Chapter 15 | Religion 333 334 Chapter 15 | Religion Chapter 11

Chapter 15 | Religion 333

334 Chapter 15 | Religion

Chapter 11 | Race and Ethnicity 225

184 Chapter 9 | Social Stratification in the United States

Chapter 9 | Social Stratification in the United States 183

Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family 307

308 Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family

Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family 307

136 Chapter 7 | Deviance, Crime, and Social Control

Chapter 7 | Deviance, Crime, and Social Control 135

274 Chapter 13 | Aging and the Elderly

Chapter 13 | Aging and the Elderly 273

206 Chapter 10 | Global Inequality

Chapter 10 | Global Inequality 205

Chapter 13 | Aging and the Elderly 273

156 Chapter 8 | Media and Technology

Chapter 8 | Media and Technology 155

252 Chapter 12 | Gender, Sex, and Sexuality

Chapter 12 | Gender, Sex, and Sexuality 251

226 Chapter 11 | Race and Ethnicity

354 Chapter 16 | Education

Chapter 16 | Education 353

376 Chapter 17 | Government and Politics

Chapter 17 | Government and Politics 375

396 Chapter 18 | Work and the Economy

Chapter 18 | Work and the Economy 395

424 Chapter 19 | Health and Medicine

Chapter 19 | Health and Medicine 423

Chapter 15 | Religion 333

450 Chapter 20 | Population, Urbanization, and the Environment

Chapter 20 | Population, Urbanization, and the Environment 449

476 Chapter 21 | Social Movements and Social Change

Chapter 21 | Social Movements and Social Change 475

Index 497

Chapter 20 | Population, Urbanization, and the Environment 449

Introduction to Sociology 2e

OpenStax

Rice University

6100 Main Street MS-375

Houston, Texas 77005

To learn more about OpenStax, visit https://openstax.org.

Individual print copies and bulk orders can be purchased through our website.

©2017 Rice University. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Under this license, any user of this textbook or the textbook contents herein must provide proper attribution as follows:

If you redistribute this textbook in a digital format (including but not limited to PDF and HTML), then you must retain on every page the following attribution:

“Download for free at https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-2e.”

If you redistribute this textbook in a print format, then you must include on every physical page the following attribution:

“Download for free at https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-2e.”

If you redistribute part of this textbook, then you must retain in every digital format page view (including but not limited to PDF and HTML) and on every physical printed page the following attribution:

“Download for free at https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-2e.”

If you use this textbook as a bibliographic reference, please include https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-2e in your citation.

For questions regarding this licensing, please contact support@openstax.org.

Trademarks

The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, OpenStax CNX logo,

OpenStax Tutor name, Openstax Tutor logo, Connexions name, Connexions logo, Rice University name, and Rice University logo are not subject to the license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

PRINT BOOK ISBN-10

1-938168-41-0

PRINT BOOK ISBN-13

978-1-938168-41-3

PDF VERSION ISBN-10

1-947172-11-5

PDF VERSION ISBN-13

978-1-947172-11-1

ENHANCED TEXTBOOK ISBN-10

1-938168-97-6

ENHANCED TEXTBOOK ISBN-13

978-1-938168-97-0

Revision Number

ITS2-2015-001(03/16)-RS

Original Publication Year

2015

OPENSTAX

OpenStax provides free, peer-reviewed, openly licensed textbooks for introductory college and Advanced Placement® courses and low-cost, personalized courseware that helps students learn. A nonprofit ed tech initiative based at Rice University, we’re committed to helping students access the tools they need to complete their courses and meet their educational goals.

RICE UNIVERSITY

OpenStax, OpenStax CNX, and OpenStax Tutor are initiatives of Rice University. As a leading research university with a distinctive commitment to undergraduate education, Rice University aspires to path-breaking research, unsurpassed teaching, and contributions to the betterment of our world. It seeks to fulfill this mission by cultivating a diverse community of learning and discovery that produces leaders across the spectrum of human endeavor.

FOUNDATION SUPPORT

OpenStax is grateful for the tremendous support of our sponsors. Without their strong engagement, the goal of free access to high-quality textbooks would remain just a dream.

Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF) actively seeks opportunities to invest in organizations and thought leaders that have a sincere interest in implementing fundamental changes that not only yield immediate gains, but also repair broken systems for future generations. LJAF currently focuses its strategic investments on education, criminal justice, research integrity, and public accountability.

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation has been making grants since 1967 to help solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. The Foundation concentrates its resources on activities in education, the environment, global development and population, performing arts, and philanthropy, and makes grants to support disadvantaged communities in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Calvin K. Kazanjian was the founder and president of Peter Paul (Almond Joy), Inc. He firmly believed that the more people understood about basic economics the happier and more prosperous they would be. Accordingly, he established the Calvin K. Kazanjian Economics Foundation Inc, in 1949 as a philanthropic, nonpolitical educational organization to support efforts that enhanced economic understanding.

Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health with vaccines and other life-saving tools and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, it seeks to significantly improve education so that all young people have the opportunity to reach their full potential. Based in Seattle, Washington, the foundation is led by CEO Jeff Raikes and Co-chair William H. Gates Sr., under the direction of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett.

The Maxfield Foundation supports projects with potential for high impact in science, education, sustainability, and other areas of social importance.

Our mission at The Michelson 20MM Foundation is to grow access and success by eliminating unnecessary hurdles to affordability. We support the creation, sharing, and proliferation of more effective, more affordable educational content by leveraging disruptive technologies, open educational resources, and new models for collaboration between for-profit, nonprofit, and public entities.

The Bill and Stephanie Sick Fund supports innovative projects in the areas of Education, Art, Science and Engineering.

Table of Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

An Introduction to Sociology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

What Is Sociology? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The History of Sociology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Theoretical Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Why Study Sociology? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Sociological Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Approaches to Sociological Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Ethical Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

What Is Culture? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Elements of Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Pop Culture, Subculture, and Cultural Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Theoretical Perspectives on Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Society and Social Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Types of Societies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Theoretical Perspectives on Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Social Constructions of Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Socialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Theories of Self-Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Why Socialization Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Agents of Socialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Socialization Across the Life Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Groups and Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Types of Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Group Size and Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Formal Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Deviance, Crime, and Social Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Deviance and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Crime and the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Media and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Technology Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Media and Technology in Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Global Implications of Media and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Theoretical Perspectives on Media and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Social Stratification in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

What Is Social Stratification? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Social Stratification and Mobility in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Global Stratification and Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Theoretical Perspectives on Social Stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Global Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Global Stratification and Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

Global Wealth and Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Theoretical Perspectives on Global Stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

Race and Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Racial, Ethnic, and Minority Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Theories of Race and Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

Intergroup Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

Race and Ethnicity in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

Gender, Sex, and Sexuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

Sex and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Sex and Sexuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

Aging and the Elderly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

Who Are the Elderly? Aging in Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

The Process of Aging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

Challenges Facing the Elderly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

Theoretical Perspectives on Aging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291

Marriage and Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

What Is Marriage? What Is a Family? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Variations in Family Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

Challenges Families Face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

The Sociological Approach to Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334

World Religions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338

Religion in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

Education around the World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354

Theoretical Perspectives on Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359

Issues in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363

Government and Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375

Power and Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376

Forms of Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380

Politics in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384

Theoretical Perspectives on Government and Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385

Work and the Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395

Economic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397

Globalization and the Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406

Work in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409

Health and Medicine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423

The Social Construction of Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425

Global Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427

Health in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428

Comparative Health and Medicine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433

Theoretical Perspectives on Health and Medicine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436

Population, Urbanization, and the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449

Demography and Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452

Urbanization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456

The Environment and Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460

Social Movements and Social Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475

Collective Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477

Social Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480

Social Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497

Preface

About OpenStax

OpenStax is a non-profit organization committed to improving student access to quality learning materials. Our free textbooks are developed and peer-reviewed by educators to ensure they are readable, accurate, and meet the scope and sequence requirements of modern college courses. Unlike traditional textbooks, OpenStax resources live online and are owned by the community of educators using them. Through our partnerships with companies and foundations committed to reducing costs for students, OpenStax is working to improve access to higher education for all. OpenStax is an initiative of Rice University and is made possible through the generous support of several philanthropic foundations.

About This Book

Welcome to Introduction to Sociology 2e, an OpenStax resource created with several goals in mind: accessibility, affordability, customization, and student engagement—all while encouraging learners toward high levels of learning. Instructors and students alike will find that this textbook offers a strong foundation in sociology. It is available for free online and in low-cost print and e-book editions.

To broaden access and encourage community curation, Introduction to Sociology 2e is “open source” licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license. Everyone is invited to submit examples, emerging research, and other feedback to enhance and strengthen the material and keep it current and relevant for today’s students. You can make suggestions by contacting us at info@openstaxcollege.org.

To the Student

This book is written for you and is based on the teaching and research experience of numerous sociologists. In today’s global socially networked world, the topic of sociology is more relevant than ever before. We hope that through this book, you will learn how simple, everyday human actions and interactions can change the world. In this book, you will find applications of sociology concepts that are relevant, current, and balanced.

To the Instructor

This text is intended for a one-semester introductory course. Since current events influence our social perspectives and the field of sociology in general, OpenStax encourages instructors to keep this book fresh by sending in your up-to-date examples to info@openstaxcollege.org so that students and instructors around the country can relate and engage in fruitful discussions.

General Approach

Introduction to Sociology 2e adheres to the scope and sequence of a typical introductory sociology course. In addition to comprehensive coverage of core concepts, foundational scholars, and emerging theories we have incorporated section reviews with engaging questions, discussions that help students apply the sociological imagination, and features that draw learners into the discipline in meaningful ways. Although this text can be modified and reorganized to suit your needs, the standard version is organized so that topics are introduced conceptually, with relevant, everyday experiences.

Changes to the Second Edition

Part of the mission of the second edition update was to ensure the research, examples and concepts used in this textbook are current and relevant to today’s student. To this end, we have rewritten the introduction of each chapter to reflect the latest developments in sociology, history and global culture. In addition to new graphs and images, the reader of the second edition will find new feature boxes on a diverse array of topics, which has been one of the goals of the update—bringing the world into greater focus through case studies on global culture.

For instance, since the first edition there have been major cultural shifts within the Middle East and Arab world—a movement still underway called the Arab Spring—changes that are now incorporated into our coverage on social movements and social unrest (Chapter 21, “Social Movements and Social Change”). New issues in immigration, in the United States and across the world, have been brought to the forefront of the second edition, as rising income gaps and modern transportation are responsible for trends in Europe (fears of Islamic conservatism and economic recession) and political debates in the U.S. (such as border security, universal education and health care).

Since the first edition in 2012, technology and social media has ushered in new forms of communication, and, of course, these changes are altering the fabric of social life around the world. The benefits and downfalls of new technologies are

Preface

reflected in new material in Chapter 4, “Society and Social Interaction,” where we discuss how social media is changing classical models of social stratification and prestige.

In addition to updating critical facts, data, and policies from the first edition, we have expanded on essential topics, including:

Feminism and feminist theory Health care legislation

US social stratification Minimum wage policies

Transgender issues and changes to the DSM-V Global statistics on education

Marriage and pay equality Competing theories of tolerance

The use of charter schools Cyberbullying

Impact of economy on population segments Climate change debates

Use of technology and social media by Global population and demographic shifts individuals and groups Net neutrality, online privacy and security

Other topics received a light update for relevance and student engagement. The racial tensions that have come about through the cases of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, as well as the legalization of marijuana are two examples of such additions.

Features of OpenStax Introduction to Sociology 2e

We have retained and updated the special features of the original text for this updated version.

Modularity

This textbook is organized on Connexions (http://cnx.org (http://cnx.org) ) as a collection of modules that can be rearranged and modified to suit the needs of a particular professor or class. That being said, modules often contain references to content in other modules, as most topics in sociology cannot be discussed in isolation.

Learning Objectives

Every module begins with a set of clear and concise learning objectives. These objectives are designed to help the instructor decide what content to include or assign, and to guide the student with respect to what he or she can expect to learn. After completing the module and end-of-module exercises, students should be able to demonstrate mastery of the learning objectives.

Key Features

The following features show students the dynamic nature of sociology:

Sociological Research: Highlights specific current and relevant research studies. Examples include “Is Music a Cultural Universal?” and “Deceptive Divorce Rates.”

Sociology in the Real World: Ties chapter content to student life and discusses sociology in terms of the everyday. Topics include “Secrets of the McJob” and “Grade Inflation: When Is an A Really a C?”

Big Picture: Features present sociological concepts at a national or international level, including “Education in Afghanistan” and “American Indian Tribes and Environmental Racism.”

Case Study: Describes real-life people whose experiences relate to chapter content, such as “Catherine Middleton: The Commoner Who Would Be Queen.”

Social Policy and Debate: Discusses political issues that relate to chapter content, such as “The Legalese of Sex and Gender” and “Is the U.S. Bilingual?”

Careers in Sociology: Explores the lives and work of those in careers in sociology, including the real-world issues and debates these professionals encounter on a daily basis.

Section Summaries

Section summaries distill the information in each section for both students and instructors down to key, concise points addressed in the section.

Preface

Key Terms

Key terms are bold and are followed by a definition in context. Definitions of key terms are also listed in the Glossary, which appears at the end of the module online and at the end of the chapter in print.

Section Quizzes

Section quizzes provide opportunities to apply and test the information students learn throughout each section. Both multiple-choice and short-response questions feature a variety of question types and range of difficulty.

Further Research

This feature helps students further explore the section topic and offers related research topics that could be explored.

Acknowledgements

Introduction to Sociology 2e is based on the work of numerous professors, writers, editors, and reviewers who are able to bring topics to students in the most engaging way.

We would like to thank all those listed below as well as many others who have contributed their time and energy to review and provide feedback on the manuscript. Especially Clint Lalonde and team at BC Campus for sharing the updates they made for use in this edition, and the team at Stark State College for their editorial support in this update. Their input has been critical in maintaining the pedagogical integrity and accuracy of the text.

Contributing Authors

Heather Griffiths, Fayetteville State University*

Nathan Keirns, Zane State College*

Eric Strayer, Hartnell College*

Susan Cody-Rydzewski, Georgia Perimeter College

Gail Scaramuzzo, Lackawanna College

Tommy Sadler, Union University

Sally Vyain, Ivy Tech Community College*

Jeff Bry, Minnesota State Community and Technical College at Moorhead*

Faye Jones, Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College

*individuals who were contributors to the 2nd edition

Expert Reviewers

Rick Biesanz, Corning Community College

Cynthia Heddlesten, Metropolitan Community College

Janet Hund, Long Beach City College

Thea Alvarado, College of the Canyons

Daysha Lawrence, Stark State College

Sally Vyain, Ivy Tech Community College

Natashia Willmott, Stark State College

Angela M. Adkins, Stark State College

Carol Jenkins, Glendale Community College

Lillian Marie Wallace, Pima Community College

J. Brandon Wallace, Middle Tennessee State University

Gerry R. Cox, professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

David Hunt, Augusta State University

Jennifer L. Newman-Shoemake, Angelo State University, and Cisco College

Matthew Morrison, University of Virginia

Sue Greer-Pitt, Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College

Faye Jones, Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College

Athena Smith, Hillsborough Community College

Kim Winford, Blinn College

Kevin Keating, Broward College

Russell Davis, University of West Alabama

Kimberly Boyd, Piedmont Virginia Community College

Lynn Newhart, Rockford College

Russell C. Ward, Maysville Community and Technical College

Preface

Xuemei Hu, Union County College

Margaret A. Choka, Pellissippi State Community College

Cindy Minton, Clark State Community College

Nili Kirschner, Woodland Community College

Shonda Whetstone, Blinn College

Elizabeth Arreaga, instructor emerita at Long Beach City College

Florencio R. Riguera, Catholic University of America

John B. Gannon, College of Southern Nevada

Gerald Titchener, Des Moines Area Community College

Rahime-Malik Howard, El Centro College, and Collin College

Jeff Bry, Minnesota State Community and Technical College at Moorhead

Cynthia Tooley, Metropolitan Community College at Blue River

Carol Sebilia, Diablo Valley College

Marian Moore, Owens Community College

John Bartkowski, University of Texas at San Antonio Shelly Dutchin, Western Technical College

Supplements

Accompanying the main text is an Instructor’s PowerPoint (https://openstaxcollege.org/textbooks/introduction-tosociology) file, which includes all of the images and captions found throughout the text and an Instructor’s test bank.

