Study Racial and Ethnic Groups (12th Edition) discussion and chapter questions and find Racial and Ethnic Groups (12th Edition) study guide questions and. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Census Update (12th Edition) () pdf , ebook, torrent, downloads, rapidshare, filesonic, hotfile, megaupload. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Twelfth Edition Hardcover – Edition Pdf, University Physics 12th Edition Solutions Pdf, Chemistry Chapter Solutions 12th.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Indonesian|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
Download Racial and Ethnic Groups, 13/e Pdf Ebook book has made me loose respect for sociology. I will stick with my STEM major where facts are actually fact . Racial And Ethnic Groups 12th Edition diversity on the force: where police don't mirror communities - diversity on the force: where police. DOWNLOAD OR READ: RACIAL AND ETHNIC GROUPS 12TH EDITION PDF EBOOK EPUB MOBI. Page 1. Page 2. Page 2. Page 3. racial and ethnic groups.
We need to continue growing but in smarter and more sustainable ways. Stengel At the global level, the earth is warming because of human activities, most prominently the use of oil and other carbons. The United States is the primary user of petrochemicals, and China will surpass it around The growing global inequality. Almost all this growth the United States is the exception will occur among the poorest nations.
Today, an estimated 1. Most do not have clean water and adequate sanitation.
Hundreds of millions are ravaged by diseases such as malaria, chronic diarrhea, Ebola, dengue, and parasites. This gap between the fortunate few and the impoverished, desperate masses continues to widen. The underdeveloped world, already in dire straits, will face enormous obstacles in providing the minimum of food, water, housing, and medical attention for their peoples as they add billions in population. The result will be ever-greater numbers of desperate people on this planet, making the world less safe.
An increasingly dangerous world. September 11, , unleashed a chain of negative events. Those terrorist acts on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon caused death and destruction and redirected government policies.
The United States responded with a war on Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and a preemptive war on Iraq, presumably to squelch terrorism and spread democracy throughout the Middle East. There is the growing threat of nuclear proliferation, with North Korea joining the nuclear club in and Iran threatening to join the club soon. That is the ultimate question.
These issues highlight the social problems addressed in this book. Early U. These social pathologists, because they assumed that the basic norms of society are universally held, viewed social problems as behaviors or social arrangements that disturb the moral order. For them, the moral order of U. But this approach did not take into account the complexity inherent in a diverse society.
In a variation of the absolutist approach, sociologists in the s and s focused on the conditions of society that fostered problems. Societies undergoing rapid change from the processes of migration, urbanization, and industrialization were thought to have pockets of social disorganization. Certain areas of the cities undergoing the most rapid change, for example, were found to have disproportionately high rates of vice, crime, family breakdowns, and mental disorders.
In the past few decades, many sociologists have returned to a study of problem individuals—deviants who violate the expectations of society. The modern study of deviance developed in two directions. The other, of relatively recent origin, has focused on the role of society in creating and sustaining deviance through labeling those people viewed as abnormal.
Societal reactions are viewed as the key in determining what a social problem is and who is deviant. Most recently, some sociologists have tried to alert others to the problematic nature of social problems themselves see Spector and Kitsuse These theorists emphasize the subjective nature of social problems.
Pollution, for example, has not always been considered a social problem. This brief description reveals several issues that must be addressed in looking at social problems. Second, there is continuing debate over the unit of analysis: Is the focus of inquiry individuals or social systems? Related to the latter is the issue of numbers: How many people have to be affected before something is a social problem?
In this regard, C. This normative approach assumes that some kinds of actions are likely to be judged deleterious in any context. Therefore, one goal of this book is to identify, describe, and explain situations that are objective social problems. The most obvious is that subjectivity is always present. To identify a phenomenon as a problem implies that it falls short of some standard. But what standards are to be used?
In a pluralistic society such as the United States, there is no uniform set of guidelines. Is marijuana use a social problem?
Is pornography? Is the relatively high rate of military spending a social problem? Is abortion a social problem? There is little consensus in U. All social observers, then, must be aware of differing viewpoints and respect the perspectives of the social actors involved.
Slavery, for instance, was not considered a social problem by the powerful in the South, but slave revolts were. In colonial New England, the persecution of witches was not a social problem, but the witches were Szasz From the standpoint of U.
First, to do so may mean overlooking conditions that are detrimental to a relatively powerless segment of the society. In other words, deplorable conditions heaped on minority groups tend to be ignored as social problems by the people at large. From this perspective, social problems are manifestations of the behaviors of abnormal people, not of society; the inadequacies and inequalities perpetuated by the existing system are not questioned. The distribution of power, the system of justice, how children are educated—to name but a few aspects of the existing social order—are assumed to be proper by most of the public, when they may be social problems themselves.
