Social Change and Inequality

Class 2: Migrants and Migration

Migration and Migration Policies

Klaus J. Bade (2003) ‘Chapter 4. Migration and Migration Policies in the Cold War’ in his book ‘Migration
in European History’

Which types of migration could you discern from the chapter? Give at least one example per
migration type.
Types: view class notes

Why is it difficult or even ‘superficial’ to discern those different migration types or identities?
There are overlapping migration forms, motivation and migrant identities there’s not a correct way to
find out what types of Migration the migrant belongs to. Moreover, they are forced to use certain
vocabulary and characteristics to fit into law.

What does ‘chain migration’ mean and give a few examples?

Chain migration is a term used by demographers since the 1960s to refer to the social process by
which migrants from a particular town follow others from that town to a particular destination city or
neighbourhood. The destination may be in another country or in a new, usually urban, location within
the same country. Chain migration can be defined as a “movement in which prospective migrants
learn of opportunities, are provided with transportation, and have initial accommodation and
employment arranged by means of primary social relationships with previous migrants.” ] Or, more
simply put: "The dynamic underlying 'chain migration' is so simple that it sounds like common sense:
People are more likely to move to where people they know live, and each new immigrant makes
people they know more likely to move there in turn." Migration: determined by imperial decline that
progressed in stages as the respective countries ended their colonial power

North Africa (back in the day still under French administration)  France
Spain, Portugal, Italy  France (labour migration)
Italy, Turks, Greeks  Germany
Ireland, Indians (former colonies)  Britain

What’s the difference between ‘euro-colonial’, ‘colonial’ and ‘post-colonial’ migration?

Euro-colonial migration (euro-colonial = had european roots): european settlers and member of
colonial administration and militaries  of european descent; facilitated through citizenship and
linguistics-cultural bridges; migration projects  migrants were granted same rights; was usually
accepted in wider society Ended end 20th C. through tough policies to stop post-colonial chain -
migration
Colonial migration (colonial= worked for colonial regime): Colonial: pro-colonial ethnic groups  and
other groups of non-European descent who had remained in the service of the colonial powers were
seen as collaborators
Post-colonial migration (colonial= because of economic and social difficulties caused by colonial
disturbances): Post-colonial: course set by tradition contacts with former colonial metropolis given
push through conflicts and economic and social unrest in former colonies
Wanted by ‘’mother’’ country because of cheap labour; especially through chain migration  tighter

1
immigration restrictions for non-european citizens bc. Issues with colonial migrants (hard to justify bc.
Of colonial past  euro-racism

What are the main countries of origin and destinations of these migration forms?
Kenya, India and Malaysia  Britain; North Africa  France and Italy; Congo  Belgium Indonesia 
Netherlands; Angola, Mozambique  Portugal (only started in 1970) Portugal Issue of unemployment
(Bold countries affected the most of migration)

What were the main problems that the ‘colonial’ and ‘post-colonial’ migrants encounter in their
countries of destination?
Colonial: Racist thinking, were economically and socially disadvantage, Miserable conditions held
despite fighting for the ‘’mother land’’, Euro-racism afraid of losing their own heritage by too many
foreigners (Political Parties Focus on that Front National), Distinction between integrable (Christians)
and non-integrable (Muslims), Society was motivated against Migrants through politicians and their
policies / brutal riots against Migrants and Propaganda on streets
Post-colonial: course set by tradition contacts with former colonial metropolis given push through
conflicts and economic and social unrest in former colonies; wanted by ‘’mother’’ country because of
cheap labour; especially through chain migration  tighter immigration restrictions for non-european
citizens bc. Issues with colonial migrants (hard to justify because Of colonial past  euro-racism)

What are the main countries of origin and destinations of labour migration?
Labour migration: inner european movement: Migration determined by status tension: economic gap
between highly developed industrial destination areas and agrarian, pre-industrial regions of origin
Origin: Portugal, Spain, Italy, Yugoslavia, England, Sweden, Greece, Turkey
Destination: Germany, France
Mainly left their home country because of structural unemployment come from rural areas with little
work (emigration of natives made areas even poorer)

And what are the main differences between ‘central, western and northern Europe’ and ‘southern
Europe’ with respect to labour migration? What are the economic reasons for labour migration from
the perspective of the migrants, employers, the regions of origin, the countries of destination and
Europe?
Central Europe: Economic reasons for labour migration: came from rural areas
Migrants: Turks, Greeks Italians, Spanish, Portuguese
Employers: Interest in in-expensive semi- unskilled labour
Regions of origin: Underdeveloped regions, structural unemployment or underemployment
Countries of destination: France, Germany
Western Europe: Economic reasons for labour migration:
Migrants
Employers
Regions of origin: Ireland
Countries of destination: England
Northern Europe: Economic reasons for labour migration
Migrants: Finish; for better job opportunities in Sweden
Employers: Agriculture sector
Regions of origin: Finland; Southern Europe
Countries of destination: Sweden
Southern Europe (From sending to receiving): Economic reasons for labour migration

2
Migrants: Population growth in North Africa; Political asylum as access to Europe (barely any border
controls in Italy- cf. harsh controls in northern Europe); Euro- Mediterranean large informal sector
with broad spectrum of semi- and unskilled jobs; Chain- mechanism at work which encourage
migration flow
Employers: Former Guest-worker didn’t want to take on those low-paid job anymore; less
industrialized, economically underdeveloped regions of the; south that had high unemployment
Regions of origin: Third world countries, Mainly Euro-African Zone, Morocco, Tunisia, former colonies
(North Africa)  came with visitor Visa and ‘’overstayed’’
Greek: Pontic Greeks from former Soviet Union, Albanians, Poland, Egypt Countries of destination:
Portugal, Spain(easy going work permit procedure), Italy, Greece (there was no legalisation process
for illegal immigrants

Why had the labour migration ban of the early 1970s usually only a short-term effect, and in the long
run even worked against its objectives? See class notes
Systematic restrictive measures protesting immigration – recruitment and immigration ban in 1970,
work permits were restricted nevertheless family reunification was omnipresent.

1. Qualification acquired in new home wouldn’t be recognized in home country 

Decided to stay Chain migration
2. Special social benefits in destination countries
3. Countries of European Community had freedom of movement on the labour market
and made recruitment ban ineffective
4. Liberal Paradox: liberal states not allowed to stop migration processes otherwise they
violate basic humanitarian principles
5. Change from Work stays to immigration situations was accompanied

What do the ‘exclusive’, ‘assimilatory’ and ‘multicultural’ models of Castles and Miller mean? And
apply these models on the cases of West-Germany, France and Sweden.
Exclusive Model: West Germany (ignored path from discontinuous to continuous integration policies)
 exclusive citizenship rights nevertheless

1. Citizenship closely linked to principle of descent or inheritance; citizenship is only

grated for immigrants in exceptional cases  ethnonational orientation
2. Third -countries guest workers only had limited rights in Germany because they
weren’t allowed to get citizenship therefore they were disadvantaged in many areas
3. At the beginning only, limited working- permits and rotation system should ensure
(was never implemented) that migrants don’t settle but then (Extension of residence
permits; Only temporary integration to keep desire to return home up)
4. Politicians wouldn’t accept that Germany had already became a immigration country
(would have required changed in policies) BUT recruitment ban of 1970 lead to
unpopular stabilization of residence status
5. Difference in European workers and Third country workers
6. West Germany, reluctant immigration country with integrative welfare practice but
an exclusive, one-sided citizenship law based on the descent or inheritance principle
7. Creation of transcultural and transnational characteristics
8. Goals after ban in 1973: Limiting immigration/encouraging return; Integrating people
who live there; Naturalization process was only eased in 1990-1; before that

3
 foreigners were part of welfare-state benefits; Stepwise integration into the welfare
system that eventually opens the door for citizenship

Assimilatory Model: France

Citizenship linked to motivation to identify with their own culture and value system  views
multiculturalism; and cultural pluralism critically (tried to limit immigration from former
colonies by creating obstacles)

1. Balance between inheritance and territorial principles in Frances citizenship law

2. Territorial principles substituted inheritance principle because of fear of military and
economic weakness due to depopulation (more rights and access for foreigners)
3. Most of the people first came illegally to France started working there and France
legalized their stay then (lost control over immigration in 1970 arising banlieue issue
(emerge of parallel social structures between foreigner groups and natives)
4. Easy process of naturalization- citizenship is granted easily nevertheless coexistence
of different culture omnipresent
5. Over time hierarchy of immigrants existed where European citizen were highly
regarded in contrast to Algers
6. Distinction not whether citizenship or not but if socially included or not  strong
localism rather than national identification
7. Change in perception of meaning of citizenship from solely aid for integration to the
result of a completed integration today (if your parents are not French – you can
decide between 16-20 if you want citizenship only if you weren’t imprisoned)
8. Easy citizenship lead to fear of threatening the economic prosperity (too many
people included in welfare state) and the devaluation in the political understanding of
the community as the ‘’Grande Nation’’

Multicultural: Sweden
Citizenship also linked to political culture and the upholding of the value system BUT opens
for actions and socio-political options for developing multiculturalism

1. First Formal- immigration country; foreign labours treated as immigrants; self-image

as multicultural country manifested in Immigration Act of 1975 guiding principles
were social equality of immigrants in the welfare- state, and right for cultural self-
determination (even constitution was changed concerning protection of national
heritage)
2. Aids to integration + needed institutions lead to highest naturalization rate in western
Europe

What were the main asylum and refugees patterns in Europe?

Patterns: 1. Geographical proximity between home and destination relativized through global
networks 2. Economic/ political/ Cultural bridges colonial past 3. Chain-Migration 4. Economic and
social attractive forces of individual host country 5. asylum and integration policies

And what are the main differences between ‘central, western and northern Europe’ and ‘southern
Europe’ with respect to asylum and refugee migrations?
Western Europe: France, Britain, Belgium: Immigration of African, Asian asylum seeker following path
of establish migratory traditions
Northern Europe: Affected by continental east-west migration later by intercontinental south- north

4
migration of Asylum seekers / Sweden: Chile; Iranians and Kevabib
Southern Europe: Mostly intercontinental south – north migration; After Cold war Continental
migration

East- South- North; South-East-North

Austria, Switzerland, Germany: Intercontinental migration
East-west migration (African, Asian Asylum Seekers)

How was the ‘Fortress Europe’ systematically prepared during the period of the Cold War?
Example West- Germany: Because it was frontline of Cold war; How was it done? Tightening
migration law and deterring measures; Switzerland started to declare ‘’safe countries’’ refugees from
there no chance for asylum.

o east-West refugees were accepted but socialist refugees were excluded (Chile)
o Refugees from ‘’third world’’ were assumed to seek for asylum under false
presumptions – no political refugees but economic and social refugees
o Labour market instability in Europe aggravated social fears
o Change in definition of ‘’political’’ refugee
o Political anti-asylum motivation by spreading discourse of asylum- abuse (only reason
they come is economic attractiveness) lead to hostile atmosphere and arguments
became frozen in stereotypes
o Special border and asylum controls were installed
o Policy change to slow down refugee  chain migration tightened restrictions
o Blocking entry from east Germany (visa); to amendment in asylum law

Douglas S. Massey, Joaquín Arango, Graeme Hugo, Ali Kouaouci, Adela Pellegrino and Edward J. Taylor
(1993) Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal

Explain the main ideas of the following theories about the initiation of migration: the neoclassical
economics, the new economics of migration, the dual labour market theory and the world system
theory. What are the main differences between the theories?

 None explains international migration in its entirety

The neoclassical economics: Differences in wages and employment conditions between
countries and on migration costs  movement between countries is caused as an individual
decision for income maximization
Macro- theory:
1. International migration of workers caused by difference in wage rage
between countries (high labour in ratio to capital low wage)
2. Elimination of wage difference will end movement of labour
3. International flows of human capital (high skilled workers) respond to
difference in rate of return in relation to human capital, which may be
different form overall wage rate, yielding a distinct pattern of migration
4. Labour markets are mechanism by which international flows of labour are
induced
5. Government can control migration flows by regulating influence on labour
market in sending or receiving countries

5
Micro theory – model of individual choice

1. International movement stems from international differentials in earning and

employment rate
2. Human capital (education, language, training) that will increase likelihood of
employment in destination country will increase likelihood of international
movement
3. Social conditions that lower migration costs will increase international
movement
4. Migration Flows between countries are nothing more than sums of many
individual movements on basis of individual cost- benefit
5. If there’s wage equality – no migration will occur  migration will continue
till wag is equalize internationally
6. The bigger the difference in wage the bigger the international migration flow
7. Only labour market influences the equilibrium in wages
8. Government control immigration through policies which affect earning in
sending or receiving country (lower likelihood of unemployment) 
increasing cost of migration both psychological and material

The new economics of migration

focus on micro-level processes - conditions in various markets not just labour market.
Migration as household decision (not individuals) taken to minimize risks to family income or
to overcome capital constraints on family production activities. Send one member of the
household to foreign country because labour environment is more profitable in foreign
country Cf. developed (minimized financial risks through insurance, state etc.)vs. developing
countries (depend on diversify financial risks through migration)

1. If you depend on instable business send someone abroad to ensure income

2. Future markets – build business in foreign developed country in order to
profit from stable markets and fixed price regulations
3. Unemployment insurances – move abroad in order to profit from insurances
in developed countries which will save you in challenging times
4. Capital markets – send person to developed countries in order to accumulate
money or send capital back (make use of banking institutions in developed
countries) which you can invest in your own business (since banking system is
often poorly developed in developing countries)
5. Source of income matters – families are willing to invest family resources in
activities and projects to get access to new income sources
6. Not only about absolute income (how much more money you get) but also
about relative (how much more money you have than your reference groups.

6
Set of policy prescriptions

9. Families, household’s units of production are units of migration research not

the individual
10. Migration happens without wage difference between countries; cause by
differences in other markets
11. International migration and local employment are not exclusive possibilities
 strong incentivise that households engage in both
12. Government can influence migration rates through policies that influence
labour markets but also by shaping insurance markets, capital markets and
future markets
13. Government policies and economic changes that shape income distribution
will change relative deprivation  alter incentives for migration
14. Government policies and economic changes that will effect distribution of
income will influence international migration independent of their effects on
mean income – Policies might reduce migration (from own country) if
relatively rich households do not share in the income gain (because people
who have less money are less inclined to leave)

The dual labour market theory: bifurcation of the labour market

Focus on macro-level processes- on forces of higher level of aggregation. Immigration linked
to structural requirements of modern industrial economies.
Why Migration – because of the intrinsic labour demand of modern industrial societies

Structural inflation:
Wages do not only depend upon demand& supply but also to a great extent on their position
in the social hierarchy – therefore it’s not easy to solely raise wages in low- paid job in case of
labour scarcity because it would disrupt the entire social system - easiest solution labour
migration who accept lower wages

Motivational problems:
People work not only for the sake of money but as well for accumulation and maintenance of
social status  people at the bottom of social hierarchy solely work for money because
there’s no social status to require  easiest solution labour migration why? A) don’t consider
themselves as part of our society B) wages in our country are often regarded as generous
compared to their homeland C) Working for the sake of money is ok because they work for
higher goal at home (school, building house etc.)

Economic dualism:
Economy is mainly divided in two sectors:
Capital- intensive sector: employer has to bear costs of unemployment  used for basic
demand; skilled jobs with best equipment and tools; high-skilled employees become human-
capital
Labour- intensive sector: employee has to bear costs of unemployment  reserved for
seasonal fluctuating demand; labour released once demand is low, no investment often
unstable and unskilled jobs natives are no willing to have that risk turn more to high-skilled
jobs in capital intensive work
(lack of labour compensated by migration)

7
The demographic labour supply:
In the past demand for worker for unpleasant work was covered by teenager and women
demographic change made this impossible therefore the need for external labour has
increased
o Rise in female labour participation in all fields  women’s work transformed into
career representing social status
o Rise in divorce rates women transformed women’s job into source of primary income
support
o Decline of birth rate
o Extension of formal education  teenagers stay out of labour market longer
(1) Labour migration imitated by employers in developed societies
(2) international wage differences are not sufficient reason for migration to occur
(3) wages don’t change if supply increases because of institutional mechanisms
(4) wages can nevertheless still fall in low-skilled jobs if increase in supply of
immigration work
(5) Lack of labour structurally implemented in modern society  governments are
unlikely to make any structural changes

World system theory: because of the structure of the labour market

Focus on macro-level processes – on forces of higher level of aggregation. Immigration as
natural consequence of economic globalization and market penetration across national
boundaries

o Migration is natural consequence of forming a capitalist market in the developing

world  penetration of global economy in local areas reason for international
movement (land; raw materials)
o International flow of labour follows international flow of goods and capital  capital
investment creates uprooted society in developing countries; flows of good creates
material and cultural links with core countries leading to transnational movement
o Migration most likely between past colonial powers because of cultural resemblance
 leads to formation of specific transnational markets and cultural systems
o International migration caused by globalization of markets: way for politics to
interfere  controlling overseas investment and activities; controlling flow of capital
and goods (unlikely to happen because it will cause outrange in big multinational
firms which can affect political resources
o Political and military interventions by governments of capital countries to protect
expansion of global market  if they fail refugee movements to particular core
countries
o International migration cause by dynamics of market creation and the structure of
global economy  not because of wages rates or employment differentials

8
How is the network theory explaining the perpetuation of migration? Explain the concept of
‘cumulative causation’. Give a few examples of the perpetuation of migration from the European
migration history (see the book of Klaus Bade).