Disclaimer

All photos and images were licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license at the time they were placed into this book. The CC-BY license does not cover any trademarks or logos in the photos. If you have questions about regarding photos or images, please contact us at info@openstaxcollege.org.

7.3 Crime and the Law

Figure 7.8 How is a crime different from other types of deviance? (Photo courtesy of Duffman/Wikimedia Commons.)

Although deviance is a violation of social norms, it’s not always punishable, and it’s not necessarily bad. Crime, on the other hand, is a behavior that violates official law and is punishable through formal sanctions. Walking to class backward is a deviant behavior. Driving with a blood alcohol percentage over the state’s limit is a crime. Like other forms of deviance, however, ambiguity exists concerning what constitutes a crime and whether all crimes are, in fact, “bad” and deserve punishment. For example, during the 1960s, civil rights activists often violated laws intentionally as part of their effort to bring about racial equality. In hindsight, we recognize that the laws that deemed many of their actions crimes—for instance, Rosa Parks taking a seat in the “whites only” section of the bus—were inconsistent with social equality.

As you have learned, all societies have informal and formal ways of maintaining social control. Within these systems of norms, societies have legal codes that maintain formal social control through laws, which are rules adopted and enforced by a political authority. Those who violate these rules incur negative formal sanctions. Normally, punishments are relative to the degree of the crime and the importance to society of the value underlying the law. As we will see, however, there are other factors that influence criminal sentencing.

Types of Crimes

Not all crimes are given equal weight. Society generally socializes its members to view certain crimes as more severe than others. For example, most people would consider murdering someone to be far worse than stealing a wallet and would expect a murderer to be punished more severely than a thief. In modern U.S. society, crimes are classified as one of two types based on their severity. Violent crimes (also known as “crimes against a person”) are based on the use of force or the threat of force. Rape, murder, and armed robbery fall under this category. Nonviolent crimes involve the destruction or theft of property but do not use force or the threat of force. Because of this, they are also sometimes called “property crimes.” Larceny, car theft, and vandalism are all types of nonviolent crimes. If you use a crowbar to break into a car, you are committing a nonviolent crime; if you mug someone with the crowbar, you are committing a violent crime.

When we think of crime, we often picture street crime, or offenses committed by ordinary people against other people or organizations, usually in public spaces. An often-overlooked category is corporate crime, or crime committed by whitecollar workers in a business environment. Embezzlement, insider trading, and identity theft are all types of corporate crime. Although these types of offenses rarely receive the same amount of media coverage as street crimes, they can be far more damaging.

An often-debated third type of crime is victimless crime. Crimes are called victimless when the perpetrator is not explicitly harming another person. As opposed to battery or theft, which clearly have a victim, a crime like drinking a beer when someone is twenty years old or selling a sexual act do not result in injury to anyone other than the individual who engages in them, although they are illegal. While some claim acts like these are victimless, others argue that they actually do harm society. Prostitution may foster abuse toward women by clients or pimps. Drug use may increase the likelihood of employee absences. Such debates highlight how the deviant and criminal nature of actions develops through ongoing public discussion.

the

Making Connections: Big Picture

Hate Crimes

On the evening of October 3, 2010, a seventeen-year-old boy from the Bronx was abducted by a group of young men from his neighborhood and taken to an abandoned row house. After being beaten, the boy admitted he was gay. His attackers seized his partner and beat him as well. Both victims were drugged, sodomized, and forced to burn one another with cigarettes. When questioned by police, the ringleader of the crime explained that the victims were gay and “looked like [they] liked it” (Wilson and Baker 2010).

Attacks based on a person’s race, religion, or other characteristics are known as hate crimes. Hate crimes in the United States evolved from the time of early European settlers and their violence toward Native Americans. Such crimes weren’t investigated until the early 1900s, when the Ku Klux Klan began to draw national attention for its activities against blacks and other groups. The term “hate crime,” however, didn’t become official until the1980s (Federal Bureau of Investigations 2011).

An average of 195,000 Americans fall victim to hate crimes each year, but fewer than five percent ever report the crime (FBI 2010). The majority of hate crimes are racially motivated, but many are based on religious (especially anti-Semitic) prejudice (FBI 2010). After incidents like the murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming in 1998 and the tragic suicide of Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi in 2010, there has been a growing awareness of hate crimes based on sexual orientation.

Figure 7.9 In the United States, there were 8,336 reported victims of hate crimes in 2009. This represents less than five percent of the number of people who claimed to be victims of hate crimes when surveyed. (Graph courtesy of FBI 2010)

Crime Statistics

The FBI gathers data from approximately 17,000 law enforcement agencies, and the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) is the annual publication of this data (FBI 2011). The UCR has comprehensive information from police reports but fails to account for the many crimes that go unreported, often due to victims’ fear, shame, or distrust of the police. The quality of this data is also inconsistent because of differences in approaches to gathering victim data; important details are not always asked for or reported (Cantor and Lynch 2000).

Due to these issues, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics publishes a separate self-report study known as the National Crime Victimization Report (NCVR). A self-report study is a collection of data gathered using voluntary response methods, such as questionnaires or telephone interviews. Self-report data are gathered each year, asking approximately 160,000 people in the United States about the frequency and types of crime they’ve experienced in their daily lives (BJS

2013). The NCVR reports a higher rate of crime than the UCR, likely picking up information on crimes that were experienced but never reported to the police. Age, race, gender, location, and income-level demographics are also analyzed (National Archive of Criminal Justice Data 2010).

The NCVR survey format allows people to more openly discuss their experiences and also provides a more-detailed examination of crimes, which may include information about consequences, relationship between victim and criminal, and substance abuse involved. One disadvantage is that the NCVR misses some groups of people, such as those who don’t have telephones and those who move frequently. The quality of information may also be reduced by inaccurate victim recall of the crime (Cantor and Lynch 2000).

Public Perception of Crime

Neither the NCVR nor the UCS accounts for all crime in the United States, but general trends can be determined. Crime rates, particularly for violent and gun-related crimes, have been on the decline since peaking in the early 1990s (Cohn, Taylor, Lopez, Gallagher, Parker, and Maass 2013). However, the public believes crime rates are still high, or even worsening. Recent surveys (Saad 2011; Pew Research Center 2013, cited in Overburg and Hoyer 2013) have found U.S. adults believe crime is worse now than it was twenty years ago.

Inaccurate public perception of crime may be heightened by popular crime shows such as CSI, Criminal Minds and Law & Order (Warr 2008) and by extensive and repeated media coverage of crime. Many researchers have found that people who closely follow media reports of crime are likely to estimate the crime rate as inaccurately high and more likely to feel fearful about the chances of experiencing crime (Chiricos, Padgett, and Gertz 2000). Recent research has also found that people who reported watching news coverage of 9/11 or the Boston Marathon Bombing for more than an hour daily became more fearful of future terrorism (Holman, Garfin, and Silver 2014).

The U.S. Criminal Justice System

A criminal justice system is an organization that exists to enforce a legal code. There are three branches of the U.S. criminal justice system: the police, the courts, and the corrections system.

Police

Police are a civil force in charge of enforcing laws and public order at a federal, state, or community level. No unified national police force exists in the United States, although there are federal law enforcement officers. Federal officers operate under specific government agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI); the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF); and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Federal officers can only deal with matters that are explicitly within the power of the federal government, and their field of expertise is usually narrow. A county police officer may spend time responding to emergency calls, working at the local jail, or patrolling areas as needed, whereas a federal officer would be more likely to investigate suspects in firearms trafficking or provide security for government officials.

State police have the authority to enforce statewide laws, including regulating traffic on highways. Local or county police, on the other hand, have a limited jurisdiction with authority only in the town or county in which they serve.

Figure 7.10 Here, Afghan National Police Crisis Response Unit members train in Surobi, Afghanistan. (Photo courtesy of isafmedia/flickr)

Courts

Once a crime has been committed and a violator has been identified by the police, the case goes to court. A court is a system that has the authority to make decisions based on law. The U.S. judicial system is divided into federal courts and state courts. As the name implies, federal courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) deal with federal matters, including trade disputes, military justice, and government lawsuits. Judges who preside over federal courts are selected by the president with the consent of Congress.

State courts vary in their structure but generally include three levels: trial courts, appellate courts, and state supreme courts. In contrast to the large courtroom trials in TV shows, most noncriminal cases are decided by a judge without a jury present. Traffic court and small claims court are both types of trial courts that handle specific civil matters.

Criminal cases are heard by trial courts with general jurisdictions. Usually, a judge and jury are both present. It is the jury’s responsibility to determine guilt and the judge’s responsibility to determine the penalty, though in some states the jury may also decide the penalty. Unless a defendant is found “not guilty,” any member of the prosecution or defense (whichever is the losing side) can appeal the case to a higher court. In some states, the case then goes to a special appellate court; in others it goes to the highest state court, often known as the state supreme court.

(a) (b)

Figure 7.11 This county courthouse in Kansas (left) is a typical setting for a state trial court. Compare this to the courtroom of the Michigan

Supreme Court (right). (Photo (a) courtesy of Ammodramus/Wikimedia Commons; Photo (b) courtesy of Steve & Christine/Wikimedia Commons)

Corrections

The corrections system, more commonly known as the prison system, is charged with supervising individuals who have been arrested, convicted, and sentenced for a criminal offense. At the end of 2010, approximately seven million U.S. men and women were behind bars (BJS 2011d).

The U.S. incarceration rate has grown considerably in the last hundred years. In 2008, more than 1 in 100 U.S. adults were in jail or prison, the highest benchmark in our nation’s history. And while the United States accounts for 5 percent of the global population, we have 25 percent of the world’s inmates, the largest number of prisoners in the world (Liptak 2008b).

Prison is different from jail. A jail provides temporary confinement, usually while an individual awaits trial or parole. Prisons are facilities built for individuals serving sentences of more than a year. Whereas jails are small and local, prisons are large and run by either the state or the federal government.

Parole refers to a temporary release from prison or jail that requires supervision and the consent of officials. Parole is different from probation, which is supervised time used as an alternative to prison. Probation and parole can both follow a period of incarceration in prison, especially if the prison sentence is shortened.

Chapter Review

Key Terms

conflict theory: a theory that examines social and economic factors as the causes of criminal deviance

control theory: a theory that states social control is directly affected by the strength of social bonds and that deviance results from a feeling of disconnection from society corporate crime: crime committed by white-collar workers in a business environment

corrections system: the system tasked with supervising individuals who have been arrested for, convicted of, or sentenced for criminal offenses court: a system that has the authority to make decisions based on law

crime: a behavior that violates official law and is punishable through formal sanctions criminal justice system: an organization that exists to enforce a legal code

cultural deviance theory: a theory that suggests conformity to the prevailing cultural norms of lower-class society causes crime deviance: a violation of contextual, cultural, or social norms

differential association theory: a theory that states individuals learn deviant behavior from those close to them who provide models of and opportunities for deviance formal sanctions: sanctions that are officially recognized and enforced hate crimes: attacks based on a person’s race, religion, or other characteristics informal sanctions: sanctions that occur in face-to-face interactions labeling theory: the ascribing of a deviant behavior to another person by members of society legal codes: codes that maintain formal social control through laws master status: a label that describes the chief characteristic of an individual negative sanctions: punishments for violating norms

nonviolent crimes: crimes that involve the destruction or theft of property, but do not use force or the threat of force police: a civil force in charge of regulating laws and public order at a federal, state, or community level

positive sanctions: rewards given for conforming to norms power elite: a small group of wealthy and influential people at the top of society who hold the power and resources

primary deviance: a violation of norms that does not result in any long-term effects on the individual’s self-image or interactions with others sanctions: the means of enforcing rules

secondary deviance: deviance that occurs when a person’s self-concept and behavior begin to change after his or her actions are labeled as deviant by members of society

self-report study: a collection of data acquired using voluntary response methods, such as questionnaires or telephone interviews social control: the regulation and enforcement of norms

social disorganization theory: a theory that asserts crime occurs in communities with weak social ties and the absence of social control social order: an arrangement of practices and behaviors on which society’s members base their daily lives

strain theory: a theory that addresses the relationship between having socially acceptable goals and having socially acceptable means to reach those goals street crime: crime committed by average people against other people or organizations, usually in public spaces

victimless crime: activities against the law, but that do not result in injury to any individual other than the person who engages in them violent crimes: crimes based on the use of force or the threat of force

Section Summary

7.1 Deviance and Control

Deviance is a violation of norms. Whether or not something is deviant depends on contextual definitions, the situation, and people’s response to the behavior. Society seeks to limit deviance through the use of sanctions that help maintain a system of social control.

7.2 Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance

The three major sociological paradigms offer different explanations for the motivation behind deviance and crime. Functionalists point out that deviance is a social necessity since it reinforces norms by reminding people of the consequences of violating them. Violating norms can open society’s eyes to injustice in the system. Conflict theorists argue that crime stems from a system of inequality that keeps those with power at the top and those without power at the bottom. Symbolic interactionists focus attention on the socially constructed nature of the labels related to deviance. Crime and deviance are learned from the environment and enforced or discouraged by those around us.

7.3 Crime and the Law

Crime is established by legal codes and upheld by the criminal justice system. In the United States, there are three branches of the justice system: police, courts, and corrections. Although crime rates increased throughout most of the twentieth century, they are now dropping.

Section Quiz

7.1 Deviance and Control

Which of the following best describes how deviance is defined?

Deviance is defined by federal, state, and local laws.

Deviance’s definition is determined by one’s religion.

Deviance occurs whenever someone else is harmed by an action.

Deviance is socially defined.

During the civil rights movement, Rosa Parks and other black protestors spoke out against segregation by refusing to sit at the back of the bus. This is an example of ________.

An act of social control

An act of deviance

A social norm

Criminal mores

A student has a habit of talking on her cell phone during class. One day, the professor stops his lecture and asks her to respect the other students in the class by turning off her phone. In this situation, the professor used __________ to maintain social control.

Informal negative sanctions

Informal positive sanctions

Formal negative sanctions

Formal positive sanctions

Societies practice social control to maintain ________.

formal sanctions

social order

cultural deviance

sanction labeling

One day, you decide to wear pajamas to the grocery store. While you shop, you notice people giving you strange looks and whispering to others. In this case, the grocery store patrons are demonstrating _______. a. deviance

formal sanctions

informal sanctions

positive sanctions

7.2 Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance

A student wakes up late and realizes her sociology exam starts in five minutes. She jumps into her car and speeds down the road, where she is pulled over by a police officer. The student explains that she is running late, and the officer lets her off with a warning. The student’s actions are an example of _________.

primary deviance

positive deviance

secondary deviance

master deviance

According to C. Wright Mills, which of the following people is most likely to be a member of the power elite? a. A war veteran

A senator

A professor

A mechanic

According to social disorganization theory, crime is most likely to occur where?

A community where neighbors don’t know each other very well

A neighborhood with mostly elderly citizens

A city with a large minority population

A college campus with students who are very competitive

Shaw and McKay found that crime is linked primarily to ________.

power

master status

family values

wealth

According to the concept of the power elite, why would a celebrity such as Charlie Sheen commit a crime?

Because his parents committed similar crimes

Because his fame protects him from retribution

Because his fame disconnects him from society

Because he is challenging socially accepted norms

A convicted sexual offender is released on parole and arrested two weeks later for repeated sexual crimes. How would labeling theory explain this?

The offender has been labeled deviant by society and has accepted a new master status.

The offender has returned to his old neighborhood and so reestablished his former habits.

The offender has lost the social bonds he made in prison and feels disconnected from society.

The offender is poor and responding to the different cultural values that exist in his community.

______ deviance is a violation of norms that ______result in a person being labeled a deviant. a. Secondary; does not

Negative; does

Primary; does not

Primary; may or may not

7.3 Crime and the Law

Which of the following is an example of corporate crime?

Embezzlement

Larceny

Assault

Burglary

Spousal abuse is an example of a ________.

street crime

corporate crime

violent crime

nonviolent crime

Which of the following situations best describes crime trends in the United States?

Rates of violent and nonviolent crimes are decreasing.

Rates of violent crimes are decreasing, but there are more nonviolent crimes now than ever before.

Crime rates have skyrocketed since the 1970s due to lax corrections laws.

Rates of street crime have gone up, but corporate crime has gone down.

What is a disadvantage of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)?

The NCVS doesn’t include demographic data, such as age or gender.

The NCVS may be unable to reach important groups, such as those without phones.

