CH-13-14 The Family and Human Sexuality – Sociology in Modules : Chapter Notes

This Document Contains Chapters 13 to 14 CHAPTER 13 THE FAMILY AND HUMAN SEXUALITY CHAPTER SUMMARY In the United States, family has traditionally been viewed in a very narrow set of terms: as a married couple and their unmarried children living together. In sociology, this traditional family arrangement is referred to as a nuclear family. Most Americans view the nuclear family as the ideal family configuration. By contrast, an extended family is a family in which relatives (e.g., grandparents, aunts, or uncles) live in the same home as parents and their children. While most Americans equate monogamy with marriage, there are other forms of marriage as well. Polygamy involves the marriage of one person to multiple spouses. Polygyny, the most common type of polygamy, involves one husband who is married to multiple wives. Polyandry, which is less common, involves one wife who is married to multiple husbands. In the United States, it is common for individuals to marry, divorce, and then remarry. This pattern has led to the term “serial monogamy.” The state of being related to others is called kinship. The United States follows the pattern of bilateral descent, which means that both sides of a person’s family are regarded as equally important. Patrilineal descent indicates that only the father’s relatives are important in determining property, inheritance, and emotional ties. Conversely, in societies that favor matrilineal descent, only the mother’s relatives are significant. Authority patterns within families are often related to kinship descent. If a society expects males to dominate in all the family decision making, it is termed a patriarchy. By contrast, in a matriarchy, women have greater authority than men. Within the egalitarian family, spouses are regarded as equals; however, wives may hold authority in some spheres and husbands in others. The various sociological perspectives hold varying views on family. Functionalists focus on the ways in which family gratifies the needs of its members and contributes to the stability of society in providing reproduction, protection, socialization, regulation of sexual behavior, affection and companionship, and social status. To the extent that many of these “functions” have been taken over by outside institutions, the family as an institution is weakened. In addition, functionalists suggest that in order for families to function optimally, they require a specialized division of labor in which husbands perform one set of tasks (known as “instrumental”) and wives another (known as “expressive”). This explicit support for a gendered division of household labor has prompted a certain amount of criticism in recent years for the functionalist perspective. Conflict theorists view family as a reflection of the inequality in wealth and power found within the larger society. Both feminist and conflict theorists contend that family has traditionally legitimized and perpetuated male dominance. In essence, the family is viewed as an economic unit that contributes to societal injustice. Women and children are subordinate members of the family and may be subjected to a number of injustices, economic or otherwise. Domestic violence committed against wives, for example, may occur as a result of husbands’ perceived lack of power in the economic realm. Interactionists focus on the microlevel of family and other intimate relationships. Interactionists are interested in how individuals, whether cohabitating or married, interact with one another. Feminist theorists stress the need to rethink the notion that families in which no adult male is present are automatically a cause for concern, or even dysfunctional. Mate selection is influenced by distinctive cultural norms and values. Endogamy specifies that people are expected to marry within their own racial, ethnic, or religious group. Conversely, exogamy requires mate selection outside certain groups, usually outside one’s own family or certain kinfolk. Homogamy refers to the practice of marrying someone with similar characteristics to one’s own. Regardless of other characteristics, SES is associated with homogamy. The incest taboo prohibits sexual relationships between certain culturally specified relatives. In the United States, love is important in the courtship process and is considered a rationale for marriage. Arranged marriages often take precedent over love relationships in many parts of the world. Within the United States, social class, race, and ethnicity create variations in family life. The subordinate status of racial and ethnic minorities profoundly affects family life in the United States. The African-American family suffers from many negative and inaccurate stereotypes. Mexican Americans have traditionally placed proximity to their extended families above other needs and desires. Caring for children is a universal function of the family, yet the ways in which this care is assigned to family members vary significantly. Parenthood is one of the most important social roles in the United States. A recent extension of parenthood involves adult children continuing to live at home or returning home after college or divorce. This phenomenon is sometimes called the “boomerang generation” or the “full-nest syndrome” in the popular press. By 2009, 9 percent of White children, 17 percent of Black children, and 14 percent of Hispanic children lived with at least one grandparent. In about a third of these homes, no parent was present to assume responsibility for the youngsters. The expectation that a family consists of a wage-earning husband with a wife who stays at home has largely given way to the dual-income household. The rise of the dual-income model is partly contingent on economic need, the increasing desire on the part of both men and women to pursue careers, and increasing acceptance of egalitarian marriage. The diminishing of the “unwed mother” stigma has contributed to more single-parent families. In 2010, a single parent headed about 24 percent of White families with children under 18, 37 percent of Hispanic families with children, and 62 percent of African American families with Children. Approximately 63 percent of all divorcees in the United States have remarried. Since the 1980s the divorce rate has declined by 30 percent. However, increased divorce and remarriage have led to a noticeable increase in stepfamily relationships. Perhaps the most important factor in the increase in divorce over the last hundred years has been the greater social acceptance of divorce. One of the most dramatic trends in recent years has been the tremendous increase in male-female couples who choose to live together without marrying. The practice of cohabitation is increasing; since 1970, the number of unmarried couples with children has increased 12-fold. By the age of 12, about 42 percent of all children in the United States have lived with cohabiting parents. More and more people are postponing entry into marriage. However, fewer than four percent of women and men in the United States are likely to remain single throughout their lives. There has been a modest increase in childlessness in the United States. About 16 to 17 percent of women will now complete their childbearing years without having borne any children, compared to 10 percent in 1980. The lifestyles of gay and lesbian couples can be varied. The issue of gay marriage is highly controversial. RESOURCE INTEGRATOR Focus Questions Resources 1. What is the range of family composition, kinship, and authority patterns in the United States and worldwide? IN THE TEXT Key Terms: nuclear family, extended family, monogamy, serial monogamy, polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, kinship, bilateral descent, patrilineal descent, matrilineal descent, patriarchy, matriarchy, egalitarian family Boxes: Sociology in the Global Community: One Wife, Many Husbands: The Nyinba IN THE INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL Additional Lecture Ideas: Tibetan Family Life (12-1); Cultivation Theory (12-2); Marital Power (12-3); The Bride Price (12-4); Endogamy and Exogamy (12-6) Classroom Discussion Topics: Family History (12-2); What is a Marriage (12-3), The Marriage Contract (12-4), Family Rituals (12-6), Covenant Marriage (12-13) Video Resources: Beyond the Nuclear Family; The Changing American Family, The Human Animal: Family and Survival, The Latino Family, Working it Out: The Future of the Family 2. How do functionalists, conflict theorists, feminists, and interactionists view the family? IN THE INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL Additional Lecture Ideas: Marital Power (12-3), The Bride Price (12-4), Steps to Prevent Domestic Violence (12-5), Joint Marriage Rights (12-9), Housework within Lesbian and Gay Households (12-10) Classroom Discussion Topics: What is a Marriage (12-3), The Marriage Contract (12-4), Good Marriages (12-10), Covenant Marriage (12-13) Student Research and Assignments: Marital Violence, African-American Family, Infant Care by Men and Women, Single Mothers and Welfare Programs Video Resources: And Baby Makes Two, Caught in the Crossfire, The Changing American Family, Divorce and the Family, Family Violence; The 1900 House REEL SOCIETY VIDEO Topic Index: Family—Functions; Family—Inequality 3. How do mate selection and family life vary in the United States and throughout the world? IN THE TEXT Key Terms: endogamy, exogamy, incest taboo, homogamy, machismo, familism, adoption, single-parent families, transracial adoption IN THE INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL Additional Lecture Ideas: Tibetan Family Life (12-1), Cultivation Theory (12-2), The Bride Price (12-4), Endogamy and Exogamy (12-6), Classroom Discussion Topics: The Marriage Contract (12-4), Extraordinary Groups (12-5), Family Rituals (12-6) Student Research and Assignments: African-American Family; Race and Household Structure in 1910 Video Resources: Interracial Marriage, Caught in the Crossfire; The Changing American Family; Hutterites; Interracial Marriage; The Latino Family; Working it Out REEL SOCIETY VIDEO Topic Index: Cultural Divides 4. What are the major trends in divorce in the United States? IN THE INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL Additional Lecture Ideas: Marital Power (12-3), Single Mothers and Society (12-7), Inheriting Divorce (12-8) Boxes: Research Today: Divorce and Military Deployment Classroom Discussion Topics: Covenant Marriage (12-13) Student Research and Assignments: Single Mothers and Welfare Programs Video Resources: And Baby Makes Two; The Changing American Family; Divorce and the Family 5. In what ways is family life becoming more diverse in the United States? IN THE TEXT Key Terms: cohabitation, domestic partnership IN THE INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL Additional Lecture Ideas: Single Mothers and Society (12-7), Inheriting Divorce (12-8), Joint Marriage Rights (12-9), Housework within Lesbian and Gay Households (12-10) Classroom Discussion Topics: Using Humor (12-12) Video Resources: Caught in the Crossfire; The Changing American Family; Working It Out REEL SOCIETY VIDEO Topic Index: Family—Lifestyles LECTURE OUTLINE Introduction • A family is defined as a set of people related by blood, marriage, adoption, or some other agreed-upon relationship who share the primary responsibility for reproduction and caring for any dependent members. I. Global View of the Family A. Composition: What Is the Family? • The nuclear family consists of a married couple and their unmarried children living together. Nuclear families have steadily decreased over the last 30 years. By 2000, only about a third of U.S. family households fit this model. • An extended family is a family in which relatives—such as grandparents, aunts, or uncles—live in the same home as parents and their children. • Extended families provide greater emotional and financial support. • Monogamy refers to one woman and one man married only to each other. • Serial monogamy refers to a person who may have several spouses in his or her lifetime, but only one at a time. • There are two types of polygamy: polygyny refers to the marriage of a man to more than one woman at the same time, and