Social Class: Maintaining Divisions Within Society

Social Class: Maintaining Divisions Within Society As social beings we naturally form groups for survival and support, as the popular saying goes No man is an island, and indeed, we are not. We form social groups that unite us with one another and give us a sense of security. These groups can be created from the tiniest of excuses, for example; a group of people that meet at the bus stop every Tuesday at 5am, after seeing each other regularly they easily form alliance and share mutual goals and norms i.e. getting the bus on time. It is within these groups that we receive our social identities. These social identities can be awarded within a small intimate group like a family or in a large scale group like a class in society. Their common goals create an us and a them response governed by a group conscience (Tajfel, 1971). This response can be a strength, for example, a great championship team attempting to win 4x400meter relay race, find that distinguishing themselves from others could be positive experience that builds self-esteem, making them work harder than others and mesh better. However, even though these social groups provide us with positive identities, securities etc., they can at the same time have a negative effect and create bias towards other groups whether they realise it or not. In this essay, I will discuss how specific social groups based on class and status, come to exist and explore their importance in society. The disadvantages or advantages experienced by a social group within a stratum reflect the amount of power they have in society. The power comes directed from the resources one is advantaged enough to have, for example, ranging from being able to afford an education, from which, one can gain employment, from which, one can move up to a moderate position within a company, from which, they have the income to buy a house, car and pay for healthcare; to owning an international chain of restaurants, from which, one can afford a luxury yacht that offers luxury cruises, generating enough income to buy a third house and another yacht or two. This is why sociologists believed that social stratification was the core factor that influences the sharing of power in society. There have been many attempts to determine a deciding factor for social power. Some feminists like Firestone (1971) believed that all societies were divided into opposed sex classes that were the basis of gender inequalities. She argued that all men in society oppressed women because of the biological, psychological and physical shortcomings they experienced due to pregnancy, child-birth and child rearing. Her ideas stemmed from the womens liberation movements in Europe and America in the 1960s and represented emancipation. Meanwhile, other systems presented a supressed, racially influenced explanation of social stratification. In the 19th century, the idea that race determined specifically by inherited biological distinctions was the deciding factor in social strata becoming prominent in society. Gumplowicz (1885) viewed ethnic and racial conflict as the fundamental mechanism of social development. Gumplowicz believed that it inevitable and natural for one ethnic group to surpass an other, giving chance for the strongest to emerge. Gobineau (1853-5) and Chamberlain (1899) promoted racial stratification and warranted the oppression of inferior ethnicities. Ideas like these were detrimental to the seemingly inferior ethnicity and fuelled thinkers like Adolf Hilter (1925) who sought to eliminate inferior races in favour of the Aryan race. Sexual and racial inequalities are undeniably influential, however, they cannot be individually crowned as the primary causes of social stratification. Race itself does not exist, it is a social construct, and there is only one human race (Gordon, 1964). Ethnicity instead of race, on the other hand, does exist, based on cultural differences springing from history, origin, religion language and the like, however, it is an inequality that contributes to social stratification but does not solely determine the outcome. Similarly, sexual stratification struggles to define all social division because men and women thrive in complete isolation. Men and womens sexual differences are the building blocks of society and essential for existence so they cannot be the core reason for stratification because stratification is division of society, they are requirements. Neither sexual nor racial inequalities can define a single source of stratification because people are so complicated and diverse, t hey cannot individually account for the complexities within society. Other sources of stratification are political status, religion or class. Max Weber (1948) suggested that a wider perspective that incorporates sex and ethnicity should be considered. He believed that there were three unique aspects that spread across humanity and influenced the distribution of power in society and life chances in their own way. The three aspects were class (economic power), status (communal power) and authority (authoritative power). Weber was initially influenced Karl Marx and further developed his own ideas specifically about class and status. Social class refers to a conscious group of people that share the same socio-economic background, whose life chances are decided by the class they belong to. The class system in Britain