Sociology

Outline

The accelerated rate of human development and indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources are forcing dramatic changes on our Planet. This essay examines the various facets of human interactions and their interface with the environment towards achieving a sustainable future.

The essay first explains the concept of sustainable development and how it is important for the government, industry and communities to cooperate together to build sustainable development.

The essay then explains the dangers of overloading the ecosystem yb quoting the example of the Great American Dustbowl ecological disaster.

To prevent such disasters from happening would require concepts like stewardship to take hold, which is then explained in the essay. The examples of US LEED initiative, Green architecture and Green cars are then explained as also the New York City recycling project.

The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility is then examined to explain that industries too have a responsibility in ensuring conservation and not look only at profitability. The essay then argues that proactive community measures at the individual level are most important for developing a sustainable future.

The essay concludes by stating that a sustainable future would require global consensus on matters relating to sustainable exploitation of the resources, evolving best practices, policies and laws governing all human activities so that future generations have a self generating resilient global ecosystem which will provide the requisite physical, food, water, health, economic and social security.

Requirements for a Sustainable Society

The accelerated rate of human development and indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources are forcing dramatic changes on our Planet. Global warming is just one such warning sign that the delicate global ecosystem is very near the ‘tipping’ scale. Therefore, it devolves upon the human race to find solutions so that man and nature can harmonize their needs to ensure a sustainable future. This essay examines the various facets of human interactions and their interface with the environment towards achieving a sustainable future.

There are many prerequisites for developing a sustainable society. One of them is ‘Sustainable Development’ which is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Beratan 3). Hence a stable and secure economy, optimal exploitation of natural resources, ecological balance and a stable society are vital. Ensuring such a challenging set of prerequisites requires a whole community effort. Not only are the politicians, economists, technocrats, businessmen, environmentalists and academicians are required but also the common man whose wholehearted participation in sustainable future measures is critical.

Ecosystem resilience can be defined as “the abilities of an ecosystem to recover in the wake of disturbance, to evolve, and to adapt flexibly to new conditions, reflect self-organizing capacities” (Breckenridge 298). Ecosystems can adapt to gradual changes and gradual losses as long as the changes incorporated lie within the recuperative range of the ecosystem. For example, rampant exploitation of the American Grasslands since the early days of settlement and converting the vast grass lands of the Great Plains into ranches and agricultural lands for wheat growing upset the natural ecological balance.

This action converted the Great Plains into a vast ‘dustbowl’ causing sickness and economic hardships to thousands of Americans and was rated “as the nation’s worst prolonged environmental disaster” (Egan 10). Moment the change wrought is disruptive beyond the recuperative range, an ecosystem fails. It was only after strenuous government efforts to reforest and letting the area be claimed by nature have the Great Plains partially recovered. However to give shape to such recuperative measures requires adherence to principles such as stewardship.

Stewardship implies that everyone in this world has a responsibility to other people and the world. Stewardship in business encompasses ethical management of all activities involved in production, use and disposal of goods produced which includes a responsibility to ensure safe handling throughout the life cycle of the product in use. This means conforming to the ethics, not taking shortcuts, following the laws of the land in letter and spirit, inculcating sustainable practices and promoting awareness to customers, employees and the general public.

The US LEED initiative¹ aims at bringing green building into the mainstream to counter the effects of the housing boom in the Untied States which led to rapid deforestation increased import of tropical rainforest timber. According to a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study, building a green house right from the design stage can save as much as 40 percent of a building’s utility bills for heating, cooling, and ventilation. Thus common swimming pools, common rainwater harvesting plants, and common gardens, all green features are becoming a norm. It has been estimated that on an average, car pollution accounts for almost 20 percent of CO2 generated in midsized cities.

So it makes sense to take measures to reduce this pollution by any way possible. The ‘Green’ car concept looks at making cars environmentally friendly such as those running on LPG, CNG and Hybrid Cars². In governance, the concept of stewardship is of paramount importance. It is important for the political class to understand that implementing sustainable policies involves practicing of supportive politics. The finest example has been the New York City Recycling initiative which has reduced the levels of garbage production considerably³.

The recent trends in ensuring a sustainable future is now encompassing all aspects of human endeavor. These include using green technologies and green architecture⁴ to incorporating conservation methods and recycling for buildings, houses and business practices. The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) which is defined as “the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large” (KPMG 7) has gathered greater momentum.

The international community is no longer leaving sustainability to the realms of academic discussions but is taking measures by which conservation and optimum utilization of resources is promoted proactively. This is being done by enacting strict country specific environmental protection laws as also voluntary enactments which enhance brand value. The World Wildlife Fund recommends that ensuring a sustainable future would involve, tackling climate change, ensuring food and water security and drawing up a plan for sustainable resource management (WWF 2).

The community too can help in a long way to build a sustainable society. Carpooling can help reduce the number of vehicles on the road and thus reduce air pollution. Adults and students should make the most use of their computers and cell phones and submit their transactions, work electronically to save paper. People must continue using their laptops and cell phones till the end of their life cycle and not junk them because the models have gone old or ‘out of fashion’.

Americans must make use of Mass Rapid Transportation available and desist from ‘hitting the road’ every weekend in their big cars and communities must discourage the sale of SUVs⁵ that guzzle gas and create pollution. Americans have longed considered bath water as waste water. This perception has to change now; bath water can easily be recycled for garden irrigation by installing a small self contained plant in the house’s basement. Communities can also help increase conservation awareness amongst people by holding road shows, seminars, community programs and taking concerted actions to force their governments to bring in ‘Green legislations’ and discourage manipulation by big businesses interests.

These are just some of the initiatives that are required to be taken. In the conclusion it can be emphatically stated that humanity’s future will depend on its ability to form global consensus on matters relating to sustainable exploitation of the resources, evolving best practices, policies and laws governing all human activities so that future generations have a self generating resilient global ecosystem which will provide the requisite physical, food, water, health, economic and social security.

Notes

1. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. LEED is a third-party certification program and the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high performance green buildings.The United States LEED initiative looks at promoting green buildings to reduce the load on the environment. For further details see US Green Building Councils. Web.
2. The aim is to design cars which will have a zero or low pollution footprint. Some of the low pollution footprint initiatives that have already been put into practice has been the introduction of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) as alternative fuel in the market. We now have companies manufacturing electric cars which run on batteries and produce no air pollution whatsoever. Some hybrid designs look at combining an electric drive with a petrol back up. The Toyota Prius Hybrid being one such initiative. Honda’s FCX concept car uses Hydrogen cell system which reportedly travels 560 kms on a 5 kg hydrogen tank that is roughly equal to one full tank worth of gas driven by an SUV. What is so ‘green’ about this concept? Well the waste product generated is – water. For more details see All About Hybrid Cars. Web.
3. In 1989, New York City launched an ambitious recycling program that included every city neighborhood as well as junk metal and household metal recycling. By 2002, the city was recycling roughly 20 percent of its waste up from 1 percent when the program started saving over $ 40 million per year. The New York Times of 2004 reported that New Yorkers have been taking active participation in the program by installing vermicompost containers in their households to convert leftovers into manure. Web.
4. Michael o Sullivan reports in the Washington Times on the different methods, tools and designs displayed at the exhibition “The Green House: New Directions in Sustainable Architecture and Design” and what people are doing to sustain green architecture. Web.
5. The D.C. Council approved legislation yesterday that will require District owners of large, luxury sport-utility vehicles to pay a higher excise tax and registration fee next year, after concluding that the vehicles contribute to air pollution and street damage. Web.