Skolnick and Currie By overlooking institutions as a source of social problems and as problems themselves , observers disregard the role of the powerful in society. To focus exclusively on those who deviate—the prostitute, the delinquent, the drug addict, the criminal—excludes the unethical, illegal, and destructive actions of powerful individuals, groups, and institutions in U.
Norm Violations Sociologists are interested in the discrepancy between social standards and reality for several reasons. Sociologists have many insights that explain the processes by which individuals experience differing pressures to engage in certain forms of deviant behavior because of their location in the social structure social class, occupation, age, race, and role and in space region, size of community, and type of neighborhood. A guiding assumption of our inquiry here, however, is that norm violators are symptoms of social problems, not the disease itself.
In other words, most deviants are victims and should not be blamed entirely by society for their deviance; rather, the system they live in should be blamed. A description of the situations affecting deviants such as the barriers to success faced by minority group members helps explain why some categories of persons participate disproportionately in deviant behavior. The sociologist is vitally interested in the social and cultural processes that label some acts and persons as deviant and others as normal.
People on welfare, for example, are generally considered to constitute a social problem, but slumlords are not; people who hear God talking to them are considered schizophrenic, but people who talk to God are believed perfectly sane; murder is a social problem, but killing the enemy during wartime is rewarded with medals; a prostitute is punished, but the client is not; aliens entering the country illegally constitute a social problem and are punished, but their U.
The members of society, especially the most powerful members, determine what is a social problem and what is not. Powerful people play an important role in determining who gets the negative label and who does not.
Thus, to comprehend the labeling process, we must understand not only the norms and values of the society but also what interest groups hold the power Quinney Social Conditions The second type of social problem emphasized in this text involves conditions that cause psychic and material suffering for some category of people in the United States.
In other words, what is the bias of the system? How are societal rewards distributed? Social problems of this type generate individual psychic and material suffering.
Thus, societal arrangements can be organized in a way that is unresponsive to many human needs. When these needs are thwarted, individuals will be hostile to society and its norms. Their frustration will be expressed in withdrawal, alcohol or other drugs, or in the violence of crime, terrorism, and aggression.
People will take up lives outside of the pale of social control and normative structure; in so doing they will destroy themselves and others.
Such a condition exists when the society and its formal organizations are not meeting the needs of individuals. Instead, the focus has often been on individuals who vent their frustration in socially unacceptable ways. A major intent of this book is to view individual deviance as a consequence of institutionalized deviance. In summary, here we consider social problems to be 1 societally induced conditions that cause psychic and material suffering for any segment of the population and 2 acts and conditions that violate the norms and values found in society.
The distribution of power in society is the key to understanding these social problems. The powerless, because they are dominated by the powerful, are likely to be thwarted in achieving their basic needs sustenance, security, self-esteem, and productivity. In contrast, the interests of the powerful are served because they control the mechanisms and institutions by which the perceptions of the public are shaped. As the primary source of social problems, society, not the individual deviant, must be restructured if social problems are to be solved.
This scholarly discipline is the study of society and other social organizations, how they affect human behavior, and how these organizations are changed by human endeavors. Wright Mills — , in his classic The Sociological Imagination , wrote that the task of sociology is to realize that individual circumstances are inextricably linked to the structure of society.
These nations are capitalistic, permitting private property and privately owned businesses. To a much greater degree than in the United States, these nations have publicly owned enterprises and some nationalization of industry, typically transportation, mineral resources, and utilities. Most important, these nations provide an array of social services to meet the needs of their citizens that is much greater than in the United States.
These services are expensive, resulting in relatively high taxes, almost double the rate in the United States. But as Joe R.
Feagin and Clairece Booher Feagin point out in their discussion of Sweden, If we were to add to the taxes Americans pay, the cost of the private medical insurance carried by many Americans. Much of what [they] pay for through the tax system, Americans download, if they can get it at all, from private enterprise— and they often get less adequate health care, child care, and other services as a result.
Indeed, Americans probably pay more per capita for all such support services than do [those in the social welfare states]—and Americans receive less. Feagin, Feagin, and Baker As a result of these extensive social services, the people in the social welfare states have several advantages over those living in the United States: longer life expectancy, lower infant and maternal mortality, greater literacy, less poverty and homelessness, lower rates of violent crime, a lower proportion of single-parent households, and a proportionately larger middle class.