is a prime example, society is divided into the upper class (mostly aristocrat families, headed by the Queen); middle class (upper-middle class e.g. architects, barristers, high level doctors etc.; middle-middle class e.g. management, teachers, accountancy, social work etc.; and the lower-middle class e.g. clerical , administrative etc.); working class (skilled e.g. a white van man or self-employed contractor and unskilled e.g. customer service or telesales); and the underclass (long term unemployed living off welfare). Marx (1867) believed that almost every society was a class society with exception of the most primitive societies because they were smaller and undeveloped. He viewed possessing means of production, especially property, was the deciding influence in social division. He suggested society was of capitalist nature, distinguishing two conspicuous classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie owned the means of production and derived majority, if not, all of their income from capital. They were known as the capitalist class. On the reverse were the proletariat, who did not own any means of production and instead work for the bourgeoisie. They were known as the working class. The bourgeoisie, owning the means of production, kept majority of the wealth generated by the proletariat; the bourgeoisie received surplus value from their resources, meanwhile, the proletariat only received a small percentage of their economic worth. He believed that skilled labour in particular had greater value and deserved higher wages. Marx strongly believed that the proletariat were oppressed to the extent that the existed in a state of false consciousness, where they were content with their hardship. He believed that over time the classes would collapse due to internal conflict and a revolution would ensue. He believed the solution to the class system was effective communism. Weber, influenced by Marx, overruled the idea of effective communism, thinking that the proletariat revolution was highly unlikely because the power of false consciousness was too strong. He understood the bourgeoisie/proletariat class relationship was not so black and white. There were grey areas such as the manager that does not own the means of production and governs the proletariat but does not receive surplus let alone receiving their fair wages. He suggested the distribution of power was not rooted purely in economic power. Both the possession and non-possession of economic assets disperse power in society because from both avenues income is secured, for example, working for an company is labour which has to be bought by the employer, thus, providing income/capital via the non-possession of economic assets. Weber viewed class divisions as having economic basis only and that individually class alone could not condition people into stratum. He believed that the increase in wages that Marx sought after would, if granted, would produce cause and effect experience from significant changes in lifestyles, subsequently creating antagonism in the disadvantaged groups. This revolution would be spurred by rational motives instead of stir from false consciousness. Instead of just class, there were two more aspects determining distribution of power and life chances in society: status (communal power) and authority (authoritative power). Status, for example, held ground when it came to prominent religious figures/poets that were highly significant in society with little economic power. Authoritative power could be executed by a senior police officer that has a lot of authority but not a lot of property. Other criticisms were that the boundaries between various groups are almost impossible to specify. Also, a moral stance was not identified, whether the motives for the division where good or bad. Dahrendorf (1959) also mentioned that in many western societies there are fairly large middle classes because education was more prevalent and available, creating the opportunity to progress. Weber understood that unlike Marx, explaining stratification in only terms of economic factors was unreasonable and stressing the importance of non-economic factors. He further developed his ideas on the non-economic factor of status. Social status refers to the ranking of an individual in a society as superior or inferior according to the values that they have in common. It is the reputation of the individual granted by lifestyle and duties, dictating their life chances, those that successfully conform to the required standard receive great honour and prestige (high status); and vice versa. In minute societies, status is determined by intimate details gathered from regular face to face interaction. However, in larger, complicated societies, ranking is generated by generalisations based on age, sex, family relationships, ethnicity, sexuality etc., putting one into a specific social group regardless of ability or accomplishments. It is the potentially boosting or diminishing assessmen t of lifestyle choices without any real information about the individual preferences. Diminishing status can be very dangerous because it can create a sense of negativity around those of said status, if not worse. For example, in the Indian Caste system, status is assigned according to ethnicity. They range from the religious scholars and leaders at the highest status group known as the Brahim, and the lowest status group known as