Works Cited

Beratan, Kathy K. “Pointing Pennsylvania Toward a Sustainable Future.” 2006. Web.

Breckenridge, Lee P. “Can Fish Own Water?: Envisioning Nonhuman Property in Ecosystems.” Journal of Land Use Vol 20:2. 2005 (2005): 293-335.

Egan, Timothy. The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl. Boston: Houghton MIfflin Harcourt, 2006.

KPMG. “Corporate Social Responsibility –Towards a Sustainable Future.” 2008. Web.

WWF. “Leading the World Toward a Safer and Sustainable Future:GREENPRINT FOR A NEW ADMINISTRATION.” 2008. World Wildlife Fund. Web.

Introduction

The basic moral principle of utilitarianism is the principle of utility also termed as the principle of greatest happiness. The principle states that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its utility or usefulness where usefulness in greater sense means how much pleasure or happiness the action can cause to a person (John Pg 5). The basic principle of utility therefore holds that an action can be seen as morally right or wrong depending on the consequences the action can produce. The principle therefore holds that an action is termed as morally right if it results in the greatest amount of good or pleasure for the majority and the smallest amount of pain to the people involved in an action it therefore seeks to maximize general utility which is happiness and minimizes pain (John Pg10).

Discussion

According to Geoffrey the basic principle of utilitarianism is the principle of utility emphasizes on someone doing actions that results in the greatest amount of pleasure to majority of the people involved and the smallest amount of pain to the people involved. As an individual therefore I should ensure that whatever actions I do should always be for the benefit of a larger group since every person’s happiness counts hence it does require me as an individual to pursue my own happiness at the expense of others (Geoffrey Pg16). This therefore means that me as an individual should always strive to do good for a larger group of people though the nature of human beings assert us to do actions which results in greatest amount of pleasure for ourselves in order to avoid pain (Geoffrey 18).

This principle says that me as an individual should always weigh the various actions in which people may get pleasure or pain from after which I can determine the actions that I should be involved in and the actions should maximizes pleasure and minimize pain to the greatest number of people. Since everyone has his /her interests considered an individual cannot act to give more particular preferences to his/her selfish interests for example to her own family, friends or local interests groups among others without minding others. This principle therefore emphasizes that an individual should always learn to avoid crude or shortsighted decisions since an action is right in the proportion which it promotes happiness and wrong if the action results in the reverse of happiness (John, James & Ernest Pg 13).

The cost–benefit analysis is a version of utilitarianism which is widely used that states that one policy is better than another if it is the least costly compared with the benefits expected oftenly it’s associated with efficiency. Considering the issue of whether to build the barrier or not cost benefit analysis will in the assist in the determination. Firstly the estimation of the number of lives likely to be saved by the suicide barrier will be estimated and a monetary value given to each life. After which the estimation of the negative effect of building the barrier would be estimated in terms of financial cost (John Pg 16). After all this has been estimated the negative aesthetic effect will be estimated not only by counting the number of lost aesthetic experiences but also calculating their value. At the end of the process the barrier would be built only if the building of the barrier will increase the human happiness by reducing pain through reducing number of people losing their lives on the bridge (John, James & Ernest Pg 15)

The principle of utility as consequentialist terms an action as morally right or wrong based on given consequences that the particular action produces thus it states that an action is termed as morally right if only it results in a greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people which means it emphasizes the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. In addition it emphasizes on an action which causes a great harm to given smaller number of persons at the sometime giving a greater benefit to a larger number of people. On the other hand the non-consequentialist moral theory on the other hand makes its judgement whether an action is morally right or wrong based on the properties of intrinsic to the action and not its consequences. This theory therefore has its emphasizes on libertarianism where people should be free to do what they like so long as they respect the freedom of others in doing their actions. The theory therefore advocates for ones freedom to do his /her actions so longer the actions do not cause harm to another person nor affect other people’s freedom (Geoffrey Pg 23).

Conclusion

The nature of Human beings permits them to act in a way the benefit everyone rather than their selfish interests. Consequentialist and a non-consequentialist or deontological argues that a person should make sacrifices beyond their personal interests. A person should not volunteer to receive a utility benefit nor should they volunteer for them to get monetary contribution for them to be more efficient rather they should be nonmonetary, nonrational motivated and community-minded. They therefore encourage that a person should act for the benefit of all by putting aside his/her interests (John 26).

Works cited

John Stuart Mill; Utilitarianism; Published by Parker, Son and Bourn,2^nd edition Pg 5-26 (1864).

Geoffrey Scarre; Utilitarianism, Published by Routledge, (Pg 16-23) 1996.

John S, James M, &Ernest S, Mill’s Utilitarianism: text and criticism; Published by Wadsworth Pub. Co. (Pg 13-15) 1969.

The testing on animals is conducted for research purposes in pharmaceutical companies, medical colleges, and universities in areas such as behavioral sciences, biology, genetics, drug testing, and biomedical research. Researchers that support the practice argue that almost every achievement in medical science has been the result of using animal testing (Steinberg and Rosner 260). But it is not necessary that animals should be subjected to torture and immense suffering in the name of finding medical and cosmetic solutions for humans. Annihilating the life of an animal just for the sake of testing shampoos and lipsticks can hardly be ethical. Medical and scientific opinion cannot conclusively support the view that the study of human physiology can be done only by using animal experimentation this is why the debates on whether people have the right to make experiments on animals still remain open (Monamy 12). The fight against animal testing has been lasting for several decades with this trend being quite powerful these days; most of the world countries are currently adopting laws aimed at stopping experiments on animals with this trend becoming global and extremely significant for the entire world.

History of the trend

Until around 1945, experimentation on animals (also commonly referred to as “vivisection”) had been widely conducted and accepted in medical research (Garner, pp.122). Animals involved in the experimentations were imprisoned, maimed, poisoned, injected with diseases, and murdered (Uncaged). These details, and even more horrifying specifics involved in each test or experiment, were not made accessible to the general public. Instead, the public based their acceptance of vivisection on what was published by medical professionals. Later, however, all the horrors of vivisection were disclosed to the public, which raised the public interest in the lives of innocent animals.