polyandry refers to a woman with more than one husband at the same time. Around the world, polygyny is much more common than polyandry. B. Kinship Patterns: To Whom Are We Related? • The state of being related to others is called kinship. • Kinship is culturally learned and follows a system of descent. • In bilateral descent, both sides of a person’s family are regarded as equal. • In patrilineal descent, only the father’s relatives are important in terms of property, inheritance, and emotional ties. • In matrilineal descent, only the mother’s relatives are significant. C. Authority Patterns: Who Rules? • In a patriarchal family, males are expected to dominate all family decision making. • In patriarchal families (and societies), men may find divorce easier than women, particularly in terms of economic outcomes. • Women have greater authority than men in matriarchies, which are very rare. • In an egalitarian family, authority is shared between spouses. Egalitarian families are becoming more common in the United States. II. Sociological Perspectives On The Family • Friedrich Engels (1884) described family as the ultimate source of social inequality. A. Functionalist View • Families gratify the needs of members and contribute to the stability of society. • Six paramount functions of family outlined by William F. Ogburn: (1) reproduction, (2) protection, (3) socialization, (4) regulation of sexual behavior, (5) affection and companionship, and (6) providing social status. • Some functions have been shifted to outside groups. Example: education and recreation. B. Conflict View • Family is a reflection of inequality in wealth and power, perpetuated by male dominance. • Family is viewed as an economic unit that contributes to social injustice. • Children inherit the class status of their parents. C. Interactionist View • Microlevel analysis interested in how individuals interact. Examples: father/children interaction as it relates to behavioral problems; studies related to behavior of stepfamilies. D. Feminist View • Research on gender roles in childcare and household chores has been extensive. Example: Arlie Hochschild. • Feminist theorists have urged others to rethink notion that families with no adult male are automatically cause for concern. • Other areas of research: single women, single-parent households, and lesbian couples. Feminists stress need to investigate neglected topics in family studies. Example: Feminist researchers might study the “dark side” of families (i.e., domestic violence or child abuse). III. Marriage and Family • Approximately 45 percent of all men and women in the U.S. will marry at least once. A. Courtship and Mate Selection • Influenced by the norms and values of the larger society. • Internet romance via matchmaking services. Examples: eHarmony and Match.com. • The process is taking longer than in the past, many people are delaying their entrance into marriage, and cohabitation is increasingly likely. 1. Aspects of Mate Selection • Endogamy specifies that people are expected to marry within their own racial, ethnic, or religious group. Intended to reinforce group cohesiveness. • Exogamy requires mate selection outside certain groups, usually one’s own family or certain kinfolk. • Incest taboos prohibit sexual relationships between culturally specified relatives. In the U.S. this means we must marry outside the nuclear family. • Until the 1960s, interracial marriage was outlawed in some states. • Marriage between African Americans and Whites has increased more than sevenfold in recent decades and mixed-race/mixed-ethnicity marriages are increasingly common. Transracial adoption is also increasingly common. • Endogamy is still the social norm in the United States. • Homogamy is the conscious or unconscious tendency to choose a mate with similar personalities and cultural interests. Example: “Like marries like” rule. However, others observe the rule that “Opposites attract.” So mate selection is unpredictable. 2. The Love Relationship • In the U.S., love is important in courtship as a rationale for marriage. • Love is not universal for marriage in all cultures. • Arranged marriages are the basis for mate selection in many cultures and in some subcultures within the U.S. B. Variations in Family Life and Intimate Relationships 1. Social Class Differences • Upper-class families emphasize lineage of family position. • Lower-class families struggle to pay bills and survive. • Middle-class families are more permissive than lower-class families, which have tended to be more authoritative; however, these differences have recently narrowed. • Women play a significant economic role in poor families. Example: In 2006, 28 percent of all families headed by women with no husband present were below the poverty line. The rate for married couples was only 4.9 percent. 2. Racial and Ethnic Differences • The subordinate status of racial and ethnic minorities affects family life. • Female kin ease financial strains among Black families headed by single mothers. • Emphasis on deep religious commitment and aspirations for achievement. • Mexican Americans are more familistic in that extended family ties are strong. Mexican-American men exhibit machismo. C. Child-Rearing Patterns 1. Parenthood and Grandparenthood • Parenthood is one of the most important social roles in the U.S. • Alice Rossi identified four factors regarding socialization into parenthood: (1) little anticipatory socialization for the care-giving role; (2) limited learning occurs during the pregnancy period; (3) transition to parenthood is abrupt; and (4) society lacks clear guidelines for successful parenthood. • Extension of parenthood. Example: children living at home longer, and divorced children returning home to live with parents. In 2006, 53 percent of men and 43 percent of women aged 18 to 24 lived with their parents. Studies of the boomerang generation, or the full-nest syndrome, suggest that neither parents nor adult children are happy about living together. Some feel resentful and isolated. • By 2009, 9 percent of White children, 17 percent of Black children, and 14 percent of Hispanic children lived with at least one grandparent. In about a third of these homes, no parent was present to assume responsibility for the youngsters. 2. Adoption • Process that allows the transfer of legal rights, responsibilities, and privileges of parenthood to a new legal parent or parents. • Functionalists suggest that government encourages adoption for stability. • Conflict perspective suggests affluent couples buy children of the poor. • In 1995, New York (after Vermont and Massachusetts) held that couples do not have to be married to adopt. Under this ruling, unmarried heterosexual couples, lesbian couples, and gay male couples can all legally adopt children in New York. 3. Dual-Income Families • Majority of married people are dual-wage earners out of economic need. • The increase in the proportion of men and women who desire to pursue careers contributes to the increase in dual-income families. Increased participation of women in the labor force is associated with both the rise in the number of married couples who live apart for reasons other than marital discord and in the increased acceptance of the egalitarian family type. 4. Single-Parent Families • Stigma attached to “unwed” mothers has significantly declined. • In 2010, a single parent headed about 24 percent of White families with children under 18, 37 percent of Hispanic families with children, and 62 percent of African American families with children. • The majority of babies born to unwed teenage mothers are born to White adolescents. • In 2007, 88 percent of single-parent households in the U.S. were headed by mothers; however, households headed by single fathers more than quadrupled between 1980 and 2000. • Single fathers tend to be more isolated than single mothers. 5. Stepfamilies • Rising rates of divorce and remarriage have increased stepfamily relationships. • Children of stepfamilies may not be better off than children of divorced, single-parent households. • Compared to children raised by biological parents, children raised in stepfamilies are likely to have less healthcare, education, and money for food. IV. Divorce A. Statistical Trends in Divorce • Divorce began to increase in the late 1960s, and has declined since the late 1980s. • About 63 percent of divorced people remarry. • Some regard the remarriage rate as an endorsement of the institution of marriage. B. Factors Associated with Divorce • Greater social acceptance. • Relaxing of negative attitudes by religious denominations. • Growing worldwide acceptance. Example: increasing divorce rate in South Korea. • States have adopted more liberal divorce laws (no fault). • Divorce more practical option since families today tend to have fewer children. • The general increase in family income and the availability of free legal aid to some poor make divorce more affordable. • Women are less dependent on their husbands, both economically and emotionally, and feel more able to leave a bad marriage. C. Impact of Divorce on Children • Some suggest divorce is a welcome end for children witnessing family dysfunction. • In about 70 percent of all divorces, the stress and conflict of the divorce are harder for the children than living with marital unhappiness. V. Diverse Lifestyles • Marriage rate has declined since 1960 because people are postponing marriage, and because more couples, including same-sex couples, are forming partnerships without marriage. A. Cohabitation • Male-female couples who choose to live together without marrying. • Number of unmarried-couple households rose six-fold in the 1960s and another 72 percent between 1990 and 2000. • Cohabitation is also extremely common in Europe. • Working couples are almost twice as likely to cohabit as college students. • In 2011, the nation crossed a major threshold: the majority of births to women under age 30 occurred outside of marriage. • About half of all people who cohabit have previously been married. B. Remaining Single • Fewer than 4 percent of women and men in the U.S. are likely to remain single throughout their lives. • Postponing marriage is related to growing economic independence of young people. • Single persons may choose not to limit their sexual intimacy and not to become dependent on another person. • Singles may form support groups to combat inaccurate stereotyping. C. Marriage without Children • There has been a modest increase in childlessness in the U.S. • About 16 to 17 percent of women will complete their childbearing years without having borne any children, compared to 10 percent in 1980. • Economic considerations have contributed to this attitude. Example: In 2004, the average middle-class family spent $184,320 to feed, clothe, and shelter a child from birth to age 18. If the child attends college, the amount could double. D. Lesbian and Gay Relationships • Lifestyles of gays and lesbians vary greatly. • Two to five percent of the adult population identify themselves as either gay or lesbian. VI. Social Policy and the Family: Gay Marriage A. The Issue • Same-sex marriage. B. The Setting • In 2004, George W. Bush raised the possibility of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. • In 1999, the state of Vermont began to give same-sex couples in civil unions the same legal benefits as married couples. • In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that gay couples had the right to marry. C. Sociological Insights • Functionalists emphasize the link between marriage and reproduction. • Conflict theorists see the lack of marriage rights among gays as a way of continuing to subordinate them. • Interactionists are interested in the household dynamics of same-sex households. D. Policy Initiatives • A number of European countries recognize same-sex partnerships. • In the U.S., many local jurisdictions allow gay couples to register as domestic partnerships, through which they can receive some of the benefits of marriage. • Some states have moved to ban same-sex marriage, though they still prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians. KEY TERMS Adoption In a legal sense, a process that allows for the transfer of the legal rights, responsibilities, and privileges of parenthood