Q. 1 – Every Sociology text says, “socialization is essential to every society, neither the individual nor the society can survive without it”. Explain the meaning of this comment.
Socialization can be described as the process by which a member of society accepts the given norms and ideologies of a society (Clausen, 1968, p.5). In other words socialization can be described as the process by which some one downloads the basic software needed to function in a society. Put differently socialization is the process by which humans adopt the basic tools to live with other people. Consequently socialization is required for the peaceful cohabitation of any group of people.
Humans are social by nature; we desire other humans and rely on other humans. That is to say no human, other than very rare occurrences, lives alone apart from a society. Thus basic rules, ideologies, and attitudes must be learned if a person is to live peacefully with other people. Think of the violation of perhaps the most basic rule in any society. That rule being not to murder other people. If a person did not accept this rule it would be impossible for them to live with other people; well to live with other people in a normal context (out of prison). Thus a certain degree of socialization is required for humans to live with other people. The most basic norms and ideologies, like not to murder, are critical. However even less critical norms, like to walk on the right side of a side walk, are also very important. Imagine a world where no one agreed to walk along with others in the same direction and at roughly the same pace.
This is the essential meaning of the comment. That is that humans are social beings and to be social, that is to live with others, requires a basic set of norms and ideologies. Learning these norms and ideologies is the process of socialization. To live in society someone must accept the basic rules, or norms, such as not to kill others. These basic rules underscore the harmony of any society. Without them no society could function. Humans are not solitary animals. Bears live alone and do not function with any other species in a cooperative way. Bears in this sense have no society and thus require no socialization. No bear has to accept basic norms and ideologies to live. Unlike bears though humans live in a society and require some framework to live together.
Society is the combination of many people living together. A society thrives to the degree that individuals with in that society cooperate and work with each other. If individuals lack the ability to cooperate on a basic level then a society simply does not exist. Thus individuals need socialization to create a society and society needs socialization to become a society. One can think of socialization as the basic glue that binds people together; the basic structures, like the physical structures in glue, that bond people. A society flourishes when the cohesion is strong and mutually beneficial.
Q.2- Income inequality has become an issue in the present presidential campaign. Does this issue have any merit? If so, why?
Income inequality has become a major issue in American politics. Consider the lead up to the presidential election to take place in 2016 in the United States. We already see very different potential candidates. One candidate vying to become the Democratic candidate is Bernie Sanders. A Sander’s promise is that if he is elected he will strongly increase the tax on the rich and redistribute wealth. Consider the following quote from Sanders: “Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders, on Wall Street and elsewhere, those policies and greed are destroying the middle class of America”. On the other side of the debate you have Donald Trump who is vying to become the Republican candidate. Trump if elected promises to slash taxes on the poor and wealthy . This issue has merit as it relates to a very fundamental way any society is organized.
The issue of income inequality is largely based around the idea of fairness and what a fair society would look like. Many consider large income inequities in a society as inherently unfair. To become wealthy it requires luck. To become wealthy you need both good environment and good genes neither of which you have control over. Thus to become wealthy requires you to be very lucky. Most people feel that if you get something by luck you should consider it is a gift and thus give part of that gift away to all those who are less fortunate.
Perhaps the most powerful version of this argument was forwarded by John Rawls and his concept of the Veil of Ignorance . The concept of the veil of ignorance suggests that for all moral issues one should imagine that, before deciding your view on the issue, you’re are behind a veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance is an imagined state before you enter the world. In this state you should assume that with equal probability you could be any person in the world. Then, from this view point you should consider which policy would be best. The logic is fairly simple with regards to income inequality; since you don’t know if you will be high skilled or low, and furthermore, if you will have rich parents or poor, you should choose a social system that takes from the rich and gives to the poor. That is you should choose a system which taxes the rich more. Since you don’t want your fait to be solely based on luck you would choose a policy, given you don’t know who you will be, that takes from the lucky and gives to the unlucky.
Imagine a world where everyone was forced into a lottery and the winner gets all the wealth in the world. Given the winner wins by pure luck wouldn’t it be fair to ask the winner to share with the rest of the world. While this example may seem like a bit of a stretch this is basically the world we see. Some simply win the lottery by being born with good genes and in a good environment. It is then only fair to expect the winner to share since it was only luck by which they go the wealth. Surely if we apply Rawls Veil of Ignorance the winner of the lottery would have to agree. If the winner did not know they were going to win, then they would clearly impose a policy that the lottery winner should share.
In conclusion this topic has a lot of merit as it is topic that any society needs to address. Thus it is a very valid sociological concern. Any society needs to address the issue of income inequality as a question of equity and justice. How much should the strong help the weak? This is a question that any society needs to promptly address. This topic as discussed in the resent presidential election shows the need and desire of any society to address this issue.
- Clausen, J. A. (1968). Socialization and Society. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
- Murray, S., & Lee, M. (2015, Sept 29). CNN News. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/politics/donald-trump-tax-plan/
- Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press.
- Sanders, B. (2012, 4 30). The Huggington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/united-against-the-war-on_b_1464730.html