It took several decades for the fight for the animals’ rights to begin with most of the animal protection groups starting to be formed only in the 1970s. The animal rights movement originated in England and America “out of organized efforts to abolish cruelty to animals” (Medici, Prusan-Goldstein, James, and Caparino para. 3). A bill preventing cruel treatment of cattle was passed in England, which was followed by similar laws passed in New York. In 1966 the US Congress passed an act (Animal Welfare Act) that restricted the use of animals in scientific laboratories. In several years, the first publications on animal rights protections started emerging with Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation being released in 1975 (Singer 100). The work depicted how cruelly the animals were treated in farms and how bad the conditions in which they had been raised were. In 1979 a group (Attorneys for Animal Rights) dealing with the issues concerning animal rights was formed (Medici para. 36). This further entailed numerous boycotts in support of the animals’ rights and people’s reporting about these rights’ violations.

Currently, the animal rights movement became a global trend that seeks to eliminate the legal distinction between people and animals. The trend is quite powerful and efficient in ending animal testing with the use of animals for research being prohibited in a number of countries.

Size and characteristics of the trend

Most of the world countries strive to legally protect animals from being used for testing and experiments. In the USA, for instance, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) of 1966, as amended from time to time, sets some minimum conditions for humanely treating animals while using them for experiments in laboratory settings. However, this Act is not effective enough since it does not provide for the protection of mice, rats, birds, and farm animals that comprise almost 95% of the animals used in such experiments. All institutions engaged in vivisection are required by the AWA to have in place animal care facilities and committees that supervise and ascertain if it is essential to use the animals for the proposed experiments. Such committees also examine if non-animal options can be considered. The AWA does not provide for the prevention of invasive procedures and the poisoning of animals after the completion of the experiment processes. It is strongly felt that the AWA is more like addressing unrealistic issues such as the size of cages and anesthesia.

In the UK laboratory testing on animals and vertebrates are controlled by the Home Office under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986. The problem of animal testing became especially disturbing in 2008 when the Home Office discovered that “nearly 3.7m experiments were performed on animals last year, a rise of 454,000 or 14% on the previous year” (Tatchell para. 2). Numerous organizations are formed in the country in order to fight animal testing. These organizations appeal to the government to demand the following:

• End the use of all non-human primates in experiments;
• End all experiments causing substantial suffering to any animal – a position favoured by 77 percent of the British population, according to a PETA-commissioned poll;
• Bring genuine transparency to the system by making available all non-confidential information on the licensing of every experiment;
• Strengthen measures to promote the development and use of methods replacing animal experiments. (“Fight Against Animal Experiments: Be a Voice for the Voiceless” para. 8)

Apart from this, the UK has adopted numerous acts aimed at protecting animal rights. Among them are Animal Protection Act, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Animal Research Act, Animal Welfare Act, etc. (“Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes” para. 1).

In Japan, the Law 105 of 1973 as revised in 2000 provides for the humane treatment and management of animals and takes care of the control and protection of animals. The law provides for experiments to be conducted on animals only for specific research purposes and to be used by methods that cause the minimum pain to animals.

In Australia, there are several animal welfares acts, such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Animal Research Act, and Animal Protection Act. Experiments on animals are governed by a specific code of conduct whereby it is required that pain and distress to animals have to be minimal. Law in Australia provides that if pain cannot be avoided, animals must be administered anesthesia, or alternatively, the experiments must be ended at the earliest. All institutions that use animals for experimentation should have an ethics committee for animal experimentation that works towards adopting ethical practices towards animals. The Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching is a combined agency for both countries in promoting humane patterns of animal research and care, while at the same time encouraging the adoption of ethical practices towards animals.

In addition, the whole of Europe has united with the purpose of reducing animal testing. In 2005 European Partnership on Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing offered an action program pursuing the aim to reduce the use of animals for laboratory purposes (Laroche, Lalis, and Brekelmans 769). Moreover, it has initiated labeling of the cosmetic products with “non-tested on animals” label being put on those products the manufacturers of which opted to use alternative ways of research. Apart from this Partnership, there also exist international organizations which cooperate in order to achieve better results. For instance, there are the International Animal Fighting Campaign and Humane Society International of which the latter organizes campaigns and calls the world’s welfare groups to support The Humane Society of the United States in its demanding from the government to strengthen the existing laws protecting animal rights.

There are a number of organizations in the developed world that are constantly working towards curbing the practice of vivisection. The American Anti-Vivisection Society works towards building awareness against the practice and advocates putting an end to the use of animals for education, testing and research. The society’s mission is to spread awareness, to influence legislators to introduce laws that protect animals and to provide alternatives to scientists. The Society has a Science Bank which provides dissection options that do away with torture to animals. It also gives grants to scientists who take initiatives in working on alternatives that do not involve the killing of animals. The Society has assisted in freeing a large number of chimpanzees from testing sites and funded initiatives in saving millions of animals in the USA. It has established stronger standards for labeling to curb cruelty to animals and in the process liberated a large number of animals from pain and suffering. Similarly, the National Anti-Vivisection Society is a non-profit organization that is engaged in promoting justice, respect, and compassion for animals by using educational agendas that are framed on ethical and scientific theories and backed by documented evidence in regard to cruelty and wasteful results of vivisection.

Conflicting perspectives on the trend

There exist three main approaches to ending animal testing. First of all, there exist welfarists who, though they do not demand stopping experimentations on animals, still seek to reduce the sufferings they the animals were subjected to in the course of experiments. Pragmatism is another approach to the problem under consideration. Pragmatists are regarded as a more radical group demanding the protection of animals’ rights; they believe that experiments on animals can be justified in those cases when they are beneficial for society. Pragmatists aim at reducing the experimentations on animals by organizing numerous negotiations and political protests. Finally, fundamentalism seems to be the most effective approach in fighting against animal testing. The emergence of fundamentalists brought the most drastic changes in ending the vivisection with this group refusing to accept any use of animals, irrespective of the benefits it could bring. Animal Liberation Front was formed as a result of this trend with most of its members not only being vegetarians but even opposing having pets.

The main conflict with respect to these three approaches lies in each of their supporters considering a particular approach the only acceptable one. This often results in their rejecting and resisting the legislation of each other (Perlo 53). The most persistent at this are pragmatists who believe that the solution which they offer to the problem of animal testing is the most balanced. Despite this, all three approaches are aimed at protecting animals’ rights and a great contribution to animal protection will be made if at least some of the objectives the supporters of each of these approaches have set are fulfilled.

Works Cited

Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. Frame. 2006. Web. 1

Fight against Animal Experiments: Be a Voice for the Voiceless. Peta. 2008. Web.