the Dalits or the untouchables. This is a closed/ascribed status system where despite challenges one cannot change their status because they are born into it. An open/achieved status system is one where status groups are based on merit and achievement so there is social mobility. According to Parsons (1940) status is assigned depending on the most significant social position in a society, for example, lineage, gender, age etc. An example of status assignment are in a tribal society where older men have the highest ranking and young women have the lowest ranking until married off, then a young woman can increase her ranking via her associatio n with her husband. Modern societies alternatively, determine membership by specific public positions. Despite the large variety of occupations, those with the most prestigious receive higher status and vice versa. Strangers are usually judged based on the assumed status gathered from clothing to accents to cars. In contemporary societies status is assumed via income and consumption, and aspirations are geared towards earning higher incomes. Parsons was criticised by an array of sociologists, some argued that not everyone in contemporary societies share the same significant social positions. Therefore, a unified set of views cannot be assumed. Modern societies also have multiple value systems that dictate status. Others stated that in some value systems a person that is, for example, a black doctor despite the high status of being a doctor would be assigned a low status because of his ethnicity. Weber (1924) believed that when it came to life chances, status was a more important factor instead of class because majority of the population would be more likely to make sacrifices based on social status as it affected their day to day life more. From a Functionalist perspective, stratification is essential for society to operate smoothly; especially in industrial societies with complicated division of labour. They believe that the inadequate wages served to motivate people to aim higher, creating competition for important roles in society. Critics contended that the definition of important roles were inadequate and stated that the importance of roles does not directly reflect in wages. Society is not a meritocracy because many are born into their class and status. Also, how is inequality essential for society? Another perspective was the conflict theory stating that stratification is universal but inevitable, unnecessary and not vital for society. Stratification was fashioned and maintained by the elite to guard and enhance their interests. Inequality is not inevitable and it does not promote the ideal functioning of society. They continue to sustain disparity by controlling ideas and information of the masses to keep them in their boxes spreading ideologies such as scientific racism, the divine right of kings and a fair days pay for a fair days work etc. Information released to the public is often manipulated or filtered e.g. Paris Hilton being mentioned on BBCs 10 oclock News etc. Technology is used to monitor our habits e.g. mobile phones, surveillance cameras, oyster cards, credit cards, Facebook etc. The elite sustain by keeping close-knit social networks that pass their privileges from generation to generation. Having looked at the in-depth definition of stratification, I think society is divided for worse. Established class and status play an important role in keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. I support the Marxist view when it comes to the bourgeoisie oppressing the proletariat recklessly. However, as Weber stated it is more complicated that two distinct classes but the presence of the elite is still felt. However, communism is not necessarily the answer to societys woes. Stratification is naturally inevitable to a degree because the variety of innate differences in peoples abilities. It also provides necessary structure to govern large populations. Evolution states that after distribution of essential resources, the surplus will eventually rank some as more affluent. Symbolic interactionists mention that predominant symbols i.e. wealth, define all social interactions, which in turn develops a persons sense of self and placing in society. Wealth is not necessarily a bad thing, part icularly when it is earned through hard work; it is just harmful when its distribution is extremely lop-sided due to exploitation. The proletariat are the building blocks of society and they deserve a share of the capital. We all have same basic needs and it is selfish for people to have ridiculous amounts of excess i.e. four twenty bedroom mansions and a private jet while the majority of people elsewhere cannot guarantee where their next meal is coming from. This is inequality and an exhibition of the us and them mentality to highest order. It is not necessary for the groups to fuse into one group and develop intimate social ties; however the groups should have mutual respect towards one another as fellow human beings regardless of personal differences. The resources in the world are not infinite and they do not belong to a single social group. Diversity should not be punishment; it is what makes humans great, ideally the gap between rich and poor would be moderate. Other than that, stratification is natural and the wealth should be distributed more freely throughout to ease irresponsible division and unnecessary