to a new legal parent or parents. Bilateral descent A kinship system in which both sides of a person’s family are regarded as equally important. Cohabitation The practice of living together as a male–female couple without marrying. Domestic partnership Two unrelated adults who have chosen to share a mutually caring relationship, reside together, and agree to be jointly responsible for their dependents, basic living expenses, and other common necessities. Egalitarian family An authority pattern in which spouses are regarded as equals. Endogamy The restriction of mate selection to people within the same group. Exogamy The requirement that people select mates outside certain groups. Extended family A family in which relatives—such as grandparents, aunts, or uncles—live in the same home as parents and their children. Familism (Familismo) Pride in the extended family, expressed through the maintenance of close ties and strong obligations to kinfolk outside the immediate family. Family A set of people related by blood, marriage, or some other agreed-upon relationship, or adoption, who share the primary responsibility for reproduction and caring for members of society. Homogamy The conscious or unconscious tendency to select a mate with personal characteristics similar to one’s own. Incest taboo The prohibition of sexual relationships between certain culturally specified relatives. Kinship The state of being related to others. Machismo A sense of virility, personal worth, and pride in one’s maleness. Matriarchy A society in which women dominate in family decision making. Matrilineal descent A kinship system in which only the relatives of the mother are significant. Monogamy A form of marriage in which one woman and one man are married only to each other. Nuclear family A married couple and their unmarried children living together. Patriarchy A society in which men dominate in family decision making. Patrilineal descent A kinship system in which only the relatives of the father are significant. Polyandry A form of polygamy in which a woman may have more than one husband at the same time. Polygamy A form of marriage in which an individual can have several husbands or wives simultaneously. Polygyny A form of polygamy in which a man may have more than one wife at the same time. Serial monogamy A form of marriage in which a person may have several spouses in his or her lifetime, but only one spouse at a time. Single-parent family A family in which only one parent is present to care for the children. Transracial adoption The adoption of a non-White child by White parents or a Hispanic child by non-Hispanics. ADDITIONAL LECTURE IDEAS 12-1: Tibetan Family Life From 1938 through 1957, His Royal Highness Prince Peter of Greece and Denmark, a trained anthropologist, carefully recorded his observations of family life in mountainous Tibet. His work offers a glimpse at family life in a culture very different from our own. The ideal Tibetan family was a polyandrous one in which all brothers had a common wife. Unrelated men might, in some cases, share a woman. However, the close association of brothers served to reduce the jealousy that might arise if a number of unrelated men were sharing the same wife. The cohusbands of a particular woman would agree among themselves as to which one would have sexual relations with the wife on any given day. Apparently, the women had little say in the matter. Birth control was nonexistent and restriction on sexual behavior prior to marriage was minimal. Nevertheless, in a very poor society that could not afford to feed many children, an unmarried woman bearing a child was expected to abandon the baby in the river. The proportion of Tibetan marriages that were polyandrous varied from 90 percent in the rural areas to only 2 percent in the capital of Lhasa. Since polyandry was so common and more than one-fourth of Tibetan males were Buddhist monks, many women remained single throughout their lives. Some became nuns, some lived permanently in the households of their married brothers, and others turned to prostitution. As in most societies, Tibetan families did not all correspond to the ideal. Most families were monogamous, especially in the cities. Some affluent nobles and merchants practiced polygyny (one man having several wives). In rare cases, the cohusbands of a polyandrous family would collectively take on a second wife. Generally, this occurred when the first was unable to bear a p’horjag, or heir. It should be noted that since Prince Peter recorded these observations, Tibet has become an autonomous region of the People’s Republic of China. As a result, these patterns have undoubtedly undergone change. See H.R.H. Prince Peter of Greece and Denmark, “The Tibetan Family System,” in Meyer F. Nimkoff (ed.). Comparative Family Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965, pp. 192–208. 12-2: Cultivation Theory Cultivation theory, which was developed by media researchers, suggests that there are consistent images, themes, and stereotypes that cut across programming genres. As a whole, these different media images cultivate a view of the family and gender roles, for example, that is consistent. Thus, viewers who watch comedies, soap operas, news stories and weekly news programs, sporting events, dramas, and late-night television programs will develop similar and consistent views. Unfortunately, these media views of the family and gender roles are oftentimes partially or completely incorrect and widespread. Males are generally viewed as more ambitious and successful than women, and women are more nurturing and emotional than men. Similarly, the view of the family presented in Leave it to Beaver, The Brady Bunch, One Day at a Time, Roseanne, The Simpsons, and Dawson’s Creek has influenced generations of viewers’ thoughts about the typical family system in the United States. The family has never been as perfect as we were led to believe by the Cleaver family of Leave it to Beaver, and it is generally not as dysfunctional as is presented in The Simpsons. William Ogburn suggests that the family is in the process of dying because it is no longer fulfilling the functions that were its traditional responsibility. These functions, he claims, are now being fulfilled by other social institutions: school systems, welfare departments, police departments, and the like. However, Coontz, Skolnick, and others suggest that the family is changing to meet the needs of a changing society, and that the media distorts our impression of the functions and the success of the family system in any of the supposed golden eras of this institution. (NOTE: This would be a good point to generate a class discussion about the media’s current and past presentation of the family and gender roles. Students have access to “classic” television programs on cable and they can compare and contrast the changing views of the family and male and female gender roles, and assess the accuracy and impact of these presentations.) See Stephanie Coontz. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trip. New York: Basic Books, 1992; William F. Ogburn, “The Changing Family,” The Family 19 (1939): 139–143; Nancy Signorielli, “Children, Television, and Gender Roles—Messages and Impact,” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 33 (June 1989): 325–331; Nancy Signorielli and N. Morgan (eds.). Cultivation Analysis: New Directions in Media Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990; Arlene Skolnick, “Public Images, Private Realities: The American Family in Popular Culture and Social Science.” In Changing Images of the Family, Virginia Tufte and Barbara Myerhoff (eds.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1979, pp. 297–315; Bryan Strong, Christine DeVault, and Barbara W. Sayad. The Marriage and Family Experience (8th ed.). New York: Wadsworth, 2000. 12-3: Marital Power Sociologists Robert Blood, Jr. and Donald Wolfe developed the concept of marital power to describe the manner in which decision making is distributed within families. They defined power by examining who makes the final decision in each of eight important areas that, the researchers argue, traditionally have been reserved entirely for the husband or for the wife. These areas include what job the husband should take, what house or apartment to live in, where to go on vacation, and which doctor to use if there is an illness in the family. Recent research suggests that money plays a central role in determining marital power. Money has different meanings for members of each sex: For men it typically represents identity and power; for women, security and autonomy. Apparently, money establishes the balance of power not only for married couples but also for unmarried heterosexual couples who are living together. Married women who work outside the home for pay enjoy greater marital power than do full-time homemakers. Labor not only enhances women’s self-esteem but also increases their marital power because some men have greater respect for women who work at paying jobs. Sociologist Isik Aytac studied a national sample of households in the United States and found that husbands of women holding management positions share more of the domestic chores than do other husbands. In addition, as a wife’s proportional contribution to the family income increases, her husband’s share of meal preparation increases. Aytac’s research supports the contention that the traditional division of labor at home can change as women’s position in the labor force improves and women gain greater marital power. Comparative studies have revealed the complexity of marital power issues in other cultures. For example, anthropologist David Gilmore examined decision making in two rural towns in southern Spain. These communities, one with 8,000 residents and the other with 4,000, have an agricultural economy based on olives, wheat, and sunflowers. Gilmore studied a variety of decision-making situations, including prenuptial decisions over household location, administration of domestic finances, and major household purchases. He found that working-class women in these communities, often united with their mothers, are able to prevail in many decisions despite opposition from their husbands. Interestingly, wives’ control over finances in these towns appears to lessen with affluence. Among the wealthier peasants, husbands retain more rights over the family purse strings, especially in terms of bank accounts and investments. In some cases, they make investments without their wives’ knowledge. By contrast, in the working class, where surplus cash is uncommon and household finances are often based on borrowing and buying on credit because of the uncertainties of household employment, the wife “rules” the household economy, and the husband accepts her rule. Sources: Isik A. Aytac, “Wife’s Decision-Making at Work and Contribution to Family Income as Determinate of How Domestic Chores Are Shared.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Sociological Society, Boston, 1987; Robert O. Blood, Jr., and Donald M. Wolfe. Husbands and Wives: The Dynamics of Married Living. New York: Free Press, 1960; Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz. American Couples: Money, Work, Sex. New York: Morrow, 1983; Deborah D. Godwin and John Scanzoni, “Couple-Consensus during Marital Joint Decision-Making: A Context, Process, Outcome Model,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 31 (November 1983): 943–956; Gladis Kaufman, “Power Relations in Middle-Class American Families,” Wisconsin Sociology 22 (Winter 1985): 13–23. 12-4: The Tradition of the “Bride Price” “Ali Eski and Nuran Aydogmus were young and very much in love and wanted to get married, but their families could not agree on the ‘bride price,’ so they committed suicide.” So began a story in the New York Times late in 1980. The tradition of the bride price has persisted for many centuries in Turkish culture, particularly in certain rural areas in which age-old values remain dominant. In this case, the young woman’s father insisted on a price of 100,000 liras (about $1,100) before he would consent to the marriage. Ali Eski’s family offered 30,000 liras in advance and the rest in a promissory note, a common practice in the area, but their offer was rejected. The tragic death of 22-year-old Ali Eski and 16-year-old Nuran Aydogmus led to a new debate over this cultural practice. Many urban young people and intellectuals attacked the bride price, arguing that it treats women as commodities to be bought and sold. But older rural people defended the custom as a guarantee of a prospective bride’s virginity; in addition, a special commission established by the Turkish government to study the issue filed a report generally favoring the bride price. As a result, this custom continues to be a part of Turkish culture. See Marvin Howe, “Couple’s Suicide over ‘Bride Price’ Shocks Turks,” New York Times (December 21, 1980): 24. 