Laroche, Charles, Lalis, Georgette, and Brekelmans, Cornelis. The European partnership for alternative approaches to animal testing. 6^th World Congress on Alternatives & Animal Use in the Life Sciences. 2007. Web.

Medici, April, Prusan-Goldstein, Jody, James, Susane, and Caparino, Melanie The Animal Rights Movement. Hunter College, 2003. Web.

Monamy, Vaughan. Animal Experimentation: a Guide to the Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Perlo, Katherine. “Fundamentalism or Pragmatism?” Journal for Critical Animal Studies 6.1(2008): 53-60. Print.

Singer, Peter. In Defense of Animals: the Second Wave. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2006.

Steinberg, Avraham and Rosner, Fred. Encyclopedia of Jewish medical ethics: a compilation of Jewish medical law on all topics of medical interest. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, 2003.

Tatchell, Peter. The Long Fight against Animal Testing. Guardian.co.uk, 2009. Web.

The socio political climate of the1800s was characterized by an increase in class struggle. Consequently, thinkers, both reformists and revolutionary, came up with theories to explain the ever increasing struggles within the society. They sought to explain the role that capitalism played in the provenance of the class struggles. Consequently, Marx and Durkheim tried to analyze the relationship between the classes and how deficiencies in the class relationships could lead to societal disorder and hence ills within the society. This paper intends to compare Marx’s approach with Durkheim’s and ascertain that if appropriately organized, class relations (division of labor) could be a blessing and not an avenue to social rot.

Marx’s approach on class relations and hence division of labor is characterized by disapproval and ire. According to Marx, all forms of social problems stem directly from the system of capitalism. He argued that problems of modernity would persist for as long as the capitalistic structures existed. As a result, he advocated for the destruction of the systems in order to destroy the foundations of social ill. In his argument, a solution that would solve the perils faced by workers in the capitalist-worker relations would help greatly in the solving of modern world problems. He argued that the current system allowed for a capitalist-worker relationship that promoted exploitation, alienation and finally expansion, which, in his words were the core causes of social ills (Lemert 30).

Considering the labor theory, Marx argued that the capitalistic system promoted exploitation of the worker because from its systematic approach, the end results of his labor were alienated from him. By alienating the end product of his labor from him, the worker was subjected to exploitation. This was particularly true because the only possession the worker had was his labor. However, the capitalistic system did not give the worker possession of the end product of his labor. After a hard day’s toil, the product of his labor belonged to the capitalist. Marx points out that the ultimate objective of the capitalist is maximizing on his profit. This drives him to pay the worker only what is enough for him to survive. The rest/surplus belongs to him. As a result, the worker’s labor becomes undervalued. It carries much weight in the eyes of the capitalist than the worker himself. With the increase in production, the capitalist amasses more surplus end products of the worker’s labor. The increasing surplus is pumped into the system again expanding the system and created more workers who increase the capitalist’s income. It was from this theory that the proletariat working class continuously remained under the exploitation of the bourgeoisie. Apart from being alienated from the products of his labor, the worker is alienated from his fellow human, his productive activity and from his potential as a productive human being. The alienation is so deep that the worker absolutely forgets that it is his labor that is producing the commodity in question (Marx refers to this as the fetishism of commodity). Eventually, the worker is completely made to think that the social value is created by the market forces. In the event, the true relationships between the producers as individuals is completely hidden (Lemert 35).

Technically, Marx assumes a revolutionary approach to the issue of division of labor. To him, the only way of solving the problems of modernity which stem from social classes was through destruction of the capitalistic system as a whole. This is as a result of the principles that operate the system which put the worker at a disadvantage while greatly benefiting the capitalist. Eventually, the worker becomes alienated from himself and from the rest of the world. The aspect of estranged labor appears in the fact that the worker’s physical and mental wellbeing being is not developed by the labor. In essence, labor is supposed to nurture and develop the physical and mental capacity of the worker. However, Marx argues that the capitalistic system plays opposite to this principle. He argues that due to lack of the nurturing aspect, the worker does not develop any intimate relationship with his work. Eventually, lack of intimacy with one’s work explains the aspect of estranged labor (Lemert 35).

How does one become estranged to himself? Marx argues that in the capitalistic system, a worker becomes alienated or estranged to himself. This happens because capitalistic systems estrange the worker from his labor. In the system, the labor belongs to the capitalist, who pays the worker not the value of his labor but a value that he feels could be adequate for his survival. Because the worker’s labor is his only possession and it does not belong to him but to the capitalist, the work becomes the object of the capitalist. He becomes enslaved to labor which belongs to the capitalist. Therefore, the worker becomes the slave of the capitalist who owns the labor. He therefore lives not for himself but for his labor…his employer, the capitalist (Lemert 36).

On the other hand, Durkheim takes a less emotive approach to the issue of class and labor divisions. Durkheim argues that division of labor is the glue that cements the society. Through labor, the society would be able to increase its production and hence wealth. Unlike Marx who sees division of labor as the beginning of social ills, Durkheim sees the division of labor as a moral phenomenon in which solidarity was established in the modern society as opposed to traditional ones. In the traditional societies, the form of solidarity of which Durkheim refers to as mechanical solidarity was cemented by the identity of members. However, the economic, political and social needs of the modern society called for differentiation of roles. The organic solidarity of the modern society would only survive if the different roles interdependently accommodated each other. Therefore, Durkheim believed that division of labor was replacement of the traditional form of solidarity to accommodate the modern needs that called for interdependence. However, Durkheim goes ahead to argue that in very complex societies, the issue of division of labor can lead to a situation referred to as anomie. This anomic state is the provenance of social ills (Lemert 71).

Considering the two approaches towards social stratification and division of labor, it becomes evident that division of labor can lead to both good and bad for a society. Unfortunately this situation cannot be avoided; the society will by all means remain stratified. Borrowing from Durkheim’s perspective, the mechanical form of solidarity was functional in traditional societies. During those times, the needs of the society were simple and could be met by simple means of survival. However, the current society is characterized by complex forms of relating. This means that as long as we are existing in the current society, we cannot avoid stratification and hence division of labor. This is the force that keeps the society together. By trying to resist it, the society must either revert to traditional lifestyles or keep the system. This is true considering that division of labor leads to variability of skills that eventually differentiate roles that assist in the meeting of the needs of the society (Lemert 72).

On the other hand, Marx is not completely on the wrong by advocating for a revolution against the capitalistic system. The truth is that stratification has led to the exploitation of the worker. It is true that most of the workers are not given the dues that are equivalent to their input. What they receive is a little cash that can assist them to pay rent, buy food, educate their families and save very little. Eventually, the workers end up to a state of alienation, also referred to as estrangement. With estrangement, everything in life becomes meaningless. The worker starts living only for his wage. The wage becomes everything. It is the wage, which does not really measure up to the labor input that preoccupies the worker’s mind.