Network theory has six hypothesis which explain the perpetuation of migration. In a nutshell they
argue that the more people migrate the stronger the networks become which will in return lower the
risks and costs of migration which will further expand migration processes and therefore perpetuate it.

(1) International Migration tends to expand over time till network ties has expanded so vastly
that everyone who wished to migrate can do so without difficulty (after that migration
deccelarte)
(2) Dynamics of migration flow controlled by falling costs and risks of movement stemming
from the growth of migrant networks over time (the more people migrate the more people
have ties to foreign destinations)
(3) The more international migration becomes institutionalized the more independent it gets
from the factors which caused migration in the first place – be they structural or individual
because throughout mass migration the context in which people migrate alters significantly
(4) As networks expand (costs, and risks decline) flow of migration becomes less selective in
socioeconomic terms more open for entire society of sending countries
(5) Government faced with great difficulty to control migration flow because process of
network formation is outside their power realm
(6) Immigration policies such as reunification further strengthen network structures since
they reinforce migrant networks

Cumulative causation:
each act of migration alters social context within which movement is more likely (1)
distribution of income – bc. Of relative deprivation – workers constantly compare their
financial situation to the one of their peers in order to raise in social hierarchy they often
migrate to gain more money (2) distribution of land (3) organization of agriculture (4) culture
(5) regional distribution of human capital (6) social meaning of work
Hypothesis:
(1) International migration brings social, economic and political changes give people a
powerful momentum which is hard to control or to alter because feedback mechanism of
cumulative causation is outside reach of government
(2) Times of domestic unemployment it’s hard to win natives for stigmatized ‘’immigrants
jobs’’ (social label)  need for more recruitment necessary to retain or recruit more
foreigners
(3) Social labelling of jobs as immigrant follows from concentration of immigrants in that field
 once considerable number of immigrants have entered that field hard to take
stigmatization away

9
What are the policy implications of network theory and cumulative causation for the current
European debate about opening versus closing the borders for migration?
Institutional theory: because of border migration/increase likelihood of migration because of non-
governmental aid 1. Black aid institution 2. Non-governmental institution it becomes easier to migrate

Cumulative causation: by land as retirement source in home country – additional cause for migration
have lower economic opportunities; relative deprivation sending money back better of than other
local people

Different Migration forms: for exam

important to distinguish between different forms and give examples

1. Migration history of Europe

(1) Labour migration

- Recruited labour migration (bilateral agreement between countries and its governments)
- Unofficial labour migration (first came as tourists and stayed there)

(2) Family migration

- Family formation (fall in love in foreign country- marry – move to country of origin)
- Family reunification (individuals work in country of destination – reunify their family)

(3) Asylum seekers and refugees (process from asylum seekers and refugees has changed over
decades)

(4) Euro-colonial, colonial and post-colonial migration (euro-colonial = had european roots; colonial=
worked for colonial regime; colonial= because of economic and social difficulties caused by colonial
disturbances)

(5) Environmental migration (people are forced to migrate because of political and environmental
changes)

(6) Ethnic migration (ethnic Germans were forced to move during second world to eastern Europe –
moved back after iron curtain felt- Jews)

Boundaries distinguishing the different immigrant groups and immigration forms were often fluid and
overlapping- Bade K. (2003)

“The recruitment and immigration ban of the early 1970s usually had only a short-term effect, and in
the long term sometimes even worked against its objectives.”- Bade K. (2003)

2. Causes of Migration

(1) There are always diverse reasons why people migrate – economic, social and political reasons are
often overlapping (cf. Foucault with Prenotions putting people in boxes form of categorizing people);
people are forced into categories for statistics

(2) Legal boundaries for certain group of foreigners (European vs. non-European foreigners) force
them to give false reasons for migration otherwise they wouldn’t have a chance to stay

Short-term labour migration ban effect in 1970s – long-term back firing objective
Doomed to fail because it ignores long-term effects and theories about migration

10
(1) Systematic restrictive measures to ban migration main event in 70s – recruitment and immigration
ban in 1970, work permits were restricted nevertheless family reunification was omnipresent

(2) Why ban?

- oil crisis – unemployment crisis

- migration issues (at the beginning they thought that migrants return- awareness that people
would stay  ban)
- Racist climate all over Europe against migrant

(3) Why did it not work?

- Had to decide whether to go back and never will have the chance to return to western
Europe and go back to country of origin for holidays
- Qualification acquired in new home wouldn’t be recognized in home country  Decided to
stay Chain migration
- Special social benefits in destination countries
- Countries of European Community had freedom of movement on the labour market and
made recruitment ban ineffective
- Liberal Paradox: liberal states not allowed to stop migration processes otherwise they violate
basic humanitarian principles (right to reunify family)
- Change from Work stays to immigration situations was accompanied (became long-term
migration)

11
Difference in Migration between North and South Europe

(1) North

- Receiving countries - after WWII labour migration after ban mostly family reunification
- Debate was about: Asylum, Refugees, Family reunification

(2) Southern Europe

- Transformed from Emigration country to Immigration countries

- Received Migrants from Third World Africa, Asia especially from former colonies
(France – Angola, Guinea-Bissau)
- Why Immigration?
o Living standard increased
o Demographic reasons, population grew dramatically
o Southern over Northern Europe because immigration laws in northern Europe were
stricter
- Black market was huge (ethno- stratification on labour market
- Debate was about: irregular employment (it was extremely easy to migrate – no border
controls had no administration to deal with immigration)

Non-European immigration were countered with a series of defensive measures that has been
described as the ‘racialization’ of European migration polices

(1) Distinction between good and bad migrants – good migrants (european migration) bad migrants
(non-european migration)

- Racialization of Migrations
- Assimilation to european culture but what is european culture

Rivers of blood speech by Enoch Powell

Context: Basically no- unemployment; Context: of 2nd Commonwealth- Immigration law

12
(1) Racialisation – European vs. Non-Europe

(2) Colonial terms were still used; makes connection from national(British) issue to european issue

Fortress Europe

(1) During Cold war – restriction on non-European (post)- colonial migration

(2) 1973 Ban on labour migration and recruitment

(3) Reluctance towards and suspicious about asylum seekers

(4) European unification

(5) European cultural defining process; comes along with racialization – starting after WWII Germany
was different from rest/ then Eastern Europe was outsider during Cold war/ 2000 what is European
culture? Convention

Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal

Initiation of migration – Main difference between theories  no one of them explain international
migration in its entirety

(1) The neoclassical economics: Only considers labour market

Differentials in wages and employment conditions between countries and on migration costs 
movement between countries is caused as an individual decision for income maximization

- Macro- theory- considers only wage

o International migration of workers caused by difference in wage rage between
countries (high labour in ratio to capital low wage)
o Elimination of wage difference will end movement of labour
o International flows of human capital (high skilled workers) respond to difference in
rate of return in relation to human capital, which amy be different form overall wage
rate, yielding a distinct pattern of migration
o Labour markets are mechanism by which international flows of labour are induced
o Government can control migration flows by regulating influence on labour market in
sending or receiving countries (developed help  increase wages  decrease
migration)

- Micro theory – model of individual choice- considers wage and employment

o International movement stems from international differentials in earning and
employment rate
o Human capital (education, language, training) that will increase likelihood of
employment in destination country will increase likelihood of international
movement
o Social conditions that lower migration costs will increase international movement
o Migration Flows between countries are nothing more than sums of many individual
movements on basis of individual cost- benefit
o If there’s wage equality – no migration will occur  migration will continue till wag is
equalize internationally
o The bigger the difference in wage the bigger the international migration flow
o Only labour market influences the equilibrium in wages

13
 o Government control immigration through policies which affect earning in sending or
receiving country (lower likelihood of unemployment)  increasing cost of migration
both psychological and material/ lower wages for migrants)

(2) The new economics of migration: not individuals but families

focus on micro-level processes - conditions in various markets not just labour market. Migration as
household decision (not individuals) taken to minimize risks to family income or to overcome capital
constraints on family production activities

- Send one member of the household to foreign country because labour environment is more
profitable in foreign country
- Cf. developed (minimized financial risks through insurance, state etc.) vs. developing
countries (depend on diversify financial risks through migration)
o If you depend on instable business send someone abroad to ensure income
o Future markets – build business in foreign developed country to profit from stable
markets and fixed price regulations
o Unemployment insurances – move abroad to profit from insurances in developed
countries which will save you in challenging times
o Capital markets – send person to developed countries in order to accumulate money
or send capital back (make use of banking institutions in developed countries) which
you can invest in your own business (since banking system is often poorly developed
in developing countries)
o Source of income matters – families are willing to invest family resources in activities
and projects to get access to new income sources
o Not only about absolute income (how much more money you get) but also about
relative (how much more money you have than your reference group)
- Set of policy prescriptions
o Families, household’s units of production are units of migration research not the
individual
o Migration happens without wage difference between countries; cause by differences
in other markets
o International migration and local employment are not exclusive possibilities  strong
incentivise that households engage in both
o Government can influence migration rates through policies tha influence labour
markets but also by sharing insurance markets, capital markets and future markets
o Government policies and economic changes that shape income distribution will
change relative deprivation  alter incentives for migration
o Government policies and economic changes that will effect distribution of income will
influence international migration independent of their effects on mean income –
Policies might reduce migration (from own country) if relatively rich households do
not share in the income gain (because people who have less money are less inclined
to leave)

(3) The dual labour market theory: bifurcation of the labour market
Focus on macro-level processes- on forces of higher level of aggregation. Immigration linked to
structural requirements of modern industrial economies in west

- Why Migration – because of the intrinsic labour demand of modern industrial societies

14
 o Structural inflation:
Wages do not only depend upon demand& supply but also to a great extent on their
position in the social hierarchy – therefore it’s not easy to solely raise wages in low-
paid job in case of labour scarcity because it would disrupt the entire social system -
 easiest solution labour migration who accept lower wages
o Motivational problems:
People work not only for the sake of money but as well for accumulation and
maintenance of social status  people at the bottom of social hierarchy solely work
for money because there’s no social status to require  easiest solution labour
migration why? A) don’t consider themselves as part of our society B) wages in our
country are often regarded as generous compared to their homeland C) Working for
the sake of money is ok because they work for higher goal at home (school, building
house etc.)
o Economic dualism:
Economy is mainly divided in two sectors:
Capital- intensive sector: employer has to bear costs of unemployment  used for
basic demand; skilled jobs with best equipment and tools; high-skilled employees
become human-capital
Labour- intensive sector: employee has to bear costs of unemployment  reserved
for seasonal fluctuating demand; labour released once demand is low, no investment
often unstable and unskilled jobs natives are no willing to have that risk turn more to
high-skilled jobs in capital intensive work
(lack of labour compensated by migration)
o The demographic labour supply:
In the past demand for worker for unpleasant work was covered by teenager and
women demographic change made this impossible therefore the need for external
labour has increased
 Rise in female labour participation in all fields  women’s work transformed
into career representing social status
 Rise in divorce rates women transformed women’s job into source of primary
income support
 Decline of birth rate
 Extension of formal education  teenagers stay out of labour market longer
o (1) Labour migration imitated by employers in developed societies
o (2) international wage differences are not sufficient reason for migration to occur
o (3) wages don’t change if supply increases because of institutional mechanism
o (4) wages can nevertheless still fall in low-skilled jobs if increase in supply of
immigration work
o (5) Lack of labour structurally implemented in modern society  governments are
unlikely to make any structural changes

(4) World system theory: because of the structure of the labour market
Focus on macro-level processes – on forces of higher level of aggregation. Immigration as natural
consequence of economic globalization and market penetration across national boundaries

- Migration is natural consequence of forming a capitalist market in the developing world 

penetration of global economy in local areas reason for international movement (land; raw
materials)

15
 - International flow of labour follows international flow of goods and capital  capital
investment creates uprooted society in developing countries; flows of good creates material
and cultural links with core countries leading to transnational movement
- Migration most likely between past colonial powers because of cultural resemblance  leads
to formation of specific transnational markets and cultural systems
- International migration caused by globalization of markets: way for politics to interfere 
controlling overseas investment and activities; controlling flow of capital and goods (unlikely to
happen because it will cause outrange in big multinational firms which can affect political
resources
- Political and military interventions by governments of capital countries to protect expansion
of global market  if they fail refugee movements to particular core countries
- International migration cause by dynamics of market creation and the structure of global
economy  not because of wages rates or employment differentials

Discussion opening or closing the borders: Open or closing borders

Moral arguments
All citizen from first world countries can basically travel without restrictions – why should it forbidden
for third world countries
hidden costs of restrictions
humanitarian costs (deaths)
economic arguments
do low-payed jobs natives often don’t want to do; do not only take jobs but also create jobs; give U.S.
citizens the possibilities to achieve better; Sending money back to the home country will further
encourage home economy and therefore stabilize world economy in its entirety -> more effective
than
Social welfare arguments
they migrate with huge effort and once in country of aspiration they just want to rest and use welfare
system?; many countries its not that easy to get into the social welfare system; Our system nowadays;
is built upon colonialism and exploitation Social welfare (you get entitled to it)
Cultural arguments
National Security arguments
Radicalization happens here; yes opening border but control them  pinpoint specific group

16
Class 3: Racism, Ethnic Discrimination and the Intergroup Contact Theory
Lincoln Quillian (2006) ‘New Approaches to Understanding Racial Prejudice and Discrimination’

How can ‘prejudices’ and ‘discrimination’ be defined and what’s the difference between both
concepts?

Difference between Prejudice and discrimination is that prejudice is the attitude someone carries in
their head whereas discrimination is present in behaviour and reveal itself in unequal treatment
among racial groups.
Prejudice: Antipathy based on faulty or inflexible generalizations – consists of two elements (a)
negative emotion towards target group (antipathy)
(b) poorly founded belief about members of target group (stereotype)

Discrimination: Emphasis on unequal treatment among racial groups differ in scope of unequal
treatment

What’s the difference between direct and indirect (adverse impact) discrimination?
Direct: differential treatment on the basis of race that disadvantages a racial group
receiving different treatment than other groups because of race
Indirect: Treatment based on inadequately justified factors other than race that disadvantages a
racial group behaviour practice not caused by race but adverse impact on members of
disadvantaged racial group without a sufficiently compelling reason for its existence, consistent with
legal definition of disparate impact discrimination

How is ‘racism’ considered by Quillian?

Racism has stronger implied moral condemnation than prejudice or discrimination; racism signals
the speaker unambiguous condemnation of the belief or practice in question

Why is it difficult to measure discrimination?

Because of the incentives for perpetrators to hide discrimination and of people to over victimize
themselves, see discrimination where there’s no discrimination; deny discrimination out of shame or
because people simply don’t know what indiscriminated behaviour would look like

What are the most commonly used methods to measure discrimination and what are their
problems?

Analysis of observation data (quantitative)

Compare wages and other numerical measures between different racial groups; difference in
outcome with accounting for other influencing factors (experience, gender etc,) is is attributed to
racial discrimination
 Relies upon measuring racial discrimination as residual

Reports of discriminatory action by perpetrator

 Seldom report their discriminatory action accurately because a) illegal, b) there’s strong
normative prohibition

Report of discriminatory experience by targets

More inclined to capture rather than reality because a) don’t know what other options there
would have been if racial discrimination wouldn’t exist b) overstate discrimination and use it as
excuse for failure

17
Field audit studies
Racial dissimilar testers- equal in all other factors are conducting same action
after outcomes are observed provide real measurement of discrimination
 auditors know purpose of research; alter their behaviour in order to prove racial discrimination
 By having race as only differential characteristics between auditors (some researcher) claim that
it encourages further discrimination real life is not as black/white as research model implies

Why are audit studies (or situation/correspondence tests) superior to the other methods to measure
discrimination?
Because of its ability to control potentially confounding influences through experimental control and
randomized assignment  experiments best way to assess for causality

What are the main claims of the so-called ‘new prejudice’-school?

Prejudice remains one major social force in U.S. which still dramatically influence the thoughts and
action of people. They stress that a new complex of prejudicial belief has replaced old prejudices
those new prejudices motivate modern form of discrimination and block public policies that could
reduce racial inequality. Modern Prejudice is multidimensional, combining racial and ostensibly non-
racial beliefs
Cf. (Symbolic racism – Modern racism- laissez-faire racism; ideological refinement)

And what are the main critiques on this school?

(1) combine dissimilar elements  opposing government policies doesn’t have to stem from racism
but can also be consequence of sincere conservative belief system
(2) Combine on research scale different belief dimensions together /hard to distinguish on which
belief the result is based upon on (Do blacks on welfare really need it?)

(3) New-prejudice school often focuses on race-related policy issues, how it is handled in politics
little prove is given that the outcomes of that research imply to the same extent to everyday issues
like labour promotion/housing issues etc. often makes it difficult to discern a racial animus
component
(4) New-prejudice school conducts research between black/ white but outcomes most probably
differ if you compare a more diverse set of races

What are ‘implicit attitudes’ and what are the main ideas of the ‘implicit attitudes’-school?
Implicit attitude is an attitude that can be activated without conscious awareness and when so
triggered, influences judgments and actions. Primes have a distinct impact on our behaviour even on
people who usually score low on prejudice interview measures. Through a set of stereotypical
believes associated with racial category do exist in the mind and influence future judgments and
actions. Associations are activated automatically by presence or only mentioning the targeted group

How can implicit attitudes be measured?