The NCVS doesn’t address the relationship between the criminal and the victim.

The NCVS only includes information collected by police officers.

Short Answer

7.1 Deviance and Control

If given the choice, would you purchase an unusual car such as a hearse for everyday use? How would your friends, family, or significant other react? Since deviance is culturally defined, most of the decisions we make are dependent on the reactions of others. Is there anything the people in your life encourage you to do that you don’t? Why don’t you?

Think of a recent time when you used informal negative sanctions. To what act of deviance were you responding? How did your actions affect the deviant person or persons? How did your reaction help maintain social control?

7.2 Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance

Pick a famous politician, business leader, or celebrity who has been arrested recently. What crime did he or she allegedly commit? Who was the victim? Explain his or her actions from the point of view of one of the major sociological paradigms. What factors best explain how this person might be punished if convicted of the crime?

If we assume that the power elite’s status is always passed down from generation to generation, how would Edwin Sutherland explain these patterns of power through differential association theory? What crimes do these elite few get away with?

7.3 Crime and the Law

5. Recall the crime statistics presented in this section. Do they surprise you? Are these statistics represented accurately in the media? Why, or why not?

Further Research

7.1 Deviance and Control

Although we rarely think of it in this way, deviance can have a positive effect on society. Check out the Positive Deviance Initiative, a program initiated by Tufts University to promote social movements around the world that strive to improve people’s lives, at http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Positive_Deviance (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Positive_Deviance) .

7.2 Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance

The Skull and Bones Society made news in 2004 when it was revealed that then-President George W. Bush and his Democratic challenger, John Kerry, had both been members at Yale University. In the years since, conspiracy theorists have linked the secret society to numerous world events, arguing that many of the nation’s most powerful people are former Bonesmen. Although such ideas may raise a lot of skepticism, many influential people of the past century have been Skull and Bones Society members, and the society is sometimes described as a college version of the power elite. Journalist Rebecca Leung discusses the roots of the club and the impact its ties between decision-makers can have later in life. Read about it at http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Skull_and_Bones (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Skull_and_Bones) .

7.3 Crime and the Law

Is the U.S. criminal justice system confusing? You’re not alone. Check out this handy flowchart from the Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://openstaxcollege.org/l/US_Criminal_Justice_BJS (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/US_Criminal_Justice_BJS)

How is crime data collected in the United States? Read about the methods of data collection and take the National Crime Victimization Survey. Visit http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Victimization_Survey (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

Victimization_Survey)

References

7.0 Introduction to Deviance, Crime, and Social Control

CBS News. 2014. “Marijuana Advocates Eye New Targets After Election Wins.” Associated Press, November 5. Retrieved November 5, 2014 (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marijuana-activists-eye-new-targets-after-election-wins/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marijuana-activists-eye-new-targets-after-election-wins/) ).

Governing. 2014. “Governing Data: State Marijuana Laws Map.” Governing: The States and Localities, November 5. Retrieved November 5, 2014 (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-marijuana-laws-map-medical-recreational.html (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-marijuana-laws-map-medical-recreational.html) ).

Pew Research Center. 2013. “Partisans Disagree on Legalization of Marijuana, but Agree on Law Enforcement Policies.” Pew Research Center, April 30. Retrieved November 2, 2014 (http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/partisansdisagree-on-legalization-of-marijuana-but-agree-on-law-enforcement-policies/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/ partisans-disagree-on-legalization-of-marijuana-but-agree-on-law-enforcement-policies/) ).

Motel, Seth. 2014. “6 Facts About Marijuana.” Pew Research Center: FactTank: News in the Numbers, November 5. Retrieved (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/05/6-facts-about-marijuana/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2014/11/05/6-facts-about-marijuana/) ).

7.1 Deviance and Control

Becker, Howard. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.

Schoepflin, Todd. 2011. “Deviant While Driving?” Everyday Sociology Blog, January 28. Retrieved February 10, 2012 (http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2011/01/deviant-while-driving.html (http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/ everydaysociology/2011/01/deviant-while-driving.html) ).

Sumner, William Graham. 1955 [1906]. Folkways. New York, NY: Dover.

7.2 Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance

Akers, Ronald L. 1991. “Self-control as a General Theory of Crime.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology:201–11.

Cantor, D. and Lynch, J. 2000. Self-Report Surveys as Measures of Crime and Criminal Victimization. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved February 10, 2012 (https://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_4/04c.pdf (https://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_4/04c.pdf) ).

Durkheim, Emile. 1997 [1893]. The Division of Labor in Society New York, NY: Free Press.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2010. “Crime in the United States, 2009.” Retrieved January 6, 2012

(http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/property_crime/index.html (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/ property_crime/index.html) ).

Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Holding, Reynolds. 2006. “Why Can’t Felons Vote?” Time, November 21. Retrieved February 10, 2012 (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1553510,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/ 0,8599,1553510,00.html) ).

Krajick, Kevin. 2004. “Why Can’t Ex-Felons Vote?” The Washington Post, August 18, p. A19. Retrieved February 10, 2012 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9785-2004Aug17.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/articles/A9785-2004Aug17.html) ).

Laub, John H. 2006. “Edwin H. Sutherland and the Michael-Adler Report: Searching for the Soul of Criminology Seventy Years Later.” Criminology 44:235–57.

Lott, John R. Jr. and Sonya D. Jones. 2008. “How Felons Who Vote Can Tip an Election.” Fox News, October 20. Retrieved February 10, 2012 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,441030,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/ 0,2933,441030,00.html) ).

Mills, C. Wright. 1956. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.

New York Times Editorial Staff. 2011. “Reducing Unjust Cocaine Sentences.” New York Times, June 29. Retrieved February 10, 2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/opinion/30thu3.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/ opinion/30thu3.html) ).

ProCon.org. 2009. “Disenfranchised Totals by State.” April 13. Retrieved February 10, 2012 (http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000287 (http://felonvoting.procon.org/ view.resource.php?resourceID=000287) ).

ProCon.org. 2011. “State Felon Voting Laws.” April 8. Retrieved February 10, 2012 (http://felonvoting.procon.org/ view.resource.php?resourceID=000286 (http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286) ).

Sampson, Robert J. and Lydia Bean. 2006. “Cultural Mechanisms and Killing Fields: A Revised Theory of CommunityLevel Racial Inequality.” The Many Colors of Crime: Inequalities of Race, Ethnicity and Crime in America, edited by R. Peterson, L. Krivo and J. Hagan. New York: New York University Press.

Sampson, Robert J. and W. Byron Graves. 1989. “Community Structure and Crimes: Testing Social-Disorganization Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 94:774-802.

Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry McKay. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 2009. “SEC Charges Bernard L. Madoff for Multi-Billion Dollar Ponzi Scheme.” Washington, DC: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Retrieved January 6, 2012 (http://www.sec.gov/ news/press/2008/2008-293.htm (http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-293.htm) ).

The Sentencing Project. 2010. “Federal Crack Cocaine Sentencing.” The Sentencing Project: Research and Advocacy Reform. Retrieved February 12, 2012 (http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/dp_CrackBriefingSheet.pdf (http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/dp_CrackBriefingSheet.pdf) ).

Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry H. McKay. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Todd, Roger and Louise Jury. 1996. “Children Follow Convicted Parents into Crime.” The Independent, February 27. Retrieved February 10, 2012 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/children-follow-convicted-parents-intocrime-1321272.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/children-follow-convicted-parents-intocrime-1321272.html/link) ).

7.3 Crime and the Law

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2013. “Data Collection: National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).” Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d. Retrieved November 1, 2014 (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245 (http://www.bjs.gov/ index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245) )

Chiricos, Ted; Padgett, Kathy; and Gertz, Mark. 2000. “Fear, TV News, and The Reality of Crime.” Criminology, 38, 3.

Retrieved November 1, 2014 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00905.x/abstract

(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00905.x/abstract) )

Cohn, D’Verta; Taylor, Paul; Lopez, Mark Hugo; Gallagher, Catherine A.; Parker, Kim; and Maass, Kevin T. 2013. “Gun

Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak: Public Unaware; Pace of Decline Slows in Past Decade.” Pew Research Social & Demographic Trends, May 7. Retrieved November 1, 2014 (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gunhomicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/ (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homiciderate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/) )

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2010. “Latest Hate Crime Statistics.” Retrieved February 10, 2012 (http://www.fbi.gov/ news/stories/2010/november/hate_112210/hate_112210 (http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/november/hate_112210/ hate_112210) ).

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2011. “Uniform Crime Reports.” Retrieved February 10, 2012 (http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/cjis/ucr (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr) ).

Holman, E. Allison; Garfin, Dana; and Silver, Roxane (2013). “Media’s Role in Broadcasting Acute Stress Following the

Boston Marathon Bombings.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, November 14. Retrieved

November 1, 2014 (http://www.danarosegarfin.com/uploads/3/0/8/5/30858187/holman_et_al_pnas_2014.pdf

(http://www.danarosegarfin.com/uploads/3/0/8/5/30858187/holman_et_al_pnas_2014.pdf) )

Langton, Lynn and Michael Planty. 2011. “Hate Crime, 2003–2009.” Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved February 10, 2012 (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1760 (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1760) ).

Liptak, Adam. 2008a. “1 in 100 U.S. Adults Behind Bars, New Study Says.” New York Times, February 28. Retrieved February 10, 2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28cnd-prison.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/ 28cnd-prison.html) ).

Liptak, Adam. 2008b. “Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs Other Nations’.” New York Times, April 23. Retrieved February 10, 2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html?ref=adamliptak (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/ 23prison.html?ref=adamliptak) ).

National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. 2010. “National Crime Victimization Survey Resource Guide.” Retrieved February 10, 2012 (http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/NCVS/ (http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/ NCVS/) ).

Overburg, Paul and Hoyer, Meghan. 2013. “Study: Despite Drop in Gun Crime, 56% Think It’s Worse.” USA Today, December, 3. Retrieved November 2, 2014 (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/07/gun-crime-drops-butamericans-think-its-worse/2139421/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/07/gun-crime-drops-butamericans-think-its-worse/2139421/) )

Saad, Lydia. 2011. “Most Americans Believe Crime in U.S. is Worsening: Slight Majority Rate U.S. Crime Problem as

Highly Serious; 11% Say This about Local Crime.” Gallup: Well-Being, October 31. Retrieved November 1, 2014 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150464/americans-believe-crime-worsening.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150464/ americans-believe-crime-worsening.aspx) )

Warr, Mark. 2008. “Crime on the Rise? Public Perception of Crime Remains Out of Sync with Reality.” The University of

Texas at Austin: Features, November, 10. Retrieved November 1, 2014 (http://www.utexas.edu/features/2008/11/10/crime/ (http://www.utexas.edu/features/2008/11/10/crime/) )

Wilson, Michael and Al Baker. 2010. “Lured into a Trap, Then Tortured for Being Gay.” New York Times, October 8. Retrieved from February 10, 2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/nyregion/09bias.html?pagewanted=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/nyregion/09bias.html?pagewanted=1) ).

8 Media and Technology

Figure 8.1 Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are just a few examples of social media that increasingly shape how we interact with the world.

(Photo courtesy of Khalid Albaih/flickr)

Learning Objectives

8.1. Technology Today

Define technology and describe its evolution

Understand technological inequality and issues related to unequal access to technology

Describe the role of planned obsolescence in technological development

8.2. Media and Technology in Society

Describe the evolution and current role of different media, like newspapers, television, and new media

Understand the function of product advertising in media

Demonstrate awareness of the social homogenization and social fragmentation that occur via modern society’s use of technology and media

8.3. Global Implications of Media and Technology

Explain the advantages and concerns of media globalization

Understand the globalization of technology

8.4. Theoretical Perspectives on Media and Technology

Understand and discuss how we analyze media and technology through various sociological perspectives

Introduction to Media and Technology

How many good friends do you have? How many people do you meet up with for coffee or a movie? How many would you call with news about an illness or invite to your wedding? Now, how many “friends” do you have on Facebook? How often do you post a “selfie” online? How often do you check e-mail? How often do you meet friends for a meal and spend your time texting other people instead of talking to each other? Technology has changed how we interact with each other. It has turned “friend” into a verb and has made it possible to share mundane news (“My dog just threw up under the bed! Ugh!”) with hundreds or even thousands of people who might know you only slightly, if at all. You might be glued to your cell phone, even when you should be focused on driving your car, or you might text in class instead of listening to the professor’s lecture. When we have the ability to stay constantly connected to a data stream, it is easy to lose focus on the here and now.

At the same time that technology is expanding the boundaries of our social circles, various media are also changing how we perceive and interact with each other. We don’t only use Facebook to keep in touch with friends; we also use it to “like” certain television shows, products, or celebrities. Even television is no longer a one-way medium; it is an interactive one. We are encouraged to tweet, text, or call in to vote for contestants in everything from singing competitions to matchmaking endeavors—bridging the gap between our entertainment and our own lives.

How does technology change our lives for the better? Or does it? When you tweet a social cause, share an ice bucket challenge video on YouTube, or cut and paste a status update about cancer awareness on Facebook, are you promoting social change? Does the immediate and constant flow of information mean we are more aware and engaged than any society before us? Or are Keeping Up With the Kardashians and The Real Housewives franchise today’s version of ancient Rome’s “bread and circuses”––distractions and entertainment to keep the working classes complacent about the inequities of their society?

These are some of the questions that interest sociologists. How might we examine these issues from a sociological perspective? A functionalist would probably focus on what social purposes technology and media serve. For example, the web is both a form of technology and of media, and it links individuals and nations in a communication network that facilitates both small family discussions and global trade networks. A functionalist would also be interested in the manifest functions of media and technology, as well as their role in social dysfunction. Someone applying the conflict perspective would probably focus on the systematic inequality created by differential access to media and technology. For example, how can middle-class U.S. citizens be sure the news they hear is an objective account of reality, unsullied by moneyed political interests? Someone applying the interactionist perspective to technology and the media might seek to understand the difference between the real lives we lead and the reality depicted on “reality” television shows, such as The Bachelor. Throughout this chapter, we will use our sociological imagination to explore how media and technology impact society.

8.1 Technology Today

Figure 8.2 Technology is the application of science to address the problems of daily life, from hunting tools and agricultural advances, to manual and electronic ways of computing, to today’s tablets and smartphones. (Photo (a) courtesy of Wikimedia Commons; Photo (b) courtesy of Martin Pettitt/ flickr; Photo (c) courtesy of Whitefield d./flickr; Photo (d) courtesy of Andrew Parnell/flickr; Photo (e) courtesy of Jemimus/flickr; Photo (f) courtesy of

Kārlis Dambrāns/flickr)

It is easy to look at the latest sleek Apple product and think technology is a recent addition to our world. But from the steam engine to the most cutting-edge robotic surgery tools, technology has described the application of science to address the problems of daily life. We might look back at the enormous and clunky computers of the 1970s that had about as much storage as an iPod Shuffle and roll our eyes in disbelief. But chances are thirty years from now our skinny laptops and iPods will look just as archaic.

What Is Technology?

While most people probably picture computers and cell phones when the subject of technology comes up, technology is not merely a product of the modern era. For example, fire and stone tools were important forms that technology developed during the Stone Age. Just as the availability of digital technology shapes how we live today, the creation of stone tools changed how premodern humans lived and how well they ate. From the first calculator, invented in 2400 B.C.E. Babylon in the form of an abacus, to the predecessor of the modern computer, created in 1882 by Charles Babbage, all of our technological innovations are advancements on previous iterations. And indeed, all aspects of our lives today are influenced by technology. In agriculture, the introduction of machines that can till, thresh, plant, and harvest greatly reduced the need for manual labor, which in turn meant there were fewer rural jobs. This led to the urbanization of society, as well as lowered birthrates because there was less need for large families to work the farms. In the criminal justice system, the ability to ascertain innocence through DNA testing has saved the lives of people on death row. The examples are endless: technology plays a role in absolutely every aspect of our lives.

Technological Inequality

Figure 8.3 Some schools sport cutting-edge computer labs, while others sport barbed wire. Is your academic technology at the cusp of innovation, relatively disadvantaged, or somewhere in between? (Photo courtesy of Carlos Martinez/flickr)

As with any improvement to human society, not everyone has equal access. Technology, in particular, often creates changes that lead to ever greater inequalities. In short, the gap gets wider faster. This technological stratification has led to a new focus on ensuring better access for all.