The current economic environment clearly reflects Marx’s conception of the ills of capitalism. Many people in the cities all over the world wake up every morning to head to their places of work. They have no idea that what they do is the exact creation of the commodity. For instance, families of dairy industry workers experience protein deficiency health complications because they can barely afford milk in their house. The truth is that they don’t even realize that it is their labor that produces dairy products on the shelves in the supermarkets. The true conception is that the products are supposed to be theirs; however, the capitalistic system has denied them what is rightfully theirs and given them to the capitalists. The dairy industry workers are hence forced to purchase these goods because they belong to the other people. With the capitalists controlling every important sector of the economy, the workers tend to earn a little money that is eventually paid to another capitalist. For instance, a dairy industry worker earns a wage from his labor. This wage is spent in total on food (food stores owned by capitalists), rent (houses owned by capitalists), education for his children (education sectors owned by the capitalists) transportation (also owned by capitalists, et cetera. At the end of the day, all his salary has gone back to the hands of the capitalists. The system eventually expands with several other workers are employed in one of the sectors mentioned above as demand for their products goes higher.

Furthermore, the accepted standards of success in the society are defined by principles that maintain the status quo. They define status that continues exploiting the worker. The society has generally accepted that success is defined by a good education that leads to a good career. What is a good career? Labor. In the name of career, workers are enslaved to their capitalistic employees that eventually remain at the helm of the political economy. In the name of career, men and women have forgotten their families, not because they wish so, but because their circumstances do not allow them time for their families. They cannot get any extra time to spend with their families. Children are brought up with the television and the Internet as their teachers. The societal moral fabric is hence torn and left wanting. Men have no time for their women and vice versa. Their time is only for their work and their career.

What does such a life lead to? It leads to insufficient integration in the social organism. Most families that are supposed to be the ultimate unit of integration fail to meet the expected roles. Members in the society tend to indulge in unacceptable activities in the society because they do not find the attachment of one individual with the other due to weakened solidarity (Lemert 72). The weakened solidarity results into weakened regulations that govern individual conduct. Durkheim thus evidences this by the increase in the rate of suicide in industrial countries. The two types of suicide mentioned by Durkheim (egoistic and anomic suicides) have one thing in common. They both occur as a result of weakened social norms that act as the glue which sticks together the social fabric and hence restrain behaviors that are asocial. When the norms get weak, individuals tend to behave in very unlikely manners.

Considering the two positions, what conclusion can best suite the situation? It is clear that the society cannot survive without social cohesion. This is according to Durkheim. Cohesion in this situation is the norms that define people’s behavior. On the other hand, the modern society exists only by organic solidarity which is characterized by division of labor. On their part, division of labor leads to exploitation of the workers by the capitalist according to Marx. The effect of labor division as a negative aspect to social solidarity is not only advocated by Marx but also Durkheim who says that an increase in complexity of the rules of relationship between the layers might lead to anomie. This will eventually lead to all the ills of the society and increased suicides.

It is therefore appropriate that an approach that puts in consideration the inevitability of labor division while accepting that this could lead to social ills is developed. Practically, such a strategy will not take the Marxist revolutionary approach. Instead, emphasis will be laid on Durkheim’s reformist approach where proper measures will be taken so as to ensure that the division of labor does not harm one group of people while promoting the wellbeing of others. How can this happen? This can only be true if a better measure of value is approached. This measure of value should not be one sided as characteristic in the capitalistic economy. Instead, value should be mutually accepted not just by the capitalists but also the worker. When the worker and the capitalist come to a mutual understanding of the value of labor, they will come up with a better compensation strategy that will eventually eradicate the issue of estranged labor. By getting the value of their labor, the workers will start to develop an intimacy between them and their work. The products of their labor will then belong to them because its actual value will have been determined. Those who own the means of production (capitalists) will then discuss with the workers on how they will share the returns. With good earnings not just in terms of money, the workers will be able to feed their families and live a comfortable life without straining. They will cease to be so conscious about their work and have time to associate with other people. As a result this will have eradicated alienation from fellow humans.

References

Lemert, Charles. Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings. New York: Westview Press, 1999.

Introduction

History upholds the story of women fighting their way to make a position in the masculine world of workplace, little is known about African-American women, who had endured the glass ceiling of both sexism and racism. Black women fought to get to the top of the economic ladder. Getting to the top wasn’t an easy task for working women in urban America. Black women have all of their societal duties. Trying to fit into the work place and to be treated as an equal had its set – backs. We had to deal with different things like racism, sexism wage and labor laws and most important family. In other words, black women had to penetrate the concrete ceiling to make a place in the workplace of urban America (Davidson).

Main body

The history of women in the workforce in America dates back to the First World War and the great depression, when the women went out to work and support their families when the men folk were in the warfront or out of job (Foner). Between the two great wars, women’s participation in white collar jobs evolved but not devoid of discrimination, which actually meant, “low paid jobs as school teachers and secretaries”. But this advance meant of the American women in-between the wars evaporated in the 1950s when the typical American family picture was Mom safe at the household kitchen and emphasis followed towards women’s domestic obligations.there was and still continues to be wage gap in the salary of men and women (Opdycke). A comparative study shows that the median wage gap of men and women has actually increased since 1951 to 1996 even when female participation in the workforce and their educational level has increased (Opdycke). One primary reason for this wage gap has been attributed to the women’s responsibility as the primary parent in rearing children. So a 1971 survey showed that the earnings of almost 40 percent women rearing children were below poverty line and the percentage was higher among African Americans (Opdycke). So women labor history shows that the scepter of freedom was handed to women and then taken away by societal forces. In such a situation, the work history of black females was even more deplorable.

Black women endured the struggles of racism and sexism in the workplace. Their problems were double of what their white counterparts faced (Davidson). Because black women didn’t have as much privileges as white women they had to settle for lower class jobs. As has been chronicled the black population between the First World War and the Great Depression settled down for “lower-paid, menial, hazardous, and relatively unpleasant jobs” when the job market often followed the “lily-white” policy as their hiring procedure (Drake and Clayton, p. 112). Though the situation for black men has become relaxed, black women continue to face discrimination. Thus, black women continue to find jobs constricted to certain sectors only (Higginbotham). The nature of these jobs was that of unskilled labors like cleaning, laundering, or factory work (Honey). The black women were mostly hired for blue-collar jobs after the Depression and not until 1970s that they were trusted even with “pink-collar” jobs like clerical, sales, secretarial etc (Honey). These jobs had very little room for promotion or growth, so it was a way to keep black women at one level. More black women than white women worked, because there were not many jobs that were desirable to white women black women filled in the gaps. Some black women worked in the factories where they would do the cleaning and other hard labor. These women were paid even less then black men. Society held that women should remain in the household or at least work in paid occupations defined as women’s work, which ruled them out of many factory jobs as well as managerial and better paid occupations.(Honey, p. 87). Often white women assumed supervisory roles in the industries, but not the blacks. They roles were constricted to the lowest works in the factory.