Indirect techniques

Priming: You give a picture/term which is linked to racial prejudice and let afterwards judge action of
person, even when racial terms/ images below level of consciousness are revealed trigger action 
BUT Does it only reproduce the known socially stereotypes?

18
Implicit Association Test Latency Theory (IAT): You let people structure and cluster terms; in the
end let them connect specific word constellation to black/unpleasant- pleasant and
white/unpleasant- pleasant; easier for people to connect terms which are not connected to race
with white pleasant and black unpleasant &&& find implicit association of black race with negative
characteristics even among subjects who, on explicit attitude measures, indicate no black-white
preference

What’s the main idea of the economic theory of statistical discrimination? Look up, on the internet,
its economic counterpart: the theory of taste-based discrimination.

The main idea is that individual decision makers- apply on average correct information about the
characteristics of the target group to the decision at hand. Prejudice can best be described as
statistical discrimination which follows logical desire to apply group information to make the best
individual decision.

Following thoaw economic theories, is discrimination rational or irrational? Is discriminatory

behaviour conscious or unconscious according to these economic theories?

Who holds implicit prejudices?

Everyone, nevertheless conditioned on explicit attitudes / strength and valence of implicit attitudes
towards objects varies across individuals and object involved– subjects who have low levels of
explicit prejudice are able to successfully inhibit the stereotype in their conscious thought and thus
block the automatically invoked stereotype from influencing action  attitudes are primary
influencing factor
Subordinate group have predominantly negative stereotypic attributions when evaluated by
dominant group members/ Even within subordinate group there are implicit prejudice again own
group

Philomena Essed (2008) ‘Everyday Racism’

What are the main ideas of Philomena Essed’s concept ‘everyday racism’?

Everyday racism is about racist practice and as a common social behaviour. It is a process of smaller
and bigger day to day violations of the civil rights of ethnic minorities and of their humanity and their
dignity. Member of dominant group favour people of their own group over others because they
believe that they are more human, that they have superior culture and a higher form of civilization.
Everyday racism adapts to the culture, norms and values of a society as it operates through the
prevalent structures of power in society

How is everyday racism commonly expressed?

Process of smaller and bigger day to day violation of civil rights for ethnic minorities, meaning of
event can be contestable whether it is or its not discrimination – circumstantial evidence must be
taken into consideration to understand possible racial connotations – outcome of event is often
more telling than reported motive

How do ethnic minorities and the dominant group commonly react on everyday racism?
Ethnic minorities rather downplay everyday racism because they don’t want to believe that the
outcome is actually a consequence of their race
Dominant groups consider racism as problem of the past therefore most of them highly insensitive
in recognizing everyday racism

19
What are the health consequences of everyday racism?
Psychological distress due to racism on a day to day basis can have chronic adverse effects on mental
and physical health  link between everyday racism and high blood pressure

Could you think about other examples/stories of ‘everyday racism’ in school, at work, through the
media, at a shopping mall or in the neighbourhood?
Black people are more likely to be accused to have committed a crime than white people – One black
person committed a crime all of a sudden, all black people could be target – where’s would never
happen with whit people

Class notes:

1. Racism and Ethnic Discrimination

(1/4) Definitions: What’s in the name?

 Prejudices:
Affection (emotions: anxiety etc.) and stereotypes (false cognitive stereotype) 
you think or feel
 Discrimination:
Behaviour how you act towards certain social groups
o Direct discrimination:
Exclude groups or individuals from certain advantages because of race or
ethnicity
o Indirect discrimination:
Unequal treatment of group or individuals because of apparent neutral
measures but with adverse impact; Blind person are not allowed to go into
hospital because dogs are not allowed inside
 Racism:
Can be used for both prejudices and discrimination acts; has clear negative
connotations refers more to the intention behind you do your acts consciously

(2/4) How can discrimination be measured?

 Statistical analyse of ethnic disparities (multivariate analysis everything that can’t

be explained by other influential factors is due to racism); less controlled; maybe
you forgot to control for another factor; independent variables can also be due to
discrimination
 Reports of discriminatory action from perpetrators
Will never tell the entire group because of social norms; don’t do actions consciously
 Reports from targets of discrimination
Blame failure on discrimination; don’t want to consider themselves as being
discriminated underreporting; you are not aware of discrimination
(over/ and underestimate level of discrimination)
 Audit studies or situation/ corresponded
test – between two in most characteristics equal correspondents except ethnicity
and race

20
 (3/4) Everyday Racism
Racist practices: (1) Smaller or bigger day -to day violations;(2) Little accumulations over
time of small comments  Can effect health aspects and have severe consequences (3)
Reflect the belief of cultural superiority

Three strands of everyday racism, which interlock as a triangle of mutually dependent

processes

 Marginalization of those identified as racially or ethnically different

Your way of living is not aligned with our way of thinking – only small round group
 Problematization of other cultures and identities
Maybe it’s only her
 Symbolic or physical repression of potential resistance
Maybe you are just overstating It

(4/4) Explaining discrimination

 Taste-based discrimination
You exclude candidates – economically irrational because you might don’t hire the
best person but the ones which pleases your taste
 Statistical discrimination
You want to hire someone - you don’t want to make further tests, but you look at
group statistics and apply it on the individual  on average African people are less
productive therefore you only invite Belgians – economically that’s rational
 Implicit attitudes
Unconscious discrimination  you don’t realize anymore that you are discriminating

2. Intergroup Contact Theory Based on Gordon Allport (1954) and Thomas Pettigrew (1998)

(1/4) Main idea: intergroup contacts result in less negative stereotyping less prejudices and
less discrimination – Pettigrew 1998

(2/4) Allport essential conditions for positive contact: not every contact is good contact

 Equal group status in the situation

 Common goal (study; finish together; gossip about teacher)
 Intergroup cooperation is needed to achieve common goal
 Support of authorities, lar or custom (same university, faculty etc.)

Pettigrew: extra essential condition

 Friendship potential

(3/4) Underlying processes (Pettigrew 1998)

 Learning about the outgroup learn about the group you’ll start loving it
 Behavioural changes cause attitudinal changes (it’s basically impossible to keep
stereotypes while in contact with other group you want to have emotions and
actions aligned psychological process)
 Generating affective ties (empathy result)
 Reshaping the views on the ingroup (opens your horizon, in-group bias is lower 
you get to know other ways to do things broaden your own horizon)

21
 (4/4) Problems: (Pettigrew 1998)

 Reversed causality: People who dislike migrants strongly have less contact with
migrants; whereas a more positive attitude encourages contact with outgroups
 Facilitating or essential conditions? Other conditions?
only works if economic conditions are given
 Generalizations of effects

3. How can we Encourage Interethnic Contacts?

 From individual to group Individual doesn’t have to represent the entire group; He’s nice
but that doesn’t mean that all people from that group are nice
 From situation to situation Yes, the migrant might behave in school doesn’t mean he can
behave outside
 From group to group Only because Peruvians are nice doesn’t mean Bolivians are nice

22
Class 4: Legacy for Colonialism for Self-Representation
Gloria Wekker (2016)
The introduction of her book ‘White Innocence. Paradoxes of Colonialism and Race’ (p. 1-29)

What does Edward Said’s concept of ‘cultural archive’ mean and how does Wekker apply it on the
imperial history of the Netherlands?

Cultural archive foregrounds the centrality of imperialism to western culture. The cultural archive can e
seen as a storehouse of a knowledge and structures of attitude and reference. Said referring to is racial
grammar a deep structure of inequality in thought and affect based on race, was installed in
nineteenth-century european imperial populations and that it is from this deep reservoir the cultural
archive that among other things a sense of self- has been formed and fabricated.

Wekker: describes the dominant way in which the think about themselves as small, but just ethical
nation, colour blind, thus free of racism as being inherently on the moral and ethical high ground thus
a guiding light to other folks and nations.

How can the ‘cultural archive’ be operationalized/measured?

Through an intersectional reading of the Dutch cultural archive, with special attention for the ways in
which an imperial racial economy with its gendered, sexualized and classed intersections, continues to
underwrite dominant ways of knowing.

Her objects of study pertain to dominant white self-representation, to policies, principles and practices
and to feelings; she reads imperial continuities back into a variety of popular cultural and
organizational phenomenon

How does the dominant white Dutch self-representation look like?

The dominant representation of the Dutchness as whiteness and being Christian, colour blind anti-
racist, a place of extraordinary hospitality and tolerance toward the racialized other – this Dutchness
dates back from the 19th Century with the centralization of the Dutch language and culture they show
no interest in talking about their ancestry

And how is it connected to imperialism/colonialism?

This self-representation of the Dutch entirely ignores their colonial and imperial past by neglecting
that their colonial policies was everything BUT colour blind, no nation can be considered as colour
blind which tolerated slavery over 400 years- colonization formed indirectly the superior sense of the
Dutch self. Furthermore, it distinguishes clearly between the metropolitan ancestry and the colonial
one. No connection between those identities is given despite they influenced each other
substantially.

To which extent do you think this type of white self-representation is similar in other ‘metropolitan’
countries with an imperial history?

In my opinion the white self-representation is omnipresent in most of the metropolitan countries, like
France, Great Britain and Portugal. The historical narrative mostly only portrays the occurrences on
the european continent and no nation accepts that the history wasn’t as colour blind as one would

23
sometimes wish.

Why is ‘innocence’ useful for small nations with an imperial history?

There is an association of innocence with being small: small nation, small child. Being small one might
easily can be overlooked, not able to play a game-changing role. Because the Netherlands are so small
they need to be protected and protect themselves against all kinds of evil, inside and outside the
nation.

What are the three paradoxes in white Dutch self-representation?

1. No identification with Migrants

The white Dutch population doesn’t consider itself as migrants despite most of them are descendants
of migration families – they show minimal interest in elements of deviant duchess which might mark
them as foreign. Therefore, indirectly hierarchy of migrants develops between the ones where you
can visually tell (black skin) that they have descendants and the ones who can hide it.

2. Innocent victim of German occupation

The idea that the Netherlands couldn’t do anything against the German occupation and that it was
certainly not under their control to stop the delivery of Jews from the N. to Germany. At the same
time however, they had the means to forcefully go against the independence movements in
Indonesia in which they killed with brutal force rebels.

Actions were called ‘’police actions’’ for two wars speak volumes about a self-image that embraces
innocence, being a small but just and ethical guiding nation, internationally.

3. The Dutch imperial presence in the world

Despite the Dutch extensive colonial past they neglect any notion of memories. In school classes the
given hours on the colonial past are not fixed; subsidies for organisations implemented for memorials
are cut  the Netherlands still doesn’t take their postcolonial citizen seriously, not their past of
slavery nor their present presence in the country !!!

What does ‘intersectionality’ mean?

Intersectionality is a theory and methodology, which not only addresses identarian issues. As in
commonly thought but also a host of other social and psychological phenomena. It is a way of looking
at the world that takes as a principled stance that it is not enough merely to take gender as the main
analytical tool of a phenomenon but that gender as an important social and symbolic axis difference is
simultaneously operative with other like race, class, sexuality and gender. – The grammars of race,
sexuality, gender co-construct each other.

How is Wekker applying an intersectional perspective in her work (give a few examples)?

How race is applied in Dutch polices – How Race divides women into allochthonous and third world
women; same division can also be found in labour within and between disciplines; how white women
define themselves in contrast to other black women and men, the connection between Homophobe
nationalist and

To which extent is ‘class’ downplayed by ‘race’ in Wekker’s ideas?

24
How is Wekker conceptualizing ‘race’?

She considers race a fundamental organizing grammar in the Dutch society, as it is in societies
structured by racial dominance. She views race as socially constructed rather than inherently
meaningful, one related to relations of power and processes of struggle and one whose meaning
changes over time
Race presents a more complicated case in Dutch context, this term is not commonly utilized since
WWII except to indicate varieties of animals and potatoes.

How does it relate to ‘ethnicity’?

Race and ethnicity as two sides of the same coin subsuming and merging a more neutral, biological
understanding of race with a more culture view.
Ethnicity is the term more often being used indicated the social system that gives meaning to ethnic
differences between people to differences based on origin, appearance, history, culture, language,
and religion  Ethnicity is however, only the other. Ethnic cuisine, ethnic music etc. never describes
whiteness as it is considered as the norm

To which extent is ‘race’ or ‘ethnic origin’ differently perceived in Europe and the United States?

Concept of race finds its origin in Europe and has been one of its main export products, still its is
general the case that race is declared an alien body of thought to Europe. European narrative frames
the continent as space free of ‘’race’’. Its is moreover not only the self-perception but as well the
global acceptance.

Why are ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ unilaterally invoked for ‘they’ and what are the parallels with gender and
sexuality?

You can find parallels between ethnicity and gender stereotyping as both terms have a ‘’neutral’’ and
normal basis from which the opposing part is deviating. In the case of ethnicity whiteness is
considered as the norm and everything deviating is seen as ‘’ethnic’’ whereas in gender studies the
deviating women are most of the time studied.

25
How is ‘race’ related to the Dutch words of ‘allochtonen’ and ‘autochtonen’

The binary terms set racializing processes in motion, everyone know that they reference whites and
people of colours respectively. The Netherlands tried to move from race to ethnicity nevertheless
behind the terms are still racial ideas since they indicate to white and non-whites.
Allochtonen means: those who came from a foreign place
 people with dark skin can’t manage to be considered as Dutch as their skin colour ‘’obviously’’
reveals their foreign roots
Autochtonen: those who are from here
 people with white skin manage to be considered as autochthone despite their foreign background

Which ideas of Said’s thesis of orientalism can be found in the way the Netherlands (and maybe other
metropolitan countries) deal with their colonial history and their ethnic minorities?

They create two parallel unconnected lines of history: the european continent one and the often-
ignored colonization one trying to insert those memories into the general memory often meets with
hostility and rejection. This regime of truth has enabled a myth of racial purity as homogenously white
– race is declared an alien body of thought to Europe. Therefore, all the people who are now black in
Europe can be considered as the ‘’Alien’’ unknown migrants and therefore a clear distinction between
we vs. them can be installed.

Edward W. Said (1978)

The introduction and chapter 1 of his book ‘Orientalism’ (p. 9-57)

Why is the European and American knowledge of the Orient ‘political’ according to Edward Said?

1. Knowledge about the Orient is political because there’s no such thing as unbiased
knowledge. Every scholar is attached personally to the topic by the mere activity of being
a member of society.
2. Terms considered as being political vary over time and between varying contexts.
3. Saiid describes political importance as the closeness of a field to sources of power in
political society / political importance can thus easily shift between perspectives and
time.
4. There’s no neutral knowledge about the Orient because the interests of one’s country
all-determining and primary to any personal perception. A person comes up against the
orient as a european or American first (as belonging to a power with definite interest in
Orient and direct involvement over decades) and as an individual second.

And why is it commonly perceived as ‘non-political’ and ‘impartial’?

1. Because there’s the general perception that if a humanist writes something political is not
directly involved in anything political and for that reason it has no direct political effect upon
reality in the everyday sense. They have a so called incidental importance to politics.
Whereas economics who work in a highly politically charged area where there’s much
government interest is considered as political. They are directly woven into his material-
indeed political sciences and therefore granted as political.

26
 2. Literary scholar and philosopher are trained in literature and philosophy but not in politics or
ideological analysis

What does Said mean with the statement that Orientalism has less to do with the Orient than it does
with the West?

1. Orientalism responded more to the culture that produced it than to its putative object, which
was also produced by the west – Thus the history of Orientalism has both an internal
consistency and a highly articulated set of relationships to the dominant culture surrounding
it.
2. Orientalism changed over time according to popular paradigms – There’s never been a
neutral idea of the Orient
3. Western consider themselves in the post-Newtonian are which means they think that
knowledge about the world is external  by the west claiming that they know how the Orient
works tells a lot about their world view
4. They don’t let the Orient speak for themselves but they believe that they know best what
eastern people think, feel and need.

How is this idea related to the concept of ‘exteriority’?

1. The entire discourse about the Orient is talking about the Orient rather than talking with
‘’the Orient’’. The western forces consider themselves as rightful to talk for the Orient as
they have studied it for centuries. They know the best what the Orient represents and what
it needs – every deviation from the ‘’norm’’ of the Orient is considered as abnormal.
2. Moreover, they see that the Orient can’t represent itself but rather must be represented
because of their natural inferiority and their lack of intelligence
3. However, they are only RE- presented and in the cultural discourse only limited information
can circulate

What is the difference between ‘early Orientalism’ and ‘modern Orientalism’?

Early Orientalism: before 1766 taken by Britain and France Napoleon occupation of Egypt
processes were set in motion between east and west still dominate contemporary cultural and
political perspectives. Keynote of relationship: Napoleonic invasion of Egypt in 1798 scientific
appropriation of one culture by another) set in motion processes between east and west that still
dominated contemporary cultural and political perspectives.

Modern Orientalism: After 1766; Range of representation expanded enormously

Beginning of Oriental renaissance  new awareness of Orient was created as a result of newly
discovered and translated Oriental texts and a newly perceived relationship between the Orient
and the West art, colours. Lights. increase in scientific work about the Orient
Nevertheless, at most the ‘’real’’ orient provoked a writer to his vision it very rarely guided it

27
 period of immense advance in the institution and content of Orientalist coincides exactly wit the
period of unparalleled European expansion

1. Ideal:
Ambition to formulate their discoveries, experiences and insight suitably in modern
terms to put ideas about Orient in very close touch with modern realities.
2. Discourse:
Orient was inferior to the West

Why is Orientalism not only inhibiting but also productive?