There are two forms of technological stratification. The first is differential class-based access to technology in the form of the digital divide. This digital divide has led to the second form, a knowledge gap, which is, as it sounds, an ongoing and increasing gap in information for those who have less access to technology. Simply put, students in well-funded schools receive more exposure to technology than students in poorly funded schools. Those students with more exposure gain more proficiency, which makes them far more marketable in an increasingly technology-based job market and leaves our society divided into those with technological knowledge and those without. Even as we improve access, we have failed to address an increasingly evident gap in e-readiness—the ability to sort through, interpret, and process knowledge (Sciadas 2003).

Since the beginning of the millennium, social science researchers have tried to bring attention to the digital divide, the uneven access to technology among different races, classes, and geographic areas. The term became part of the common lexicon in 1996, when then Vice President Al Gore used it in a speech. This was the point when personal computer use shifted dramatically, from 300,000 users in 1991 to more than 10 million users by 1996 (Rappaport 2009). In part, the issue of the digital divide had to do with communities that received infrastructure upgrades that enabled high-speed Internet access, upgrades that largely went to affluent urban and suburban areas, leaving out large swaths of the country.

At the end of the twentieth century, technology access was also a big part of the school experience for those whose communities could afford it. Early in the millennium, poorer communities had little or no technology access, while welloff families had personal computers at home and wired classrooms in their schools. In the 2000s, however, the prices for low-end computers dropped considerably, and it appeared the digital divide was naturally ending. Research demonstrates that technology use and Internet access still vary a great deal by race, class, and age in the United States, though most studies agree that there is minimal difference in Internet use by adult men and adult women.

Data from the Pew Research Center (2011) suggests the emergence of yet another divide. As technological devices gets smaller and more mobile, larger percentages of minority groups (such as Latinos and African Americans) are using their phones to connect to the Internet. In fact, about 50 percent of people in these minority groups connect to the web via such devices, whereas only one-third of whites do (Washington 2011). And while it might seem that the Internet is the Internet, regardless of how you get there, there’s a notable difference. Tasks like updating a résumé or filling out a job application are much harder on a cell phone than on a wired computer in the home. As a result, the digital divide might mean no access to computers or the Internet, but could mean access to the kind of online technology that allows for empowerment, not just entertainment (Washington 2011).

Mossberger, Tolbert, and Gilbert (2006) demonstrated that the majority of the digital divide for African Americans could be explained by demographic and community-level characteristics, such as socioeconomic status and geographic location. For the Latino population, ethnicity alone, regardless of economics or geography, seemed to limit technology use. Liff and Shepard (2004) found that women, who are accessing technology shaped primarily by male users, feel less confident in their Internet skills and have less Internet access at both work and home. Finally, Guillen and Suarez (2005) found that the global digital divide resulted from both the economic and sociopolitical characteristics of countries.

Use of Technology and Social Media in Society by Individuals

Do you own an e-reader or tablet? What about your parents or your friends? How often do you check social media or your cell phone? Does all this technology have a positive or negative impact on your life? When it comes to cell phones, 67 percent of users check their phones for messages or calls even when the phone wasn’t ringing. In addition, “44% of cell owners have slept with their phone next to their bed because they wanted to make sure they didn’t miss any calls, text messages, or other updates during the night and 29% of cell owners describe their cell phone as ‘something they can’t imagine living without’” (Smith 2012).

While people report that cell phones make it easier to stay in touch, simplify planning and scheduling their daily activities, and increase their productivity, that’s not the only impact of increased cell phone ownership in the United States. Smith also reports that “roughly one in five cell owners say that their phone has made it at least somewhat harder to forget about work at home or on the weekends; to give people their undivided attention; or to focus on a single task without being distracted” (Smith 2012).

A new survey from the Pew Research Center reported that 73 percent of adults engage in some sort of social networking online. Facebook was the most popular platform, and both Facebook users and Instagram users check their sites on a daily basis. Over a third of users check their sites more than once a day (Duggan and Smith 2013).

With so many people using social media both in the United States and abroad, it is no surprise that social media is a powerful force for social change. You will read more about the fight for democracy in the Middle East embodied in the Arab Spring in Chapters 17 and 21, but spreading democracy is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to using social media to incite change. For example, McKenna Pope, a thirteen-year-old girl, used the Internet to successfully petition Hasbro to fight gender stereotypes by creating a gender-neutral Easy-Bake Oven instead of using only the traditional pink color (Kumar 2014). Meanwhile in Latvia, two twenty-three-year-olds used a U.S. State Department grant to create an epetition platform so citizens could submit ideas directly to the Latvian government. If at least 20 percent of the Latvian population (roughly 407,200 people) supports a petition, the government will look at it (Kumar 2014).

Online Privacy and Security

As we increase our footprints on the web by going online more often to connect socially, share material, conduct business, and store information, we also increase our vulnerability to those with criminal intent. The Pew Research Center recently published a report that indicated the number of Internet users who express concern over the extent of personal information about them available online jumped 17 percent between 2009 and 2013. In that same survey, 12 percent of respondents indicated they had been harassed online, and 11 percent indicated that personal information, such as their Social Security number, had been stolen (Rainie, Kiesler, Kang, and Madden 2013).

Online privacy and security is a key organizational concern as well. Recent large-scale data breaches at retailers such as Target, financial powerhouses such as JP Morgan, the government health insurance site Healthcare.gov, and cell phone providers such as Verizon, exposed millions of people to the threat of identity theft when hackers got access to personal information by compromising website security.

For example, in late August 2014, hackers breached the iCloud data storage site and promptly leaked wave after wave of nude photos from the private accounts of actors such as Jennifer Lawrence and Kirsten Dunst (Lewis 2014). While largescale data breaches that affect corporations and celebrities are more likely to make the news, individuals may put their personal information at risk simply by clicking a suspect link in an official sounding e-mail.

How can individuals protect their data? Numerous facts sheets available through the government, nonprofits, and the private sector outline common safety measures, including the following: become familiar with privacy rights; read privacy policies when making a purchase (rather than simply clicking “accept”); give out only the minimum information requested by any source; ask why information is being collected, how it is going to be used, and who will have access it; and monitor your credit history for red flags that indicate your identity has been compromised.

Net Neutrality

The issue of net neutrality, the principle that all Internet data should be treated equally by Internet service providers, is part of the national debate about Internet access and the digital divide. On one side of this debate is the belief that those who provide Internet service, like those who provide electricity and water, should be treated as common carriers, legally prohibited from discriminating based on the customer or nature of the goods. Supporters of net neutrality suggest that without such legal protections, the Internet could be divided into “fast” and “slow” lanes. A conflict perspective theorist might suggest that this discrimination would allow bigger corporations, such as Amazon, to pay Internet providers a premium for faster service, which could lead to gaining an advantage that would drive small, local competitors out of business.

The other side of the debate holds the belief that designating Internet service providers as common carriers would constitute an unreasonable regulatory burden and limit the ability of telecommunication companies to operate profitably. A functional perspective theorist might point out that, without profits, companies would not invest in making improvements to their Internet service or expanding those services to underserved areas. The final decision rests with the Federal Communications Commission and the federal government, which must decide how to fairly regulate broadband providers without dividing the Internet into haves and have-nots.

8.2 Media and Technology in Society

Figure 8.4 In the coming future, there is no doubt that robots are going to play a large role in all aspects of our lives. (Photo courtesy of shay sowden/flickr)

Technology and the media are interwoven, and neither can be separated from contemporary society in most core and semiperipheral nations. Media is a term that refers to all print, digital, and electronic means of communication. From the time the printing press was created (and even before), technology has influenced how and where information is shared. Today, it is impossible to discuss media and the ways societies communicate without addressing the fast-moving pace of technology change. Twenty years ago, if you wanted to share news of your baby’s birth or a job promotion, you phoned or wrote letters. You might tell a handful of people, but you probably wouldn’t call up several hundred, including your old high school chemistry teacher, to let them know. Now, you might join an online community of parents-to-be even before you announce your pregnancy via a staged Instagram picture. The circle of communication is wider than ever and when we talk about how societies engage with technology, we must take media into account, and vice versa.

Technology creates media. The comic book you bought your daughter is a form of media, as is the movie you streamed for family night, the web site you used to order takeout, the billboard you passed on the way to pick up your food, and the newspaper you read while you were waiting for it. Without technology, media would not exist, but remember, technology is more than just the media we are exposed to.

Categorizing Technology

There is no one way of dividing technology into categories. Whereas once it might have been simple to classify innovations such as machine-based or drug-based or the like, the interconnected strands of technological development mean that advancement in one area might be replicated in dozens of others. For simplicity’s sake, we will look at how the U.S. Patent Office, which receives patent applications for nearly all major innovations worldwide, addresses patents. This regulatory body will patent three types of innovation. Utility patents are the first type. These are granted for the invention or discovery of any new and useful process, product, or machine, or for a significant improvement to existing technologies. The second type of patent is a design patent. Commonly conferred in architecture and industrial design, this means someone has invented a new and original design for a manufactured product. Plant patents, the final type, recognize the discovery of new plant types that can be asexually reproduced. While genetically modified food is the hotbutton issue within this category, farmers have long been creating new hybrids and patenting them. A more modern example might be food giant Monsanto, which patents corn with built-in pesticide (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 2011).

Anderson and Tushman (1990) suggest an evolutionary model of technological change, in which a breakthrough in one form of technology leads to a number of variations. Once those are assessed, a prototype emerges, and then a period of slight adjustments to the technology, interrupted by a breakthrough. For example, floppy disks were improved and upgraded, then replaced by Zip disks, which were in turn improved to the limits of the technology and were then replaced by flash drives. This is essentially a generational model for categorizing technology, in which first-generation technology is a relatively unsophisticated jumping-off point that leads to an improved second generation, and so on.

Making Connections: Sociology in the Real World Violence in Media and Video Games: Does It Matter?

Figure 8.5 One of the most popular video games, Grand Theft Auto, has frequently been at the center of debate about gratuitous violence in the gaming world. (Photo courtesy of Meddy Garnet/flickr)

A glance through popular video game and movie titles geared toward children and teens shows the vast spectrum of violence that is displayed, condoned, and acted out.

As a way to guide parents in their programming choices, the motion picture industry put a rating system in place in the 1960s. But new media—video games in particular—proved to be uncharted territory. In 1994, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ERSB) set a ratings system for games that addressed issues of violence, sexuality, drug use, and the like. California took it a step further by making it illegal to sell video games to underage buyers. The case led to a heated debate about personal freedoms and child protection, and in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the California law, stating it violated freedom of speech (ProCon 2012).

Children’s play has often involved games of aggression—from cowboys and Indians, to cops and robbers, to fake sword fights. Many articles report on the controversy surrounding the suggested link between violent video games and violent behavior. Is the link real? Psychologists Anderson and Bushman (2001) reviewed forty-plus years of research on the subject and, in 2003, determined that there are causal linkages between violent video game use and aggression. They found that children who had just played a violent video game demonstrated an immediate increase in hostile or aggressive thoughts, an increase in aggressive emotions, and physiological arousal that increased the chances of acting out aggressive behavior (Anderson 2003).

Ultimately, repeated exposure to this kind of violence leads to increased expectations that violence is a solution, increased violent behavioral scripts, and an increased cognitive accessibility to violent behavior (Anderson 2003). In short, people who play a lot of these games find it easier to imagine and access violent solutions than nonviolent ones, and they are less socialized to see violence as a negative. While these facts do not mean there is no role for video games, it should give players pause. In 2013, The American Psychological Association began an expansive meta-analysis of peer-reviewed research analyzing the effect of media violence. Results are expected in 2014.

Types of Media and Technology

Media and technology have evolved hand in hand, from early print to modern publications, from radio to television to film. New media emerge constantly, such as we see in the online world.

Print Newspaper

Early forms of print media, found in ancient Rome, were hand-copied onto boards and carried around to keep the citizenry informed. With the invention of the printing press, the way that people shared ideas changed, as information could be mass produced and stored. For the first time, there was a way to spread knowledge and information more efficiently; many credit this development as leading to the Renaissance and ultimately the Age of Enlightenment. This is not to say that newspapers of old were more trustworthy than the Weekly World News and National Enquirer are today. Sensationalism abounded, as did censorship that forbade any subjects that would incite the populace.

The invention of the telegraph, in the mid-1800s, changed print media almost as much as the printing press. Suddenly information could be transmitted in minutes. As the nineteenth century became the twentieth, U.S. publishers such as Hearst redefined the world of print media and wielded an enormous amount of power to socially construct national and world events. Of course, even as the media empires of William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer were growing, print media also allowed for the dissemination of countercultural or revolutionary materials. Internationally, Vladimir Lenin’s Irksa (The Spark) newspaper was published in 1900 and played a role in Russia’s growing communist movement (World Association of Newspapers 2004).

With the invention and widespread use of television in the mid-twentieth century, newspaper circulation steadily dropped off, and in the 21st century, circulation has dropped further as more people turn to internet news sites and other forms of new media to stay informed. According to the Pew Research Center, 2009 saw an unprecedented drop in newspaper circulation––down 10.6 percent from the year before (Pew 2010).

This shift away from newspapers as a source of information has profound effects on societies. When the news is given to a large diverse conglomerate of people, it must maintain some level of broad-based reporting and balance in order to appeal to a broad audience and keep them subscribing. As newspapers decline, news sources become more fractured, so each segment of the audience can choose specifically what it wants to hear and what it wants to avoid. Increasingly, newspapers are shifting online in an attempt to remain relevant. It is hard to tell what impact new media platforms will have on the way we receive and process information.

Increasingly, newspapers are shifting online in an attempt to remain relevant. It is hard to tell what impact new media platforms will have on the way we receive and process information. The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism (2013) reported that audiences for all the major news magazines declined in 2012, though digital ad revenue increased. The same report suggested that, while newspaper circulation is holding steady at around $10 billion after years of decline, it is digital pay plans that allow newspapers to keep their heads above water, and the digital ad revenue that is increasing for news magazines is not enough to compensate for print revenue loss in newspapers.

A 2014 report suggested that U.S. adults read a median of five books per year in 2013, which is about average. But are they reading traditional print or e-books? About 69 percent of people said they had read at least one printed book in the past year, versus 28 percent who said they’d read an e-book (DeSilver 2014). Is print more effective at conveying information? In recent study, Mangen, Walgermo, and Bronnick (2013) found that students who read on paper performed slightly better than those who read an e-book on an open-book reading comprehension exam of multiple-choice and shortanswer questions. While a meta-analysis of research by Andrews (1992) seemed to confirm that people read more slowly and comprehend less when reading from screens, a meta-analysis of more recent research on this topic does not show anything definite (Noyes and Garland 2008).

Television and Radio

Radio programming obviously preceded television, but both shaped people’s lives in much the same way. In both cases, information (and entertainment) could be enjoyed at home, with a kind of immediacy and community that newspapers could not offer. For instance, many people in the United States might remember when they saw on television or heard on the radio that the Twin Towers in New York City had been attacked in 2001. Even though people were in their own homes, media allowed them to share these moments in real time. This same kind of separate-but-communal approach occurred with entertainment too. School-aged children and office workers gathered to discuss the previous night’s installment of a serial television or radio show.

Right up through the 1970s, U.S. television was dominated by three major networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) that competed for ratings and advertising dollars. The networks also exerted a lot of control over what people watched. Public television, in contrast, offered an educational nonprofit alternative to the sensationalization of news spurred by the network competition for viewers and advertising dollars. Those sources—PBS (Public Broadcasting Service), the BBC (British Broadcasting Company), and CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company)—garnered a worldwide reputation for high-quality programming and a global perspective. Al Jazeera, the Arabic independent news station, has joined this group as a similar media force that broadcasts to people worldwide.

The impact of television on U.S. society is hard to overstate. By the late 1990s, 98 percent of U.S. homes had at least one television set, and the average person watched between two and a half and five hours of television daily. All this television has a powerful socializing effect, providing reference groups while reinforcing social norms, values, and beliefs.