The history of black women in workforce begins with their employment as domestic help during the period of Great Depression. The mentality of Whites to consider Black as “slaves” was not completely dissolved. Hence, black women received no help from the white women. The black women in the labor force were engaged as factory workers due to the acute labor shortage during the Second World War (Honey). Here too there was significant racial discrimination against black women as the factory workers took in white women in place of white men who left for work, and preferred the former to black men or women. Consequently, black women took the “less desirable jobs” in restaurants or custodial services that the white women discarded to work in the factories. The entry of black women was not a landmark victory against racial forces as even the factories the black women were made to do menial work like hand labor, cleaning and sweeping. Overall, in the economic history of labor force, if women faced barriers to enter the workforce and discrimination on the basis of gender, black women faced the worst disadvantages.

The role of family in the responsibilities of women has found predominance in the gender literature which according to many has been used to constrict women’s role in the workforce (Foner; Opdycke). The problem was more acute for black women for they faced both the discriminations: racial and sex based. Family life and raising children was one of the most difficult jobs to do for black minority women. Black women were on the forefront of the workforce and because of the low income of their husbands women were forced to get out and work to make ends meet. Working-class majority of black women played an equally important role in raising children, bringing wages into black households and holding families, churches, and community organizations together (Honey, p. 86). As time went on some women turned down the better paying jobs and settle for the wage decrease for the sake of their children. As an account of Irene Black shows, “I knew I had to work ‘cause I always took things, see. I knew I had to work, ‘cause I had no husband” (Honey, p. 97). Family was a big factor but putting food on the table was a much bigger choice these women had to make. Some families just consisted of just one parent which made this a bit more difficult. So it was upon the women folk of the black to hold on to their jobs irrespective of their low pays (Honey).

The wages provided to black women was degradedly low. They were provided the least of the wages provided to women. Women as history shows has received lower wages than men, and black women received even lesser. Mostly whites obstructed in providing the deserving wages to blacks, and the gap was more acute for black women. One basic discrimination of denial to black women better paying jobs. Further, the whites created a barrier in the educational system wherein the black women were constrained to gain the expertise to attain good paying jobs, and even if they did, they had to work harder to get half the pay offered to their white counterparts. This clearly indicates that the wage gap which was already high for women in America, as compared to men (Foner), black women faced even more wage difference due to dual force of discrimination curbing their way to economic freedom (Opdycke).

Conclusion

A black woman’s path in the modern workforce has been marred with thorns that bear both the poisons of racism and gender-bias. Racial stereotypes made them the pariahs of the white society and their gender made them the intellectual weaklings. Their fight was against white capitalism which found redemption in socialism and unionization (Honey; Foner). The history of women labor movement assumes new heights when considering the plight of black women who faced the maximum neglect from administrative, economic, as well as academic intelligentsia. Their fights was against both the forces and presently the situation is far better than what it was during the Great Depression, but as the feminists would advocate nothing less than complete freedom is acceptable.

Bibliography

1. Davidson, M. The Black and Ethnic Minority Woman Manager: Cracking the Concrete Ceiling. London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 1997.
2. Drake, St. Clare and Horace Clayton. Black Metropolis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
3. Foner, Philip Sheldon. Women and The American Labor Movement. New York: The Free Press, 1979.
4. Higginbotham, Elizabeth. “Black Proffessional Women: Job Ceiling and Employment Sectors.” Zinn, Maxine Baca and Bonnie Thornton Dill. Women of Color in U.S. Society. Temple University Press, n.d. 113-131.
5. Honey, Michael Keith. “Make a Way out of no way: black Women Factory Workers.” Honey, Michael Keith. Black Workers Remember. London, UK: University of California Press, 2000. 86-131.
6. Opdycke, Sandra. Historical Atlas of Women in America. London: Routledge, 2000.

Introduction

A disability model is a tool or framework to describe impairment and as a result give a starting point for a country’s administration as well as the society to come up with ways of providing for the needs of people with disability (MDRC 2007, p.1). There are various models of disability. According to the disability policy scholars, these disabilities are based on either the historical or the social model grounds. They range from medical, moral, rehabilitation and disability models.

Often, People with disability are treated with suspicion and doubt as though incomplete and not a reflection of the real human beings. The very competent and other people offer insufficient support amenities. According to Wendell (1996, P. 25) there has been a strong general inclination to make a sweeping statement about all persons with disabilities ignoring the great difference within the disabled hamlet. The social model of disability seek to change this negative attitude through having the society comprehend issues of disability, how to relate better with people with disability and how they are to be treated by the society in terms of access to employment, information and other basic needs as well as rights to political authority and power (Shakespeare and Watson 2000, p. 23).

This paper examines the social model of disability and the way it looks at disability in comparison to the medical model. It will also explain the consequence of downplaying the impact of impairment on daily life.

The Social Model of Disability

The social model of disability also known as minority group model was developed by people with disability in order to counter the medical model which made them feel socially excluded because of their disability and also the negative response society has on them. It came into being in the 1970’s through protesters of the Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) (Shakespeare and Watson 2002, p.3). According to UPIAS; it is the society that disables people with physical impairment by secluding and excluding them from fully taking part in activities of the society (Oliver, 1996, 22). It came about as a different way to approach disability and do away with the old-fashioned way of thinking that centered disability to the individual without looking at the role of the society in contributing to disability. (White 2010, p. 1).The social model looks at disability from an environmental and socio-political point of view. The model view is that disability is a result of failure by the society to change and transform its systems so as to meet the needs and aspirations of both the able and the disabled people alike. The social model perceives that individuals with bodily or cerebral impairment are only disabled by the community in which they leave in, in that it creates barriers for them, discriminating them from participating in income generating projects and the social areas of life. These barriers exist in all areas and systems of the society; education, transportation, health and other public service areas. These system are only designed for people with fully functional and normal body organs gives people with disabilities very few opportunities to participate in normal life on an equivalent level with the other people and that is what disables them (MDRC 2007, P 2). An example would be a person on a wheel chair with an amputated limb is not able to go up a building through the stairs, if the architect of the building had thought of how a such person would access the top floors and constructed rum, and then this person would not have a problem.

