

do americans use class wealth to punish others?

Health Inequalities and The Glasgow Effect

can the rich and resourceful and intelligent design a system to “destroy those they judge as useless to there money”?


Labeling others is common in our society. In this lesson, we discuss the specifics of labeling theory, including when and why people are labeled. We also distinguish between retroactive and projective labeling and briefly discuss Travis Hirschi’s control theory.
Labeling Theory
Watch: Labeling Theory(0:06)
In a previous lesson, we discussed deviance: any action that is perceived as violating a society’s or group’s cultural norm. Robbing a store and driving faster than the speed limit are examples of deviant behavior. However, labeling theory proposes deviance is socially constructed through reaction instead of action. In other words, according to this theory, no behavior is inherently deviant on its own. Instead, it’s the reaction to the behavior that makes it deviant or not.

Labeling theory helps to explain why a behavior is considered negatively deviant to some people, groups, and cultures but positively deviant to others. For example, think about fictional vigilantes, like Robin Hood and Batman. Batman is labeled in different ways depending on the public’s reaction to his escapades. Some people have a negative reaction and label him as a criminal. Others have a positive reaction and label him as a hero. Different reactions are typically based on group or cultural norms and values.

Another example is when a person is responsible for the death of another. When are they labeled as a ‘murderer’ or a ‘killer?’ The reaction to death sometimes depends on the circumstances. The person responsible will be viewed differently depending on the reason, whether it’s murder, war, self-defense, or an accident.

How people react to or label a killing depends on the reason behind it
Labeling Theory Murder Example
Primary vs. Secondary Deviance
Watch: Primary vs. Secondary Deviance(1:39)
Studies related to labeling theory have also explained how being labeled as deviant can have long-term consequences for a person’s social identity. Consider primary deviance, which is an initial violation of a social norm – about which no inference is made regarding a person’s character. Primary deviance includes minor deviant acts that just about everyone does once or twice, like playing hooky from school or work. These behaviors have little reaction from others and therefore, have little effect on a person’s self-concept.

On the other hand, secondary deviance is when a person repeatedly violates a social norm, which leads others to make assumptions about that person and assign a label to him or her. Some examples of labels are ‘criminal,’ ‘psycho,’ ‘addict,’ and ‘delinquent.’ Secondary deviance gets such a strong reaction from others that the individual is typically shunned and excluded from certain social groups.

For example, the dynamic between nerds and jocks is portrayed in popular culture all the time. Typically, there is someone who is intelligent but socially awkward and becomes labeled as a ‘nerd.’ Once labeled, that person is considered unpopular and shunned by the popular ‘jocks.’

Watch: Stigma(3:02)
Once a person has been labeled by others through secondary deviance, it is common for that person to incorporate that label into his or her own self-concept. They develop a stigma, or a powerfully negative label that greatly changes a person’s self-concept and social identity.

Someone in high school that has been labeled as a nerd, for example, may begin to think of himself or herself as a loser due to other people’s opinions and treatment. Someone who has been stigmatized usually has lower self-esteem and may even behave more deviantly as a result of the negative label. The stigmatized person may find it easier to come to terms with the label rather than fight it.

Playing hooky from work is an example of primary deviance
Primary Deviance Example
Retrospective and Projective Labeling
Watch: Retrospective & Projective Labeling(3:50)
The consequences of being stigmatized can be far-reaching. A stigma operates as a master status, overpowering other aspects of social identity. Unfortunately, once people stigmatize an individual, they have a difficult time changing their opinions of the labeled person, even if the label is proven to be untrue. They may also engage in retrospective labeling, interpreting someone’s past in light of some present deviance.

For example, people would likely discuss the past of someone who is labeled a ‘murderer.’ They might say something like, ‘He was always a violent boy.’ Even if that person was no more violent than his peers, people would re-label the actions of his youth in light of his current label.

Similarly, people may engage in projective labeling of a stigmatized person. Projective labeling is using a deviant identity to predict future action. For example, imagine that Batman is no longer considered a hero by anyone – instead, everyone thinks he is a dangerous criminal. The people might say something like, ‘One of these days he’s going to destroy the entire city.’ They are projecting by imagining what he might do in the future.