12-5: Steps to Prevent Domestic Violence The following five steps have been identified as useful in trying to prevent domestic violence: 1. Eliminate the norms that legitimize violence in society and the family. The elimination of spanking as a child-rearing technique, gun control to get deadly weapons out of the home, the elimination of the death penalty, the elimination of corporal punishment in schools, and the elimination of media violence are all necessary steps. 2. Reduce violence-provoking stress created by society. Reducing poverty, inequality, and unemployment, and providing adequate housing, nutrition, medical and dental care, and educational opportunities could reduce stress in families. 3. Integrate families into a network of families and the community. Reducing social isolation could reduce stress and increase the ability of families to manage stress. 4. Change the sexist character of society. Sexual inequality, perhaps more than economic inequality, makes violence possible in the home. The elimination of the separation of men’s work from women’s work would be a major step toward equality inside and outside the home. 5. Break the cycle of violence in the family. Violence cannot be prevented as long as we are taught it is acceptable to hit the people we love. Physical punishment of children is perhaps the most effective means of teaching violence, and eliminating it would be an important step in violence prevention. See Richard J. Gelles, “Family Violence.” In Craig Calhoun and George Ritzer (eds.). Introduction to Social Problems. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993, pp. 553–571 (see especially p. 568). Also see Murray A. Straus, Richard J. Gelles, and Suzanne K. Steinmetz. Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. Garden City, NY: Doubleday/Anchor, 1980. 12-6: Endogamy and Exogamy For students raised in the United States, it may be difficult to understand just how powerful rules of exogamy and endogamy can be. Many of the traditional rules of endogamy in the United States—barring marriages and romantic relationships across racial, ethnic, and religious groups—have faded in influence during the past half-century. The key rule of exogamy in the U.S.—an incest taboo against romantic involvement among close relatives—is so engrained in our culture that it seems more like a law of nature than a socially constructed rule. Introducing students to rules governing marriage choice from other cultures can better demonstrate the enormous power that these regulations can have, and the legal and social controversies they can create. South Korea For many centuries, the South Korean government enforced rules of exogamy that prevented countless couples from marrying, solely based on their surnames and ancestral homes. Until 1997 it was illegal for two people with the same surname, who also originated from the same ancestral clan, to marry. Given the small number of surnames in South Korea, this law eliminated a great number of marriage possibilities. It is estimated that 55 percent of South Korea’s population shares just five surnames (Kim, Park, Lee, Choi, and Chong), and that almost 40 percent of the population has their ancestry in one of three clans. When the law was originally enacted 700 years ago, it may have served as a useful check against incest. Today, however, very few people who share the same surname and clan are more than distantly related from a biological standpoint. During the past century, many thousands of South Koreans have been negatively impacted by this ancient law. Some of these dongbohn couples ended their romantic relationships before marriage, upon discovering that they were “family.” Others had informal weddings and lived together as husband and wife, but could not gain legal recognition of that marriage. In addition to the social stigma they may suffer, such couples could not qualify for family tax breaks or insurance plans. At several points during past three decades, informally married dongbohn couples have been granted a temporary amnesty period during which they can register their marriages, thus making them legal. In addition, the law against dongbohn marriages itself was finally overturned in 1997. Even so, in the eyes of many South Koreans, dongbohn relationships still violate traditional Confucian standards of incest. It is expected that for the foreseeable future, a social stigma against dongbohn couples will still keep many Kims, Parks, Lees, Chois, and Chongs from finding true love among other Kims, Parks, Lees, Chois, and Chongs. Taiwan Arthur Wolf’s classic study of historical marriage patterns in Taiwan—Marriage and Adoption in China, 1845–1945—brings to light a social context in which incest taboos kept many married couples from developing a sexual interest in one another, even without a biological relationship between them. Before 1945, it was not uncommon for a set of parents to select a bride for their son at a very young age, often when the “bride” was still an infant. The bride immediately moved in with her “in-laws,” and was raised by them much in the same way that they would raise a daughter. At some point after the son and adopted daughter-in-law passed through puberty, they would be expected to marry and begin a sexual relationship. But the prospective bride and groom often protested, and not infrequently refused to marry altogether. It was not the notion of an arranged marriage to which they were opposed, since arranged marriages were standard practice at this time. Moreover, there was no general social disapproval of marriages between sons and adopted-daughters-in-law. Rather, Wolf argues that since an adopted daughter-in-law was essentially raised as a sister to her future groom, by the time of the marriage both parties had developed the same sort of sexual aversion to one another that biological siblings do. There is ample additional evidence to bolster this claim. Among adopted sisters-in-law who married their intended grooms, fertility rates were much lower than for other women. Divorce rates among couples raised in the same household were also much higher than for most others, even though an adopted daughter-in-law would often develop very close relationships with her in-laws, compared to tenuous or non-existent ties to her birth family. Wolf’s study demonstrates in a powerful way that the incest taboo is very much a socially constructed norm, to the point that it can create sexual avoidance between people who are not biologically related. Sources used for this essay and additional reading ideas include: Michael Baker, “South Korea Ends a Taboo, Strikes Blow for True Love,” Christian Science Monitor. (August 4, 1997); Korea Herald, “Saving the Marriage Ban?” (November 29, 1999); Sangwon Suh and Jane L. Lee, “A Relative Improvement,” Asiaweek. 22 (January 19, 1996); Sheryl WuDunn, “Love in the Land of Kims,” Vancouver Sun (September 13, 1996); Arthur Wolf and Chieh-shan Huang. Marriage and Adoption in China, 1845–1945. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1980. 12-7: Single Mothers and Society The societal concern with unwed mothers is an excellent illustration of the labeling perspective at work. For example, is a woman in her thirties who chooses to become pregnant for the first time and have her child considered a part of a “social problem?” Is a married mother aged 17 part of a “social problem?” Is it a problem of age or marital status or both? The power of labeling can also be seen in terminology popularly used to refer to these issues: broken, disrupted, unfit, illegitimate, unadjusted, unsuitable, or bastard, as compared with intact, nuclear, or stable. More specifically, this labeling is another example of the type of stereotyping that sociologist Erving Goffman has referred to as stigmatization. By definition when we so stigmatize people, they are not quite so human. It allows us the luxury of planning for them and not with them, as in the debate over welfare policies. Goffman argues that in stigmatization, we construct stigma theory, an ideology to explain someone’s inferiority and account for the alleged danger it represents. Many speeches concerning unwed mothers and welfare emphasize this danger. In the context of the 1992 South Central Los Angeles riots, then-Vice President Dan Quayle condemned Murphy Brown, the central character in a popular television program, for having a baby outside of marriage. Her actions in this fictional story line represented to Quayle a violation of family values and reinforced the media’s endorsement of unmarried mothers who presumably were less equipped to raise and watch over children, and thus unable to prevent the kind of lawlessness that concerned so many during the riots. In colonial America, the social problem was defined as that of being a “bastard.” A child born out of wedlock became a public charge, and for the small, rural communities of the early colonies this was a financial hardship aside from any moral concerns. Punishing women who bore such children by whipping was not unusual, and often the punishments were administered in public. Many of the laws did apply to both men and women, but the latter were more likely to be convicted because their relationship to the child was, of course, more clear, and they were less likely to have property that would allow them to pay fines and avoid being whipped. While this may seem harsh, the early United States was, in fact, more open-minded than Europe in these matters. In this country the concept of child protection (i.e., not punishing the child for being born out of wedlock) took hold. Also, the United States first recognized both common-law marriages and the possibility that illegitimate children could have some legal rights relevant to the property of their parents. In England, for example, the concept of filius nullius, “a child of no one,” legally prevailed for a longer time than in the United States (Luker 1996:19–20). In the United States during the late nineteenth century, immigration and urbanization made it increasingly difficult for a Gemeinschaft community (where everyone knows one another) to assume responsibility for unwed mothers and their children. In 1883, the Florence Crittenton Homes were founded as refuges for “fallen women” or prostitutes. Within a few years, their function was expanded, and they also took in unwed mothers. It is not hard to see both the labeling and stigmatization taking place here. Sociologist W.E.B. Du Bois in 1909 noted that there were seven homes for African-American women as well as one Crittenton home reserved for that purpose. The discussions about poverty and single parents are almost always intertwined with questions of race. Many people immediately think of “unwed mothers” or “babies having babies” as African American. Although the image is not totally false—African Americans do account for a disproportionate share of births to teenagers and unmarried women—the majority of all babies born to unmarried teenage mothers are born to Whites. In addition, since 1985, birthrates among unmarried White teens have been increasing rapidly, while those among unmarried Black teens have been largely stable. Other myths concerning unwed mothers relate specifically to welfare. Sociologist Ruth Sidel notes that: • Virtually all social science studies indicate that over four-fifths of teenage pregnancies are unintended. • From 1975 to 1994, the average AFDC benefit per family measured in constant dollars (i.e., accounting for inflation) dropped by 37 percent. • There is no state where welfare benefits plus food stamps bring the recipient families up to even the minimum