antagonism in society. Protein Denaturation of Egg White and Milk: Experiment Protein Denaturation of Egg White and Milk: Experiment Introduction: Proteins are the secondary crucial food components while carbohydrates are primary ones. However, proteins must be denatured their natural structure to be unfolded before the digestion. [ 1 ]In the practical, the denaturation of egg white and milk were examined. The white of an egg is a solution of protein in water which depends upon stable interactions with the protein active groups. Factors which influence the stability of the protein may thus be expected to influence the stability of the solution. Objectives: The purpose of the experiment is to: Examine and explain the changes in appearance of egg white that occur in different conditions in denaturation of egg white Examine the phase transitions that occur in denaturation of egg and milk affected by temperature change by making egg custard Examine and explain the changes in appearance of milk that occur in different conditions in denaturation of milk Examine and explain the changes and differences in properties between the original sample of yoghurt and two sample with respective addition of fresh milk and boiled milk Method: All of the practical were followed by the procedures listed on page 11 and 12 of Laboratory Manuals Guide 2014. Result: The observations are shown in the following: The changes in appearance of egg white that occur in different conditions in denaturation of egg white Before the treatment of different conditions, the egg white was clear yellow liquid in each of five boiling tubes. After the treatment of different conditions, the egg white in tubes made changes in appearance at certain time in water bath or at certain number of additions shown in the table. Visual appearance Time duration until the change to occur Number of additions for change to occur Tube 1(egg white in the water bath at 60à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã†â€™) Milky gel 1hour and 12 minutes / Tube 2(egg white in the water bath at 80à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã†â€™) Milky gel 1minute and 32seconds / Tube 3(egg white with additions of 1M Acetic acid) Three layers: water, silk-like white sediment and yellow egg white / 22 drops Tube 4(egg white with additions of 5M NaCl (aq) ) Two layers: silk-like white sediment i yellow egg white and water / 110 drops Tube 5(egg white with additions of equal of volume of distilled water) No observable change / / The phase transitions that occur in denaturation of egg and milk affected by temperature change by making egg custard The time duration for baking at around 130à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã†â€™ in the oven was 30 minutes in order to make egg custard. Before the baking in the oven, the mixture was milky yellow liquid. After the baking for 30 minutes, the mixture became thickened and semi-solid phase. Moreover, a gel-like structure was formed. The changes in appearance of milk that occur in different conditions in denaturation of milk Before the treatment of different conditions, the milk was white liquid in each of three tubes and the conical flask. The measurement of milk in pHjwas 6.39 When 52 drops of 1M Acetic acid added into milk in conical flask, the formation of ppt occurred and the measurement in pHkwas 4.49. Since then, the three tubes that were treated to add 26 drops of 1M Acetic acid, add 1ml 5M NaCl (aq) and have no further addition were placed in the 80à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã†â€™ waterbath. The time durations for changes in the three tubes were 1 minutes 22 seconds, 19 minutes and 20 minutes respectively. After the 80à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã†â€™ waterbath, the mixture in tube with addition of 26 drops of 1M Acetic acid formed large white curd. Besides, the mixture in tube with addition of 1ml 5M NaCl (aq) was observed to have white ppt. Moreover, the control tube (no further addition) remained white liquid but had very little silk-like sediment on inner wall of the tube. Finally, the conical flask sample was taken for centrifugation for 5 minutes at 2,000rpm. After the centrifugation, the sample formed two layers: pale yellow liquid and milky sediment. The changes and differences in properties between the original sample of yoghurt and two samples of yoghurt with respective addition of fresh milk and boiled milk The original sample of yoghurt was light, fluffy, smooth and creamy and tasted a bit sour and the smell of milk was detected. Two samples of yoghurt with respective addition of fresh milk and boiled milk cultured in 38à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã†â€™ incubator formed two layers: firm and thickened milky gel and yellow watery surface. They are not similar to the smooth and creamy original sample of yoghurt. Sourness was enhanced in the sample of yoghurt with fresh milk. However, sourness in the sample of yoghurt with boiled milk was similar to the original sample. Furthermore, the sample of yoghurt with fresh milk was detected a tangier taste in comparison with the sample with boiled milk and the original sample. Discussion: The changes in appearance of egg white that occur in different conditions in denaturation of egg white When egg white solution was placed in waterbath at 60à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã†â€™ and 