Conflict Theory


Hirschi’s Social Control Theory

n this lesson, we discuss the social conflict approach to deviance, including the connection between deviance and power as well as deviance and capitalism. We also discuss the difference between white-collar and blue-collar crime and define corporate crime and organized crime.
Social Conflict Theory
Watch: Social Conflict Theory(0:05)
What social patterns exist between social classes and what problems are caused by the conflict between them? How does social class affect deviance? These are questions asked by sociologists when considering the social conflict theory. Social conflict theory is all about inequality in society. It proposes that laws and norms reflect the interests of powerful members of society. In other words, social order is maintained through competition and conflict, and the ‘winners’ – those with the most power and the greatest economic and social resources – benefit by taking advantage of the ‘losers.’ We discuss social conflict theory several times throughout this class, as it is one of the major sociological theories of how society operates as a whole. In this lesson, though, we’ll focus on what this theory suggests about deviance.

Deviance and Power
Watch: Deviance and Power(1:07)
First, the theory suggests that who or what is labeled as deviant depends on who has the most power. The relatively small ‘power elite’ in our society are much less likely to carry the stigma of deviance than anyone else. Even if they are suspected of deviant behavior, the powerful have the resources to resist deviant labels. Consider a scenario where a rich CEO of a company and a struggling factory worker both commit the same crime. We’ll say that they were both caught in possession of illegal drugs. Which person do you imagine will be more severely punished? It’s likely that the CEO has the resources to get off lightly or at least to keep it quiet. The factory worker, on the other hand, is likely to receive full punishment and have his criminal deviance advertised.

White-Collar vs. Blue-Collar Crime
Watch: White-Collar vs. Blue-Collar Crime(2:06)
The comparison of these two individuals leads us into a discussion about white-collar versus blue-collar crime. These types of criminal deviance get their names from the traditional dress of the person committing that style of crime. White-collar refers to the traditional button-up dress shirts worn by powerful businessmen, usually paired with a tie. Blue-collar refers to the uniforms worn by average workmen in factories and shops.

So, as the name suggests, white-collar crime is committed by people of high social positions, frequently as part of their jobs. White-collar crimes typically don’t involve violence; instead, they are generally money-related and include embezzlement, business fraud, bribery, and similar crimes. Many of these crimes go unknown to the public. Blue-collar crime is committed by the average working American. Blue-collar crimes range from violent law-breaking to thievery and are sometimes committed as a way to improve living conditions. They are usually highly visual and are more likely to attract police to the scene.

Again, social conflict theory is all about inequality, so one of the most important differences between these two types of crime is the fact that the punishment for committing them is disproportionate. For example, a more likely criminal scenario involving our factory worker and CEO would involve the factory worker vandalizing a local business and the CEO committing serious fraud to avoid giving up part of his wealth. The factory worker committing vandalism has committed a blue-collar crime. If caught, he would be fined and probably arrested, possibly even spending several months in prison. The CEO committing fraud has committed a white-collar crime. Even if someone calls him into question or he is caught, he would likely only receive a slap on the wrist. A government study found that, as of 2009, those actually convicted of fraud were punished with a fine yet ended up paying less than 10% of what they owed by hiding some of their assets.

Corporate vs. Organized Crime
Watch: Corporate vs. Organized Crime(4:32)
There are two other types of crime that run parallel to white-collar and blue-collar crime but are committed by entire organizations instead of just individuals. Corporate crime refers to illegal action by a company or by someone acting on its behalf. It ranges from knowingly selling faulty or unsafe products to purposely polluting the environment. Parallel to white-collar crime, most cases of corporate crime receive little to no punishment and many are never even known to the public.

There is also organized crime, which refers to illegal goods or services being provided by a business or group of people. It includes selling illegal drugs, fencing stolen items, loan sharking, and more. Most people would probably associate organized crime with the mafia. While the mafia is a good example, they are not the only criminal organizations.


How American Rich Kids Bought Their Way Into the British Elite

By Angela Serratore
AUGUST 13, 2013
39 9 5 131 45 7 3.1K
39 9 131 45 5 3.1K
Image: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/history/files/2013/08/marlborough-vanderbilt-wedding-history-small.jpg

image: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/history/files/2013/08/wedding1-500×348.jpg






image: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/history/files/2013/08/consuelo_vanderbilt98.jpg

Consuelo Vanderbilt. Wikimedia Commons.






image: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/history/files/2013/08/jennie.jpg

Jennie Jerome in the 1880s. Wikimedia Commons.











image: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/history/files/2013/08/439px-Duke_Marlborough_Singer_Sargent-366×500.jpg








image: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/history/files/2013/08/tumblr_m2pg3qIy6q1qakblyo1_500.png








image: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/history/files/2013/08/Consuelo_Vanderbilt_mit_Winston_Churchill-500×416.jpg






Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-american-rich-kids-bought-their-way-into-the-british-elite-4252/#bMDQumuE5cJJsMQG.99
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter


How Money Changes The Way We Think And Behave
01/06/2014 10:24 am ET | Updated Jan 23, 2014
4.1 K
Carolyn Gregoire Senior Writer, The Huffington Post






More money, less empathy?