of the federal poverty line. • Seventy-one percent of adult AFDC recipients have recent work histories, and almost half of the families who leave welfare do so to work. The Center on Social Welfare and Law in a 1996 report clarified some other frequently held notions concerning welfare. In their report they found the following: • Concerning welfare dependency, fewer than half of welfare families are on the public assistance rolls for more than three years. • Being on public assistance is not automatically intergenerational. Most women on welfare did not receive welfare as children (Pollitt 1996). Is there a direct relationship among low-income people between the number of babies and the size of welfare checks? The answer is presumably relevant to those who argue that maintaining or increasing subsidies to unmarried mothers only serves to increase “illegitimacy.” The pattern in the United States and other industrial nations is that governments are cutting back on welfare provisions because of the tightening global economy, while out-of-wedlock births have actually increased. In the United States, the real value of a welfare check has declined since 1973, even as women of all age groups have chosen more often to become single mothers. Worldwide, the industrial nation that has witnessed the sharpest increase in the proportion of babies born to unwed mothers has been Great Britain, which has also instituted conservative anti-welfare policies. Much of the concern, as noted earlier, reflects labeling. “Babies having babies” is labeled as a problem in the United States, but would it be better to have more abortions? Research suggests that young people in the United States are about as likely to be sexually active as their counterparts in Great Britain, France, Germany, and Scandinavia. Yet, in other nations they are more likely to seek an abortion. So, from a labeling perspective, if one is concerned about abortion, the situation in the United States is much less of a problem. Of course, the real question may be why are people who are unprepared to be parents having sex, or at least unprotected sex, in the first place. Sociologist Kristin Luker (1996:11) in Dubious Conceptions, draws upon two decades of social science research to conclude: “The short answer to why teenagers get pregnant and especially why they continue those pregnancies is that a fairly substantial number of them just don’t believe what adults tell them, be it about sex, contraception, marriage, or babies. They don’t believe in adult conventional wisdom. This is not because they are defiant or because they are developmentally too immature to process the information (although many are one or the other and some are both), but because the conventional wisdom is not in accord with the world they see around them. When adults talk to teenagers, they draw on a lived reality that is now ten, twenty, thirty, forty or more years out of date. But today’s teenagers live in a world whose demographic, social, economic, and sexual circumstances are almost unimaginable to older generations. Unless we can begin to understand that world, compete with its radically new circumstances, most of what adults tell teenagers will be just blather.” Another way of viewing this difficulty in communicating across generations is to view it in what sociologist William S. Ogburn termed culture lag. Many elements in our society, including both people and social institutions, refuse to adjust to the profound social changes, such as family formation and pregnancy that have occurred during the latter half of the twentieth century. From a feminist perspective the welfare debate certainly qualifies as “blaming the victim.” African-American sociologist Patricia Hill Collins notes that the tendency to view Black women matriarchally, as the sole positive influence in otherwise dysfunctional households, also leads to blaming them for the failure of their children and for the continuance of poverty intergenerationally. Emphasizing the need to get welfare women jobs also seems to undermine the importance of parenting, producing the irony of trying to strengthen the household economically while undermining the family’s integrity. The discussion about single mothers and welfare has changed in the last 20 years. In the 1970s, conservatives wanted teens to be less active sexually, to have fewer abortions, and to contribute less to the growing AFDC rolls. Liberals sought to have women regain control over their reproductive destinies and economic future. Increasingly, conservatives were joined by what has been termed the “New Right,” which saw the issue in moral terms. Today, according to Luker, the debate over early childbearing has become more heated due to the slowdown in economic growth and greater disparity between rich and poor. Liberals argue that society should make a greater investment in teenage mothers through training programs and education, but this approach ignores the multiple problems—violence, poverty, racism, a history of sexual abuse or domestic violence, and underequipped schools—that so many bring with them. In this social context, training programs have very real limits. Luker defends the need for better public funding of contraception and improved sex education. But she cautions that if trends continue—the number of sexually active teenagers doubled between 1970 and 1990—there may be only modest improvement in delaying childbirth. Sources: Patricia Hill Collins. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1990; Erving Goffman. Stigma: Notes on Management of a Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1963; Kristin Luker. Dubious Conceptions: The Politics of Teenage Pregnancy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996; Katha Pollitt, “Subject to Debate,” The Nation 259 (July 11, 1994): 45; Pollitt. “Just the Facts,” The Nation 262 (June 24, 1996): 9; and Ruth Sidel. Keeping Women and Children Last. New York: Penguin Books, 1996. 12-8: Inheriting Divorce Are the children of divorced couples more likely to become divorced themselves? The answer appears to be in the affirmative, but the reasons are complex. Sociologist Paul Amato analyzed longitudinal data to determine the extent of intergenerational transmission of divorce. Data came from the Study of Marriage Over the Life Course, which consisted of telephone interviews with a national sample of 2,033 married persons who were 55 years old and younger in 1980. They were then interviewed again, in keeping with a longitudinal analysis, in 1983, 1988, and 1992. Based on these data, parental divorce is associated with increased risk of offspring divorce, especially when the wives or both spouses have experienced the dissolution of their parents’ marriage. This association is true in second marriages, as well as in the initial marriages. The age of offspring at marriage, cohabitation, socioeconomic attainment, and prodivorce attitudes have only modest impact on the estimated effect of parental divorce. In contrast, a series of interpersonal behaviors offers the largest share of explanation. Among interpersonal behaviors, Amato includes problems with anger, jealousy, hurt feelings, communication, infidelity, and so forth. These findings suggest that parental divorce elevates the risk of offspring divorce by increasing the likelihood that children will exhibit behaviors that interfere with the maintenance of a mutually rewarding marriage relationship. Adult children from divorces are exposed to poor models of two-person behavior and may not learn the skills and attitudes that facilitate functioning in a dyadic social relationship. Similarly, children of divorce may be predisposed to develop traits, such as a lack of trust or an inability to commit, that lead to disharmony. See Paul Amato, “Explaining the Intergenerational Transmission of Divorce,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58 (August 1996): 628–640. 12-9: Joint Marriage Rights The possibility of official recognition of marriages between same-sex individuals raises the possibility that the same legal and financial benefits traditionally enjoyed by married couples in the United States would be extended to gay and lesbian couples. Among those benefits are the following: • Entitlement to share in one another’s government benefits. • Joint insurance policies. • Joint tenancy in property ownership. • Inheritance rights. • Tax advantages. • Hospital visitation rights. • The right to make medical decisions for a partner. • Family leave to care for a sick partner. • Confidentiality of conversations. • Wrongful-death benefits. • Immigration for foreign partners. • Domestic violence protection orders. • Joint parental custody. • Divorce rights; alimony. See “Equal Treatment Is Real Issue—Not Marriage,” USA Today (December 9, 1996): 12A. 12-10: Housework within Lesbian and Gay Households The recognition that family structures are variable has led social scientists to begin exploring some previously overlooked variations. Combining interviews and observation research, sociologist Christopher Carrington conducted a study of the housework of 52 “lesbigay” households (26 lesbian households and 26 gay men’s households). Carrington looked at couples who had been in relationships at least two years. The housework considered included cleaning, taking care of pets and plants, yard work, laundry, and household paperwork. In general, housework is often taken for granted or designated as an unfortunate part of family life. Rarely in the United States is daily housework viewed in a positive light. However, the research suggested that participating in housework helps “lesbigays” develop a stronger sense of themselves as families, “maintaining our yard and building.” “Lesbigay” couples with more resources were able to invest more money and time into the housework. Carrington found such couples to have developed more of an identity as a family. See Christopher Carrington, “Housework Among Lesbigay Families: Sociological Variation in the Extent and Character of Housework.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York, 1996. CLASSROOM DISCUSSION TOPICS 12-1. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life: Questions for stimulating a classroom discussion about Annette Lareau’s book include these: What does Lareau mean when she refers to “concerted cultivation”? Why do you think middle-class families are so concerned about providing “organized leisure activities” for their children? In what ways might these activities end up being advantageous or disadvantageous for them? In what ways has your race or social class background shaped the relationships in your family? 12-2. Family History: A useful project is explained in Susan Aminoff, “The Family History Exercise: Developing Positive Awareness in Culturally Diverse College Classrooms,” Teaching Sociology 25 (April 1995): 155–158. 12-3. What Is a Marriage? Ask students to provide a definition of marriage that is universal— a definition that would include all types of marriages throughout our culture and throughout the world. This is a good exercise in critical thinking and understanding cultural and cross-cultural variations. Do marriages need to be between two people? Between members of different sexes? Legally consummated? Based on law? Permanent? Based on love? Involve children? Have religious sanction? Involve sexual relationships? After these and other issues have been discussed, try to explain what is left—what is at the core of a universal definition of marriage. 12-4. The Marriage Contract—A Class Activity: Assign students to write a hypothetical marriage contract. Encourage them to be creative, but realistic. You might then put them into small groups to discuss the “terms” of their contracts. (Note: Even married students should write the contract. Just tell them to write it as if they were single.) 12-5. Extraordinary Groups: For brief, but informative discussions of the family and other institutions in Amish, Oneida, Father Divine, Gypsy, Shaker, Mormon, and modern commune communities, see William M. Kephart and William W. Zellner. Extraordinary Groups. (7th ed.). New York: Worth, 2000. 12-6. Family Rituals: See Diane E. Levy, “Teaching Family Ritual: Sunday, Sausage, and Solidarity,” Teaching Sociology 20 (October 1992): 311–313. 