The durability of the saturating hegemonic system of Orientalism does not only constrain writers but
also encourages them to discuss the topics in all its factettes. They might be biased in the way the
report about the Orient, but they give us different illustrations about the orient – which tell us more
about the nineteenth-century cultural richness than many volumes of hermetic textual analyses
(p.22).

28
What does Said mean with the concepts of ‘strategic location’ and ‘strategic formation’ and how does
he apply these concepts on Orientalism?

Strategic location: way of describing the authors position in the text with regard to the Oriental
material he writes about

The strategic location tells us where the writer locates herself in the Orient: translated into his text
the location includes: kind of narrative voice she adopts, the type of structure she build, kinds of
images, themes and motives that circulate in her text all of which add up to a deliberate ways of
addressing the reader containing the Orient and representing or speaking in its behalf

Strategic formation: way of analysing the relationship between texts and the way in which groups of
texts, types of texts, even textual genres, acquire mass, density and referential power among
themselves and thereafter in the culture at large.

The strategic formation: Every writer on the Orient assumes some previous knowledge of the Orient
to which he refers and on which he relies. Moreover, each work affiliates itself with other works, with
audiences, with institutions with the Orient itself. The ensemble of relationships between works,
audiences and some aspects of the Orient therefore constitutes an analysable formation – it presence
in time in discourse in institutions gives it strength and authority.

Which central elements of Orientalism can be found in Balfour’s and Cromer’s discourses?

In each case the Orient is contained and represented by dominating frameworks

1. Knowledge
England knows Egypt: Egypt is what England knows
Knowledge gives power, more power requires more knowledge and so in an increasingly
profitable dialectic of information and control
Justification of British occupation: supremacy of British mind is associated with our
knowledge of Egypt and not primarily economic or military power
 Western countries have better knowledge how to govern country: at no point in history
have they managed to install successful self-governing apparatus
Western have more knowledge about the East than they have about themselves as they
know their history: therefore any deviation from that ‘’true’’ eastern self- is considered as
deviant and unnatural
 Since western know what the eastern want they don’t need to speak themselves
 academic knowledge was transformed into practical knowledge (policies, institutions)
 Western People are smarter: trained intelligence works like a piece of mechanism; Eastern
people: can’t draw obvious conclusion from any simple premises. Think exactly oppositional
to Europeans

2. Power
Power relation was seen as hereto a relationship between a strong and a weak partner
Clear distinction between the Occident (the Englishmen: we) and the Orient (they)
 they are subjected race, dominated by a race that know them and what is good for them
 Their great moments of the past are only useful for the present because the west
transformed them into useful colonies of the contemporary world (Oriental backwardness)

29
  any pursuit for power from Orient side has to be inhibited as it goes against the natural
self: The real future of Egypt lies not in the direction of narrow nationalism which will only
embrace native Egyptians but rather in that of an enlarged cosmopolitanism.

To which extent can these Oriental elements also be found in the discourse of current politicians and
opinions?

The oppositional characteristics between east and west is omnipresent

3. Kissinger: eastern as less intelligent: it’s easier to deal with west than east politically
 Oppositional character (binary opposition) we vs. them
 Cut world into pre-Newtonian and post-Newtonian world

4. Glidden:
 that Arabs can’t deal with objectivity can’t make rational decision everything they do is out
of impulse
 only individual success counts, and the end justifies the means (can’t govern themselves
based on those principles)
 don’t value peace because raiding was one of the two main supports of economy
 opposition between rational, peaceful, logical, capable west and east

What is the link of Orientalism with the linguistic technique of ‘binary opposition’?

The linguistic technique of binary opposition shows that there’re always two oppositional aspects of a
topic (two types of technique, two periods) etc. In the context of Orientalism Kissinger divides the
contemporary world in two halves: the developed and developing countries herewith he creates a
binary opposition.
The first half- The West- The developed countries: Proof of that division in the Newtonian revolution
which has only taken place in the developing world – cultures which escaped the early impact of
Newtonian thing have retained the essentially pre-Newtonian view that the real world is almost
internal to the observer.

The developed countries are: deeply committed to the notion that the real word is external to the
observer. That knowledge consists of recoding and classifying data -the more accurately the better

30
Class notes:

1. Orientalism and the cultural archive

(1/2) Clarifying some terms

o The Orient
o The Oriental
o The Orientalist
o The Occidental
o The Metropole
o People of colour

(2/2) Cultural Archive

“Is a sense Orientalism was a library or archive of information commonly and, in some of its
aspects, unanimously held. What bound the archive together was a family of ideas and a
unifying set of values proven in various ways to be effective.”
- Edward Said, Orientalism

“A racial grammar, a deep structure of inequality in thought and affect based on race, was
installed in nineteenth-century European imperial populations and that it is from this deep
reservoir, the cultural archive, that among other things, a sense of self has been formed and
fabricated.” - Gloria Wekker, White Innocence

a) The cultural archive and Orientalism

o Knowledge = authority = deny autonomy of ‘it’

o Orientals were almost everywhere nearly the same
o Exteriority and the ‘poor Orient’ as subject race
o Superior dominating West vs. inferior dominated Orient
o Technique of binary opposition
o Orientalism creates both the Orientals and the West = constraining thinking

b) Edward Said about Balfour’s lecture in 1910

“England knows Egypt; Egypt is what England knows; England knows that Egypt cannot have
self-government; England confirms that by occupying Egypt; for the Egyptians, Egypt is what
England has occupied and now governs; foreign occupation therefore becomes ‘the very basis’
of contemporary Egyptian civilization; Egypt requires, indeed insists upon, British occupation.”

c) Cultural archive

o How can the cultural archive be measured?

o Link with (unconscious) prejudices?
o Link with everyday racism?
o One cultural archive?
o Current examples of oriental perspectives?

31
2. European self-representation

(1/4) Dutch self-representation:

o A color-blind and anti-racist self

o An innocent, emancipated self
o A racialized self with race as an organizing grammar
o Binary opposition of ‘us’ (white and Christian) and ‘them’ (black, Muslim, migrant,
refugee)

(2/4) Dutch Paradox

o Racialized self vs. diverse country

o The image of innocent victim of German occupation
o Almost absence of Dutch imperial presence in self-representation

(3/4) Other Metropoles?

“This basis but deep-seated knowledge and affect, stemming from an imperial cultural
archive, will have purchase too in other former imperial nations” – Wekker 2016

(4/4) Occidentalism?

“Occidentalism is at least as reductive; its bigotry simply turns the Orientalist view upside
down. To diminish an entire society or a civilization to a mass of soulless, decadent, money-
grubbing, rootless, faithless, unfeeling parasites is a form of intellectual destruction”
- Ian Burama and Avishai Margalit (2004

3. Decolonizing processes

(1/1) Decolonizing themes:

o Statutes, history books, museums, course material

o Theater and novels
o Black Pete

Reading questions (class 4)

1) Gloria Wekker (2016): The introduction of her book ‘White Innocence. Paradoxes of Colonialism and
Race’ (p. 1-29)

What does Edward Said’s concept of ‘cultural archive’ mean and how does Wekker apply it on the
imperial history of the Netherlands? How can the ‘cultural archive’ be operationalized/measured?

1. Said:
- ‘Orientalism was a library or archive of information commonly and, in some of its aspects,
unanimously held. What bound the archive together was a family of ideas and a unifying set of values
proven in various ways to be effective’
- Orientalism: knowledge -> authority -> no autonomy of ‘it’ : They don’t have autonomy anymore,
because we know the orient, we define it, we know what they want and in this was we have authority
on them
- Orient as a bias, always in relation to the West: stereotypes with the power of knowledge, in order
to be stated as true knowledge of that minority, or culture (Orientals are mostly the same

32
everywhere)
- studying the Orient thought documents is already biased, because those documents have been
written by colonialists (another way of studying it might be through local documents, written by the
population)
- Cultural archive: material (poetry, literature etc.)

2. Wekker:
- ‘ A racial grammar, a deep structure of inequality in thought and affect based on race, was installed
in 19th century european imperial populations and that it is from this deep reservoir, the cultural
archive, that among other things, a sense of self has been formed and fabricated’
- Cultural archive: lifestyle, movies and TV shows, political discourse, common-day jokes, educational
books etc.

How does the dominant white Dutch self-representation look like? And how is it connected to
imperialism/colonialism? To which extent do you think this type of white self-representation is similar
in other ‘metropolitan’ countries with an imperial history? Why is ‘innocence’ useful for small nations
with an imperial history?
- Dominant white Dutch self-representation: tolerant, colour-blind, anti-racist, far from colonialist
tradition, innocent and emancipated, high tolerance for gender equality and sexual differences -> but
still racist episodes, and still a difference between ‘us’ (autochtonen, white, Christian) and ‘them’
(allochtonen, black, Muslim), and this is the racist ‘grammar’
- Innocent country: victims of German occupation (absence of imperial and colonial tradition in Dutch
self-representation)
- Other metropoles: Belgium with Leopold II and Congo, Portugal with Vasco da Gama, UK etc.

Edward W. Said (1978): The introduction and chapter 1 of his book ‘Orientalism’ (p. 9-57)

Why is Orientalism not only inhibiting but also productive?

Binary opposition creates two different categories: the Occidents defines the Orient, but it defines
itself too at the same time, and the more we talk about Orient and Occident the more both gain more
knowledge, differences, stereotypes (the more we define the Orient, the more the Orient will start
acting in the way the Occident defines it, and the other way around) -> it also authorizes the Occident
for domination over the Orient

Which central elements of Orientalism can be found in Balfour’s and Cromer’s discourses?
- Balfour: UK, ‘Balfour’s declaration’: give a ‘national home’ to jews in Palestine, at that time still
under Ottoman rule -> in his discourse we see the distinction between Occidental and Oriental (UK
and Egypt), the authority of the Occident over the Orient, the fact that the Orient cannot speak for
itself

To which extent can these Oriental elements also be found in the discourse of current politicians and
opinions?
- es. discourses about terrorism: polarization, technique of binary opposition

What is the link of Orientalism with the linguistic technique of ‘binary opposition’?
Technique of binary opposition to exclude groups in society: if we make a distiction between ‘us’ and
‘them’, and we put ‘us’ always in a superior position (es. men and women, allochtoon and
autochtoon, rich and poor, heterosexual and LGBT) -> consequence: it is very productive

33
Notes class 4 (14/03/18): The legacy of Colonialism for European Self-representation

1. ‘Cultural archive’ & orientalism

Definitions:
- The Orient: geographic area outside the West mainly the Arab world, the Indian subcontinent; the
Sub-Sahara (the Far East is not taken into account by Said)
- The Oriental: one category for people from the East
- The Orientalist: the inhabitant of the West that is following a vision linked to the Orient (politician,
scientist, writer..)
- The Occidental: people from the West
- The Metropole: the colonizing power (the Netherlands, Italy, UK etc.)
- People of color: word used by anthropologists that wanted to decolonize; broad category to define
ethnic-cultural minority (es. women of color, gays of color: different grounds of discrimination)

Link with everyday racism:

- sometimes people act along stereotypes: they take it onto themselves (for ethnic minorities, gender
differences etc.)
- everyday racism + cultural archive: looking at black people as servants, inferior -> it draws back to
slavery in colonialist period

Different between the perception and treatment of the Near East and the Far East

2. European self-representations
European self-representation is based on colonialism
Ian Burama and Avishai Margalit, Occidentalism: ‘Occidentalism is at least as reductive; its bigotry
simply turns the Orientalist upside down. To diminish an entire society or a civilization to a mass of
soulless, decadent, money-grubbing, rootless, faithless, unfeeling parasites is a form of intellectual
destruction’.
-> might be a result from colonization: the arrival of the colonists in the regions

3. Decolonization processes
- Statutes: remove them or not? contextualize them? raise awareness and not forget or glorify?
- History books, museums, course materials

34
Class 5: Gender, Sexuality and Intersectionality
Gender, Sexuality and Intersectionality
Judith Lorber (2003) ‘Gender’
Why is gender considered as a socially constructed ‘social institution’?
A social institution is considered in sociology the main ordering principle of social life.
Gender structures social life, pattern social roles and provides individuals with identities and values.
Besides Gender pervades kinship and family life, work roles and organizations, the rules of most
religions. The outcome is a gendered social order.

What’s the sociological difference between ‘sex’, ‘sexuality’ and ‘gender’?

Sex: biology, physiology
Sexuality: desire, sexual preference, sexual orientation, sexual behaviour
Gender: social status that organizes almost all areas of social life

What’s the argument of Nancy Chodorow with respect to the role of parenting on gendering?
She develops an influential argument for the gendering of personalities and its continuous
reproduction. Through parenting and socialization, the child develops a gendered identity that in
most cases reproduces the values, attitudes and behaviour that society considers as appropriate for
boys or girls.
Most of the parenting is done by women therefore boys need to separate themselves early from
their mother to establish their masculinity. Through that they develop characteristics such as
independence; rationality and objectivity. Girls however have from early days on the emotional
connection and intimacy with their mother which they’ll keep for the rest of their lives. Girls become
women and lack the intimacy from their husbands who have difficulties to bond therefore they have
children to get that emotional bond and the circle of gendered parenting is completed. Solution:
shared parenting

How is gendering happening at school and by children’s peer culture?

Gendering: Girls are more encouraged to study social sciences and humanities; boys are more
encouraged to study mathematics and sciences
Peer culture: different enmities value different abilities  Hispanic boys often denigrate book
learning and therefore deny to engage in those learning environments (often explained as deviant
behaviour and not understood as cultural characteristics)

How is the matching process of ranked workers and jobs structuring gender and ethnic inequalities
at the labour market?
Matching process: sort women and men of different racial and ethnic groups into different types of
work
 in time of economic recession men would rather be unemployed than employed in classical
women’s jobs
 when women and men work in non-traditional occupations, gender tyoing is often maintained
symbolically ( policewomen sees work as social work; male nurse emphasize technical and physical
strength aspects)
 lower-ranked workers get chance to climb up latter if job is abandoned by favoured workers
 Employers will rank gender and ethnicity over qualification

35
 sometimes have to take less favoured workers to save

What is gender segmentation and ghettoization?

Both limit the extent of competition for the better position
Gender Segmentation: within one occupation vertical or horizontal hierarchy amongst different kind
of jobs (Hospitals: Physicians primary care& hospital base specialized);
Nurses (practical nurses, elderly nurses at home)
Ghettoization: separates the lower-paid ‘’women jobs’’ from better-paid men’s job within an
occupation through informal gender typing
 naturalization of women and men work through assumptions that certain skills are inherit to a
specific sex (strength; competence etc)

What are the phenomena of glass ceilings and glass escalators?

Glass ceiling: white men tend to dominate positions of authority whether they are numerically
predominant – the lid on women’s rise to the top of their work organization
(primary teacher and head master)
Glass escalator: That is token men in a woman’s occupation tend to be promoted faster than the
women workers

Why is gendering useful for employers?

 women as reserve army of labour in time for scarce labour situation
 low pay jobs can be easily given to women as men don’t want to take them
 because women don’t earn as much money as their husband they are still considered to do the
household
 well paid jobs are reserved for white male jobs and in time of recession women are fired and jobs
of men are saved
 redistribution of worker of different genders is change in the structure of work process and
quality of particular job which can be manipulated by employers  jobs automated and deskilled or
made part time to save costs

How could we restructure the societal institutions (family, education, work, law…) so they are not as
rigidly gendered as they are today?

In sum to change gendered social orders to be more equal or less gendered will take individual effort
and modification of gender stereotyped attitudes and values, but most of all a restructuring of work
and family through the policies and practices of large-scale corporations and the governments of
dominant nations.

Jeffrey Weeks (2010) ‘Chapter 2. The Invention of Sexuality’ in his book ‘Sexuality – Third Edition’

What does Weeks mean with considering the history of sexuality as a history without a proper
subject?
He calls the history of sexuality a history without proper subject because the subject of interest
constantly changes over time. Depending on time and geographical location the definition of
sexuality changes and herewith the subject of investigation. Moreover, he suggests that Sexuality
tells more about the norms and values of the present than about the evolution of sexuality in
general.

36
And how does it relate to our changing preoccupations?
As mentioned above he believes that sexuality tells us a lot about or present live and about our
individual pre-occupation meaning our ideals of how we should live, how we should enjoy or deny
our bodies. The circulating discourse about sexuality reveals the mores and laws existing in the
present society.

How are the type of questions influenced by the preoccupations at certain time and place?
The anthropological approach investigates how the topic of sexuality was influences by time and
space. It looked at each form of sexuality individually without 21st Century bias – interested in
gaining sympathetic understanding of diversity of sexual patterns
19th Century: evolutionary history were former societies closer to nature or a more primitive form of
our current society link to conception about third world countries
20th Century: Ethnocentric racist theories were legitimised by primitive condition of other races

What is an ‘essentialist’ approach to sexuality?

Cultures are seen as delicate mechanisms designed to satisfy a basic human nature, in the process
the status of’’ the natural’’ was not questioned but rather reaffirmed. Sex is an irresistible natural
energy barely held in check by a thin crust of civilization. It is moreover seen as an all-powerful
instinct which demands fulfilment against the claims of morals, belief and social restrictions. AS a
pool of energy which is either contained or let go.

Sexuality as a biological mandate which presses against and must restrained by the cultural matrix

How does Weeks disagree with this approach?