80à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã†â€™, heat damaged hydrogen bonds from the connections of unfolding of tertiary conformation of proteins. Since then, there was a chance for long chain of polypeptides to interact with other polypeptides and the polypeptides were reformed to large molecular structure to form coagulum. Therefore, egg white solution in waterbath at 60à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã†â€™ and 80à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã†â€™ became milky gel. Besides, the time duration for change to occur at 80à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã†â€™ was much shorter than that at 60à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã†â€™. That meant the rate of denaturation of egg white at 80à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã†â€™ was faster than that at 60à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã†â€™. The reason was that the higher the temperature of the water bath, the more the heat energy was supplied to protein molecules per unit time. The higher kinetic energy of protein molecules vibrated more rapidly and violently. Therefore, the bonding disrupts faster and the rate of denaturation increased. When egg white solution was added with 22 drops of 1M Acetic acid, acid reacted with egg white to alter the electrostatic interactions and resulted in unfolding the tertiary conformation of peptide chain. It decreased the solubility of the egg white, and thus, formed silk-like sediment in the middle of three layers. When egg white solution was added with 110 drops of 5M NaCl (aq), excessive amount of NaCl (aq) easily attracted water from protein surface and removed it from the surface. The unfavourable interactions produced between protein molecules leaded to the connection of protein molecules. Hence, egg white solution with 110 drops of 5M NaCl (aq) became silk-like white sediment in yellow egg white. However, there was no observable change in egg white solution with additions of equal of volume of distilled water. As water didn’t react with the egg white solution, the solution remained clear yellow liquid. The phase transitions that occur in denaturation of egg and milk affected by temperature change by making egg custard Ovalbumin, from egg white protein, casein micelle and whey protein, from milk proteins, were involved. The mixture was thickened by the condensation of these three proteins during baking. They denatured by heat and became unfolded polypeptides with the chance to interact with other polypeptides and the polypeptides were reformed to large molecular structure. Meanwhile, the water was trapped into the network of polypeptides. Thus, the mixture became semi-solid phase or a gel-like structure. The changes in appearance of milk that occur in different conditions in denaturation of milk In the centrifuge tube, the top layer was pale yellow liquid and the bottom layer was milky gel. Pale yellow liquid contained water and water soluble substances such as water-soluble vitamins, minerals, lactose from milk. On the other hand, milky gel contained milk protein mainly. There was a difference between the milk conditions because of different mass of substances. Milk protein had large molecular structure and heavier mass. It formed in the bottom layer of the tube. By contrast, water and water soluble substances had smaller molecular structure and lighter mass. It formed in the top layer of the tube. The changes and differences in properties between the original sample of yoghurt and two samples of yoghurt with respective addition of fresh milk and boiled milk During the formation of yoghurt, the lactose-consuming bacteria and micro-organisms from air trapped inside the culture at favourable temperature and moisture condition grew and released enzyme to lactose fermentation to produce lactic acid that disrupted the milk protein such as casein micelles.[2] When casein micelles were destabilized by acidic environment, due to denaturation, micelles stuck together. Therefore, coagulation happened in acidic environment. Two sample of yoghurt formed firm and thickened milky curd. The sample of yoghurt with fresh milk was detected a tangier taste and more sourness in comparison with the sample with boiled milk. The amount of lactose-consuming bacteria in sample of yoghurt with fresh milk was much higher than that with boiled milk. It was because the fresh milk did not involve a process of boiling that killed bacteria at boiling temperature. High amount of bacteria produced excessive lactic acid. Thus, the sample of yoghurt with fresh milk tasted tangy sourness. To make commercial yoghurt, the first step is to denature boiled milk protein molecules by acidic environment was required and the coagulation was resulted in to form coagulum. Since then, a proportion of milk is taken to fluid called whey. Stabilizer such as starch has to be added to prevent whey separation so that whey is immobilized and retained within the yoghurt. This increases the smoothness and creaminess. References: Protein, wikipedia 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein Production of yoghurt, The Dairy Council http://www.milk.co.uk/page.aspx?intPageID=81 http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/protein/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_white http://www.ukessays.com/essays/biology/denaturation-of-egg-white-data-biology-essay.php