12-7. Homogamy: This activity shows graphically how a culture narrows mate choice. See Eileen O’Brian and Lara Foley, “The Dating Game,” Teaching Sociology 27 (April 1999): 145–149. 12-8. Families in Poverty: See Jonathan Kozol, Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation. New York: HarperPerennial, 1996. See also Alex Kotlowitz. There Are No Children Here: The Story of Two Boys Growing Up in the Other America. New York: Anchor, 1991. 12-9. Speakers: Invite a marriage therapist or counselor to speak to the class about problems couples face in a traditional marriage. 12-10. Good Marriages: Have students read sections of Judith S. Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee. The Good Marriage: How and Why Love Lasts. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1995. The book takes a positive approach to what variables seem to make for good, thriving marriages. 12-11. Families in the Future: In this discussion, developed by Susan M. Alexander, students think about their future work and family plans, and, in doing so, make projections about the future shape of the American family. See Marybeth C. Stalp and Julie Childers (eds.). Teaching Sociological Concepts and the Sociology of Gender. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association, 2000, p. 30. 12-12. Using Humor: Joseph E. Faulkner has produced a monograph that includes funny examples that could be incorporated into lectures associated with Chapter 12. See Chapters 8–9 in Faulkner, Sociology Through Humor. New York: West, 1987. This book is out of print, but used copies are readily available. 12-13. Covenant Marriage: Covenant marriage is an alternative form of marriage offered in a few states. Couples who elect to enter into a “covenant marriage” agree to participate in pre-marital counseling as well as to certain restrictions which may be placed on the divorce process. The covenant marriage movement, as it has been called, began as an attempt to better prepare couples for marriage, to prevent divorce, and to reduce the number of children born into single-parent households. Currently, three states (Louisiana, Arkansas, and Arizona) have adopted covenant marriage laws. Students may wish to research the history of this movement, its ties to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), as well as concerns and criticisms of the law (especially coming from women’s rights activists). TOPICS FOR STUDENT RESEARCH AND CLASSROOM DISCUSSION 1. Ask students to identify the various ways technology has affected the composition of the family, and discuss how future technological innovations could further change family functions. Answer: Students should explore how technology has impacted family composition, such as through remote work, online communication, or virtual relationships. Discuss how future technological innovations, like advanced AI or smart home systems, could further transform family dynamics and functions. 2. Ask students to compile a list of factors they would want their parents to consider if they were entering into an arranged marriage, and discuss how certain cultures criticize our rationale of romantic love for marriage. Answer: Compile factors for arranged marriages that students consider important, such as compatibility, family background, and financial stability. Discuss cultural critiques of the romantic love model prevalent in Western societies and how arranged marriages address these concerns. 3. Ask students to report on their opinions about using the Internet for finding a mate, and discuss whether such technology is being used as a primary or secondary relationship factor. Answer: Report opinions on using the Internet for finding a mate and analyze whether online dating is considered a primary method for relationship formation or a supplementary tool. Discuss how technology influences relationship dynamics and partner selection. 4. Ask students to search for evidence regarding any association between marital happiness and cohabitation, and discuss why some couples may choose marriage instead of cohabitation. Answer: Research the relationship between marital happiness and cohabitation, and discuss why some couples may prefer marriage over cohabitation despite similar levels of happiness. Explore the social and personal factors influencing these choices. 5. Ask students to discuss various social barriers that may be intentionally designed to discourage men from actively caring for children of divorce. Answer: Discuss social barriers that might discourage men from actively participating in child-rearing after divorce, such as legal, economic, or cultural challenges. Analyze how these barriers affect gender roles and parenting responsibilities. SERVICE LEARNING ACTIVITY Family is the most important agent of socialization within a society. When family structures are weakened, the very fiber of the culture is weakened as well. Divorce rates are much higher than they were 50 years ago. Also, parents are seemingly less responsible than those in the past. As a result, of particular concern to many sociologists is the well being of America’s children. They need stability and meaningful interaction if they are to experience healthy emotional development. Children don’t get to pick their parents. Society at large should work diligently to protect and provide for them those necessities that negligent parents fail to deliver. What can the service learner do? Volunteer at a Children Advocacy Organization; locally there are groups such as the Alliance for Children. Most of these organizations will require a background check for volunteers. But it is necessary to protect the children. Consult Child Protective Services to obtain a list of these types of organizations that may need volunteers. There are a number of them available. CHAPTER 14 EDUCATION CHAPTER SUMMARY • Education prepares citizens for the various roles demanded by other institutions, including religion. The functionalist, conflict, and interactionist perspectives offer distinctive views when examining education as a social institution. The functionalist perspective suggests that education performs a rather conservative function in transmitting the dominant culture. Schooling exposes each generation of young people to the existing beliefs, norms, and values of their culture. Beyond the manifest function of transmitting knowledge, education serves the latent function of maintaining social control by socializing young people to the norms of punctuality, discipline, scheduling, and responsible work habits. By contrast, the conflict perspective views education as an instrument of elite domination in which a hidden curriculum is offered. Schools convince subordinate groups of their inferiority, reinforce existing social class inequality, and discourage alternative and more democratic visions of society. Conflict theorists suggest that credentialism reinforces social inequality. The feminist view holds that the educational system of the United States has been characterized by discriminatory treatment of women. Gains in opportunity and achievement in recent decades have resulted in more women in higher education. Feminist theorists investigate the role of women’s education in economic development as a global concern. The interactionist perspective purports that the labeling of children may limit their opportunities to break away from expected roles. The term teacher-expectancy effect refers to the impact a teacher’s expectations about a student’s performance may have on the student’s actual performance. • Max Weber noted five basic characteristics of bureaucracy, all of which are evident in the vast majority of schools: (1) A division of labor: Specialized experts teach particular age levels of students and specific subjects; (2) A hierarchy of authority: Each employee of a school system is responsible to a higher authority; (3) Written rules and regulations: Teachers and administrators must conform to numerous rules and regulations in the performance of their duties; (4) Impersonality: The university has been portrayed as a giant faceless bureaucracy that cares little for the uniqueness of the individual; and (5) Employment based on technical qualifications: At least in theory, the hiring of teachers and college professors is based on professional competence and expertise. Another significant recent trend in education that counters bureaucratization in schools is education over the Internet. Research on this type of learning is just beginning, so evaluation of web education as an effective learning method remains to be settled. The status of any job reflects several factors, including the level of education required, financial compensation, and the respect given the occupation by society. Teachers are feeling pressure in all three areas. While students may appear to constitute a cohesive, uniform group to some, the student subculture is actually complex and diverse. Among college students, four distinctive subcultures have been noted: collegiate, academic, vocational, and nonconformist. • An increasing number of students in the United States are being educated at home. Supporters of homeschooling believe that children can do as well or better in homeschools as they would in public schools. People are motivated to choose homeschooling by many factors. Critics believe that isolation from the larger community limits socialization and poses problems with quality assurance. • Charter Schools are experimental schools that are developed and managed by individuals, groups of parents, or educational management organizations. Although these schools are typically considered to be public schools, they are administered outside the official public school system. RESOURCE INTEGRATOR Focus Questions Resources 1. Compare and contrast the various sociological perspectives on education. IN THE TEXT Key Terms: hidden curriculum, credentialism, tracking, correspondence principle, teacher-expectancy effect IN THE INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL Additional Lecture Ideas: Educational Institutions as a Setting for Intolerance (13-7); Gender Disadvantage in Schools (13-8); Inequality in Education (13-9); Online Education (13-10) Classroom Discussion Topics: The Shame of the Nation (13-9); Schools Are Not the Answer (13-10); Hidden Curriculum (13-11); Student Research and Assignments: Sexual Harassment in Schools; Tracking; Women in Higher Education; Interactionist View Video Resources: Educating to End Inequity; Public Education: It’s A Bull Market; Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America 2. Describe why schools are considered a formal organization or bureaucracy. IN THE INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL Classroom Discussion Topics: Subcultures on Campus (13-12) Student Research and Assignments: Peer Groups in School; Teachers and Students; The Social Embeddedness of the American University Video Resources: A History of Education; The Story of American Public Education; What We Should Do in School Today LECTURE OUTLINE I. Sociological Perspectives on Education • People 25 years of age and over with a high school diploma increased from 41 percent in 1960 to more than 84 percent in 2007. Those with a college degree rose from 8 percent in 1960 to about 28 percent in 2007. A. Functionalist View • Manifest function of education is the transmission of knowledge. • Latent functions include transmitting culture, promoting social and political integration, maintaining social control, and serving as agents of change. 1. Transmitting Culture • Schooling exposes young people to existing beliefs, norms, and values. • Teaches respect for social control and reverence of institutions. 2. Promoting Social and Political Integration • Transforming diverse racial, ethnic, and religious groups into a group sharing a common identity. Example: Immigrant children. • Integrative function of promoting a common language. 3. Maintaining Social Control • Students learn punctuality, discipline, scheduling, and responsible work habits. • Schools direct and restrict student aspirations in a manner reflective of societal values and prejudices. Example: Males are directed into sciences and females into elementary teaching. 