Weeks believes that Sexuality is shaped by social forces and that those forces shaping sexualization
change from society to society and lead to ‘’sexual socialization’’. He is certain that the emphasis
should be put rather on social relations than on nature.

What’s the role of biology in Week’s perspective?

Weeks thinks that Biology conditions and limits what is possible, but it does not cause the patterns
of sexual life. Biology in his sense is a set of potentialities, which are transformed and given meaning
only in social relationships.

What are the assumptions of his theoretical stance?

(1) There is general rejection of sex as an autonomous realm, a natural domain with specific effects,
a rebellious energy that the social controls. Sex cannot longer be set against society

(2) Importance of the social variability of sexual forms, and beliefs, ideologies, identities and
behaviour and of the existence of different sexual culture – sexuality has not one but more histories
which all need to be understood individually

(3) Sex is more than the dichotomy of pressure and release, repression and liberation – we have to
understand that sexuality is a result of diverse social practices that give meaning to human activities

37
Give a few examples of how sexuality differs between cultures, religions or societies; and try to go
beyond dichotomous orthodox thinking.

Sexual cultures are precisely that: culturally specific, shaped by a wide range of social and historical
factors - Each culture makes own restriction ‘’who restrictions’’ (gender, age, ethnicity) and ‘’how
restrictions’’ (organs we use, what we touch, how we touch it)
(1) There are asexual societies which show little interest in erotic life
(2) In Muslim community’s religion and sexuality is deeply interwoven:
Sexuality is radical legitimized but harshly punished in case of homosexuality or extra-marital activity
from women under Sharia law
(3) Western standard sets limited range of acceptable activities: age, gender); make clear connection
between sexuality and reproduction
(4) Homosexuality is clearly defined in western culture whereas other cultures didn’t see the
necessity to define it

How are kinship, economic, social and political factors interconnected in regulating sexuality?

All those factors are immediately effected by our globalizing world and hence drastically by changing
the outer circumstance the reformulation of norms and laws in our society.

(1) Kinship:
No incest is a universal law BUT there’s variation in degree of kinship. Interestingly those
relationships are defined by social relations between groups and not by link of blood. What
we define as family is clearly defined by historical factors. Family is constantly shaped and
reshaped by economic and social factors – and as kin and family patterns change so will
attitudes and beliefs concerning it.

(2) Economic and social organization:

Kinships as mentioned above are shaped by out forces. The Relationship between men and
women has drastically changed with the empowerment of the female labour force.
Economic autonomy has influenced the sexual autonomy of women. Globalization sweeps
away old economic, social and cultural boundaries. Migration has furthermore drastically
changed the family and societal organization which in reverse changed sexuality. Sexuality is
not determined by the developing modes of production, but the rhythms of economic and
social life provide the basic precondition of the sexual life.

(3) Social regulations:

From Church to secular values. As life circumstance have changed authorities in society have
changed.

Describe the shift from moral-religious regulations to secular organizations of sexuality.

Move away from moral regulation by churches to a more secular mode of organization through
medicine, education, psychology, social work and welfare practices. Morality has been increasingly
been privatized and people know decide more for themselves what they see as morally right or
wrong. However not all people are as freely as they think they are since informal regulations are
omnipresent in our society and still define what is being accepted and what is unmorally
 In our modern world we can see drastic reaction to our sexual modernism taking the form of
extreme conservatism representing often the Christian values (Ireland, US)

38
How differ ‘Western’ preoccupations about sexuality from ‘Ancient’ preoccupations?

Difference of two patterns represent a major shift in the organizing significance given to sexuality
Western preoccupation: The West has been largely preoccupied with whom people have sex WHO
Ancient preoccupation: The Ancient dealt more with the question of excess or over-indulgence,
activity and passivity of sex.  homosexuals could have sex but if one acted passive that was not
allowed since it represents characteristics of women HOW

And what are the key moments in the development of the dominant Western model?

(1) AD Reason of sex is reproduction therefore growing austerity against sex indulged in
purely for pleasure

(2) 12th and 13th Century Marriage was seen as a matter of family arrangement for the good
of families  People in marriages (often strangers) were tied together by a tight set of rules

(3) 18th and 19th Century an increasing definition of sexual normality occurred in terms of
relations with the opposite sex and the consequent categorization of other forms as deviant.

How is the category of ‘homosexuality’ socially constructed?

Because sexual intercourse between same sex has always existed throughout history but only in the
19th Century where an entire personality was created around ‘’the homosexual’’ it became socially
constructed. Whereas before the act of specific sexual activities were punished not the simple
personally trait was being punished. At the end of the 19th Century ‘’the homosexual’’ was seen as
belonging to a particular species of being characterized by feelings, latency and a psychosexual
condition.

Why is it the consequence of a sustained effort at social regulation and control?

It is the consequence of social control because the body is seen as an intersection between who we
are personally and the society at large. In order to deal with moral decline and societal and political
issues which are considered to be closely linked with sexuality one needs to understand sex in order
to understand one-self. With the result to reach moral uniformity.

Why is, according to Weeks, the social regulation of sexuality rather productive than repressive?

Repressive represents a top- down approach: laws and regulation determine the sexual activities
performed in a particular time and space
Productive represent a bottom- up approach: many different practices and circumstances define the
regulation. Weeks emphasises rather the impact of various social practices and discourses that
construct sexual regulation, give meaning to bodily activities, shape definitions and limit and control
human behaviour Power is hereby not owned by an entity but is rather a process between shifting
cultures.

Give a few examples of such a ‘repressing’ perspectives.

39
How is his power-based approach to sexuality multidimensional and complex?
He believes that sexual politics can never be a single form of activity, they are enmeshed in the
whole network of social contradictions and antagonisms that make up our modern world. There are
importantly various forms of sexuality: there are in fact many sexualities. There are classed
sexualities there are gendered-specific sexualities, there are racialized sexualities and there are
sexualities of struggle and choice. The invention of sexuality was not a single event. It is a continuing
process in which we are simultaneously acted upon and actors, objects of change and its subjects.
We are made by and make sexual history and the forms of power that enmesh it.
Power operates subtly through a complex series of interlocking practices  Sexual politics can
never be single form of activity.

How is it related to class, gender and race?

Class gender and race are all key vectors to the multidimensional sexuality.
Class: different classes make their own rules; male sexuality differs between classes
Gender: Close relationship between the organization of gender and sexuality; female sexuality is
mostly determined by the historically rooted power of men. Our world is defined by male sexuality –
masculinity and femininity are relational terms – defined only in through existence of other. In
history little attention to female sexuality considered as dangerous
Race: Sexuality been defined in colonial relations; dark skinned people are considered to be closer to
nature; and inferior to western world  primitive societies; western impose the value catalogue on
other societies

40
Class notes:

1. Social Construction of Gender Gendering:

(1/4) Gender as social institution  In Family
• Sex  At school
• Sexuality  By peers
• Gender  Media
• Social institution  At work

(2/4) Gendering at work

 Continuing gender segregation

 Gender re-segregation
 Symbolic gender typing
 Gendered job segmentation
 Informal gender ghettoization
 Glass ceilings and escalators

(3/4) Changing Gender

“Changing a gendered society entails structural and institutional change. Attitudes and
values must change, too, but these are often altered when social policies and practices shift.”
- Lorber 2003

(4/4) White male privilege:

“Thinking through unacknowledged male privilege as a phenomenon with a life of its own, I
realized that since hierarchies in our society are interlocking, there was most likely a
phenomenon of white privilege that was similarly denied and protected, but alive and real in
its effects. As a white person, I realized I had been taught about racism as something that
puts others at a disadvantage but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects,
white privilege, which puts me at an advantage.” – McIntosh 1998

2. Social Construction of Sexuality

(1/5) History of Sexuality:

“The history of sexuality is a history without a proper subject; a history of a subject in
constant flux. It is often as much a history of our changing preoccupations about how we
should live, how we should enjoy or deny our bodies, as about the past.” – Weeks 2010

(2/5) Histories of Sexuality:

 Pioneering sexology
o Is the modern family something natural or evolved from the primitive clan?
o Did our ancestors live in a state of primitive promiscuity or was monogamy a
biological necessity?
o Was patriarchal domination present from the dawn of culture?
 Anthropological approach

41
 o How are our basic natural drifts satisfied in different cultures?
 Current perspectives
o How are sexual beliefs and behaviors socially constructed?
o How to understand the history of the idea of sexuality itself?

(3/5) Social Construction of Sexuality:

o Essentialist approach  Social constructivist approach

o What with biology?
o Three characteristics
o Rejection of sex a natural, autonomous domain
o Recognition of social variability of sexual forms
o Abandon the idea that sexual drives should be oppressed or released

(4/5) Social Organization of Sexuality:

o Kinship and family systems

o Economic and social organization
o Cultural and social regulations
o Political interventions
o Cultures of resistance

(5/5) Sexuality and Power:

“Power does not operate through single mechanisms of control. It operates through complex
and overlapping – and often contradictory – mechanisms, which produces domination and
opposition; regulation and agency.” – Weeks 2010

3. Intersectionality

(1/2) Black Feminism:

o Black feminists of the 70s and 80s

o Critique on multiple forms of oppression:
o White male mainstream society
o White feminist movements - Ain’t I A woman?
o Black (masculine) organizations
 Intersectional paradigm

(2/2) Intersectionality:

o Intersectional perspective
o Matrix of domination
o Different purpose: critical social theory
o Different forms than standard academic texts
o Specific concepts
o Class downplayed by gender and race

Notes class 5 (21/04/18): Gender, Sexuality and Intersectionality

1) Social construction of ‘Gender’:

Sex can be gendered: gendering interaction with biology (es. when you are born with both female and
male sex organs, they will fix you in order to fit perfectly in a gender category; breast enlargement or
penis enlargement)

42
Sexuality can be gendered: by advertisement, popular songs, that tells how to act as a male or female
in a way that society decides, society creates a standard way of dealing with sexuality

Gendering in family: woman and man have different tasks in the family; boys with blue things and girls
with pink things  theory of the role of the mother (but critiques: what about single mothers or
fathers? what about non heterosexual families?)

Gendering in school: especially between high school and university, girls are more pushed to study
emotional and caring subjects (medicine, humanistic studies), while boys are more pushed towards
rational studies (economy, sciences etc.)

Gendering by peers: exclusion of those who do not fit in the categories of male and female, until they
become ‘normal’

Gendering in media: alternative sources are nowadays popular but not enough

Gendering at work:
- continuing gender segregation: women decided to work where already a lot of women were working
- gender re-segregate: shift from male occupation to female occupation
- symbolic gender typing: stressing the gendering skills of your work if it doesn’t match your gender
(es. policewomen stress how their job is focused on dialogue and understanding)

McIntosh, ‘white, male privilege’: white male people have more advantages because the non-male
non-white people are disadvantages; positive & negative advantages (the positive advantages have to
be enlarged for the whole population, while the negative ones should be given up)

2) Social construction of ‘Sexuality’: Weeks’ text

3) Intersectionality: it developed throught the black feminist movement in the 70s and 80s

Black feminism: exclusion and oppression by:

- white male mainstream society
- white feminist movements -> Ain’t I a woman? (because of the only focus on white people)
- black masculine movements and organizations (too masculine, no feminine representation)

Intersectional paradigm:
- intersectional perspective: society as overlapping forms of oppression
- matrix of domination: the domains where the overlapping forms of oppression are organized and
reinforce each other (es. politics, media etc.)
- different purpose: critical social theory: not only explaining society, but also changing the oppression
and discrimination in society
- different forms than standard academic texts: alternative ways of intellectual production (es. art,
culture, music: r&b music, blues..)
- specific concepts: ‘women of color’ as intersection between sex and ethnicity
- class downplayed by gender and race?: one of the critiques is that it doesn’t take into account class,
mostly gender and race are analyzed in the intersectional perspective (Claudia Wekker underlines
that class is important)

43
Class 6: Urban Sociology
Reading Questions Class 6. Urban Sociology

Loic Wacquant (2012)

A Janus-Faced Institution of Ethno-Racial Closure: A Sociological Specification of the Ghetto

What are the characteristics of the ghetto?

The term ghetto denotes abounded urban ward, a web of group-specific institutions and a cultural
and cognitive constellation (values; mind-set, or mentality) entailing a socio -moral isolation of a
stigmatized category as well as the systematic truncation of the life space and life chances of its
members. The ghetto does not result from ecological dynamics but from the inscription in space of a
material and symbolic power asymmetry as revealed by the recurrent role of collective violence in
establishing as well as challenging ethnocidal confinement.

Which sociological functions does the ghetto fulfil for the dominating and the dominated groups?

The ghetto is a product and instrument of group power. Ghettos are the product of a mobile and
tensionful dialectic of external hostility and internal affinity that expresses itself as ambivalence at
the level of collective consciousness.
Dominant groups: its rationale is to confine and control which translated in what May Weber calls
the exclusionary closure of the subordinate category.
Intense cultural production – collective identity machine in its own rights
Dominated groups: protective and integrative device insofar as it relieves its members from the
constant contact with the dominant and fosters consociation and community-building within the
constricted sphere of intercourse it creates. Enforces isolation for the outside lead to the
intensification of social exchange and cultural sharing inside. By submitting them to unique
conditions they are perceived as outsiders as singular, exotic aberrant which fees prejudicial beliefs.

Apply these characteristics and functions on both the medieval Jewish ghettos and the American
Black ghettos of the 1960s.

Jewish Ghetto:
Dominated: constantly protested against the regulation within their outcast district – they were
nonetheless deeply attached to them and appreciative of the relative security and special form of
collective life they supported
Black Americans:
Dominated: they were pride to have ‘’erected a community in their own image’’ even as they
resented the fact that they had done so under duress as a result of unyielding whit exclusion aimed
at warding off the spectre of sic

44
Why does Loic Wacquant disagree with the Chicago School’s perspective of considering the ghetto as
‘natural’ and ‘uncontrollable’?

What does the Chicago school say? The ghetto is a natural area arising via environmental adaption
governed by a biotic logic akin to the competitive cooperation that underlies the plant community
 BUT the Chicago history falsely converts history into natural history and passing ghettoization off
as a manifestation of human nature virtually coterminous with the history of migration when it is
actually a highly peculiar form of urbanization warped by asymmetric relation of power between
ethnocidal groupings – a special form of collective violence concretized in urban space.

Why are not all ghettos poor and why are not all poor areas (inside) ghettos?

Not all ghettos are poor: Ghetto arises through the double assignation of the category to territory
and territory to category (step 1. Everyone who has to live in ghetto step 2. The hierarchy within the
ghetto)  there are avenues for economic betterment and upward mobility in its internal social
order. Whether a ghetto is poor or not depends on the overall economic standing of the category
and its distribution in the division of labour and surrounding economy.  Conversely
Examples: Judengasse Frankfurt; was vibrant centre of trade and finance; only because they were
forced to dwell in walls didn’t stop them to thrive economically
In US Ghetto was ‘cultural capital’ of black Americans – place where ’’Negro’s advantages and
opportunities are greater than in any other place in the country’’
Not all poor areas are inside ghettos: southern Italy, east Germany, British Midlands are territories
of working-class demotion and decomposition not ethnic containers dedicated to maintain an
outcast group in a relationship of seclusive subordination

Why are all ghettos segregated, but not all segregated areas ghettos?

Not all segregated areas are ghettos: In some areas segregation is entirely voluntary and elective
and for that reason it is neither all-inclusive nor perpetual.
Example: enclaves of luxury package, security seclusion, social homogeneity, amenities and services
enable bourgeoisie families to escape what they perceive as the ‘’chaos, dirt and danger of the city’’
All ghettos are segregated: in order for a ghetto be a ghetto it needs to first be imposed and all-
encompassing and must be overlaid with a distinct and duplicative set of institutions enabling the
population thus cloistered to reproduce itself within its assigned perimeter.

Why could you not consider the ethnic minority neighbourhoods in European cities as ghettos?

You can’t consider the Banlieues in France as Ghettos because the people who live there are based
first on class and then on ethnicity and most importantly it is impermanent. People who move up
the social class move out of the neighbourhood so there’s definitely a geographic mobility given.
Population in Banlieues are mostly heterogenous and don’t have a duplicative set of institutional
organisations but they are rather lack ingrown organization what makes them rather anti-ghettos.

45
What’s the difference between a ghetto and an ethnic cluster?

Ghetto: material and symbolic isolation war geared toward dissimilation; symbolically a wall
Ethnic cluster: springboard for assimilation via cultural learning and social-cum-spatial mobility,
symbolically a bridge
 segregation was partial and result of immigrant solidarity and ethnic attraction, geographic
separation was neither uniformly nor rigidly visited upon the groups thus clusters were ethnically
plural
 Institution within turn outwards: they operate to facilitate adjustment to the environment; they
neither replicated the organization of the country of origin nor perpetuated social isolation and
cultural distinctiveness
 within generations climbed up ladder gained access to American counterparts

What are the characteristics of the anti-ghetto? And apply these characteristics on the French
banlieues.

Characteristics: a) no duplication of institution but rather lack of ingrown organizations b)

heterogeneity in population c) geographic mobility

You can’t consider the Banlieues in France as Ghettos because the people who live there are based
first on class and then on ethnicity and most importantly it is impermanent. People who move up
the social class move out of the neighbourhood so there’s definitely a geographic mobility given.
Population in Banlieues are mostly heterogenous and don’t have a duplicative set of institutional
organisations but they are rather lack ingrown organization what makes them rather anti-ghettos.