[Image: monopoly game]

Several studies have shown that wealth may be at odds with empathy and compassion. Research published in the journal Psychological Science also found that people of lower economic status were better at reading others’ facial expressions — an important marker of empathy — than wealthier people.



Wealth can cloud moral judgment.

[Image: morality]

It is no surprise in this post-2008 world to learn that wealth may cause a sense of moral entitlement. A UC Berkeley study found that in San Francisco — where the law requires that cars stop at crosswalks for pedestrians to pass — drivers of luxury cars were four times less likely than those in less expensive vehicles to stop and allow pedestrians the right of way. They were also more likely to cut off other drivers.



Wealth has been linked with addiction.

[Image: alcoholism]

While money itself doesn’t cause addiction or substance abuse, wealth has been linked with a higher susceptibility to addiction problems. A number of studies have found that affluent children are more vulnerable to substance abuse issues, potentially because of high pressure to achieve and isolation from parents. Studies also found that kids who come from wealthy parents aren’t necessary exempt from adjustment problems — in fact, research found that on several measures of maladjustment, high school studies of high socioeconomic status received higher scores than inner-city students. Researchers found that these children may be more likely to internalize problems, which has been linked with substance abuse.

But it’s not just adolescents: Even in adulthood, the rich outdrink the poor by more than 27 percent.

Money itself can become addictive.

[Image: money rich]

The pursuit of wealth itself can also become a compulsive behavior. As Psychologist Dr. Tian Dayton explained, a compulsive need to acquire money is often considered part of a class of behaviors known as process addictions, or “behavioral addictions,” which are distinct from substance abuse:

These days, the idea of process addictions is widely accepted. Process addictions are addictions that involve a compulsive and/or an out of control relationship with certain behaviors such as gambling, sex, eating and yes, even money… There is a change in brain chemistry with a process addiction that’s similar to the mood altering effects of alcohol or drugs. With process addictions engaging in a certain activity, say viewing pornography, compulsive eating or an obsessive relationship with money, can kick start the release of brain/body chemicals, like dopamine, that actually produce a “high” that’s similar to the chemical high of a drug. The person who is addicted to some form of behavior has learned, albeit unconsciously, to manipulate his own brain chemistry.

While a process addiction is not a chemical addiction, it does involve compulsive behavior — in this case, an addiction to the good feeling that comes from receiving money or possessions — which can ultimately lead to negative consequences and harm the individual’s well-being. Addiction to spending money — sometimes known as shopaholism — is another, more common type of money-associated process addiction.

Wealthy children may be more troubled.

[Image: rich kids of instagram]


“In upwardly mobile communities, children are often pressed to excel at multiple academic and extracurricular pursuits to maximize their long-term academic prospects — a phenomenon that may well engender high stress,” psychologist Suniya Luthar in “The Culture Of Affluence.” “At an emotional level, similarly, isolation may often derive from the erosion of family time together because of the demands of affluent parents’ career obligations and the children’s many after-school activities.”

We tend to perceive the wealthy as “evil.”

[Image: mansion]

On the other side of the spectrum, lower-income individuals are likely to judge and stereotype those who are wealthier than themselves, often judging the wealthy as being “cold.” (Though it is also true that the poor struggle with their own set of societal stereotypes.)


Money can’t buy happiness (or love).

[Image: mountaintop couple]

We tend to seek money and power in our pursuit of success (and who doesn’t want to be successful, after all?), but it may be getting in the way of the things that really matter: Happiness and love.





What the 1% Don’t Want Us to Know
April 18, 2014





Producer: Gina Kim. Segment Producer: Lena Shemel. Editor: Rob Kuhns. Intro Producer: Lena Shemel. Editor: Sikay Tang. Outro Producer: Rob Booth.
Editor: Sikay Tang.