Film

The film industry took off in the 1930s, when color and sound were first integrated into feature films. Like television, early films were unifying for society: as people gathered in theaters to watch new releases, they would laugh, cry, and be scared together. Movies also act as time capsules or cultural touchstones for society. From Westerns starring the toughtalking Clint Eastwood to the biopic of Facebook founder and Harvard dropout Mark Zuckerberg, movies illustrate society’s dreams, fears, and experiences. While many consider Hollywood the epicenter of moviemaking, India’s Bollywood actually produces more films per year, speaking to the cultural aspirations and norms of Indian society. Increasingly, people are watching films online via Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and other streaming services. While most streaming video companies keep their user data secret, Nielsen estimated that 38 percent of U.S. citizens accessed Netflix in 2013. In 2013, Google, Inc. reported that YouTube served 1 billion unique viewers every month—an impressive number, considering that it amounts to one-third of the estimated 3 billion accessing the Internet every month (Reuters 2013; International Telecommunication Union 2014).

New Media

Figure 8.6 Netflix, one form of new media, exchanges information in the form of DVDs to users in the comfort of their own homes. (Photo courtesy of Marit & Toomas Hinnosaar/flickr)

New media encompasses all interactive forms of information exchange. These include social networking sites, blogs, podcasts, wikis, and virtual worlds. Clearly, the list grows almost daily. However, there is no guarantee that the information offered is accurate. In fact, the immediacy of new media coupled with the lack of oversight means we must be more careful than ever to ensure our news is coming from accurate sources.

Making Connections: Sociology in the Real World

Planned Obsolescence: Technology That’s Built to Crash

Figure 8.7 People have trouble keeping up with technological innovation. But people may not be to blame, as manufacturers intentionally develop products with short life spans. (Photo courtesy of Mathias F. Svendsen/flickr)

Chances are your mobile phone company, as well as the makers of your laptop and your household appliances, are all counting on their products to fail. Not too quickly, of course, or consumers wouldn’t stand for it—but frequently enough that you might find that it costs far more to fix a device than to replace it with a newer model. Or you find the phone company e-mails you saying that you’re eligible for a free new phone, because yours is a whopping two years old. And appliance repair people say that while they might be fixing some machines that are twenty years old, they generally aren’t fixing those that are seven years old; newer models are built to be thrown out. This strategy is called planned obsolescence, and it is the business practice of planning for a product to be obsolete or unusable from the time it is created.

To some extent, planned obsolescence is a natural extension of new and emerging technologies. After all, who is going to cling to an enormous and slow desktop computer from 2000 when a few hundred dollars can buy one that is significantly faster and better? But the practice is not always so benign. The classic example of planned obsolescence is the nylon stocking. Women’s stockings—once an everyday staple of women’s lives––get “runs” or “ladders” after only a few wearings. This requires the stockings to be discarded and new ones purchased. Not surprisingly, the garment industry did not invest heavily in finding a rip-proof fabric; it was in manufacturers’ best interest that their product be regularly replaced.

Those who use Microsoft Windows might feel that like the women who purchased endless pairs of stockings, they are victims of planned obsolescence. Every time Windows releases a new operating system, there are typically not many innovations in it that consumers feel they must have. However, the software programs are upwardly compatible only. This means that while the new versions can read older files, the old version cannot read the newer ones. In short order, those who have not upgraded right away find themselves unable to open files sent by colleagues or friends, and they usually wind up upgrading as well.

Ultimately, whether you are getting rid of your old product because you are being offered a shiny new free one (like the latest smartphone model), or because it costs more to fix than to replace (like the iPod model), or because not doing so leaves you out of the loop (like the Windows model), the result is the same. It might just make you nostalgic for your old Sony Discman and simple DVD player.

Product Advertising

Companies use advertising to sell to us, but the way they reach us is changing. Naomi Klein identified the destructive impact of corporate branding her 1999 text, No Logo, an antiglobalization treatise that focused on sweatshops, corporate power, and anticonsumerist social movements. In the post-millennial society, synergistic advertising practices ensure you are receiving the same message from a variety of sources and on a variety of platforms. For example, you may see billboards for Miller beer on your way to a stadium, sit down to watch a game preceded by a Miller commercial on the big screen, and watch a halftime ad in which people are shown holding up the trademark bottles. Chances are you can guess which brand of beer is for sale at the concession stand.

Advertising has changed, as technology and media have allowed consumers to bypass traditional advertising venues. From the invention of the remote control, which allows us to skip television advertising without leaving our seats, to recording devices that let us watch programs but skip the ads, conventional television advertising is on the wane. And print media is no different. Advertising revenue in newspapers and on television fell significantly in 2009, which shows that companies need new ways of getting their messages to consumers.

One model companies are considering to address this advertising downturn uses the same philosophy as celebrity endorsements, just on a different scale. Companies are hiring college students to be their on-campus representatives, and they are looking for popular students engaged in high-profile activities like sports, fraternities, and music. The marketing team is betting that if we buy perfume because Beyoncé tells us to, we’ll also choose our cell phone or smoothie brand if a popular student encourages that choice. According to an article in the New York Times, fall semester 2011 saw an estimated 10,000 U.S. college students working on campus as brand ambassadors for products from Red Bull energy drinks to Hewlett-Packard computers (Singer 2011). As the companies figure it, college students will trust one source of information above all: other students.

Homogenization and Fragmentation

Despite the variety of media at hand, the mainstream news and entertainment you enjoy are increasingly homogenized. Research by McManus (1995) suggests that different news outlets all tell the same stories, using the same sources, resulting in the same message, presented with only slight variations. So whether you are reading the New York Times or the CNN’s web site, the coverage of national events like a major court case or political issue will likely be the same.

Simultaneously with this homogenization among the major news outlets, the opposite process is occurring in the newer media streams. With so many choices, people increasingly customize their news experience, minimizing their opportunity to encounter information that does not jive with their worldview (Prior 2005). For instance, those who are staunchly Republican can avoid centrist or liberal-leaning cable news shows and web sites that would show Democrats in a favorable light. They know to seek out Fox News over MSNBC, just as Democrats know to do the opposite. Further, people who want to avoid politics completely can choose to visit web sites that deal only with entertainment or that will keep them up to date on sports scores. They have an easy way to avoid information they do not wish to hear.

8.3 Global Implications of Media and Technology

Figure 8.8 These Twitter updates—a revolution in real time—show the role social media can play on the political stage. (Photo courtesy of Cambodia4kidsorg/flickr)

Technology, and increasingly media, has always driven globalization. In a landmark book, Thomas Friedman (2005), identified several ways in which technology “flattened” the globe and contributed to our global economy. The first edition of The World Is Flat, written in 2005, posits that core economic concepts were changed by personal computing and highspeed Internet. Access to these two technological shifts has allowed core-nation corporations to recruit workers in call centers located in China or India. Using examples like a Midwestern U.S. woman who runs a business from her home via the call centers of Bangalore, India, Friedman warns that this new world order will exist whether core-nation businesses are ready or not, and that in order to keep its key economic role in the world, the United States will need to pay attention to how it prepares workers of the twenty-first century for this dynamic.

Of course not everyone agrees with Friedman’s theory. Many economists pointed out that in reality innovation, economic activity, and population still gather in geographically attractive areas, and they continue to create economic peaks and valleys, which are by no means flattened out to mean equality for all. China’s hugely innovative and powerful cities of Shanghai and Beijing are worlds away from the rural squalor of the country’s poorest denizens.

It is worth noting that Friedman is an economist, not a sociologist. His work focuses on the economic gains and risks this new world order entails. In this section, we will look more closely at how media globalization and technological globalization play out in a sociological perspective. As the names suggest, media globalization is the worldwide integration of media through the cross-cultural exchange of ideas, while technological globalization refers to the crosscultural development and exchange of technology.

Media Globalization

Lyons (2005) suggests that multinational corporations are the primary vehicle of media globalization, and these corporations control global mass-media content and distribution (Compaine 2005). It is true, when looking at who controls which media outlets, that there are fewer independent news sources as larger and larger conglomerates develop. The United States offers about 1,500 newspapers, 2,600 book publishers, and an equal number of television stations, plus 6,000 magazines and a whopping 10,000 radio outlets (Bagdikian 2004).

On the surface, there is endless opportunity to find diverse media outlets. But the numbers are misleading. Media consolidation is a process in which fewer and fewer owners control the majority of media outlets. This creates an oligopoly in which a few firms dominate the media marketplace. In 1983, a mere 50 corporations owned the bulk of massmedia outlets. Today in the United States (which has no government-owned media) just five companies control 90 percent of media outlets (McChesney 1999). Ranked by 2014 company revenue, Comcast is the biggest, followed by the Disney Corporation, Time Warner, CBS, and Viacom (Time.com 2014). What impact does this consolidation have on the type of information to which the U.S. public is exposed? Does media consolidation deprive the public of multiple viewpoints and limit its discourse to the information and opinions shared by a few sources? Why does it matter?

Monopolies matter because less competition typically means consumers are less well served since dissenting opinions or diverse viewpoints are less likely to be found. Media consolidation results in the following dysfunctions. First, consolidated media owes more to its stockholders than to the public. Publicly traded Fortune 500 companies must pay more attention to their profitability and to government regulators than to the public’s right to know. The few companies that control most of the media, because they are owned by the power elite, represent the political and social interests of only a small minority. In an oligopoly there are fewer incentives to innovate, improve services, or decrease prices.

While some social scientists predicted that the increase in media forms would create a global village (McLuhan 1964), current research suggests that the public sphere accessing the global village will tend to be rich, Caucasoid, and Englishspeaking (Jan 2009). As shown by the spring 2011 uprisings throughout the Arab world, technology really does offer a window into the news of the world. For example, here in the United States we saw internet updates of Egyptian events in real time, with people tweeting, posting, and blogging on the ground in Tahrir Square.

Still, there is no question that the exchange of technology from core nations to peripheral and semi-peripheral ones leads to a number of complex issues. For instance, someone using a conflict theorist approach might focus on how much political ideology and cultural colonialism occurs with technological growth. In theory at least, technological innovations are ideology-free; a fiber optic cable is the same in a Muslim country as a secular one, a communist country or a capitalist one. But those who bring technology to less-developed nations—whether they are nongovernment organizations, businesses, or governments—usually have an agenda. A functionalist, in contrast, might focus on the ways technology creates new means to share information about successful crop-growing programs, or on the economic benefits of opening a new market for cell phone use. Either way, cultural and societal assumptions and norms are being delivered along with those high-speed wires.

Cultural and ideological bias are not the only risks of media globalization. In addition to the risk of cultural imperialism and the loss of local culture, other problems come with the benefits of a more interconnected globe. One risk is the potential for censoring by national governments that let in only the information and media they feel serve their message, as is occurring in China. In addition, core nations such as the United States risk the use of international media by criminals to circumvent local laws against socially deviant and dangerous behaviors such as gambling, child pornography, and the sex trade. Offshore or international web sites allow U.S. citizens (and others) to seek out whatever illegal or illicit information they want, from twenty-four hour online gambling sites that do not require proof of age, to sites that sell child pornography. These examples illustrate the societal risks of unfettered information flow.

the

Making Connections: Big Picture

China and the Internet: An Uncomfortable Friendship

Figure 8.9 What information is accessible to these patrons of an internet café in China? What is censored from their view? (Photo Courtesy of Kai Hendry/flickr)

In the United States, the Internet is used to access illegal gambling and pornography sites, as well as to research stocks, crowd-source what car to buy, or keep in touch with childhood friends. Can we allow one or more of those activities, while restricting the rest? And who decides what needs restricting? In a country with democratic principles and an underlying belief in free-market capitalism, the answer is decided in the court system. But globally, the questions––and the government’s responses––are very different.

China is in many ways the global poster child for the uncomfortable relationship between Internet freedom and government control. China, which is a country with a tight rein on the dissemination of information, has long worked to suppress what it calls “harmful information,” including dissent concerning government politics, dialogue about China’s role in Tibet, or criticism of the government’s handling of events.

With sites like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube blocked in China, the nation’s Internet users––some 500 million strong in 2011––turn to local media companies for their needs. Renren.com is China’s answer to Facebook. Perhaps more importantly from a social-change perspective, Sina Weibo is China’s version of Twitter. Microblogging, or Weibo, acts like Twitter in that users can post short messages that can be read by their subscribers. And because these services move so quickly and with such wide scope, it is difficult for government overseers to keep up. This tool was used to criticize government response to a deadly rail crash and to protest a chemical plant. It was also credited with the government’s decision to report more accurately on the air pollution in Beijing, which occurred after a highprofile campaign by a well-known property developer (Pierson 2012).

There is no question of China’s authoritarian government ruling over this new form of Internet communication. The nation blocks the use of certain terms, such as human rights, and passes new laws that require people to register with their real names and make it more dangerous to criticize government actions. Indeed, fifty-six-year-old microblogger Wang Lihong was recently sentenced to nine months in prison for “stirring up trouble,” as her government described her work helping people with government grievances (Bristow 2011). But the government cannot shut down this flow of information completely. Foreign companies, seeking to engage with the increasingly important Chinese consumer market, have their own accounts: the NBA has more than 5 million followers, and Tom Cruise’s Weibo account boasts almost 3 million followers (Zhang 2011). The government, too, uses Weibo to get its own message across. As the millennium progresses, China’s approach to social media and the freedoms it offers will be watched anxiously––on Sina Weibo and beyond––by the rest of the world.

Technological Globalization

Technological globalization is speeded in large part by technological diffusion, the spread of technology across borders. In the last two decades, there has been rapid improvement in the spread of technology to peripheral and semi-peripheral nations, and a 2008 World Bank report discusses both the benefits and ongoing challenges of this diffusion. In general, the report found that technological progress and economic growth rates were linked, and that the rise in technological progress has helped improve the situations of many living in absolute poverty (World Bank 2008). The report recognizes that rural and low-tech products such as corn can benefit from new technological innovations, and that, conversely, technologies like mobile banking can aid those whose rural existence consists of low-tech market vending. In addition, technological advances in areas like mobile phones can lead to competition, lowered prices, and concurrent improvements in related areas such as mobile banking and information sharing.

However, the same patterns of social inequality that create a digital divide in the United States also create digital divides within peripheral and semi-peripheral nations. While the growth of technology use among countries has increased dramatically over the past several decades, the spread of technology within countries is significantly slower among peripheral and semi-peripheral nations. In these countries, far fewer people have the training and skills to take advantage of new technology, let alone access it. Technological access tends to be clustered around urban areas and leaves out vast swaths of peripheral-nation citizens. While the diffusion of information technologies has the potential to resolve many global social problems, it is often the population most in need that is most affected by the digital divide. For example, technology to purify water could save many lives, but the villages in peripheral nations most in need of water purification don’t have access to the technology, the funds to purchase it, or the technological comfort level to introduce it as a solution.

Making Connections: Sociology in the Real World

The Mighty Cell Phone: How Mobile Phones Are Impacting Sub-Saharan Africa

Many of Africa’s poorest countries suffer from a marked lack of infrastructure including poor roads, limited electricity, and minimal access to education and telephones. But while landline use has not changed appreciably during the past ten years, there’s been a fivefold increase in mobile phone access; more than a third of people in SubSaharan Africa have the ability to access a mobile phone (Katine 2010). Even more can use a “village phone”—through a shared-phone program created by the Grameen Foundation. With access to mobile phone technology, a host of benefits become available that have the potential to change the dynamics in these poorest nations. Sometimes that change is as simple as being able to make a phone call to neighboring market towns. By finding out which markets have vendors interested in their goods, fishers and farmers can ensure they travel to the market that will serve them best and avoid a wasted trip. Others can use mobile phones and some of the emerging money-sending systems to securely send money to a family member or business partner elsewhere (Katine 2010).

These shared-phone programs are often funded by businesses like Germany’s Vodafone or Britain’s Masbabi, which hope to gain market share in the region. Phone giant Nokia points out that there are 4 billion mobile phone users worldwide—that’s more than twice as many people as have bank accounts—meaning there is ripe opportunity to connect banking companies with people who need their services (ITU Telecom 2009). Not all access is corporatebased, however. Other programs are funded by business organizations that seek to help peripheral nations with tools for innovation and entrepreneurship.

But this wave of innovation and potential business comes with costs. There is, certainly, the risk of cultural imperialism, and the assumption that core nations (and core-nation multinationals) know what is best for those struggling in the world’s poorest communities. Whether well intentioned or not, the vision of a continent of Africans successfully chatting on their iPhone may not be ideal. Like all aspects of global inequity, access to technology in Africa requires more than just foreign investment. There must be a concerted effort to ensure the benefits of technology get to where they are needed most.