To which extent could you consider the excluded position of the Roma in Eastern Europe as a
tendency towards ghettoization?

Romans have long been a marginalized group not only in rural areas but as well in urban districts –
what increases their tendency towards ghettoization is that fulfil the four structural components of
a) stigma b) constraints c) spatial enclosure d) institutional parallelism.
After fall of Soviet Union – anti-Roman prejudice were reactivated, and they were seen as criminal
race and highly discriminated. Political action by Berlusconi government reinstituting state run
camps to corral Gypsies on the outskirt of Italian cities

And the campaign of destruction of illegal- Rom encampment launched by Sarkozy in France in 2010
to curry favour with electors of the far right are there to remind that Roma remain prime candidate
for the (re)activation of socio-spatial enclosure even in western Europe

What are the characteristics of the hyperghetto?

Hyperghetto: entrapping the marginal fractions of the black working class in the barren perimeter of
the historic ghetto. It is a novel socio-spatial configuration, doubly segregated by race and class
devoid of economic function and thus stripped of the communal institution that used to provide
succor to its inhabitants – these institutions have been replace by the social control institutions of
the state, and in particular by the booming prison and its disciplinary tentacles.

46
And why went some American areas from ghettos to hyperghettos?

The double-sidedness of the ghetto as sword (for the dominant) and shield (for the subordinate)
implies that, to the degree that its institutional completeness and autonomy are abridged, its
protective role is diminished, and risks being swamped by its exclusionary modality. In situations in
which its residents cease to be of economic value to the controlling group, extraction evaporates
and no longer balances out ostracization. Ethnocidal encapsulation can then escalate to the point
where the ghetto morphs into an apparatus merely to warehouse the spoiled and supernumerary
population, as a staging ground for its expulsion, or as a springboard for the ultimate form of
ostracization, namely, physical annihilation. The first scenario fits the evolution of America’s “Black
Metropolis” after the peaking of the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s. Having lost its role as a
reservoir of unskilled labour power, the dark ghetto crashed and broke down into a dual socio-
spatial structure composed of (i) the hyperghetto, entrapping the marginal fractions of the black
working class in the barren perimeter of the historic ghetto; and (ii) the black middle-class satellites
that burgeoned at the latter’s periphery in the areas left vacant by white out-migration, where the
growing African American bourgeoisie achieved spatial and social distance from its lower-class
brethren (Wacquant 2008a, 51–52, 117–118).

Socioeconomic residential segregation

Unequal dispersion of groups over neighbourhoods within cities (when you are young you
are more in the city centre, when you are married you rather use the suburb regions;
different lifestyles)

Several dimensions (age segregation,

Socio-Economic and Ethnic segregation

Dimensions of spatial of residential segregations: Unevenness

Index of dissimilarity / Index

(1) Concentration
Relative and absolute measure – relate it to city level if there are 30% Moroccans in
Brussels and in one region you have 50%  concentration

(2) Isolation
Are specific regions isolated from vital functions of wider city life (schools,
university, public transport)

(3) Clustering
Identified different neighbourhoods – are the different neighbourhoods clustered
next to each other / are they segregated – not segregated – segregated (you think in
terms of neighbourhoods not of people)

(4) Centralisation
Where does specific societies

 those different dimensions lead to economic- social segregation

47
Explaining socio-economic segregation:

(1) Social Inequality

Poor people are forced to live together -> don’t have the means to live in another neighbourhood
Rich people chose in which neighbourhood they want to live
Constraints and Choice belong to the same coin as one depends up on the other
(there are more factors state /city policies which channel more or less segregation

(2) Global connectedness

Deals with well-connected global cities – busy/wealthy side ensuring global world market running
need poor low-paid work which take care of their kids, cleaning ladies, service industry
 Theory in more global-connected cities division runs deeper

(3) Welfare regimes

To which extent state intervenes in market (income distribution (tax policies) – services (what does
government do for citizens childcare, education))

(4) Housing regimes

How much housing is being subsidized, more affordable places for the poor people, if there’s more
social housing – social inequality would be less  but if social housing is again only limited to certain
neighbourhoods segregation is intensified reinforces social inequality
To which extent is housing market regulated by state

Gini index: 0-100 degree of social inequality in country

Global connectedness: Alpha/Bet/Gamma
Welfare regime: Mediterranean means they don’t really know what the state of the state is
Housing regime: dual (more market intervention)
 Issue with that methodological analysis: all indexes have same weight in the table

Socio Economic Segregation trends:

Index of segregation: 0 (Poor people are equally distributed amongst

neighbourhoods) 0-100 ( in percent who many percent have to move…)
We talk often about that poor people are segregated but what actually happens that rich people are
segregated (Heilbronner weg, Weinsberg)

Even in cities where segregation is really high compared to US european cities are really lo

Ethnic residential segregation

Ethnic residential segregation:

 All cities and all ethnic groups are segregated

 During the last two decades, the dominant tendency is one of stability or
decreasing levels of segregation
 American cities are much more segregated than European cities
 Large differences between the same ethnic groups in different cities or
countries (Morroccans in Athens – Brussels etc. differ extremely because
city policies have large impact)
 Large difference between different ethnic groups in the same city

48
Theories explaining ethnic segregation:

Spatial assimilation theory:

Initially chain migrants settle in co-ethnic clusters, Acculturation and socio-economic assimilation 
white or mixed middle- class neighbourhoods
(Neighbourhood and ethnic segregation is only temporary will change over time)

The arrival theory:

The last biggest migration didn’t happen between countries but from the countryside to the city.
There are arrival cities and arrival neighbourhoods, no disadvantaged areas, but dynamic transition
zones with many start- up opportunities (consider neighbourhood as something temporary but
necessary to move up social ladder  housing is cheaper, founding business is cheaper
Socio-economic mobility  move to better neighbourhoods

Social homophily theory:

people like to socialize with people alike well-educated with well-educated etc. like animals; ethnic
concentration neighbourhood is something positive because you want to live with people who are
like you

Place stratification theory:

Discrimination doesn’t allow you to move (landlords etc.) won’t let you move, real estate agents,
social housing estates and mortgage lenders

Ethnic enclave theory:

Strong ethnic identity, it’s easier to include yourself there better
enclave economy is characterized by: Large enough ethnic group, spatial concentration,
heterogenous social class composition, informal social mobility ladders, institutional completeness,
strong ethnic identification and solidarity

Ghetto:

Imposed spatial confinement of one ethic group

Economic functions: reservoir of unskilled labour

Institutional parallelism

Working and middle- class inhabitants

Stigma and collective identity machine

Dominant group: the ghetto confined and controlled the group

Subordinate group: the ghetto protected and integrate

Measuring ghettos: More than 70% of the neighbourhood inhabitants are from the same ethnic
group and more than 66% of that ethnic group live in that neighbourhood

Hyperghetto:

(1) Spatial confinement on the basis of race and class

don’t only have to be black but also poor
(2) No economic functions only informal economy
(3) no ethnic institutions
no churches, schools etc.

49
(4) state institutions of social control
police everywhere
(5) underclass: unemployed, welfare recipients
(6) Stigmatized but there is no collective identity

Anti- Ghetto

(1) Market-led spatial distribution on the basis of class

(2) Ethnic diverse neighbourhoods
therefore no collective identity
(3) No dense web of ethnic institutions
(4) No collective identity, instead xenophobia and distrust

50
Class 7: Functions and Dysfunctions of Social Inequality
Functions and Dysfunctions of Social Inequality
Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore (1945). Some Principles of Stratification
Melvin M. Tumin (1953). Some Principles of Stratification. A Critical Analysis
Read the texts of Davis & Moore and Tumin together

What is the basic assumption in the reasoning of Davis and Moore?

The basic assumption from Davis and Moore is that social inequality and social stratification is
necessary for every society because it needs to fulfil the requirement to place and motivate
individuals in the social structure. AS a functioning mechanism a society must somehow distribute its
members in social positions and induce them to perform the duties of these positions.

What do they mean with the functional necessity of stratification?

The main functional necessity of any stratification system is the requirement faced by any society of
placing and motivating individuals in the social structure. It must distribute its members in social
positions and induce them to perform the duties of these positions.

What are the steps in their reasoning to defend stratification and inequality (use maybe the analysis
of Tumin to get the steps)?

A) Certain positions in any society are functionally more important than others and require specific
skills for their performance.
B) Only a limited number of individuals in any society have the talents which can be trained into the
skills appropriate to these positions (i.e. more functionally important positions) – The rarity of
appropriate talent
C) The conversion of talents into skills involves a training period during which sacrifices of one kind
or another are mad by those undergoing the training (medical students)

D) In order to induce the talented persons to undergo these sacrifices and acquire the training, their
future positions must carry an inducement value in the form of differential, i.e. privileged and
disproportionate access to the scarce and desired rewards which the society has to offer

E) the scarce and desired goods consist of the rights and perquisites attached to, or built into, the
positions and can be classified into those things which contribute to a) sustenance and comfort and
b) humour and diversion c) self-respect and ego expansion
F) This differential access to the basic rewards of the society has a consequence the differentiation
of the prestige and esteem which various strata acquire. This may be said along with the rights and
perquisites to constitute institutionalized social inequality i.e. stratification

G) Therefore, social inequality among different strata in the amounts of scarce and desired goods,
and the amounts of prestige and esteem which they receive is both positively functional and
inevitable in any society.

51
Which types of rewards do they differentiate? And give for each type a concrete example.
Davis and Moore differentiate between

A) All the things that contribute to sustenance and comfort

B) Things that contribute to humour and diversion
C) Things that contribute to self-respect and ego expansion

What are the critiques of Tumin on the different steps in the logic of Davis and Moore?

A) That the labour highly or lower ranked are equally important and are only a result of prior
judgment and are culturally shaped. Because the issue of motivation concerns all different kind of
jobs not only the highly ranked ones. Tumin sees the system of inducement and rewards as only one
of many forms of a reward system.
B) Societies often ignore the talent which is available and the more rigidly stratified a society is the
less chance dies that society have of discovering any new facts about the talents of its member 
range of available talent is huge but not used
- because of lack of educational opportunities many people don’t get the chance to explore their
talent

- unequal distribution of motivation in one generation sets directly limits of equal distribution of
motivation in next generation

- Elites tend to restrict access to their privileged positions

C) Training period should not be regarded as sacrifice but rather as reward ( see other
question)

D) Davis and Moore limit the term of rewards only to prestige and material rewards and completely
ignore hereby the case in which the fulfilment of the job gives intrinsic motivational reward – highly
skilled work already offers a greater possibility because of its diversity to fulfil the criteria of intrinsic
reward. The author proposes that effort should be put into also institutionalizing other forms of
rewards in our system

E/F ) He criticises that Davis and Moor don’t emphasis how the different motivation should be
spread as a reward which one is most important etc. Moreover, he points out that they ignore the
double sense of stratification in one society namely the hierarchy within the conforming society and
between the part which conforms to the stratification and the ones who don’t live up to the norm
 Despite older people often have more power than younger ones because of experience etc. they
don’t have necessarily a different valued stratum. For no society rates its young as less morally
worthy than its older persons  flaws in their assumptions

G) Society must distribute unequally power and property necessary for the performance of different
tasks - they should however been seen as resources and not as rewards. Only if they are viewed as
resources no link can be established between prestige and esteem.
A man should be judged on how well he does his job and not what he does.

52
What do they think of the differentiation of jobs in terms of ‘functional importance for a society to
survive’?

Functional necessity describes that despite certain jobs are important to society they are not highly
rewarded because the positions are easy to be filled. Other jobs with the same degree of importance
however are more rewarded because those position. Functional importance is therefore the
necessary but a sufficient cause of high rank being assigned to a position.

What are the three ways in which stratification systems, once operative, tend to reduce the survival
value of a society by limiting the search, recruitment and training of talented personnel?

Societies often ignore the talent which is available and the more rigidly stratified a society is the less
chance dies that society have of discovering any new facts about the talents of its member  range
of available talent is huge but not used
- because of lack of educational opportunities many people don’t get the chance to explore their
talent
- unequal distribution of motivation in one generation sets directly limits of equal distribution of
motivation in next generation
- Elites tend to restrict access to their privileged positions

Why is it exaggerated to consider training as a ‘sacrifice’ and why could you also see it as something
‘rewarding’?

53
Training (medical students) is seen as sacrifice because the training period is lengthy and during that
time they can’t work. Reasons why this assumption is false:
1) Only advantaged people can even start to do the training in that field because otherwise they
can’t afford it or are categorically excluded from the training
2) Wage in relative terms pays the training period costs in the first 10 years the following 30 years
are only for the profit of the trained individual. (even that is relative because labour worker tends to
start family first & get married have less money at proposal)
3) American society only focuses on material returns of position completely ignore non-material
rewards highly trained people get already throughout training period

Rewarding:

a) prestige is way higher in society (colleges students) b) extremely highly privileges of having
greater opportunity for self-development c) psychic reward in being allowed to delay the
assumption of adult responsibilities such as earning a living and supporting a family d) access to
leisure and freedom of a kind labour worker can’t experience

What is Tumin’s critique on the reward system in the reasoning of Davis and Moore (step 4, 5 and 6)?
See E- F- G

To which extent are the ‘alternative motivational schemes’ captured by the rewards.
The alternative motivational schemes are not captured at all by the rewards because they are not
material. In the western society rewards are only associated with material things thus prestige,
psychic gain and privilege are not considered as rewards.

Claude S. Fischer et al. (1996). Inequality by Design. Cracking the Bell Curve Myth

Which two types of questions could be asked with respect to social inequality and stratification?

1) Who gets ahead and who falls behind in the competition for success? – Why this person rather
than that person ended up on a higher rank
2) What determines how much people get for being ahead or behind? – why some societies have tall
and narrowing ladders

What’s the ‘natural’ explanation of social inequality?

Inequality follows inevitably human nature. Some people are born with more talent than others, the
first succeed the others fail in life’s competition. Individual talent – assumption that nature defeats
any sentimental efforts by society to reduce inequality they say such efforts should therefore be
dropped as wasteful.

On which aspects is this ‘natural’ explanation problematic?

Americans have created the extent and type of inequality we have, and Americans maintain it. It
may can be provide an answer why opposing societies differ in their equality but doesn’t give an
explanation why similar constructed societies differ substantially in their equality result of policies

54
What are the central ideas of the so-called Bell-curve hypothesis?
The assumption is that human talents can be reduced to a singled fixed and essentially innate skill
they label intelligence. They error in asserting that this trait largely determines how people end up in
life. And they err in imagining that individual competition explains the structure of inequality in
society.
The rich will invest their capital in production and thus create job for all

And what’s Fischer et al.’s reaction?

That the bell- curve assumption is non-sense as research suggests that more equal societies tend to
have higher economic productivity  way to succeed would be to lower to living standard of all
American Inequality appears to undermine growth

What are the central ideas of the ‘supply-side’ or ‘trickle down’ economics in the 1980s?
supply side: rewarding the wealthy for example by reducing income taxes on returns from their
investment would stimulate growth to the benefit of all  everyone would profit from it
And what’s Fischer et al.’s reaction?
that increasing inequality undermines growth

Class 7:

Social Differentiation
Differences amongst societies

Social Stratification
Why is it important that we have social inequality between different jobs? – jobs ordered in
horizontal way

Functions and dysfunction of social stratification: class 7

Welfare state influences: class 10

Functional Necessity of social stratification

 all theories argue for the necessity of social stratification
Functionalism
Davis and Moore Thesis

55
 Manager in company: entire company depends upon decisions taken by manager
 therefore his position is more important
Scarcity: medical students the costlier and sacrificing a training is the greater rewards should
be
The more pleasant a job the less reward should be granted
The more talent is needed (football player) the more rewards should be granted

Critique of Tumin:

1) vague description – what is an important job? Value judgment subjective

garbage collectors – important for our health
they defend status quo by stating that’s how it is
our perception of importance of job is shaped by the already existing system in
our society (defending status quo)

2) talent doesn’t mean training – people face many difficulties to live their talent to
the fullest (access to education is unequal -the higher social inequality the higher
the access to educational access)

3) Most of the time parents pay for education  so profits after training is for
themselves
Not material-rewards are not taking into consideration by Davis and Moore
Prestige of being a student
Having greater opportunity for self-development; more leisure time
Can delay adult responsibilities

4) pure work satisfaction is not taking into account (mama with music)

56
5) It is necessary that someone does that job- that is the reason why I do it
Humour and diversion: lot of leisure time
Prestige: you want to do the job because it has high social value
Esteem: you like that job because it is more enjoyable
Self- respect and ego-expansion: status symbols

6) We can have different prestige and rewards but that doesn’t mean we must have social
stratification (older people in society often have more prestige and rewards but that doesn’t mean
we have age stratification)

7) Social stratification is not functional but dysfunctional

1) because of inequality limit of education limits discovery of talents
2) because of limitation of discovery of talents but it limits expansion of productive sources of
society
3) In long run societies must change but if you defend status quo society becomes dysfunctional and
will die out in the long run
4) People on lower ranks have lower self-esteem  lower level productivity
5) Difference status position
6)
7) Job with low prestige you feel less as a member of society
8) people in lower ranks – less motivated to do the job

Critiques of Wrong (1959)

1) Once people are in position of high reward they have so much power that they can ask for more
rewards which turns out then unfunctional

2) There are still difference between people and jobs how big is your desk, chairs (minor
psychological differences have impact on your status); it is not only about material things but also
about minor things which can create inequality
One can have complete socio-economic equality but still feels symbolically discriminated

3) Critique of Wrong on Tumin: you need rewards in order to lead people to the jobs which are more
important to our society  otherwise everyone ends up as actors and we have no doctors left

Supply side or trickle-down economy

You need to reward managers because they are the ones creating the jobs which benefit the
entire society Social stratification in rewards is needed, Rewarding the wealthy stimulate growth to
the benefit of all ‘’it trickles down’’, Policy implications: have to pay lesser taxes more money more
money been spent on products which will flow back into economy.