Wealth Inequality in America, Perception vs Reality





The categorization of people by social strata occurs in all societies, ranging from the complex, state-based societies to tribal and feudal societies, which are based upon socio-economic relations among classes of nobility and classes of peasants. Historically, whether or not hunter-gatherer societies can be defined as socially stratified or if social stratification began with agriculture and common acts of social exchange, remains a debated matter in the social sciences.[2] Determining the structures of social stratification arises from inequalities of status among persons, therefore, the degree of social inequality determines a person’s social stratum. Generally, the greater the social complexity of a society, the more social strata exist, by way of social differentiation

The Key Factors For Social Stratification Sociology Essay
Published: 23, March 2015

As a key factor, the social stratification lies at the core of sociology, which affects our life everyday. Conceptually, the social stratification is defined as: ‘A system by which a society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy.’ (Macionis & Plummer, 2008, p. 232.)

In daily community life, individuals are stratified into various hierarchies of class, age, gender, ethnicity, sexuality and etc. Some of those are divided by the nature law and others by the social law. The next few paragraph will focus on the dimension of social law and explain how the related rule of stratification, the class, works in community life. The essay will argue that class permeates in community life.

“The class stratification is a form of social stratification in which a society tends to divide into separate classes whose members have differential access to resources and power.” (Breen, Richard, and David Rottman,1995.) There is always a gap of economy and culture between different classes. Individuals are always born into their class, and then there would be flows between different level of classes through the social mobility.


Essay Writers
Lady Using Tablet
Get your grade or your money back
using our Essay Writing Service!

The wealth would usually be the source power for the class stratification. When people who are on the same economic and cultural level appear the difference between much more wealthier or less wealthier, it begins. Following the change of time, a large number of wealth is congregated into the hand of a small number of people. When the difference between people becomes rich and poor, so that people spread out more from one another economically, the social class is set up. At that time, due to people are no longer belonging to the same economic level, the cultural gap appears. On the other hand, it is not possible for people of different class to roll back to the same start line. The lower class loses more of its influence and wealth as the upper class gains more influence and wealth, further dividing the classes from one another.

As the product of the class stratification, the social class is usually defined as economic or cultural arrangements of group in society. In the modern Western context, the social class is always stratified into three layers: upper class, middle class, and lower class. Each class may be further subdivided into smaller classes.

Stratified according to these rules, there are three levels in Australia’s social class: upper class, middle class and the working class. Mainly by the upper class who is in control, and the owners of capital. The middle class includes those people who take non-manual. Some in this class of professional doctors, accountants, engineers and so on. Mainly by working class occupations, in essence, is the manual.

When it comes to symbols, which show the class are not all adjacent to the two classes can give a clear dividing line. The upper class can wear expensive clothes, driving expensive cars and living in senior housing market.



It’s not a money talk society. “Take clothes for example, other than money, there are other factors that influence the clothes that a person may choose to put on. For example some well-off teenagers may have clothes in line with the fashion more that those that would be said to be of their class.”(social Australia) In this rule, someone can dress in a style which rather than his class. In the same way, in middle class they may wear expensive clothes and buy fancy cars from a loan. The upper class symbols are such things as the entertainment preference, engagement in certain types of sporting activities, like golf, racing boats, GPmoto, and so on.

The social mobility, it has own definitions, features and some different types of mobility in essence ,and its a great thing to discuss the justice problem of those major types of social mobility, all of these things refers to the degree to which an individual’s or group’s status is able to change in terms of position in the social hierarchy. “On some facts, material wealth and the ability of an agent to move up the class system. Such a change may be described as “vertical mobility,” in contrast to a more general change in position” (Bertaux, Daniel & Thomson Paul , 1997)

Writing Services
Lady Using Tablet
Always on Time
Marked to Standard

So we can get that mobility is enabled to a varying and debatable extent by economic capital, cultural capital (such as higher education or an authoritative accent), human capital , social capital ,physical capital , and symbolic capital .compared with history, In modern nation states, policy issues such as welfare, medicine, education and public transport . In other societies religious affiliation, caste membership, or simple geography may be of central importance. The extent to which a nation is open and meritocratic is fundamental: a society in which traditional or religious caste systems dominate is unlikely to present the opportunity for social mobility.

There are some unique but common phenomenon in societies, which is slavery and its an example of low social mobility because, For the enslaved people, in fact, there is no upward mobility, and their owner, is actually illegal downward.

Social mobility is discuss upward, but it is a double sided phenomena, it has upward mobility, and may have relative downward mobility. If merit and fortune play a larger role in life chances than the luck of birth, someone may manage their social position, and someone may also move downward relative to others. This is the risk of be in power, to encourage people in power to increasingly devise and commission political, law, education, and allow them strengthen their economic mechanism. But, through control this trend, it s possible in a growing economy for there to be greater upward mobility than downward ,as has been the case in Western Europe.