8.4 Theoretical Perspectives on Media and Technology

It is difficult to conceive of any one theory or theoretical perspective that can explain the variety of ways in which people interact with technology and the media. Technology runs the gamut from the match you strike to light a candle all the way up to sophisticated nuclear power plants that might power the factory where that candle was made. Media could refer to the television you watch, the ads wrapping the bus you take to work or school, or the magazines you flip through in a dentist’s waiting room, not to mention all the forms of new media, including Instagram, Facebook, blogs, YouTube, and the like. Are media and technology critical to the forward march of humanity? Are they pernicious capitalist tools that lead to the exploitation of workers worldwide? Are they the magic bullet the world has been waiting for to level the playing field and raise the world’s poor out of extreme poverty? Choose any opinion and you will find studies and scholars who agree with you––and those who disagree.

Functionalism

Because functionalism focuses on how media and technology contribute to the smooth functioning of society, a good place to begin understanding this perspective is to write a list of functions you perceive media and technology to perform. Your list might include the ability to find information on the Internet, television’s entertainment value, or how advertising and product placement contribute to social norms.

Commercial Function

Figure 8.10 TV commercials can carry significant cultural currency. For some, the ads during the Super Bowl are more water cooler-worthy than the game itself. (Photo courtesy of Dennis Yang/flickr)

As you might guess, with nearly every U.S. household possessing a television, and the 250 billion hours of television watched annually by people in the United States, companies that wish to connect with consumers find television an irresistible platform to promote their goods and services (Nielsen 2012). Television advertising is a highly functional way to meet a market demographic where it lives. Sponsors can use the sophisticated data gathered by network and cable television companies regarding their viewers and target their advertising accordingly. Whether you are watching cartoons on Nick Jr. or a cooking show on Telemundo, chances are advertisers have a plan to reach you.

And it certainly doesn’t stop with television. Commercial advertising precedes movies in theaters and shows up on and inside public transportation, as well as on the sides of building and roadways. Major corporations such as Coca-Cola bring their advertising into public schools, by sponsoring sports fields or tournaments, as well as filling the halls and cafeterias of those schools with vending machines hawking their goods. With rising concerns about childhood obesity and attendant diseases, the era of soda machines in schools may be numbered. In fact, as part of the United States Department of Agriculture’s Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act and Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! Initiative, a ban on junk food in school began in July 2014.

Entertainment Function

An obvious manifest function of media is its entertainment value. Most people, when asked why they watch television or go to the movies, would answer that they enjoy it. And the numbers certainly illustrate that. While 2012 Nielsen research shows a slight reduction of U.S. homes with televisions, the reach of television is still vast. And the amount of time spent watching is equally large. Clearly, enjoyment is paramount. On the technology side, as well, there is a clear entertainment factor to the use of new innovations. From online gaming to chatting with friends on Facebook, technology offers new and more exciting ways for people to entertain themselves.

Social Norm Functions

Even while the media is selling us goods and entertaining us, it also serves to socialize us, helping us pass along norms, values, and beliefs to the next generation. In fact, we are socialized and resocialized by media throughout our whole lives. All forms of media teach us what is good and desirable, how we should speak, how we should behave, and how we should react to events. Media also provide us with cultural touchstones during events of national significance. How many of your older relatives can recall watching the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger on television? How many of those reading this textbook followed the events of September 11 or Hurricane Katrina on television or the Internet?

Just as in Anderson and Bushman’s (2011) evidence in the Violence in Media and Video Games: Does It Matter? feature, debate still exists over the extent and impact of media socialization. One recent study (Krahe et al. 2011) demonstrated that violent media content does have a desensitizing affect and is correlated with aggressive thoughts. Another group of scholars (Gentile, Mathieson, and Crick 2011) found that among children exposure to media violence led to an increase in both physical and relational aggression. Yet, a meta-analysis study covering four decades of research (Savage 2003) could not establish a definitive link between viewing violence and committing criminal violence.

It is clear from watching people emulate the styles of dress and talk that appear in media that media has a socializing influence. What is not clear, despite nearly fifty years of empirical research, is how much socializing influence the media has when compared to other agents of socialization, which include any social institution that passes along norms, values, and beliefs (such as peers, family, religious institutions, and the like).

Life-Changing Functions

Like media, many forms of technology do indeed entertain us, provide a venue for commercialization, and socialize us. For example, some studies suggest the rising obesity rate is correlated with the decrease in physical activity caused by an increase in use of some forms of technology, a latent function of the prevalence of media in society (Kautiainen et al. 2011). Without a doubt, a manifest function of technology is to change our lives, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. Think of how the digital age has improved the ways we communicate. Have you ever used Skype or another webcast to talk to a friend or family member far away? Or maybe you have organized a fund drive, raising thousands of dollars, all from your desk chair.

Of course, the downside to this ongoing information flow is the near impossibility of disconnecting from technology that leads to an expectation of constant convenient access to information and people. Such a fast-paced dynamic is not always to our benefit. Some sociologists assert that this level of media exposure leads to narcotizing dysfunction, a result in which people are too overwhelmed with media input to really care about the issue, so their involvement becomes defined by awareness instead of by action (Lazerfeld and Merton 1948).

Conflict Perspective

In contrast to theories in the functional perspective, the conflict perspective focuses on the creation and reproduction of inequality—social processes that tend to disrupt society rather than contribute to its smooth operation. When we take a conflict perspective, one major focus is the differential access to media and technology embodied in the digital divide. Conflict theorists also look at who controls the media, and how media promotes the norms of upper-middle-class white people in the United States while minimizing the presence of the working class, especially people of color.

Control of Media and Technology

Powerful individuals and social institutions have a great deal of influence over which forms of technology are released, when and where they are released, and what kind of media is available for our consumption, which is a form of gatekeeping. Shoemaker and Voss (2009) define gatekeeping as the sorting process by which thousands of possible messages are shaped into a mass media-appropriate form and reduced to a manageable amount. In other words, the people in charge of the media decide what the public is exposed to, which, as C. Wright Mills (1956) famously noted, is the heart of media’s power. Take a moment to think of the way “new media” evolve and replace traditional forms of hegemonic media. With hegemonic media, a culturally diverse society can be dominated by one race, gender, or class that manipulates the media to impose its worldview as a societal norm. New media weakens the gatekeeper role in information distribution. Popular sites such as YouTube and Facebook not only allow more people to freely share information but also engage in a form of self-policing. Users are encouraged to report inappropriate behavior that moderators will then address.

In addition, some conflict theorists suggest that the way U.S. media are generated results in an unbalanced political arena. Those with the most money can buy the most media exposure, run smear campaigns against their competitors, and maximize their visual presence. Almost a year before the 2012 U.S. presidential election, the candidates––Barack Obama for the Democrats and numerous Republican contenders––had raised more than $186 million (Carmi et al. 2012). Some would say that the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Committee is a major contributing factor to our unbalanced political arena. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of outside groups, including Super Political Action Committees (SuperPACs) with undisclosed donor lists, to spend unlimited amounts of money on political ads as long as they don’t coordinate with the candidate’s campaign or specifically advocate for a candidate. What do you think a conflict perspective theorist would suggest about the potential for the non-rich to be heard in politics, especially when SuperPACs ensure that the richest groups have the most say?

Technological Social Control and Digital Surveillance

Social scientists take the idea of the surveillance society so seriously that there is an entire journal devoted to its study, Surveillance and Society. The panoptic surveillance envisioned by Jeremy Bentham, depicted in the form of an allpowerful, all-seeing government by George Orwell in 1984, and later analyzed by Michel Foucault (1975) is increasingly realized in the form of technology used to monitor our every move. This surveillance was imagined as a form of constant monitoring in which the observation posts are decentralized and the observed is never communicated with directly. Today, digital security cameras capture our movements, observers can track us through our cell phones, and police forces around the world use facial-recognition software.

Feminist Perspective

Figure 8.11 What types of women are we exposed to in the media? Some would argue that the range of female images is misleadingly narrow.

(Photo courtesy of Cliff1066/flickr)

Take a look at popular television shows, advertising campaigns, and online game sites. In most, women are portrayed in a particular set of parameters and tend to have a uniform look that society recognizes as attractive. Most are thin, white or light-skinned, beautiful, and young. Why does this matter? Feminist perspective theorists believe this idealized image is crucial in creating and reinforcing stereotypes. For example, Fox and Bailenson (2009) found that online female avatars conforming to gender stereotypes enhance negative attitudes toward women, and Brasted (2010) found that media (advertising in particular) promotes gender stereotypes. As early as 1990, Ms. magazine instituted a policy to publish without any commercial advertising.

The gender gap in tech-related fields (science, technology, engineering, and math) is no secret. A 2011 U.S. Department of Commerce Report suggested that gender stereotyping is one reason for this gap which acknowledges the bias toward men as keepers of technological knowledge (US Department of Commerce 2011). But gender stereotypes go far beyond the use of technology. Press coverage in the media reinforces stereotypes that subordinate women; it gives airtime to looks over skills, and coverage disparages women who defy accepted norms.

Recent research in new media has offered a mixed picture of its potential to equalize the status of men and women in the arenas of technology and public discourse. A European agency, the Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities for Men and Women (2010), issued an opinion report suggesting that while there is the potential for new media forms to perpetuate gender stereotypes and the gender gap in technology and media access, at the same time new media could offer alternative forums for feminist groups and the exchange of feminist ideas. Still, the committee warned against the relatively unregulated environment of new media and the potential for antifeminist activities, from pornography to human trafficking, to flourish there.

Increasingly prominent in the discussion of new media and feminism is cyberfeminism, the application to, and promotion of, feminism online. Research on cyberfeminism runs the gamut from the liberating use of blogs by women living in Iraq during the second Gulf War (Peirce 2011) to an investigation of the Suicide Girls web site (Magnet 2007).

Symbolic Interactionism

Technology itself may act as a symbol for many. The kind of computer you own, the kind of car you drive, your ability to afford the latest Apple product—these serve as a social indicator of wealth and status. Neo-Luddites are people who see technology as symbolizing the coldness and alienation of modern life. But for technophiles, technology symbolizes the potential for a brighter future. For those adopting an ideological middle ground, technology might symbolize status (in the form of a massive flat-screen television) or failure (ownership of a basic old mobile phone with no bells or whistles).

Social Construction of Reality

Meanwhile, media create and spread symbols that become the basis for our shared understanding of society. Theorists working in the interactionist perspective focus on this social construction of reality, an ongoing process in which people subjectively create and understand reality. Media constructs our reality in a number of ways. For some, the people they watch on a screen can become a primary group, meaning the small informal groups of people who are closest to them. For many others, media becomes a reference group: a group that influences an individual and to which an individual compares himself or herself, and by which we judge our successes and failures. We might do very well without the latest smartphone, until we see characters using it on our favorite television show or our classmates whipping it out between classes.

While media may indeed be the medium to spread the message of rich white males, Gamson, Croteau, Hoynes, and Sasson (1992) point out that some forms of media discourse allow competing constructions of reality to appear. For example, advertisers find new and creative ways to sell us products we don’t need and probably wouldn’t want without their prompting, but some networking sites such as Freecycle offer a commercial-free way of requesting and trading items that would otherwise be discarded. The web is also full of blogs chronicling lives lived “off the grid,” or without participation in the commercial economy.

Social Networking and Social Construction

While Tumblr and Facebook encourage us to check in and provide details of our day through online social networks, corporations can just as easily promote their products on these sites. Even supposedly crowd-sourced sites like Yelp (which aggregates local reviews) are not immune to corporate shenanigans. That is, we think we are reading objective observations when in reality we may be buying into one more form of advertising.

Facebook, which started as a free social network for college students, is increasingly a monetized business, selling you goods and services in subtle ways. But chances are you don’t think of Facebook as one big online advertisement. What started out as a symbol of coolness and insider status, unavailable to parents and corporate shills, now promotes consumerism in the form of games and fandom. For example, think of all the money spent to upgrade popular Facebook games like Candy Crush. And notice that whenever you become a “fan,” you likely receive product updates and special deals that promote online and real-world consumerism. It is unlikely that millions of people want to be “friends” with Pampers. But if it means a weekly coupon, they will, in essence, rent out space on their Facebook pages for Pampers to appear. Thus, we develop both new ways to spend money and brand loyalties that will last even after Facebook is considered outdated and obsolete.

Chapter Review

Key Terms

cyberfeminism: the application to and promotion of feminism online

design patents: patents that are granted when someone has invented a new and original design for a manufactured product

digital divide: the uneven access to technology around race, class, and geographic lines e-readiness: the ability to sort through, interpret, and process digital knowledge

evolutionary model of technological change: a breakthrough in one form of technology that leads to a number of variations, from which a prototype emerges, followed by a period of slight adjustments to the technology, interrupted by a breakthrough

gatekeeping: the sorting process by which thousands of possible messages are shaped into a mass media-appropriate form and reduced to a manageable amount knowledge gap: the gap in information that builds as groups grow up without access to technology media: all print, digital, and electronic means of communication media consolidation: a process by which fewer and fewer owners control the majority of media outlets media globalization: the worldwide integration of media through the cross-cultural exchange of ideas neo-Luddites: those who see technology as a symbol of the coldness of modern life net neutrality: the principle that all Internet data should be treated equally by internet service providers new media: all interactive forms of information exchange oligopoly: a situation in which a few firms dominate a marketplace

panoptic surveillance: a form of constant monitoring in which the observation posts are decentralized and the observed is never communicated with directly

planned obsolescence: the act of a technology company planning for a product to be obsolete or unable from the time it’s created plant patents: patents that recognize the discovery of new plant types that can be asexually reproduced technological diffusion: the spread of technology across borders technological globalization: the cross-cultural development and exchange of technology technology: the application of science to solve problems in daily life technophiles: those who see technology as symbolizing the potential for a brighter future

utility patents: patents that are granted for the invention or discovery of any new and useful process, product, or machine

Section Summary

8.1 Technology Today

Technology is the application of science to address the problems of daily life. The fast pace of technological advancement means the advancements are continuous, but that not everyone has equal access. The gap created by this unequal access has been termed the digital divide. The knowledge gap refers to an effect of the digital divide: the lack of knowledge or information that keeps those who were not exposed to technology from gaining marketable skills

8.2 Media and Technology in Society

Media and technology have been interwoven from the earliest days of human communication. The printing press, the telegraph, and the Internet are all examples of their intersection. Mass media have allowed for more shared social experiences, but new media now create a seemingly endless amount of airtime for any and every voice that wants to be heard. Advertising has also changed with technology. New media allow consumers to bypass traditional advertising venues and cause companies to be more innovative and intrusive as they try to gain our attention.

8.3 Global Implications of Media and Technology

Technology drives globalization, but what that means can be hard to decipher. While some economists see technological advances leading to a more level playing field where anyone anywhere can be a global contender, the reality is that opportunity still clusters in geographically advantaged areas. Still, technological diffusion has led to the spread of more and more technology across borders into peripheral and semi-peripheral nations. However, true technological global equality is a long way off.

8.4 Theoretical Perspectives on Media and Technology

There are myriad theories about how society, technology, and media will progress. Functionalism sees the contribution that technology and media provide to the stability of society, from facilitating leisure time to increasing productivity. Conflict theorists are more concerned with how technology reinforces inequalities among communities, both within and among countries. They also look at how media typically give voice to the most powerful, and how new media might offer tools to help those who are disenfranchised. Symbolic interactionists see the symbolic uses of technology as signs of everything from a sterile futuristic world to a successful professional life.

Section Quiz

8.1 Technology Today

Jerome is able to use the Internet to select reliable sources for his research paper, but Charlie just copies large pieces of web pages and pastes them into his paper. Jerome has _____________ while Charlie does not. a. a functional perspective

the knowledge gap

e-readiness

a digital divide

The ________ can be directly attributed to the digital divide, because differential ability to access the internet leads directly to a differential ability to use the knowledge found on the Internet.

digital divide

knowledge gap

feminist perspective

e-gap

The fact that your cell phone is using outdated technology within a year or two of purchase is an example of ____________.

the conflict perspective

conspicuous consumption

media

planned obsolescence

The history of technology began _________.

in the early stages of human societies

with the invention of the computer

during the Renaissance

during the nineteenth century

8.2 Media and Technology in Society

When it comes to technology, media, and society, which of the following is true?

Media can influence technology, but not society.

Technology created media, but society has nothing to do with these.

Technology, media, and society are bound and cannot be separated.

Society influences media but is not connected to technology.