Critique: Historical research: more unequal nations grew less quickly than more equal nations
Equality fosters economic growth  the spirit level

The bell curve thesis

Inequality is natural because intelligence is natural; intelligence  social and economic outcomes
(natural inequality argument)
Average IQ in US is declining (Because of migration, and welfare system child benefits: you get more
money if you have more kids  lower educated kids reproduce themselves more than intelligent
people (birth and fertility policies are detrimental and should be stopped)

57
Critiques:
Similar genetic societies have different degrees of inequality (inequality in Sweden is not as
omnipresent as in the US despite same spread of intelligence)
IQ tests are biased
Talents cannot be reduced to intelligence (Ronaldo)
Debate about the influence of genetic versus social environment factors on intelligence

The spirit level: Wilkinson& Pickett (2009)

Why EQUALITY Is better for everyone
More income equal societies do better for both lower and higher starter
eleven indicators: drug abuse, violence, trusting government, lower degree of teen pregnancy

Explanation: if you have a more equal societies people in lower position will not be as relatively
depresses as in more unequal societies
Higher self-esteem  better health  more productiveness  more social cohesion ( less
violence) ; both high and low strata of society profit from social inequality

Critiques: Cherry picking (didn’t take all countries into consideration while analysing inequality) - left
out certain indicators
Causality: they state that higher equality  more health but maybe it is vice versa – better health
leads to more equality etc.; confounding factors:

 all theories for social inequality or equality have direct political policy implications: trickle- down
were used by conservatism whereas spirit level was more used by socialist, sociology is being used

Social (Im)Mobility
Who ends up on which step of the ladder

Migration and ethnicity: classes 2 and 3

Gender and sexuality: class 5
Neighbourhoods: class 6
Socio- economic background: classes 8 and 9

58
Class 8: Social (Im) Mobility
Social (Im)Mobility in Europe

Robert Erikson and John Goldthorpe (1992). Trends in Class Mobility. The Post-War European
Experience

Richard Breen (1992). Social Mobility In Europe

Read the two texts together

What are the main ideas of the ‘liberal theory of industrialism’

The liberal theory of industrialism is the most dominant view on mobility trends.
It is a functionalist theory and it aims to establish essential prerequisites for or necessary
consequences of the technical and economic rationality as the defining characteristics of industrial
societies

The three main propositions which distinguishes industrial and pre-industrial societies are according
to the liberal theory of industrialism:
(1) absolute numbers of social mobility are high; trend for upward mobility from less to more
advantaged positions

(2) relative rates of mobility; individuals of differing social origins compete on more equal terms to
attain particular destinations
(3) level of absolute rate of mobility and the degree of equality in relative rates tend to increase over
time

Why does that happen?

(1) More work
Specialization of work  continuous redistribution of work amongst members of society
New jobs are mostly qualified jobs  reduction of repetitive labour jobs
Higher production + expansion of service sector  more bureaucratic organisation  more jobs
under industrialism the chances of success are steadily improved for all
(2) How to get a job from ascription to achievement
Expansion of education  makes jobs more accessible for people; because talent from entire society
needs to be exploited
Sectors which didn’t industrialize (agrarian) become increasingly marginalized

What are the arguments of Lipset and Zetterberg; of Sorokin; and of Featherman, Jones and Hauser?
Lipset and Zetterberg:
Lipset and Zetterberg want to emphasise that greater social mobility mostly stems from the
structural change it is not seen as a constant upward trend. They assume that the increase in
mobility often happens at an early stage in the industrialization process. They claim that higher
mobility doesn’t imply social equality and greater openness of a society

Sorokin:
Sorokin believes that yes mobility rose but sees it more as a specific horizontal phase as part of a
cynical societal process. There can be no definite perpetual trend be established towards greater or
less mobility but inly trendless fluctuation. He acknowledges that industrialization removed certain

59
barriers for social mobility such as juridical or religions but at the same token also introduced new
ones such as educational selection and occupational qualification. If he had to believe in a constant
trend it would be in a constant downward trend since social strata becomes more closed over time
as the cumulative result of those in superior positions using their power and advantage to restrict
entry from below. Mobility is often a result of interrupted state order in times of conflict etc. since
the guiding structures are missing in those times.

Featherman/Jones and Hauser:

Believe that one can’t focus on the absolute rates of cross-national similarities like Lipset does
because the differences in the specific countries structure are too broad. However, focusing on the
relative effect, the likelihood of cross-national similarity being found is much greater. Formulates
direct scepticism to absolute mobility rates from Liberalist theory and do like Sorokin not believe in
any long-term trends in rather stands as a direct opposition to the proposition that under
industrialism a steady increase occurs in the equality of mobility chances. They state tat once
societies become industrialized their mobility regimes should stabilise in some approximation the
common pattern that the FJH hypothesis proposes and shouldn’t alter after. No forces are
recognised as inherent in the functional dynamics of industrialism that work systematically to
expand mobility opportunities.

Take a close look to the class schema of Erikson and Goldthorpe. Try to give some concrete examples
of jobs for each class.

1. Higher- grade professionals, self-employed, higher grade administrators and officials

Managers in large firms
2. Lower-grade professionals, higher-grade technicians, lower-grade administrators and officials
Manager of small businesses
3.Higher-grade workers in routine non-manual jobs
4. Lower-grade workers in routine non-manual jobs
5. Small proprietors, self-employed with employees
6. Small proprietors, self-employed without employees
7. Farmers and smallholders
8. Lower-grade technicians, manual supervisors
9. Skilled manual workers
Mecanicians
10. Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers
bar workers
11. Farm workers

What’s the difference between absolute and relative mobility? What do they mean with social
fluidity?
Absolute mobility: is concerned with patterns and rates of mobility, where mobility is understood
simply as movement between class origins (the social class in which someone was brought up) and
class destination (the class they occupy at the time of the survey). Absolute mobility is treated as
consequence of social fluidity (the relative chances of people from each origin being found in each
destination class) operating within fixed origin and destination distributions.
Changes over time and differences between countries in absolute mobility are driven by variation in
the origin and destination distribution rather than in social fluidity.

60
Social fluidity is also referred to as relative mobility: is concerned with the relationship between class
origins and current class positions: specifically, it is based on the comparison, between people of
different class origins of their chances of being found in one destination class rather than another.
Social fluidity is often interpreted as an index of equality in the chances of access to more or less
advantageous social positions between people coming from different social origins (in other words,
as an index of societal openness) and contemporary research on social mobility according pays much
more attention to social fluidity than to absolute mobility.

How do the absolute and relative mobility rates look like in post-war Europe? What are the main
patterns?

Absolute mobility: Convergence ins class structures, decline in manual work and unskilled workers –
reason of that is the decline of farm classes in countries which were mainly based upon farm work
before the 20th Century. Recent rapidity of the transition out of agriculture is striking and
omnipresent. Concentration of women in white-collar works (more rapid in countries which differed
in 1970 substantially from that pattern)

Social fluidity: trends ins social fluidity are similar for men and women showing a tendency towards
greater fluidity. In contrast to absolute mobility to convergence patterns can be observed between
countries in social fluidity. There is widespread tendency for social fluidity to increase even though
this might not be a statistically significant trend in every case. Fluidity for men is nearly in every case
greater at the end then compared to the beginning. Also for women fluidity increases over time in
most of the countries.

Why are the conclusions of Breen so different with respect to relative mobility and social fluidity
than those of Erikson and Goldthorpe?

Breen finds evidence for change and cross-national difference where Erikson and Goldthorpe claim
that there is a basic similarity in social fluidity in all industrial societies given furthermore they see a
high degree of temporary stability.

Temporary stability: Erikson and Goldthorpe take age- groups to represent different birth cohorts
they take – Breen takes also later born cohorts into consideration up until 1970 whereas E& G. only
take people until 1945 they therefore completely leave out in their analysis the post-war economic
boom an the general more egalitarian educational and social welfare policies that follower in its
wake  the major reduction in class inequalities in educational attainment took place amongst
cohorts BORN between 1910 and 1950 and that since then there has been no further equalization
older generations and less fluid once are replaced by younger and more fluid cohorts.

61
Variation in social fluidity between countries: Overall same data – but different conclusion why?

Erikson and Goldthorpe they measured the strength of effect of fluidity on overall mobility but not
measure the variation in fluidity itself and therefore mistakenly conclude that social fluidity is
common an invariant. What can be shown is that between countries over time large variation sin
social fluidity can be found which nevertheless have little impact on the overall mobility regime.

The texts of Featherman & Hauser (1978) and Ganzeboom, Treiman and Ultee (1991) are optional.
(So, Ganzeboom et al.’s study also became an optional reading)

62
Class notes:
How to measure socio-economic position?
Difficult you need long-term data in a consistent way
1. First issue administrative how to we get our info?

 Occupation reflect prestige, skill, property and income good overall indicator of social class
Negative: you have uncountable different occupations
What do you do with unemployed people? Look at their job before
What do you do with students? Housewives? Elderly people? Average score or minimum
score
 Education: easy to count; continuous variable; easy to do it amongst countries and different
age groups; a bit related to prestige and income (rude educator)
Easy access for that data
 Property: direct measure of income and resources (doesn’t say anything about
prestige/education)
Negtaiv: There are countries in which you don’t talk about income; wage – you talk about
Netto or Brutto? Do you talk about your saving/stocks/shares? Mostly being used monthly
income after taxation

Once you have that data you can classify it in sociological categories

Gradational scales:
Occupational prestige scale: only describe social inequality and social position but does not
explain reasons for social inequality
Continous- scale / popular evaluation of occupational standing/ survey based. Which occupation
has the most standing/ strongly correlated with other classifications/ High level of cross-national
consensus (different countries same values) / Rich American functionalist tradition (prestige/
inequality has function in society)  legitimization of prestige and inequality
Most widely used SIOPS scale

63
Disadvantages: Prestige differs over time (farmer)/ Different classes in society evaluate prestige
differently (lower educated evaluate lower jobs higher than higher educated)
They don’t reveal underlying class injustices/ Difficult to interprete what means one prestige
difference on the scale?

Socio-Economic status scales:

Continuous scale more objective than subjective prestige scale because it looks on average
income of occupational group/ Based on average education and income of job holders/ scale
ISEI/ Disadvantages: also different to interpret what means one difference in scale?

Number of educational years completed

Categorical social classes / Based on three distinction
Market situation: what is you relationship to ownership employer/employee or self-employed
Work situation: are you supervised, how many employees do you have/ what is the company
size?/ Neo Weberian skills: based on education
Employment relationship: Distinction between employees what kind of contract do you have?
Long-term; Seasonal etc.
Disadvantages: You need high-level of information; criticism from feminist: it’s based on male
respondents (women were automatically put in housewives or routine or non-manual worker
but still lower ranked then men in this category)

skilled manual worker: plumbers/ carpenter

Semi-skilled/ unskilled: cleaners/ helpers in agriculturet

Relational class schemes:

Neo -Weberian class scheme of Goldthorpe

Neo- Marxist class scheme of Wright

Categorical social classes / Distinction between skill and delegated authority/ Considered as
Neo- Marxist because it stresses difference between owner and non-owner of production
relationships disadvantages: Vague description too many occupation collapse in one group

64
Capitalists: CEO (in possession of part of company)
Expert Manager:
Nonskilled Manager: Farmer
Petty Bourgeoisie: Painter
Expert: Scientist/ Economists /Engineers
Workers: Cleaners

65
 Difference is based on your belief on social inequality: if you believe it is something functionalist
you’ll use prestige skills/ if you follow more conflict perspective that class is based on conflict and
polarisation in society relational class schemes.

The Orthodox consensus Versus Conflict theorists

Orthodox consensus:
They seek to establish scientific fact like natural facts
Logical framework of positivism
Paradigm of functionalism  they take gradational skills prestige skills
Liberal industrial society thesis: in industrial society everyone has more opportunities

Reaction: conflict theorists:

Logical framework of positivism
Paradigm of conflict: some classes have more power than other therefore they can exploit other
groups POWER is central to that theory
Relational class schemes

Background of social stratification research

Liberal industrial society thesis

 Absolute and relative mobility are high and increase over time
 Relative mobility = social fluidity is the same
 Tendency of convergence among industrial stratification system
 Explanations:
o Structural: technology & bureaucracy  occupational redistribution
Moe occupations available in technological advanced sectors because of mass
(Fordism) production  more bureaucracy  more services needed
Agriculture decreasing technology increasing
o Processual: from ascriptive to achievement selection processes
You focus on skills of person and not on ascriptive characteristics
o Compositional: achievement is more important in expanding sectors
Achievement in technological sectors become more important for society

 Post-war years of optimism ‘ You have never had it so good’ ; absolute and relative mobility
increases

66
 Absolute vs. Relative mobility

Relative: No relative social mobility If you class of origin automatically determines your class of
destination (class system) parents teacher  you become teacher
Perfect relative mobility: It is only your skills education that counts for your class of destination
 Relative mobility is concerned with fairness in society high relative mobility (fair society)

Conflict theories:
Sorokin: current mobility trends are only temporary; power and inequality have self-maintaining
properties, degree of fairness will decrease again
Featherman, Jones and Hauser: No absolute mobility trend in the longs run, Industrialism is not
associated with steady; highest degree of fairness can be found after state of crisis: war etc. pp;
opposing idea of industrial society thesis – once society is industrialised not continuous mobility
anymore

Social (Im)mobility in Europe

Absolute mobility Europe: two major transition

From agriculture to industrialist society

From industrialist to post-industrialist society a

Upward mobility in Europe is twice as high as downward mobility  increasing absolute mobility is
true for those countries

Relative mobility: social fairness

Declining in Netherlands/ Germany/ Sweden decreasing trend
In general there’s no clear pattern for relative mobility in Europe

Industrialism thesis: was right in the sense that absolute mobility increases and relative decreases
but not in the sense that industrialism is the reason for it

67
Class 9: The Upper Class and Elites

C. Wright Mills (1956). The Power Elite

What is Mills’ definition of power?

If you can affect with your decisions the everyday world of the ordinary citizen.
They do not need to meet the demands of the society (family responsibilities, community ties) of the
day and hour but in some part, they create these demands and cause others to meet them. Rulers of
big corporations

Why are institutions so important in Mills’ conceptualization of the power elite?

Major corporations have extreme shaping power in nations. Religious, educational and family
institutions are not autonomous centres of national power; on the contrary these decentralized
areas ae increasingly shaped by the big three in which developments of decisive and immediate
consequence now occur.

Which three major institutions does Mills distinguish in the development of the power elite in the
United States? Could you give current examples of the power elite?

The economic, the military and the political domain. Each of the domains got enlarged and
centralised over time  consequences of activities get greater!
Economy is now dominated by few hundred corporations – administratively and politically
interrelated which together hold the keys to economic decisions.
What are the main characteristics of these institutions in modern, capitalist times? And what are the
consequences?
Over time in politics/ military /economy means of power has increased enormously over time their
central executive powers have been enhanced, within each of them modern administrative routines
have been elaborated and tightened up. Politic: influence economy activity & military programs
Military decision: affect political life & economic activity Political economy: linked in thousands of
ways to military institutions and decision makers.
Economy: German weapon company is allowed to produce more weapon then usually because they
are super successful
Politics: Politicians
Military:

To which extent is Mills’ conceptualization different from ‘gradational’ scales (see previous class)?
The gradational scales ranked different occupation according to their prestige – Mills also sees that
members of upper strata are defined in terms of psychological and moral criteria as certain kinds of
selected individuals (prestige). Prestige plays an important role but also smart people in lower strata
can develop counter-ideology in order to tackle the dominance of the upper strata. Every institutions
has same set of elite which interacts – hierarchy is not according to prestige of job but rather
determined by social class and opportunities you are born in with. Power – prestige and money goes
together and is inherited by elite of military, politics and economy.

68
To which extent would you consider Mills as a conflict theorist?

Mills theory can be considered as a conflict theory as he clearly distinguished between the power
elite and the wider society who is not part of the ruling elite. AS he emphasized in the example of
the U.S. we see that in countries which had an opposition to the bourgeoisie (church/ royals /feudal
system) the bourgeoisie formed differently and has in respect less power than in countries where
the bourgeoisie was able to expand without restrains. But not really a conflict theorists because he
questions openly the existence of one power elite – the elite is rather scattered and their influence
can’t be determined as such therefore one can’t speak of a conflict theorists : our definition of the
power elite cannot properly contain dogma concerning the degree and kind of power that ruling
groups everywhere have.

To which extent there is ‘social integration’ among the power elite?

What is according to Mills the dominant trend in the history of the West in respect of power
concentration?
That power concentration will increase even more over time as the institutional means of power and
the means of communication that tie them together have become steadily more efficient, those now
in command of them have come into command of instruments of rule quite unsurpassed in the
history of mankind.

