain: Robert Merton and Anomie
Anomie and Modern Social Structure
Responses to Anomie
Legitimate Versus Illegitimate Means
Learning to Be Deviant: Howard Becker’s Study of Marijuana Use
Learning to Smoke
Learning to Perceive the Effects
Learning to Enjoy the Effects
The Societal Reaction Perspective: Labeling Theory
The Functions of Deviance: Maintenance of the Status Quo and Social Change
Box: Ponder
A Caution About Crime Data
Deviance Is Not Immutable
Gays in the Military
Chapter Review
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion
Chapter 12 Stratification and Inequality
Caste Systems
Estate Systems
Box: A Year in the Life of the Peasant
Class Systems
Theoretical Conceptions of Class
Box: Ponder
Some Words About Slavery
Social Mobility and Open Versus Closed Systems
Chapter Review
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion
Chapter 13 Inequality and Achievement: Social Class
Box: The Matthew Effect
Explaining Social Stratification
Cultural Explanations
Structural Explanations
Box: Beyond Academics
The Pygmalion Effect: The Power of Expectations
The Fallacy of Hard Work
Box: Ponder
Social Mobility, Social Structure, and Social Change
Box: Measuring Inequality
Chapter Review
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion
Chapter 14 Inequality and Ascription: Race, Ethnicity, and Gender
Why a Dollar Is Not Always a Dollar
“Racial Surtax” on Mortgages
Prejudice
Discrimination
Discrimination and “Isms”
The Social Construction of Minority Groups
Gender
Box: Sex or Gender?
What to Do with What You’ve Learned?
Chapter Review
Stop & Review: Answers and Discussion
Afterword
References
Credits
Glossary/Index