If the U.S. Patent Office were to issue a patent for a new type of tomato that tastes like a jellybean, it would be issuing a _________ patent?

utility patent

plant patent

design patent

The U.S. Patent Office does not issue a patent for plants.

Which of the following is the primary component of the evolutionary model of technological change?

Technology should not be subject to patenting.

Technology and the media evolve together.

Technology can be traced back to the early stages of human society.

A breakthrough in one form of technology leads to a number of variations, and technological developments.

Which of the following is not a form of new media?

The cable television program Dexter

Wikipedia

Facebook

A cooking blog written by Rachael Ray

Research regarding video game violence suggests that _________.

boys who play violent video games become more aggressive, but girls do not

girls who play violent video games become more aggressive, but boys do not

violent video games have no connection to aggressive behavior

violent video games lead to an increase in aggressive thought and behavior

Comic books, Wikipedia, MTV, and a commercial for Coca-Cola are all examples of:

media

symbolic interaction perspective

e-readiness

the digital divide

8.3 Global Implications of Media and Technology

When Japanese scientists develop a new vaccine for swine flu and offer that technology to U.S. pharmaceutical companies, __________ has taken place.

media globalization

technological diffusion

monetizing

planned obsolescence

In the mid-90s, the U.S. government grew concerned that Microsoft was a _______________, exercising disproportionate control over the available choices and prices of computers.

monopoly

conglomerate

oligopoly

technological globalization

The movie Babel featured an international cast and was filmed on location in various nations. When it screened in theaters worldwide, it introduced a number of ideas and philosophies about cross-cultural connections. This might be an example of:

technology

conglomerating

symbolic interaction

media globalization

Which of the following is not a risk of media globalization?

The creation of cultural and ideological biases

The creation of local monopolies

The risk of cultural imperialism

The loss of local culture

The government of __________ blocks citizens’ access to popular new media sites like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.

China

India

Afghanistan

Australia

8.4 Theoretical Perspectives on Media and Technology

A parent secretly monitoring the babysitter through the use of GPS, site blocker, and nanny cam is a good example of:

the social construction of reality

technophilia

a neo-Luddite

panoptic surveillance

The use of Facebook to create an online persona by only posting images that match your ideal self exemplifies the_____________ that can occur in forms of new media.

social construction of reality

cyberfeminism

market segmentation

referencing

_________ tend to be more pro-technology, while _______ view technology as a symbol of the coldness of modern life.

Luddites; technophiles

technophiles; Luddites

cyberfeminists; technophiles

liberal feminists; conflict theorists

When it comes to media and technology, a functionalist would focus on:

the symbols created and reproduced by the media

the association of technology and technological skill with men

the way that various forms of media socialize users

the digital divide between the technological haves and have-nots

When all media sources report a simplified version of the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing, with no effort to convey the hard science and complicated statistical data behind the story, ___________ is probably occurring. a. gatekeeping

the digital divide

technophilia

market segmentation

Short Answer

8.1 Technology Today

Can you think of people in your own life who support or defy the premise that access to technology leads to greater opportunities? How have you noticed technology use and opportunity to be linked, or does your experience contradict this idea?

Should the U.S. government be responsible for providing all citizens with access to the Internet? Or is gaining Internet access an individual responsibility?

How have digital media changed social interactions? Do you believe it has deepened or weakened human connections? Defend your answer.

Conduct sociological research. Google yourself. How much information about you is available to the public? How many and what types of companies offer private information about you for a fee? Compile the data and statistics you find. Write a paragraph or two about the social issues and behaviors you notice.

8.2 Media and Technology in Society

Where and how do you get your news? Do you watch network television? Read the newspaper? Go online? How about your parents or grandparents? Do you think it matters where you seek out information? Why, or why not?

Do you believe new media allows for the kind of unifying moments that television and radio programming used to? If so, give an example.

Where are you most likely to notice advertisements? What causes them to catch your attention?

8.3 Global Implications of Media and Technology

Do you believe that technology has indeed flattened the world in terms of providing opportunity? Why, or why not? Give examples to support your reason.

Where do you get your news? Is it owned by a large conglomerate (you can do a web search and find out!)? Does it matter to you who owns your local news outlets? Why, or why not?

Who do you think is most likely to bring innovation and technology (like cell phone businesses) to Sub-Saharan Africa: nonprofit organizations, governments, or businesses? Why?

8.4 Theoretical Perspectives on Media and Technology

Contrast a functionalist viewpoint of digital surveillance with a conflict perspective viewpoint.

In what ways has the Internet affected how you view reality? Explain using a symbolic interactionist perspective.

Describe how a cyberfeminist might address the fact that powerful female politicians are often demonized in traditional media.

The issue of airplane-pilot exhaustion is an issue of growing media concern. Select a theoretical perspective, and describe how it would explain this.

Would you characterize yourself as a technophile or a Luddite? Explain, and use examples.

Further Research

8.1 Technology Today

To learn more about the digital divide and why it matters, check out these web sites: http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

Digital_Divide (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Digital_Divide) and http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Digital_Divide2 (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Digital_Divide2)

To find out more about Internet privacy and security, check out the web site below: http://openstaxcollege.org/l/2EPrivacy

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/2EPrivacy)

8.2 Media and Technology in Society

To get a sense of the timeline of technology, check out this web site: http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Tech_History (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Tech_History)

To learn more about new media, click here: http://openstaxcollege.org/l/new_media (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/ new_media)

To understand how independent media coverage differs from major corporate affiliated news outlets, review material from the Democracy Now! website: http://openstaxcollege.org/l/2EDemoNow (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/2EDemoNow)

8.3 Global Implications of Media and Technology

Check out more on the global digital divide here: http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Global_Digital_Divide (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Global_Digital_Divide)

8.4 Theoretical Perspectives on Media and Technology

To learn more about cyberfeminism, check out the interdisciplinary artist collective, subRosa: http://openstaxcollege.org/l/ cyberfeminism (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/cyberfeminism/)

To explore the implications of panoptic surveillance, review some surveillance studies at the free, open source

Surveillance and Society site: http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Surveillance (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Surveillance)

Read an example of socialist media from Jacobin magazine here: http://openstaxcollege.org/l/2EJacobin

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/2EJacobin)

References

8.1 Technology Today

Guillen, M.F., and S.L. Suárez. 2005. “Explaining the Global Digital Divide: Economic, Political and Sociological Drivers of Cross-National Internet Use.” Social Forces 84:681–708.

Lewis, Dave. 2014. “ICloud Data Breach: Hacking and Celebrity Photos.” Forbes.com. Forbes. Retrieved October 6, 2014

(httpwww.sans.orgreading-roomwhitepaperscasestudiescase-study-critical-controlsprevented-target-breach-35412 (http://cnx.org/content/m52846/1.7/httpwww.sans.orgreadingroomwhitepaperscasestudiescase-study-critical-controls-prevented-target-breach-35412) ).

Liff, Sondra, and Adrian Shepard. 2004. “An Evolving Gender Digital Divide.” Oxford Internet Institute, Internet Issue Brief No. 2. Retrieved January 11, 2012 (educ.ubc.ca/faculty/bryson/565/genderdigdiv.pdf).

McChesney, Robert. 1999. Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Mossberger, Karen, Caroline Tolbert, and Michele Gilbert. 2006. “Race, Place, and Information Technology.” Urban Affairs Review 41:583–620.

Pew Research Center. 2011. “Demographics of Internet Users.” Pew Internet and American Life Project, May. Retrieved January 12, 2012 (http://www.pewinternet.org/Trend-Data/Whos-Online.aspx (http://www.pewinternet.org/Trend-Data/ Whos-Online.aspx) ).

“Planned Obsolescence.” 2009. The Economist, March 23. Retrieved January 12, 2012 (http://www.economist.com/node/ 13354332 (http://www.economist.com/node/13354332) ).

Rainie, Lee, Sara Kiesler, Ruogo Kang, and Mary Madden. 2013. “Anonymity, Privacy, and Security Online.” Pew

Research Centers Internet American Life Project RSS. Pew Research Center. Retrieved October 5, 2014

(http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/05/anonymity-privacy-and-security-online/ (http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/05/ anonymity-privacy-and-security-online/) ).

Rappaport, Richard. 2009. “A Short History of the Digital Divide.” Edutopia, October 27. Retrieved January 10, 2012 ( http://www.edutopia.org/digital-generation-divide-connectivity (http://www.edutopia.org/digital-generation-divideconnectivity) ).

Sciadas, George. 2003. “Monitoring the Digital Divide … and Beyond.” World Bank Group. Retrieved January 22, 2012 (http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.20.html (http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.20.html) ).

Smith, Aaron. 2012. “The Best (and Worst) of Mobile Connectivity.” Pew Research Internet Project. Retrieved December 19, 2014 (http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/30/the-best-and-worst-of-mobile-connectivity/ (http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/30/the-best-and-worst-of-mobile-connectivity/) ).

Time.com. 2014. “Rankings.” Fortune. Time.com. Retreived October 1, 2014 (http://fortune.com/rankings/ (http://fortune.com/rankings/) ).

Washington, Jesse. 2011. “For Minorities, New ‘Digital Divide’ Seen.” Pew Internet and American Life Project, January 10. Retrieved January 12, 2012 (http://www.pewinternet.org/Media-Mentions/2011/For-minorities-new-digital-divideseen.aspx (http://www.pewinternet.org/Media-Mentions/2011/For-minorities-new-digital-divide-seen.aspx) ).

8.2 Media and Technology in Society

Anderson, C.A., and B.J. Bushman. 2001. “Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, and Prosocial Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Scientific Literature.” Psychological Science 12:353–359.

Anderson, Craig. 2003. “Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts and Unanswered Questions.” American Psychological Association, October. Retrieved January 13, 2012 (http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx (http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx) ).

Anderson, Philip, and Michael Tushman. 1990. “Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35:604–633.

Dillon, Andrew. 1992. “Reading From Paper Versus Screens: A Critical Review of the Empirical Literature.” Ergonomics 35(10): 1297–1326.

DeSilver, Drew. 2014. “Overall Book Readership Stable, But e-Books Becoming More Popular.” Pew Research Center. Retrieved December 5, 2014 (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/21/overall-book-readership-stable-but-ebooks-becoming-more-popular/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/21/overall-book-readership-stable-but-ebooks-becoming-more-popular/) ).

Duggan, Maeve, and Aaron Smith. “Social Media Update 2013.” Pew Research Centers Internet American Life Project RSS. Pew Research Center. Retrieved October 2, 2014 (http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/12/30/social-mediaupdate-2013/ (http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/12/30/social-media-update-2013/) ).

International Telecommunication Unions. 2014. “The World in 2014: ICT Facts and Figures.” United Nations. Retrieved December 5, 2014 (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2014-e.pdf (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2014-e.pdf) ).

Jansen, Jim. “Use of the Internet in Higher-income Households.” Pew Research Centers Internet American Life Project RSS. Pew Research Center. Retrieved October 1, 2014 (http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/11/24/use-of-the-internet-inhigher-income-households (http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/11/24/use-of-the-internet-in-higher-income-households) ).

Kumar, Ravi. 2014. “Social Media and Social Change: How Young People Are Tapping into Technology.” Youthink! N.p. Retrieved October 3, 2014 (http://blogs.worldbank.org/youthink/social-media-and-social-change-how-young-people-aretapping-technology (http://blogs.worldbank.org/youthink/social-media-and-social-change-how-young-people-are-tappingtechnology) ).

Lievrouw, Leah A., and Sonia Livingstone, eds. 2006. Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Social Consequences. London : SAGE Publications.

McManus, John. 1995. “A Market-Based Model of News Production.” Communication Theory 5:301–338.

Mangen, A., B.R. Walgermo, and K. Bronnick. 2013. “Reading Linear Texts on Paper Versus Computer Screen: Effects on Reading Comprehension.” International Journal of Educational Research 58 :61–68.

Nielsen. 2013. “’Bingeing’ in the New Viewing for Over-the-Top-Streamers.” Retrieved December 5, 2014 (http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2013/binging-is-the-new-viewing-for-over-the-top-streamers.html (http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2013/binging-is-the-new-viewing-for-over-the-top-streamers.html) ).

Noyes, Jan, and Kate J. Garland. 2008. “Computer- Vs. Paper-Based Tasks: Are They Equivalent?” Ergonomics 51(9): 1352–1375.

Pew Research Center. 2010. “State of the News Media 2010.” Pew Research Center Publications, March 15. Retrieved January 24, 2012 (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1523/state-of-the-news-media-2010 (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1523/ state-of-the-news-media-2010) ).

Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. 2013. “The State of the News Media 2013.” Pew Research Center Publications. Retrieved December 5, 2014 (http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2013/overview-5/key-findings/ (http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2013/overview-5/key-findings/) ).

Prior, Markus. 2005. “News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 49(3):577–592.

ProCon. 2012. “Video Games.” January 5. Retrieved January 12, 2012 (http://videogames.procon.org/ (http://videogames.procon.org/) ).

Reuters. 2013. “YouTube Stats: Site Has 1 Billion Active Users Each Month.” Huffington Post. Retrieved December 5, 2014 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/21/youtube-stats_n_2922543.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/ 03/21/youtube-stats_n_2922543.html) ).

Singer, Natasha. 2011. “On Campus, It’s One Big Commercial.” New York Times, September 10. Retrieved February 10,

2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/business/at-colleges-the-marketers-areeverywhere.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=education (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/business/at-colleges-themarketers-are-everywhere.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=education) ).

Smith, Aaron. 2012. “The Best (and Worst) of Mobile Connectivity.” Pew Research Centers Internet American Life Project RSS. Pew Research Center. Retrieved October 3, 2014 (http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/30/the-best-andworst-of-mobile-connectivity/ (http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/30/the-best-and-worst-of-mobile-connectivity/) ).

Smith, Aaron. 2014a. “African Americans and Technology Use.” Pew Research Centers Internet American Life Project RSS. Pew Research Center. Retrieved October 1, 2014 (http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/01/06/african-americans-andtechnology-use/ (http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/01/06/african-americans-and-technology-use/) ).

Smith, Aaron. 2014b. “Older Adults and Technology Use.” Pew Research Centers Internet American Life Project RSS. Pew Reserch Center. Retrieved October 2, 2014 (http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/04/03/older-adults-and-technology-use/ (http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/04/03/older-adults-and-technology-use/) ).

United States Patent and Trademark Office. 2012. “General Information Concerning Patents.” Retrieved January 12, 2012 (http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsphttp://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/ general_info_concerning_patents.jsp (http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/ general_info_concerning_patents.jsphttp://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp) ).

van de Donk, W., B.D. Loader, P.G. Nixon, and D. Rucht, eds. 2004. Cyberprotest: New Media, Citizens, and Social Movements. New York: Routledge.

World Association of Newspapers. 2004. “Newspapers: A Brief History.” Retrieved January 12, 2012 (http://www.wanpress.org/article.php3?id_article=2821 (http://www.wan-press.org/article.php3?id_article=2821) ).

8.3 Global Implications of Media and Technology

Acker, Jenny C., and Isaac M. Mbiti. 2010. “Mobile Phones and Economic Development in Africa.” Journal of Economic

Perspectives 24(3):207–232. Retrieved January 12, 2012 (http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.24.3.207 (http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.24.3.207) pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.24.3.207 (http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.24.3.207) ).

Bagdikian, Ben H. 2004. The New Media Monopoly. Boston, MA: Beacon Press Books.

Bristow, Michael. 2011. “Can China Control Social Media Revolution?” BBC News China, November 2. Retrieved January 14, 2012 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15383756 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asiapacific-15383756) ).

Compaine, B. 2005. “Global Media.” Pp. 97-101 in Living in the Information Age: A New Media Reader Belmont: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

Friedman, Thomas. 2005. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

ITU News. 2009. “ITU Telecom World 2009: Special Report: Reflecting New Needs and Realities.” November. Retrieved January 14, 2012 (http://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/26.aspx (http://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/ 26.aspx) ).

Jan, Mirza. 2009. “Globalization of Media: Key Issues and Dimensions.” European Journal of Scientific Research 29:66–75.

Katine Chronicles Blog. 2010. “Are Mobile Phones Africa’s Silver Bullet?” The Guardian, January 14. Retrieved January 12, 2012 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/katine/katine-chronicles-blog?page=6 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/katine/katinechronicles-blog?page=6) ).