Are the people in these countries less free than Americans? There is freedom of speech and freedom of the press in each of the nations. The governments in these countries, for the most part, permit greater individual freedom than is found in the United States for personal behaviors greater acceptance of homosexuality, legalization of prostitution, few restrictions on abortion, and the like.
Is there a downside? These countries are not immune to economic problems such as recessions, high unemployment, and citizen unrest over high taxes. In the past few years, the governments in these countries have reduced some of their social programs, but they are still much more generous than the United States which has also curbed its more meager welfare programs.
Typically, government leaders in each of these countries have argued that more austere programs are needed to stimulate the economy and permit the government to pay its bills.
These measures have been met with citizen protest, particularly from the labor unions, which are much stronger than in the United States. It will be interesting to see how reduction in the welfare state plays out. If the austerity measures hold, will the countries follow the U. The powerful in societies craft policies to accomplish certain ends, within the context of historical events, budgetary constraints, and the like. Addressing the issue of inequality, Claude Fischer and his colleagues from the sociology department at the University of California—Berkeley say, The answer to the question of why societies vary in their structure of rewards is more political.
To be sure, historical and external constraints deny full freedom of action, but a substantial freedom of action remains. In the United States, the result is a society that is distinctly unequal. Fischer et al. Social policy is about design, about setting goals and determining the means to achieve them.
Do we want to regulate and protect more, as the welldeveloped welfare states do, or should we do less? Should we create and invest in policies and programs that protect citizens from poverty, unemployment, and the high cost of health care, or should the market economy sort people into winners, players, and losers based on their abilities and efforts?
Decision makers in the United States have opted to reduce the welfare state. Are they on the right track? If societies are designed, should the United States change its design? Source: D. Stanley Eitzen. Social Problems in Comparative Perspective. Stanley Eitzen Ed. In other words, one must be willing to question the structural arrangements that shape social behavior.
When we have this imagination, we begin to see the solutions to social problems not in terms of changing problem people but in changing the structure of society. This type of thinking helps explain the reluctance of people in authority to provide adequate welfare, health care, and compensatory programs to help the disadvantaged. The fundamental issue is whether social problems emanate from the pathologies of individuals person-blame or from the situations in which deviants are involved system-blame , that is, whether deviants are the problem itself or only victims of it.
The answer no doubt lies somewhere between the two extremes, but because the individual- or victim-blamers have held sway, we should examine their reasoning Ryan Person-Blame Approach versus System-Blame Approach Let us begin by considering some victims, such as the children in a slum school who constantly fail.
Why do they fail? The victim-blamer points to their cultural deprivation. In other words, the defect is in the children and their families.
System-blamers look elsewhere for the sources of failure. They ask, What is there about the schools that make slum children more likely to fail? The concept does remind us, however, that people can and do make invidious distinctions about cultures and subcultures.
Furthermore, people act on these distinctions as if they were valid. Ex-convicts constitute another set of victims. Why is their recidivism rate reinvolvement in crime so high? The victim-blamer points to the faults of individual criminals: their greed, their feelings of aggression, their weak control of impulse, their lack of conscience. The system-blamer directs attention to very different sources: the penal system, the scarcity of employment for ex-criminals, and even the schools.
For example, 20 to 30 percent of inmates are functionally illiterate; that is, they cannot meet minimum reading and writing demands in U. Moreover, lack of employment and the unwillingness of potential employers to train functional illiterates force many to return to crime to survive. The inner-city poor are another set of victims.
The conditions of the ghetto poor, especially African Americans, have deteriorated since the mids. Some observers believe that this deterioration is the result of the transplantation of a southern sharecropper culture Lemann, , welfare programs Murray, , and laziness. The more compelling system-blame argument, however, is made by William J. Wilson He claims that the ghetto poor endure because of the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of low-skill jobs, those mainly involving physical labor, in the past 40 years or so.
The strong tendency to blame social problems on individuals rather than on the social system lies in how people tend to look at social problems. Because people do not ordinarily examine critically the way things are done in society, they tend to question the exceptions.
The system not only is taken for granted but also has, for most people, an aura of sacredness because of the traditions and customs with which they associate it. Logically, then, those who deviate are the source of trouble. The obvious question observers ask is, Why do these people deviate from norms? Interpreting social problems solely within a person-blame framework has serious consequences.
First, because societal causes are not addressed, social problems remain in place Davis-Delano A good example is the strategy social scientists use in studying the origins of poverty. Because the person-blamer studies the poor rather than the nonpoor, the system of inequality buttressed by tax laws, welfare rules, and employment practices goes unchallenged.