The model emphasis is that people with impairments can improve their lives if provided with equal opportunities with others and all barriers are removed. The responsibility is placed on the society and not on the individual. Unlike the medical model that inspires fear and pity without providing a practical approach on how disabled people can be live their life fully, the social model focuses on instilling self esteem, self reliance and freedom of choice and discretion. This can only be achieved through changing the way the society is organized which dictates whether all people can access some services or are able to perform some activities or not (White 2010, p. 2)

It is generally believed that impairment causes disability, however, in the view of the social model of disability, it is the society by exclusion of an individual with impairment from something that other members of the society do that brings about disability. It believes that if the society is organized differently, then the people termed disabled can be enabled.

In most cases, people with impairment get used to living with it such that it is not an inability for them and therefore they can do whatever a normal person can do but only if given the opportunity and barriers that are put on their way by the society done away with.

People with some kind impairment are able to live a normal life with a little aid. vision impairments like long or shortsightedness is usually corrected with proper spectacles and people with this kind of impairment are able to live a normal life which would otherwise not be possible without the aid of spectacles. For this kind of impairment, the society has provided opticians and spectacles shops in many accessible places. Therefore, the society can always provide a remedy or alternatives to improve the lives of people with other different kinds of impairments. On the contrary, people still view use of aids as an inability in itself, but it’s evident that every person whether physically fit or not needs aid of some kind in everyday life. This aid varies from means of land transportation, electrical and electronic gadgets for transmission of messages just to mention a few.

For the social model, the focus is for the society to provide for the needs of the disabled people from their own point of view since they are the ones who know better what their needs are rather than the view that doctors and other physically normal people know what best suits the people with disabilities. (Kaplan 1999, p.2)

The one challenge that the social model of disability faces is the fact that people with disability are increasing in number with the increase of old people in the population. This makes it difficult for the society to restructure and for professionals to understand the concept so as to change their role from curing and caring to enabling people with disabilities take control of their lives (MDRC 2007, P. 3).

The model’s limitation is its failure to insist on other features of disability such as bodily and intellectual obstacles for example in most cases gadgets designed for white people with disability not applicable or accessible for black people with disability.

Unintended consequence of downplaying the impact of impairment on daily life

When an individual is impaired, it means that a part of his or her body, brain power or one or more of one’s senses is not working properly. For instance, an individual may be termed to be impaired if he or she has an amputated hand or leg. Other impairments include people who cannot remember things that they have learnt, those who are partially blind, the deafened and those who have been attacked by epileptic amongst others.

Unlike impairment, disability occurs when a person is exempted from what the rest of people in the society collectively partake because of their impairment (Shakespeare and Watson 2000, p. 19). The disabled persons may not get a chance to be present in events or even get involved in occupations. The disabled people ends up not being informed, most do not earn a good living and even cannot make independent choices.

A wrong assumption may be made when one assumes that disability is caused by impairment. The social model or the civil rights model can be described as one of the main perspective of disability (Shakespeare 2006, p. 29). For example a person whose hearing has been impaired may wish to attend a discussion but he or she may find no significance of attending the meeting if a sign language translator or loop for a hearing assistance is absent. The person in this case ends up being excluded from the discussion and thus judged to be disabled. It is therefore the choices made by the society that forms a basis of disability because the person perceived to be disabled can actively participate in the discussions like any other person as long as there is a provision of a sign language translator alongside the speakers or even a loop for a hearing (Shakespeare and Watson, 2000). These persons are therefore not disabled despite having hearing impairment. Another example which illustrates that persons who are impaired are not necessarily disabled is for instance in regard to the wheelchair users who wish to board a bus. These persons would be fine and would not be viewed to have disabilities if the buses were made in such a way that they are accessible and have room to accommodate these persons. Similarly provision of information in tapes for the visually impaired persons would enable them to get wind of what the council is doing and therefore may not be termed to be disabled.

An employee may have a deficiency which is not considerably limiting, but the employer ends up treating the employee as having impairment (UN 2006, p. 12). For instance, a wage earner may have a manageable hypertension that does not affect his working capabilities. His manager may consider the wage earner to be disabled and end up giving him a lesser taxing task in fear of the person getting a heart attack.

In addition an individual may have an impairment which is considerably limiting as per the colleagues view. An experienced wage earner having a mark on his face may fail to be promoted to the front office and instead remain in the stores. The employer ends up discriminating the experienced employee since he or she believes that the customers would not wish to be served or look at the person. The manager thus considers his employee as a disabled person when he is actually not. An Employee may have no impairment at all but the employer regards him or her to be impaired. For instance, unverified reports may be broadcasted all over that a wage earner is suffering from HIV. The employer ends up discharging the employee despite the employee having no impairment (Disabilities act 1992, p 28).

According to Verbrugge and Jette (1994, p.5), the model highlights a diminishing social and physical obstacles to inclusion. Emphasis on impairment gives rise to disabled persons feeling different from the standard pattern of behavior. The persons have an insufficient sensation which makes them experience prejudice. Morris (1993, p.172) argued that social perspective has value though within it there is a general inclination to downplay the actual occurrence of the “physical restriction or pain of the body”.

The extent of disability is a consequence of the mutual effect between impairment and features of the affected person’s physical, social and cultural environment in which one dwells (Wendell 1996, p.22). Studies have shown that researchers who argue for the social model of disability perceive environmental factors as the backbone behind disability having a great jeopardy of downplaying the communal effect on impairment and its impact on ones effectiveness and good health or fortune (Waddington and Diller 2002; Shakespeare 2006 p.16).

In relation to the studies and researches carried out, the convection on the rights of persons with disabilities (1996) made a sweeping statement that had two major unintended consequences of downplaying the impact of impairment on daily life. These were “discrimination and the lack of accessible and usable environments” (Waddington and Diller 2002). For instance, the disabled persons are discriminated from employment opportunities which in turn suppress them from social services which can provide one with a means of enjoying a liberated everyday life. Many disabled people thus do not want to consider themselves as disabled because of the stigma associated and disability. The able people see disabled persons as disabled in all aspects of life and fail to notice ways that they are able. This has a great impact in that these disabled people fail to benefit from government set benefits for disabled due to fear of stereotype by the society. Discussions have been raised entailing income transfer systems and employment-promotion of the disabled (Waddington and Diller 2002). This would revitalize the social-liberal recognition. In addition, from the discussions, the disabled would not only have their rights but also have duties relative to the community in which they leave in. A powerful legal safeguard against discrimination and inaccessibility has the ability to reinforce further the range covered for involvement and agency on the disabled. A disabled woman who is pregnant would wish for care pointing towards a reduction between their capabilities and the forceful request set to them by environment. These demands vary from emergency treatments, drugs, manner of living and behavior change (Waddington and Diller 2002). With adoption of personal assistance, the environmental demands can greatly be reduced. Consideration of the hindering factors can reduce nervousness and may improve the consequences for the woman who wishes to become a parent.