Anthony Giddens (1973). Elites and Power

What’s Giddens’ definitions of elites and power?

Elite/ Elite group: individuals who occupy positions of formal authority at the head of a social
organisation or institution.
Power:

What’s the difference between mediate structuration and proximate structuration?

In these terms, it can be said that a major aspect of the structuration of the upper-class concerns,
first, the process of mobility into or recruitment to elite positions and second the degree of social
solidarity within and between groups.
Mediate structuration: Is concerned with how closed the process of recruitment to elite positions is
in favour of those drawn from propertied backgrounds.
Proximate structuration: depends primarily upon the frequency and nature of the of the social
contacts between the members of elite groups. These may take various forms, including the
formation of marriage connection or the existence of kinship ties or friendship.

69
And what’s the difference between solidary, uniform, abstract and established elites? Could you give
an example of each?

Uniform: Recruitment closed/ and high integration

Shares attributes of having a restricted pattern or recruitment and of forming a relatively tightly knit
unity. All elites (except Indian caste system) open their ranks to some degree to achieve stability
Solidary elite: Recruitment open/ high integration
Unlikely to appear because it seems difficult to attain a high degree of integration among elite
groups whose members are drawn from diverse class backgrounds. (rarely happends in capitalist but
often in socialist)
Abstract elite: Recruitment open/ low integration
pluralist democracy – low level of elite and open recruitment
Established elite: Recruitment closed/ low integration
Closed type of recruitment but only a low-level integration between elite groups.

What’s the relationship with relative mobility (or social fluidity) we have seen in last class?

What’s the difference between institutional mediation of power and the mediation of power in terms
of control?

Institutional mediation of power: General form of state and economy within which elite groups are
recruited and structured. This concern, among other things, the role of property in the overall
organisation of economic life, the nature of the legal framework defining economic and political
rights and obligations, and the institutional structure of the state itself.
Mediation of power in terms of control: Refers to the actual power of policy formation and decision-
making held by the members of particular elite groups: how far, for example economic leaders are
able to influence decision taken by politicians.

Which four power-structure forms Giddens distinguish? Could you give an example of each form?

According to these definitions the consolidation of effective power is greatest where it is not
restricted to clearly defined limits in terms of its lateral ranger and where it is concentrated in the
hands of the elite or an elite group.
Oligarchic: Issue strength restricted and consolidated power
Power holding, where the degree of centralisation of power in the hands of elite groups is high, but
where the issue-strength of that power is limited
hegemonic: Issue strength and diffused power
those in elite positions wield power which while it is not clearly defined in scope and limited to a
restricted range of issues is shallow.
Democratic: Issue strength restricted and diffused power
effective power of elite groups is limited In both respects.
Autocratic: Issue strength broad and consolidate power

70
What’s the difference between ‘ruling class’, ‘governing class’, ‘power elite’ and ‘leadership groups’?
Under which form falls Mills’ conceptualization of the power elite?

Strongest case of ruling class where a uniform elite wields autocratic power weakest is where an
establish elite holds oligarchic power
Ruling class: Elite formation: Uniform established elite; power-holding: autocratic/ oligarchic
Power elite: elite formation: solidary elite; power-holding: autocratic/ oligarchic
distinguished from a ruling class in terms of pattern of recruitment as is a governing class from a
system of leadership groups. The latter exists where elite groups only hold limited power and where
in addition elite recruitment is relatively open in character.
Leadership groups: Elite formation: abstract elite ; Power-holding: hegemonic/democratic

Thomas Piketty (2015). About Capital in the Twenty-First Century

Why is r > g so important in the reasoning of Piketty? How does g (growth rate of the economy)
relate to labour incomes? How does the gap r-g relate to social mobility?

How can the increasing inequality in labour income in the United States be explained?

What are the main trends in income inequality and wealth inequality in Europe and the United
States during the last two centuries?

How could the ‘moderate’ income and wealth inequalities during the post-war decades be
explained? (compare this with the so-called Kuznets-thesis) What are the predictions of Piketty
about wealth inequality in the 21th century?

Which kind of shocks can make wealth trajectories of families more unequal?

Neo – Marxist class scheme of wright

 elite is very focused / capitalist group is very narrowed down many leaders of our modern world
are not considered within that group.

Income – Wealth – Power

Income: wages, shares, bonds, subsidies, social benefits
Wealth: All things you possess at certain moment in time Wealth is what you possess minus your
debts
Power: A is able to make B do something despite B not wanting it/ you have to have the ability to do
it - if power is established you have authority

 Traditional authority: royal family

 Charismatic authority: Martin Luther King (subjective)
 Rational- legal authority: has power over employees/ police in traffic

Marxist perspective: Economy first

First you have income and wealth and then you have political power
Putin

Alternative perspective: Politics shapes economy

Political power influences media

71
Income distribution in the US
Richest 30% of American po
Wealth distribution in the US
Top 1 % own 34% of all wealth in united states
Top 10% own 75 % of all wealth in US

Historic trends in income distribution:

Historic trends in wealth distribution:

Explanations for income and wealth concentration

 Economic
o Managers abilities to extract rents from firms – not only share of profit but also of
capital stocks
o Increase in company size – if companies get bigger they are able to give greater
bonuses and wages for CEOs- the bigger the firm the bigger the wage
o Higher task demands of managers- firm look for overall managers not only specialist
 very rarely demand and supply (gain more)
o Up warding effects of economic cycles- If things are going well  CEOs can ask for
higher wages; in bad economic times they don’t experience cut in wages because of
their position of power
o R> G- Rent ( income out of capital) G economic growth
High economic growth there’s much profit to share amongst ordinary people – if
they can make more profit out of their capital  Inequality increases

policy implications  more global fiscal levels

 Political
o Changing tax rates
tax cuts you have to pay less taxes on income out of wealth
o Decline of labour unions – EU labour union are strong
U.S. labour unions have little power less collective bargaining power money goes to
CEO rather than employees
o Financial deregulations
Easier to distract money from the firm to individuals
o Political shocks (inverse explanation)
Economic crisis / world wars cerates less inequality
 Social
o Peer group effects
At one point the managers don’t need the extra money anymore – but increase of
wage of one manager leads to pressure amongst other managers who also want
increase
o Inheritance:
Few children  wealth is distributed amongst fewer children wealth is more
concentrated
o Saving versus consumption:
People save rather than consume  wealth accumulation
o Rising inequality in access to skills/ higher education
tuition fees in US increased over time

72
 Policy implication: more investment in higher universities so education becomes free

The power elite Wright Mills

 Enlarging, administrative and centralizing institutions

 Three interlocking institutions

Are the real power institutions – what about the church? According to Mills not important
because have only little decision-making power; three main areas will take other sectors into
consideration while making their decisions
Why those three? Most centralizing powers but can be criticised
o Economy
o Political order
o Military order
 Elites= self-conscious class members
You are socially and morally totally integrated in that class
 Social class typology, rather than gradational
Power elite is it social class? It is a closed class because it has nothing to do with wealth
income or prestige but because of their power position. You are in that position because the
institution gives you that position. You can inherit money from your father but that doesn’t
make you part of the power elite / sports person is not part of power elite despite having
prestige & money because can’t make powerful decision

Elites and Power

 Elites
 Three dimensions
o Recruitment
openness or closeness of elite – how possible is it for lower classes to enter the elite
from son of farmer to prime minister
o (Moral) / (Social) Integration
Moral integration of elite – do they share the same values of country and about
society? – do the owners of media/ politics economy know each other? Do they
have persona relationships? -
o Distribution
Distribution of power – Is power diffused or concentrated? How far reaching is your
power of the lives o f your people? Vertical with how many people you have to
change it

How many different aspects of life can you address with you power? (sexuality;
economy; religion; military) - horizontal how far reaching is it?

73
uniform elite: royal families, aristocracies
abstract elite: open access to elite university  way of getting into power position
but no socialisation in university happens anymore
solidary elite: It is doable to go from lower to upper class; people within class know
each other quite well access is open to elite university graduating from there you get
into position of power
Esablished elite: no real world example because it is hard to know each other quite
well with the integration being low

Typology of power structure

Autocratic: power is the greatest, you say a lot about diverse topics (Iran)
Oligarchic: A lot power but you have to share it with other elite forms
Hegemonic: You have to say a lot about different things, but it is limited from below
(Murdoch – what he decided; people didn’t have to follow but he was able to say
things about political, economic life) – Populist leaders in democracies
Democratic: Different leadership groups different elite groups can only say
something about very specific part of life not everyone has to follow them have to
share their influence with the people of the country

Combination of three dimensions:

74
Ruling class: Dictatorship based on family ties Not opened to get into
governing class: political/economic elite – power is diffused have to share power
with ordinary people (access to politics often comes from families – Bush
administration) Uniform class high social integration; power is difused have to share
it some extent with their people (Castro regime) can influence diverse aspects of live
hegemonic elite
Power elite: open recruitment – strong social and moral integration – Don’t have to
share their decision making with ordinary people
Leadership groups: open recruitment without any moral or social integration – they
have to share power with ordinary people - Scope of influence varies

75
Class 10: Welfare state
Reading Questions

Class 10.

Welfare States

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). ‘The Three Political Economies of the Welfare State’ In: The Three
Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. It is only necessary to read p. 21-32.

What does Esping-Andersen mean with ‘de-commodification’? Give a few examples.

De-commodification occurs when a service is rendered as a matter of right, and when a person can
maintain a livelihood without reliance on the market.
- Maternity leave, educational leave unemployment insurance, pensions, sickness leave

What’s a ‘broad’ and ‘narrow’ approach to welfare states? What’s the definition of a ‘welfare state
regime’?

Narrow approach: Anglo- Saxon  goal is to strengthen the market because all of those who don’t
fail are encouraged to contract private-sector welfare. You only are entitled to basic human needs
but if you can avoid it you do
Broad approach: Beveridge type it offers basic, equal benefit to all, irrespective of prior earnings
contributions or performance.
Citizen can freely and without potential job, income or general welfare opt out of work when they
themselves consider its necessary.

Which three types of welfare state regimes are distinguished by Esping-Andersen in his book? Give a
few social policy measures per type.
(1) Liberal Welfare state – US, Canada, Australia
Only guaranteeing minimum welfare subsidies or subsidize private welfare schemes. Entitlement
rules are therefore strict and often associated with stigma.
(2) Conservatism, Corporatism – Germany, France, Italy
In those systems social right was never a contested issue was always seen as basic right. State was
perfectly capable of displacing the market as provider of welfare- private insurance play therefore a
rather marginal role. BUT since it’s based on conservatism values women were mostly excluded from
social insurance and uphold strongly the status differences.
(3) Social democratic regime – Northern countries
Aspire equality of highest standard and not as the other two systems of equality of minimum needs.
All Strata’s are included in one universal insurance system.

Why are welfare state regimes related to different patterns of social stratification?
Rural classes were decisive for the future of socialism. In countries had stronger unions and capital
intense work were more inclined to promote strong socialist policies. In contrast to labour-intense
saw left-wing parties as a threat. Political dominance was a long-time a question of rural class
politics.

76
States create by expanding the social services and public employment the middle class devoted to
social democracy and therefore instrumentally broadened their voter base.

Class 10. Welfare state:

Welfare states- definition

A societal regime in some rich, capitalistic parliamentary countries, through which basic social rights
of citizens are guaranteed by an institutional, legal framework

 High standard of living

 Social rights
Right on decent income/ health institution / civil rights (freedom of expression)
in 1700 poverty was omnipresent you had to beg for money at church  19th Century shift
right develops you don’t have to beg for it anymore
 Free market capitalism
Cuba is not social welfare but communism regime
 Democratic corporatism
Not only sate is involved but also diverse unions self-employed/ employer (corporation of all
the stake holders in the market to come to an agreement)
 Parliamentary reforms
No revolutions
 Nation states (tension with Europe and globalisation)
Tension with other political levels EU because it is organised on a national level
(demands of globalisation require certain set of policies but national welfare regimes have
other requirements)

Narrow approach of welfare state (Income transfers and social services)

Broad approach of welfare states (Organization of labour market, education, family, life)
It is not only about social benefits
If you want to improve incomes amongst women/men you need to ensure that there’s enough child
care  broad approach of welfare state
If you lower employer contributions you encourage them to create new jobs

Welfare state regimes  the political economy of state, market and family

Three worlds of welfare capitalism Epsing- Andersen (1990)

 Social rights < degree of de-commodification

 De-commodification (Labour work is not any longer a free commodity on the market)
o Extent to which people could keep their living standards, independent of the free
market

 three ideal types of welfare state regimes

Liberal welfare regime

Ideals: individualism, hard work ethos and free market

Social welfare: low level of social welfare / poor relief

77
  Restricted social rights
 Flat-rate and means tested (stigmatizing?)
o For everyone the same social rights no matter what you worked before
everyone gets the same amount of money
o Means tested (you need to show that you are entitled to social benefits);
everyone who gets social benefits is been looked down on.
 Target group: very low-income groups (underclass)

Active and passive support for private insurance

o Passively (because welfare is so low that you are pushed towards private
insurance) even middle- class families

Labour market policy: low wages, flexibility, de-regularisations and weak unions

o No min. max. level of income it all comes down how good you are in negotiating your
wage

Where: UK, USA, Canada, Australia (anglo -saxon welfare regime)

Conservativ welfare state regime

Ideals: preservation of status-quo, class hierarchy and traditional gender/family roles

Different programs for different occupational groups (= corporatism)

o Decent social rights

o Marginal role for free market private insurance
Target all families/men who become too old too sick to work
not individual income but family income because it is based on traditional
family values ( Social right as family right and not individual right)
 if men beats you up women can’t leave family because there’s only one
social welfare income
o Target group: families (not individuals) Male breadwinner model
that men work is being taken for granted

Labour market policy: decent wages, strong unions, passive unemployment policies
not too high / not too low income

o Large unions – unemployed policies are weak that means you only get
unemployment benefit which is decent but there’s no training which brings you out
of unemployment

Where: Germany, France, Italy

78
 Social democratic welfare state regime

Ideals: social and gender equality, full employment

Extended and universal social security

o Extended social rights & de-commodification

o One universal system of social security
o Earnings related – social benefits
If you are average month income is 2000 you get higher unemployment benefit
compared to someone who’s income is only 1500  if you are unemployed for a
short period, you can keep your higher living standard in order to keep the economic
running – difference in social benefits increases
o Marginal role of free market, private insurances
o Family duties are socialized = dual -earner model
Very cheap send your kids to child care facilities  easier for women to enter the
market (encourage full-employment

Labour market policy: active (un) employment policy, public employment, strong unions
Once un-employed state pushes you to find new work

Where: Sweden, Norway, Denmark

Link with social stratification

o Welfare state regimes= system of social stratification

o Liberal: social dualism
you get benefit but then your stigmatized
o Conservative: reproduction f class and gender inequalities
Keep status quo and differences of blue-collar workers, social servants bc. You get
different benefits
o Social – democratic reproduction of income inequality
The higher your previously earned income  the higher your benefit

Criticism on Esping – Anderesen

 Too much attention for social benefits and to little for social services
 Empirical analyses of only a limited number of countries
Only focuses on centre Europe – elderly care especially in southern european countries take
care of their elderly families members
 Only three worlds of welfare- capitalism
o South – European type
o Post- communist type
o Confucian type?
 Many alternative welfare state classifications possible
 Obama care – liberal care system encourages your private insurance
What does he do? Increasing the overage for most of the people  becomes more and
more universal less means tested
 Unemployment benefits in Belgium: continental: you can family benefit and not individual
(single/ single with kids / families)

79
Social welfare selective or universal?
Flat-rate or earning related?

Pro- selectivity and flat-rate:

 Pro selectivity
o Efficient use of scarce budget
You only have little budget use it efficiently
o Giving money to non-poor increase inequality
o High visibility of social policy
good for politicians in run- up to elections
 Pro flat-rate benefits:
o Strong- incentive to work
If you only give little money people are more inclined in start working again
o Earnings- related benefits reproduce inequality

Pro universalism and earnings- related benefits:

 Pro universalism and earning- related benefits

o Private market insurance increase social inequality
o Too low benefits result in too quickly accepting inadequate jobs
Educational investment gets lost if people accept inadequate jobs
o Less stigmatizing
if you only do it for the poor (gets huge stigma of underclass)
o Universal and earnings- related benefits increase popular support for social security
and thus for social taxes
no one likes to pay taxes  you get something out

‘’The more we target benefits at the poor only the more concerned we are with
creating equality via equal public transfers to all, the less likely we are to reduce
poverty and inequality’’ Korpi & Palme
 in order to help the poor you need to help the rich ones too
Selective or universal? Flat- rate or earning related?

 Must social policy be selectively focussed on poor people or rather be universally oriented
towards the whole population?
 Must social benefits be flat-rate (equal for everybody) or rather earnings-related?

Matthew effects: Whoever has will be given more, and he will have and abundance.

 Social benefits and services especially benefit the higher income groups
Clubs/ health organisation/ education social services are taken up way more by middle class
 Policy implications ‘’selectivity within universalism’’
o Examples: who goes to higher education? Middle class people / who goes to
museum? Middle class people / who asks for social educational benefits? Middle
class people
Pensions: all pensions would be the same (flat-rate not earnings related) middle-
class people benefit more because they live longer
 Explanations

80
o Most of sport facilities are more connected to middle class values
o Youth movement middle class cliental
o Policy implications:

81