Official or legally recognized class designations do not exist in modern western democracies and it is considered possible for individuals to move from poverty to wealth or political prominence within one generation. Despite this formal opportunity for social mobility, recent research suggests that Britain and particularly the United States have less social mobility than the Nordic countries and Canada. These authors state that “the idea of the US as ‘the land of opportunity’ persists; and clearly seems misplaced.”( Jo Blanden; Paul Gregg and Stephen Machin (April 2005). “Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America” (PDF). The Sutton Trust.)( Matthew Taylor (25 April 2005). “UK low in social mobility league, says charity”. London: The Guardian.)( Obstacles to social mobility weaken equal opportunities and economic growth, says OECD study, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Economics Department, 10/02/2010.)

Not only in countries of different types of social mobility, it can also change over time. Comparison of the United States the United Kingdom, existing between the two countries in different historical periods have different degree of social mobility. In the long run, from the mid-19th century, the United States with low inequality and social mobility is very high. In the 19th century, the United States has far higher than the social mobility in Britain, as in ordinary schools movement and open public school system, the greater the agricultural sector, and high geographic mobility of the U.S.. However, in the 20th and 21st century, half of the social dynamics between the two countries the differences have narrowed, because there are two countries, growing social inequality, especially in the United States. In other words, the individual’s family background, social status is more than today’s forecast is 1850.

In this long river, it takes several centuries in social mobility and across types of countries, it can also continue for a long time. Comparing the United States to the United Kingdom, “This progress persist over two countries during different historical periods. In the United States in the mid-19th century inequality was low and social mobility was high. In the late 19th century, the U.S. had much higher social mobility than in the UK, due to the common school movement and open public school system, a larger farming sector, as well as higher geographic mobility in the United States”(new world encyclopedia)

The most typical examples in American upward mobility include Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton, who were born into working-class families yet achieved high political office in adult life, and Andrew Carnegie, was a poor immigrants when he first arrived in America, then became a steel magnate. Examples from other countries include Ramsay MacDonald was a farm worker and baby sitter became the UK’s first prime minister. Joseph Cook, was a miner when he was nine and became Australian prime minister.

This Essay is
a Student’s Work
Lady Using Tablet

To sum up, the inequity, especially in wealth area, give the birth to the social class. Under the social stratification, the social mobility makes the community life changeable. Leading upward or downward social mobility effectively is the key for the stability of the community life.



Social inequality is the existence of unequal opportunities and rewards for different social positions or statuses within a group or society. Let’s examine some causes and effects of poverty and test our knowledge with a quiz.
Definition of Social Inequality
Watch: Definition (0:18)
Social inequality is the existence of unequal opportunities and rewards for different social positions or statuses within a group or society. Although the United States differs from most European nations that have a titled nobility, the U.S. is still highly stratified. Social inequality has several important dimensions. Income is the earnings from work or investments, while wealth is the total value of money and other assets minus debts. Other important dimensions include power, occupational prestige, schooling, ancestry, and race and ethnicity.

Causes of Social Inequality
Watch: Causes (0:54)
There is little question that many people in the U.S. are better off than most other people in the world. That being said, poverty also impacts millions of people in the U.S. Why do such social inequalities exist? Let’s examine the two prevailing explanations of poverty: blaming the poor and blaming society.

One approach to explain poverty is to blame the poor – that the poor are responsible for their own poverty. There is some evidence to support this theory, because the main reason people are poor is the lack of employment. According to this view, society has plenty of opportunities for people to realize the American dream, and people are poor because they lack the motivation, skills, or schooling to find work.

Another approach to explain poverty is to blame society- that society is responsible for poverty. While it is true that unemployment is a main contributor to poverty, the reasons people don’t work are more in line with this approach. Loss of jobs in the inner city is a major contributor to poverty. There simply isn’t enough work to support families.


Unequal – social inequalities in health

is what you “understand” programed into you by the rich?

are we told just to “Man up”?

Humanity Divided: Confronting Inequality in Developing Countries

system or genetics? or something more? spiritual problem?

self imposed addictions or modified programmable behavior by a system leading to controlable identies that those control will not question because those who control “believe” what they feel/think/create about themselves as created and so did the “others” they convince in that “system”?

environment or “something more”?

does pollution we are exposed part of the “programming” of society? is pollution a part of “unethical human experimaentaion to punish humans not fit to live”?

are we conditioned to desire “effecincy” and “more” without “limits” and come to “expect it”? why?