Conclusion

The social model of disability began as a framework to understand the issues surrounding disability from the perspective of a person with impairment contrary to the old and common medical model which used the doctors’ perspective to understand and deal with disability. From the social model view, society causes disability for people with impairment and not the impairment. By not providing a way for people with a certain kind of impairment to access equal opportunities as normal people, segregating them and treating them with stigma and stereotype, the society disables them. It was therefore the aim of the disabled people who developed the social model of disability to educate and tell the world that all they need is to be enabled through restructuring the society systems for them to fit in and their needs to be provided for from their point of view and not from a normal persons point of view. With this model, a lot of awareness has been created and in the developed countries, systems like buildings and education have been restructured to have persons with impairments access these services. This model faces the challenges of an increase in the number of disabled people especially in societies where majority of the population is aged.

The very fit or able persons are rarely trained in the accessibility in matters relating to or involving both the social and political factors. It is therefore with great desires that the material presented in this paper will avert the teething troubles described by the disabled such as unsuitable languages, sometimes immaterial actions affecting their affairs and incomplete judgments. The disabled in our societies needs to be noticed and have a caring bread winner who pays attention. The disabled too needs among others practical information and support.

List of References

Disabilities Act (1992). Technical Assistance Manual on the Employment Provisions (Title I) of the Americans with Disabilities Act, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Section 2.2(c), p. 20-28.

Kaplan, D. (1999). Definition of Disability, World Institute of Disability (WID).

MDRC, Michigan Disability Rights Coalition (2007). Models of disability. Web.

Morris J. (1993). Fighting back: In Pride and Prejudice: Transforming attitudes to disability. London: Women’s press, p. 169-189.

Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: from theory to practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Shakespeare and Watson, N. (2000). The Social Model of Disability, an outdated Ideology; Research in Social Science and Disability’ Volume 2, pp. 9-28.

Shakespeare T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs, London: Routledge.

UN (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol, New York: United Nations.

Verbrugge L.M and Jette A.M (1994). The Disablement process. Soc Sci. Med; 38: 1-14.

Waddington, L. & Diller, M. (2002). ‘Tensions and coherence in disability policy: the uneasy relationship between social welfare and civil rights models of disability in American, European and international employment law’, in Breslin, M. L. & Yee, S. (eds.) Disability rights law and policy, Ardsley, NY: Transaction Publishers.

Wendell S. (1996). The rejected body: New York: Routledge, p. 22-29.

White, P. (2010). The Social Model of Disability, British Red Cross UK Office, 44 Moor fields, London.

Introduction

Ethnically, I belong to the Arab Muslim ethnic group from Southeast Asia. My group immigrated to the USA a long time ago and became a part of society. There is a large Muslim community in the country which supports newcomers and old generations of immigrants. Despite great democratic changes in the USA, Muslim people are faced with prejudice, segregation, and racism. The discrimination is based on cultural and religious differences between Americans and Muslims and is heated by the 9/11 terror attacks and negative images of Muslim countries.

Main body

The prejudices are a part of the negative image of the Arab Muslim ethnic group associated with terrorist attacks and the jihad movement. Although behavior cannot always be predicted based on whether it is culturally shaped or socially learned, it is probable that employer recognition considerably encourages acceptance of diversity. Overt behavior is likely when there is a willingness to accept the Arab Muslim ethnic group as a part of the staff. Some companies act out their anti-diversity attitudes no matter how negatively management reacts to them (Schuman et al 2003).

Segregation and racism are interlinked and become apparent in all social spheres of life. My ethnic group experiences segregation in education (schools and universities), healthcare, and law enforcement. These negative attitudes are learned mainly from mass media and negative publicity. The American society learns most of the attitudes from TV news and the press. As ego-deflating, as it may be to accept, it is a fact that a few political leaders invent attitudes for most people. An attitude about racial diversity, for instance, is a complex perceptual invention, and society is not perceptually creative. The superiority of native citizens or inferiority of Arab-Muslim groups (as contrasted to that of an individual) is not obvious; not many casual observers can perceive significant group differences. Also, there are more differences within racial or ethnic groups than between them. Unfortunately, most companies bring Arab-Muslims to work with the–bags packed by other people Schuman et al 2003).

Arab-Muslims from Southeast Asia is one of the groups faced with the dual labor market, double jeopardy, institutional discrimination, reverse discrimination, glass ceiling, etc. All of these problems are caused by prejudices and segregation against Arab Muslims. The most dangerous prejudices are negative attitudes directed toward Arab Muslims. These problems take the form of assumptions or generalizations about all or most members of the Arab Muslims group. In some cases, I hear such comments as “You know how those people are!”. This kind of in-group versus out-group antagonism disrupts work interactions and subverts organization efficiency. The behaviors, customs, and values of Arab Muslims are labeled strange or weird. Employee attitudes of acceptance of culturally different employees are learned in much the same manner denial is inculcated. In many cases, other cultural groups lived in America most often learn as children to reject culturally different people.

Arab-Muslims from Southeast Asia often experiences institutional discrimination, reverse discrimination, and a glass ceiling as they are perceived as low skilled workforce with poor knowledge and professional expertise. Thus, many of Arab-Muslims have a perfect education and excellent knowledge in their sphere of business. When employees who hold anti-diversity attitudes are confronted by managers with logic or with new facts, they usually do not change their values. Instead, these employees tend to hide their true beliefs and pretend to have been converted, particularly if their managers are monitoring the organizational culture.

Dual labor market and double jeopardy are problems caused by illegal immigration and denial to employ of Arab-Muslims by private companies. In many situations, Arab-Muslims look for other sources to support their beliefs, such as biblical passages or anti-diversity research findings. Methods and approaches such as an exceedingly emotional appeal or cautiously crafted experiential exercises focusing on cultural diversity often are more successful than highly structured scientific lectures. What is true and what is personally attractive are not always the same. Most attitudes towards Arab-Muslims such as those supporting racism, sexism, and ageism are seldom originally formed by logic; nor are they frequently altered by logic Schuman et al 2003).

Despite the problems mentioned above, I identify myself with the American mainstream culture and feel like a part of it. I value and follow my cultural traditions, but they do not contradict the American culture. In reality, the amount of attitude change depends on people’s initial position regarding cultural differences, their attention to the message and the interaction, their understanding of the message, and their acceptance of the other ethnic group. Depending on the motivational bases for new attitudes, acceptance of cultural values will be positively affected by diversity activities that provide tangible pay-offs. For most Arab Muslims, the experience of digestion and redefinition of self is a result of negative images created by mass media and the press. In the best-case scenario, educated and culturally competent American citizens learn to accept themselves and peoples of other cultures as co-workers and friends of equal human worth.

References

Schuman, H., Steeh, C., Bobo, L., Krysan, M. (2003). Racial attitudes in America: Trends and interpretations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.