4. Serving as an Agent of Change • Sex education classes and affirmative action in admissions illustrate the efforts of education to stimulate social change. • Formal education is associated with openness to new ideas and critical analysis. B. Conflict View • Conflict perspective views education as an instrument of elite domination. • Socializes students into values dictated by the powerful and stifles creativity and individualism. • Inhibiting effects are apparent in the hidden curriculum, credentialism, and bestowal of status. 1. The Hidden Curriculum • The need for control and discipline take precedence over learning. • Children must not speak until the teacher calls on them. • Concentrate on their own work and not work together. • Value is placed on pleasing the teacher. 2. Credentialism • Term used to describe the increase in the lowest level of education needed to enter a field. • Employers may use credentialism as a discriminating factor by raising degree requirements for a position. • Conflict theorists suggest credentialism reinforces social inequality. 3. Bestowal of Status • Conflict theorists suggest schools sort pupils according to social class. • Tracking refers to the practice of placing students in specific curriculum groups on the basis of test scores. • The correspondence principle refers to promoting values expected of individuals in each class. Example: Working-class children placed in vocational tracks. C. Feminist View • Oberlin College was first to admit women in 1833. • Many female students were encouraged to serve men and become wives and mothers. • Educational discrimination is evident in university professorship and administrative positions, which are predominately held by men. D. Interactionist View • Labeling of children has an impact on school performance. • Teacher expectancy refers to a teacher’s expectations of a student’s performance impacting the student’s actual performance. Example: Spurters. • Teachers will wait longer for answers from high achievers and are more likely to give them a second chance. II. Schools as Formal Organizations • Large-scale school systems are formal organizations, in the same way as factories, hospitals, and business firms. A. Bureaucratization of Schools • Weber noted five basic characteristics of bureaucracy, which are evident in the vast majority of schools. (1) A division of labor: specialized experts teach particular age levels of students and specific subjects. (2) A hierarchy of authority: each employee of a school system is responsible to a higher authority. (3) Written rules and regulations: teachers and administrators must conform to numerous rules and regulations in the performance of their duties. (4) Impersonality: large class sizes make it difficult for teachers to give individual attention to students. (5) Employment based on technical qualifications: at least in theory, the hiring of teachers and college professors is based on professional competence and expertise. • Conflict theorists argue that the trend toward more centralized education has harmful consequences for disadvantaged persons. • Internet-based courses counter the bureaucratization of schools. B. Teachers: Employers and Instructors • Conflicts among serving as an instructor, disciplinarian, and an employee. • Forty to 50 percent of new teachers quit within five years. • Appeal of teaching for college students is less than it was in 1968. • Salary considerations may impact those contemplating teaching. C. Student Subcultures • Schools provide social and recreational needs for children. • Development of interpersonal relationships. Example: College students may meet future husbands and wives. • High school cliques may develop based on race, social class, physical attractiveness, placement in courses, athletic ability, and leadership roles. • Four ideal types of subcultures for college students: 1) collegiate: focuses on having fun and socializing, 2) academic: identifies with the intellectual concerns of the faculty and values knowledge for its own sake, 3) vocational: views college as a means of obtaining degrees essential for advancement, and 4) nonconformist: seeks out ideas that may or may not relate to studies. • Black students face pervasive whiteness. D. Homeschooling • About 1.6 million American children are now educated at home by a parent. • Parents may choose to homeschool their children because of academic concerns, concerns about peer pressure, or fears about violence in schools. • Whether or not homeschooled children have adequate opportunities for socialization is a controversial issue. • Parents who homeschool their children are more likely to have higher incomes and educational attainments. KEY TERMS Charter school An experimental school that is developed an managed by individuals, groups of parents, or an educational management organization. Correspondence principle The tendency of schools to promote the values expected of individuals in each social class and to prepare students for the type of job typically held by members of their class. Credentialism An increase in the lowest level of education required to enter a field. Education A formal process of learning in which some people consciously teach while others adopt the social role of learner. Hidden curriculum Standards of behavior that are deemed proper by society and are taught subtly in schools. Teacher-expectancy effect The impact that a teacher’s expectations about a student’s performance may have on the student’s actual achievements. Tracking The practice of placing students in specific curriculum groups on the basis of test scores and other criteria. ADDITIONAL LECTURE IDEAS 14-1 Educational Institutions as a Setting for Intolerance In his 1995 presidential address to the Midwest Sociological Society, entitled “Education and Prejudice: Unraveling the Relationship,” senior author of Sociology, Richard T. Schaefer, made the following remarks: The legal and social history of the United States is defined in part by differential treatment in our educational institutions of African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans (American Indians) in public elementary and secondary schools. Historically, concerns in higher education have been limited to the creation of separate and unequal college systems for White and Black students. Legal efforts to desegregate began in higher education in the 1960s, but litigation has continued into the 1990s. Increasingly, colleges are being viewed today by the general public as a source of positive change. In reviewing the literature, there are 13 areas in which I see these issues raised and which remain to varying degrees unresolved: 1. Overwhelming White nature of predominantly White colleges. Despite all the efforts to recruit Black, Hispanic, and Native American students, most colleges remain overwhelmingly White. Outsiders view this as a significant difference between explicit goals to diversify the student body and accomplishments to date. 2. Lack of minority faculty. The relatively few minority faculty are primarily represented among part-time lower ranks than in higher faculty ranks or administrative positions. This paucity is further underscored by the often-public campaigns to entice the few minority faculty to a particular college or professional school. 3. Racial discrimination charges by faculty and employees. Numerous incidents alleging either anti-minority practices or anti-White episodes insinuating “reverse racism” are covered widely in the educational press and the larger media. 4. Debate over affirmative action. The 1995 renewed debate at the level of Congress and the White House has been preceded by years of campus debate over alleged preferences to minority students in admissions and financial aid. 5. Curriculum discussions. From two-year community colleges through to law and medical schools, faculty have debated, sometimes acrimoniously, the content of the curriculum. These debates have included what topics are a part of the canon in literature, Afrocentric and Eurocentric coverage, and the inclusion of multiculturalism among courses required of all undergraduates. 6. Athletic program controversies. Recruitment of minority student athletes, persistence to graduation, and representation among coaches and athletic directors have all had racial and ethnic agendas in recent years. 7. Controversies over differential justice by campus policy and disciplinary boards. Resolving student life disputes is subject to the same concerns about differential justice as in larger society. 8. Calls for separate residence hall space. Many residential colleges have witnessed the de facto development of segregated on-campus or off-campus housing. Other institutions of higher education have responded to calls for separate housing for racial and ethnic groups to self-segregate themselves, which has prompted critics to refer to the trend as the “balkanization of campus life.” This is further substantiated by studies showing the relative lack of social contact at colleges among different racial groups even when diversity in the student body has been achieved. 9. Administrators’ lack of commitment to diversity issues. The 1994 comments by Francis L. Lawrence, the president of Rutgers University in New Jersey, implying to many a belief that Black students are inferior, is only atypical in the degree of national attention it received. 10. Racial harassment policies. Debates have developed over college efforts to establish “free speech” regulations curtailing public statements as well as behavior that stigmatizes on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap, or Vietnam-era veteran status. While debates have raised questions about violating constitutional guarantees, the need for such policies has contributed to the perception of campuses as hotbeds of intolerance. 11. Racial incidents. While typically unreported but certainly noticed, nonviolent racial incidents range from incompatible roommate situations, fraternity songbooks and skits, indelicate letters or articles in campus newspapers, and acrimonious homecoming queen elections, to the appearance of anonymous racial notes and posters, intolerant Internet messages or telephone calls, or inflammatory symbols. While terminology and methodology vary, campus studies in the 1990s indicate that between 20 and 22 percent of all students, and from 25 to about 50 percent of minority students, are victimized for reasons of prejudice annually on their college campuses. 12. Campus incidents of violence. The incident at the University of Massachusetts is not the exception; there are numerous documented incidents of confrontation, harassment, intimidation, and assault. 13. Insularity of colleges from their surroundings. When neighboring colleges erupt in racial violence or tension, the nearby college is viewed retrospectively as having an ivory-tower, rather than a community-oriented, perspective. Institutions of higher education located in racially mixed neighborhoods have embarked on campus expansion plans into neighborhoods in a manner that some view as failing to consider the social impact. All 13 of these areas would lead to an expression of concern about the role of educational institutions in a diverse population and would question the belief that education in and of itself promotes tolerance. Source Richard T. Schaefer, “Education and Prejudice: Unraveling the Relationship,” Sociological Quarterly 37 (Winter 1996):1–16. 14-2: Gender Disadvantage in School Recent studies have focused on how schools work against young women, documenting such sexist practices as failing to involve women as much as men in classroom discussion, differential treatment in career guidance, and even episodes of sexual harassment. However, University of Chicago educators Larry Hedges and Amy Nowell (1994) point to systematic differences in reading and writing, with girls outperforming boys. The same analysis of six national data sets from 1960 through 1992 also showed that boys outperform girls in science, mathematics, and auto mechanics. Why these differences exist and persist is not clear. For example, closer analysis shows that larger differences in the performances of the sexes occur even in areas not generally taught in schools, such as mechanical comprehension and other vocational aptitudes. On writing tests, young men score significantly lower than women do. Hedges and Nowell observe that “[t]he data imply that males are, on average, at a rather profound disadvantage in the performance of this basic skill” (7). Some of this difference may come from differences in reading between boys and girls: because reading may be linked to writing, girls write more fluently since they may also read books more frequently than boys. These results suggest that both men and women are harmed by these differences. See Larry V. Hedges and Amy Nowell, “Sex Differences in Mental Test Scores, Variability, and Numbness of High-Scoring Individuals,” Science (July 7, 1995): 41–45; and The Division of the Social Sciences, University of Chicago, “Both Boys and Girls Have Reasons to Feel Disadvantaged in School,” Reports 15 (Autumn 1995): 7–8. 