Ma, Damien. 2011. “2011: When Chinese Social Media Found Its Legs.” The Atlantic, December 18. Retrieved January

15, 2012 (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/12/2011-when-chinese-social-media-found-its-legs/ 250083/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/12/2011-when-chinese-social-media-found-its-legs/ 250083/) ).

McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pierson, David. 2012. “Number of Web Users in China Hits 513 Million.” Los Angeles Times, January 16. Retrieved January 16, 2012 (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/chinese-web-users-grow-to-513-million.html (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/chinese-web-users-grow-to-513-million.html) ).

The World Bank. 2008. “Global Economic Prospects 2008: Technology Diffusion in the Developing World.” World Bank. Retrieved January 24, 2012 (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGEP2008/Resources/GEP_ove_001-016.pdf (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGEP2008/Resources/GEP_ove_001-016.pdf) ).

8.4 Theoretical Perspectives on Media and Technology

Brasted, Monica. 2010. “Care Bears vs. Transformers: Gender Stereotypes in Advertisements.” Retrieved January 10, 2012 (http://www.sociology.org/media-studies/care-bears-vs-transformers-gender-stereotypes-in-advertisements (http://www.sociology.org/media-studies/care-bears-vs-transformers-gender-stereotypes-in-advertisements) ).

Carmi, Evan, Matthew Ericson, David Nolen, Kevin Quealy, Michael Strickland, Jeremy White, and Derek Willis. 2012.

“The 2012 Money Race: Compare the Candidates.” New York Times. Retrieved January 15, 2012

(http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance) ).

Foucault, Michel. 1975. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.

Fox, Jesse, and Jeremy Bailenson. 2009. “Virtual Virgins and Vamps: The Effects of Exposure to Female Characters’ Sexualized Appearance and Gaze in an Immersive Virtual Environment.” Sex Roles 61:147–157.

Gamson, William, David Croteau, William Hoynes, and Theodore Sasson. 1992. “Media Images and the Social Construction of Reality.” Annual Review of Sociology 18:373–393.

Gentile, Douglas, Lindsay Mathieson, and Nikki Crick. 2011. “Media Violence Associations with the Form and Function of Aggression among Elementary School Children.” Social Development 20:213–232.

Kautiainen, S., L. Koivusilta, T. Lintonen, S. M. Virtanen, and A. Rimpelä. 2005. “Use of Information and Communication Technology and Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity Among Adolescents.” International Journal of Obesity 29:925–933

Krahe, Barbara, Ingrid Moller, L. Huesmann, Lucyna Kirwil, Julianec Felber, and Anja Berger. 2011. “Desensitization to Media Violence: Links With Habitual Media Violence

Exposure, Aggressive Cognitions, and Aggressive Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100:630–646.

Lazerfeld, Paul F. and Robert K. Merton. 1948. “Mass Communication, Popular Taste, and Organized Social Action.” The Communication of Ideas. New York: Harper & Bros.

Magnet, Shoshana. 2007. “Feminist Sexualities, Race, and The Internet: An Investigation of suicidegirls.com.” New Media & Society 9:577-602.

Mills, C. Wright. 2000 [1956]. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.

NielsenWire. 2011. “Nielsen Estimates Number of U.S. Television Homes to be 114.7 Million.” May 3. Retrieved January 15, 2012 (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/nielsen-estimates-number-of-u-s-television-homes-tobe-114-7-million/ (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/nielsen-estimates-number-of-u-s-televisionhomes-to-be-114-7-million/) ).

Pierce, Tess. 2011. “Singing at the Digital Well: Blogs as Cyberfeminist Sites of Resistance.” Feminist Formations 23:196–209.

Savage, Joanne. 2003. “Does Viewing Violent Media Really Cause Criminal Violence?

A Methodological Review.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 10:99–128.

Shoemaker, Pamela and Tim Voss. 2009. “Media Gatekeeping.” Pp. 75–89 in An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research, 2nd ed., edited by D. Stacks and M. Salwen. New York: Routledge.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2011. “Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation.” August. Retrieved February 22,

2012 ( http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/womeninstemagaptoinnovation8311.pdf/ (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/nielsen-estimates-number-of-u-s-television-homes-tobe-114-7-million/) ).

9 Social Stratification

in the United States

Figure 9.1 This house, formerly owned by the famous television producer, Aaron Spelling, was for a time listed for $150 million dollars. It is considered one of the most extravagant homes in the United States, and is a testament to the wealth generated in some industries. (Photo courtesy of

Atwater Village Newbie/flickr)

Learning Objectives

9.1. What Is Social Stratification?

Differentiate between open and closed stratification systems

Distinguish between caste and class systems

Understand meritocracy as an ideal system of stratification

9.2. Social Stratification and Mobility in the United States

Understand the U.S. class structure

Describe several types of social mobility

Recognize characteristics that define and identify class

9.3. Global Stratification and Inequality

Define global stratification

Describe different sociological models for understanding global stratification

Understand how studies of global stratification identify worldwide inequalities

9.4. Theoretical Perspectives on Social Stratification

Understand and apply functionalist, conflict theory, and interactionist perspectives on social stratification

Introduction to Social Stratification in the United States

Aaron grew up on a farm in rural Ohio, left home to serve in the Army, and returned a few years later to take over the family farm. He moved into the same house he had grown up in and soon married a young woman with whom he had attended high school. As they began to have children, they quickly realized that the income from the farm was no longer sufficient to meet their needs. Aaron, with little experience beyond the farm, accepted a job as a clerk at a local grocery store. It was there that his life and the lives of his wife and children were changed forever.

One of the managers at the store liked Aaron, his attitude, and his work ethic. He took Aaron under his wing and began to groom him for advancement at the store. Aaron rose through the ranks with ease. Then the manager encouraged him to take a few classes at a local college. This was the first time Aaron had seriously thought about college. Could he be successful, Aaron wondered? Could he actually be the first one in his family to earn a degree? Fortunately, his wife also believed in him and supported his decision to take his first class. Aaron asked his wife and his manager to keep his college enrollment a secret. He did not want others to know about it in case he failed.

Aaron was nervous on his first day of class. He was older than the other students, and he had never considered himself college material. Through hard work and determination, however, he did very well in the class. While he still doubted himself, he enrolled in another class. Again, he performed very well. As his doubt began to fade, he started to take more and more classes. Before he knew it, he was walking across the stage to receive a Bachelor’s degree with honors. The ceremony seemed surreal to Aaron. He couldn’t believe he had finished college, which once seemed like an impossible feat.

Shortly after graduation, Aaron was admitted into a graduate program at a well-respected university where he earned a Master’s degree. He had not only become the first from his family to attend college but also he had earned a graduate degree. Inspired by Aaron’s success, his wife enrolled at a technical college, obtained a degree in nursing, and became a registered nurse working in a local hospital’s labor and delivery department. Aaron and his wife both worked their way up the career ladder in their respective fields and became leaders in their organizations. They epitomized the American Dream—they worked hard and it paid off.

This story may sound familiar. After all, nearly one in three first-year college students is a first-generation degree candidate, and it is well documented that many are not as successful as Aaron. According to the Center for Student Opportunity, a national nonprofit, 89 percent of first-generation students will not earn an undergraduate degree within six years of starting their studies. In fact, these students “drop out of college at four times the rate of peers whose parents have postsecondary degrees” (Center for Student Opportunity quoted in Huot 2014).

Why do students with parents who have completed college tend to graduate more often than those students whose parents do not hold degrees? That question and many others will be answered as we explore social stratification.

9.1 What Is Social Stratification?

Figure 9.2 In the upper echelons of the working world, people with the most power reach the top. These people make the decisions and earn the most money. The majority of Americans will never see the view from the top. (Photo courtesy of Alex Proimos/flickr)

Sociologists use the term social stratification to describe the system of social standing. Social stratification refers to a society’s categorization of its people into rankings of socioeconomic tiers based on factors like wealth, income, race, education, and power.

You may remember the word “stratification” from geology class. The distinct vertical layers found in rock, called stratification, are a good way to visualize social structure. Society’s layers are made of people, and society’s resources are distributed unevenly throughout the layers. The people who have more resources represent the top layer of the social structure of stratification. Other groups of people, with progressively fewer and fewer resources, represent the lower layers of our society.

Figure 9.3 Strata in rock illustrate social stratification. People are sorted, or layered, into social categories. Many factors determine a person’s social standing, such as income, education, occupation, as well as age, race, gender, and even physical abilities. (Photo courtesy of Just a Prairie Boy/

flickr)

In the United States, people like to believe everyone has an equal chance at success. To a certain extent, Aaron illustrates the belief that hard work and talent—not prejudicial treatment or societal values—determine social rank. This emphasis on self-effort perpetuates the belief that people control their own social standing.

However, sociologists recognize that social stratification is a society-wide system that makes inequalities apparent. While there are always inequalities between individuals, sociologists are interested in larger social patterns. Stratification is not about individual inequalities, but about systematic inequalities based on group membership, classes, and the like. No individual, rich or poor, can be blamed for social inequalities. The structure of society affects a person’s social standing.

Although individuals may support or fight inequalities, social stratification is created and supported by society as a whole.

Figure 9.4 The people who live in these houses most likely share similar levels of income and education. Neighborhoods often house people of the same social standing. Wealthy families do not typically live next door to poorer families, though this varies depending on the particular city and country. (Photo courtesy of Orin Zebest/flickr)

Factors that define stratification vary in different societies. In most societies, stratification is an economic system, based on wealth, the net value of money and assets a person has, and income, a person’s wages or investment dividends. While people are regularly categorized based on how rich or poor they are, other important factors influence social standing. For example, in some cultures, wisdom and charisma are valued, and people who have them are revered more than those who don’t. In some cultures, the elderly are esteemed; in others, the elderly are disparaged or overlooked. Societies’ cultural beliefs often reinforce the inequalities of stratification.

One key determinant of social standing is the social standing of our parents. Parents tend to pass their social position on to their children. People inherit not only social standing but also the cultural norms that accompany a certain lifestyle. They share these with a network of friends and family members. Social standing becomes a comfort zone, a familiar lifestyle, and an identity. This is one of the reasons first-generation college students do not fare as well as other students.

Other determinants are found in a society’s occupational structure. Teachers, for example, often have high levels of education but receive relatively low pay. Many believe that teaching is a noble profession, so teachers should do their jobs for love of their profession and the good of their students—not for money. Yet no successful executive or entrepreneur would embrace that attitude in the business world, where profits are valued as a driving force. Cultural attitudes and beliefs like these support and perpetuate social inequalities.

Recent Economic Changes and U.S. Stratification

As a result of the Great Recession that rocked our nation’s economy in the last few years, many families and individuals found themselves struggling like never before. The nation fell into a period of prolonged and exceptionally high unemployment. While no one was completely insulated from the recession, perhaps those in the lower classes felt the impact most profoundly. Before the recession, many were living paycheck to paycheck or even had been living comfortably. As the recession hit, they were often among the first to lose their jobs. Unable to find replacement employment, they faced more than loss of income. Their homes were foreclosed, their cars were repossessed, and their ability to afford healthcare was taken away. This put many in the position of deciding whether to put food on the table or fill a needed prescription.

While we’re not completely out of the woods economically, there are several signs that we’re on the road to recovery. Many of those who suffered during the recession are back to work and are busy rebuilding their lives. The Affordable Health Care Act has provided health insurance to millions who lost or never had it.

But the Great Recession, like the Great Depression, has changed social attitudes. Where once it was important to demonstrate wealth by wearing expensive clothing items like Calvin Klein shirts and Louis Vuitton shoes, now there’s a new, thriftier way of thinking. In many circles, it has become hip to be frugal. It’s no longer about how much we spend, but about how much we don’t spend. Think of shows like Extreme Couponing on TLC and songs like Macklemore’s “Thrift Shop.”

Systems of Stratification

Sociologists distinguish between two types of systems of stratification. Closed systems accommodate little change in social position. They do not allow people to shift levels and do not permit social relationships between levels. Open systems, which are based on achievement, allow movement and interaction between layers and classes. Different systems reflect, emphasize, and foster certain cultural values and shape individual beliefs. Stratification systems include class systems and caste systems, as well as meritocracy.

The Caste System

Figure 9.5 India used to have a rigid caste system. The people in the lowest caste suffered from extreme poverty and were shunned by society. Some aspects of India’s defunct caste system remain socially relevant. In this photo, an Indian woman of a specific Hindu caste works in construction, and she demolishes and builds houses. (Photo courtesy of Elessar/flickr)

Caste systems are closed stratification systems in which people can do little or nothing to change their social standing. A caste system is one in which people are born into their social standing and will remain in it their whole lives. People are assigned occupations regardless of their talents, interests, or potential. There are virtually no opportunities to improve a person’s social position.

In the Hindu caste tradition, people were expected to work in the occupation of their caste and to enter into marriage according to their caste. Accepting this social standing was considered a moral duty. Cultural values reinforced the system. Caste systems promote beliefs in fate, destiny, and the will of a higher power, rather than promoting individual freedom as a value. A person who lived in a caste society was socialized to accept his or her social standing.

Although the caste system in India has been officially dismantled, its residual presence in Indian society is deeply embedded. In rural areas, aspects of the tradition are more likely to remain, while urban centers show less evidence of this past. In India’s larger cities, people now have more opportunities to choose their own career paths and marriage partners. As a global center of employment, corporations have introduced merit-based hiring and employment to the nation.

The Class System

A class system is based on both social factors and individual achievement. A class consists of a set of people who share similar status with regard to factors like wealth, income, education, and occupation. Unlike caste systems, class systems are open. People are free to gain a different level of education or employment than their parents. They can also socialize with and marry members of other classes, which allows people to move from one class to another.

In a class system, occupation is not fixed at birth. Though family and other societal models help guide a person toward a career, personal choice plays a role.

In class systems, people have the option to form exogamous marriages, unions of spouses from different social categories. Marriage in these circumstances is based on values such as love and compatibility rather than on social standing or economics. Though social conformities still exist that encourage people to choose partners within their own class, people are not as pressured to choose marriage partners based solely on those elements. Marriage to a partner from the same social background is an endogamous union.

Meritocracy

Meritocracy is an ideal system based on the belief that social stratification is the result of personal effort—or merit—that determines social standing. High levels of effort will lead to a high social position, and vice versa. The concept of meritocracy is an ideal—because a society has never existed where social rank was based purely on merit. Because of the complex structure of societies, processes like socialization, and the realities of economic systems, social standing is influenced by multiple factors—not merit alone. Inheritance and pressure to conform to norms, for instance, disrupt the notion of a pure meritocracy. While a meritocracy has never existed, sociologists see aspects of meritocracies in modern societies when they study the role of academic and job performance and the systems in place for evaluating and rewarding achievement in these areas.

Status Consistency

Social stratification systems determine social position based on factors like income, education, and occupation. Sociologists use the term status consistency to describe the consistency, or lack thereof, of an individual’s rank across these factors. Caste systems correlate with high status consistency, whereas the more flexible class system has lower status consistency.

To illustrate, let’s consider Susan. Susan earned her high school degree but did not go to college. That factor is a trait of the lower-middle class. She began doing landscaping work, which, as manual labor, is also a trait of lower-middle class or even lower class. However, over time, Susan started her own company. She hired employees. She won larger contracts. She became a business owner and earned a lot of money. Those traits represent the upper-middle class. There are inconsistencies between Susan’s educational level, her occupation, and her income. In a class system, a person can work hard and have little education and still be in middle or upper class, whereas in a caste system that would not be possible. In

Making Connections:

Social Policy

Debate

The Commoner Who Could Be Queen

Figure 9.6

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, who is in line to be king of England, married Catherine Middleton, a so-called commoner,

meaning she does not have royal ancestry. (Photo courtesy of UK_repsome/flickr)

On April 29, 2011, in London, England, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, married Catherine Middleton, a

commoner. It is rare, though not unheard of, for a member of the British royal family to marry a commoner. Kate

Middleton has an upper-class background, but does not have royal ancestry. Her father was a former flight dispatcher

and her mother a former flight attendant and owner of Party Pieces. According to Grace Wong’s 2011 article titled,

“Kate Middleton: A family business that built a princess,” “[t]he business grew to the point where [her father] quit his

job . . . and it’s evolved from a mom-and-pop outfit run out of a shed . . . into a venture operated out of three

converted farm buildings in Berkshire.” Kate and William met when they were both students at the University of St.

Andrews in Scotland (Köhler 2010).