14-3: Inequality in Education As was discussed in Chapter 9, educational achievements play a critical role in social mobility. Consequently, concern has been expressed that subordinate minorities in the United States, such as Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, do not have positive experiences in schools that will assist them in later competition in the job market. This country’s minorities, however, are not alone in this experience. The anthropologist John Ogbu looked at educational opportunities and achievements in six societies and found group inequality in all of them. In Great Britain, for example, Black West Indian immigrants and their descendants (many of whom are born in Britain) perform poorly in school. By contrast, in New Zealand it is the native Maori people (the original islanders now outnumbered and dominated by White Europeans) who have the greatest difficulty in the educational system. Whites are 350 times more likely than Maori to attend college. In these societies, race was the critical factor differentiating successful and unsuccessful educational performance. However, in studying other societies, Ogbu found that inequality was evident even when racial distinctions were absent. In India, people from lower-caste backgrounds are physically indistinguishable from other residents. Yet children from the lower castes are much less likely to attend the private schools that launch Indians toward better careers. While lower-caste children account for more than 15 percent of India’s population, they constitute only about 5 percent of those attending college. Ogbu found certain common themes in all the societies he studied (one of which was the United States). The dominant groups in each society agree on the importance of education and the key role of educational attainment in shaping one’s position in adult life. At the same time, however, folk explanations in many societies contribute to prejudice and discrimination by ascribing failure in school to the alleged inferiority of subordinate minorities. More recent studies have demonstrated that educational inequalities persist around the world: • A study of educational attainment in Taiwan found a substantial difference between the “mainlanders” (those who immigrated to Taiwan from mainland China in the 1940s) and the native Taiwanese. The latter are much less likely to continue schooling than are the mainlanders. • Researchers have found a significant gap in educational attainment between Jews and Arabs living in Israel. In part, this has resulted from the government’s failure to apply compulsory school attendance laws to Arabs as forcefully as it has to Jews. • According to a 1992 report by the World Bank, children from poor and rural families around the world are less likely to attend primary schools than children from affluent and urban families are. Moreover, girls from all types of families are less likely to attend primary schools than boys are. The report urges governments to ensure greater access to education for these underrepresented groups. Sources: See Marlaine F. Lockheed, Adriaan M. Verspoor, and associates. Improving Primary Education in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank, 1991; John H. Ogbu. Minority Education and Caste: The American System in Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York: Academic, 1978; Shu-Ling Tsai and Hei-Yuan Chiu, “Changes in Educational Stratification in Taiwan.” In Yossi Shavit and Hans-Peter Blossfield (eds.). Persistent Inequality: Changing Educational Attainment in Thirteen Countries. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1993, pp. 193–227. 14-4: Online Education One of the most profound changes in college-level education in recent years has been the development of online courses and online degree programs. An online course may consist of a website that contains a course syllabus, course notes, Power Point presentations, links to relevant sites on the Internet, email capabilities between the instructor and students and between students, a real-time or synchronous chat room, and an asynchronous bulletin board for class discussions. Online courses are just the latest manifestation of distance learning courses, which have been available since the mid-1800s. Distance learning permits students to take college courses without being on a college campus full-time. Correspondence courses; television-, radio-, and newspaper-based courses; and interactive television courses are several types of distance learning courses. Schools may offer several types of distance learning courses in addition to traditional classroom or on-ground courses. At many colleges, students may now complete an entire undergraduate or graduate degree by taking only online courses. Online education may be examined using each of the three major sociological perspectives. Functionalists might note that online courses are a very flexible form of education that enable working students, homebound students, and housewives with childcare responsibilities to take courses when their schedules might not otherwise permit. Conflict theorists, on the other hand, would suggest that not all students have access to online courses. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to own or have access to a computer that will permit them to take advantage of online courses. Interactionists would focus in on the surprising statement made by many online instructors that they get to know their students better and they have better class discussions online than they have ever had in a classroom, because the level of interaction in an online class is more frequent and more personal than in a traditional course. In addition, the advent of online courses has had a significant impact on the organizational structure of colleges and the administrative relationship of colleges to one another. For example, one of the leaders in the field of online education is the state of New Jersey. For the first time in state history, all 19 of the state’s community colleges have banded together in an educational endeavor. Students may register for an online course at their local community college, but if their school does not offer the course that they want, they can take the course from any one of the other community colleges in the state that is offering the course. All 19 colleges have agreed to charge the same fee to students for online courses. When students have completed a course, the grade is sent to the student’s home college and the letter grade, not a transfer grade, is added to the student’s transcript. A system of this type has organizational implications for how each of the member schools does business, which is an interesting research base for future studies of formal organizations. (The author of this additional lecture idea is the Distance Learning Coordinator of a New Jersey community college and the Vice-Chair of the New Jersey Virtual Community College Consortium.) See Scott W. Wright and Eleanor Lee Yates, “Distance Learning,” Community College Week (May 31, 1999): 6–7, 14. CLASSROOM DISCUSSION TOPICS 14-1. The Shame of the Nation: Questions for stimulating a classroom discussion about Jonathan Kozol’s The Shame of the Nation can include the following: How do the poor schools discussed by Jonathan Kozol compare to the schools that you have attended? Examine the functions of education presented early in Chapter 16 and indicate whether the schools Kozol presents can meet these societal functions. What are the long-term implications of educational inequality? Would a bright student attending the poor schools discussed by Kozol have the same preparation for applying to a prestigious college? Would a student with learning needs in the poor schools discussed by Kozol be as likely to have those needs successfully addressed as students in a middle-class community? 14-2. Schools Are Not the Answer: James Traub notes that a child living in an inner city is in school for only so many hours each day, and that it is the rest of the day—as well as the rest of the neighborhood—that is the big influence, and the big problem. See John Traub, “What No School Can Do,” The New York Times Magazine (January 16, 2000): 52–57, 68, 81, 90–91. 14-3. Hidden Curriculum: Susan M. Alexander offers a list of discussion questions that can be used to explore whether schools teach a hidden curriculum about gender roles. See Marybeth C. Stalp and Julie Childers (eds.). Teaching Sociological Concepts and the Sociology of Gender. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association, 2000, p. 44–45. 14-4. Subcultures on Campus: Have your class brainstorm some of the different groups present on campus that form their own subculture. Possibilities are: • Campus leaders versus uninterested masses. • Traditional students (18–24) versus “mature” students (over 25). • Commuters from home versus dorm residents. • Commuters from home versus commuters from off-campus apartments. • Drinkers versus abstainers. • Full-time students versus part-time students. • Graduate students versus undergraduates. • “Greeks” versus independents. • Married students versus single students. Not all of these subcultures are present on each college campus, but the list does point out that any student body is heterogeneous. TOPICS FOR STUDENT RESEARCH AND CLASSROOM DISCUSSION 1. Ask students to collect evidence supporting the integrative power of education, and discuss the functionalist perspective on education. Answer: Collect evidence showing how education integrates diverse groups and promotes social cohesion, such as through shared experiences and social norms. Discuss the functionalist perspective, which views education as a mechanism for socializing individuals, promoting social solidarity, and preparing individuals for their roles in society. 2. Ask students to identify (anonymously) their true motivation for initially attending college, and discuss the issues of credentialism and the bestowal of status as institutionalized factors associated with education. Answer: Identify personal motivations for attending college, such as gaining specific credentials or enhancing social status. Discuss credentialism, where educational qualifications are valued more for their role in bestowing status rather than for the knowledge gained, and how education acts as a gatekeeper for professional and social opportunities. 3. Ask students to identify rules or regulations that some educational institutions may use to encourage students to maintain the status quo and discourage individual creativity, and discuss the conflict view on education. Answer: Find examples of rules or regulations in educational institutions that might stifle creativity, such as rigid curricula or standardized testing. Discuss the conflict perspective, which argues that education can perpetuate existing social inequalities by enforcing conformity and maintaining the status quo. 4. Ask students to search for evidence that school choice programs are working or not working, and discuss the current No Child Left Behind program. Answer: Research the effectiveness of school choice programs, such as charter schools or vouchers, and evaluate their impact on educational outcomes. Discuss the No Child Left Behind Act, focusing on its goals, successes, and criticisms, and how these programs address or fail to address issues of educational equity and quality. Instructor Manual for Sociology in Modules Richard T. Schaefer 9780078026812, 9780071318419