Contrasted with other ways of learning and knowing about the world, science has some special characteristics. It is a conscious, deliberate, and rigorous undertaking. Sometimes it uses statistical analyses, but often it does not. Benjamin Spock, the renowned author and pediatrician, began his books on child care by assuring new parents that they already know more about child care than they think they do.
From that perspective, the purpose of this book is to help you sharpen skills you already have and perhaps to show you some tricks that may not have occurred to you. Part 1 of this book lays the groundwork for the rest of the book by examining the fundamental characteristics and issues that make science different from other ways of knowing things.
Chapter 2 deals with social theories and the links between theory and research. Social research is also shaped by the fact that it operates within the political codes and systems of the societies it seeks to study and understand. These two topics appear throughout the book as critical components of social research.
Introduction Introduction This book is about knowing things—not so much what we know as how we know it. You know the world is round. How do you know? Perhaps your physics or astronomy instructor told you it was cold on the dark side of the moon, or maybe you heard it on National Public Radio NPR.
Some of the things you know seem absolutely obvious to you. Most of what you and I know is a matter of agreement and belief.
Little of it is based on personal experience and discovery. You might be sent to live in a hospital with other people who question things like that.
The basis of knowledge is agreement. There are other ways of knowing things, however. In contrast to knowing things through agreement, we can know them through direct experience—through observation. You have more.
What a terrible thing to serve guests! The point of the story is that both of your feelings about the appetizer were quite real. Your initial liking for them, based on your own direct experience, was certainly real. When they pried your mouth open and reached down your throat in search of the other half of the worm, you learned that worms are not acceptable food in our society. They are probably high in protein and low in calories.
They are also a delicacy for some people who live in societies that lack our agreement that worms are disgusting. Some people might love the worms but be turned off by the deep-fried breading. The rest of this chapter looks at how we know what is real. Looking for Reality Reality is a tricky business. People have grappled with this question for thousands of years.
Knowledge from Agreement Reality One answer that has arisen out of that grappling is science, which offers an approach to both agreement reality and experiential reality. Scientists have certain criteria that must be met before they will accept the reality of something they have not personally experienced.
Why do earthbound scientists accept the assertion that the dark side of the moon is cold? More to the point of this book, however, science offers a special approach to the discovery of reality through personal experience.
In other words, it offers a special approach to the business of inquiry. Why do we need social science to discover the reality of social life? Ordinary Human Inquiry Practically all people, and many other animals as well, exhibit a desire to predict their future circumstances. Humans seem predisposed to undertake this task by using causal and probabilistic reasoning. First, we generally recognize that future circumstances are somehow caused or conditioned by present ones.
We learn that getting an education will affect how much money we earn later in life Looking for Reality and that swimming beyond the reef may bring an unhappy encounter with a shark.
Sharks, on the other hand—whether or not they reason the matter through—may learn that hanging around the reef often brings a happy encounter with unhappy swimmers. Second, we also learn that such patterns of cause and effect are probabilistic. That is, the effects occur more often when the causes occur than when the causes are absent—but not always. Thus, students learn that studying hard produces good grades in most instances, but not every time.
We recognize the danger of swimming beyond the reef, without believing that every such swim will be fatal. It sharpens the skills we already have by making us more conscious, rigorous, and explicit in our inquiries. In looking at ordinary human inquiry, we need to distinguish between prediction and understanding. Often, we can make predictions without understanding—perhaps you can predict rain when your trick knee aches.
A racetrack buff who discovers that the third-ranked horse in the third race of the day always seems to win will probably keep betting without knowing, or caring, why it works out that way. Whatever the primitive drives or instincts that motivate human beings and other animals, satisfying these drives depends heavily on the ability to predict future circumstances. For people, however, the attempt to predict is often placed in a context of knowledge and understanding.
If you can understand why things are related to each other, why certain regular patterns occur, you can predict better than if you simply observe and remember those patterns. To see how, consider two important sources of our secondhand knowledge—tradition and authority. We may learn from others that planting corn in the spring will garner the greatest assistance from the gods, that eating too much candy will decay our teeth, that the circumference of a circle is approximately twenty-two sevenths of its diameter, or that masturbation will blind us.
By accepting what everybody knows, we avoid the overwhelming task of starting from scratch in our search for regularities and understanding.
Knowledge is cumulative, and an inherited body of information and understanding is the jumping-off point for the development of more knowledge. At the same time, tradition may hinder human inquiry. If we seek a fresh understanding of something everybody already understands and has always understood, we may be marked as fools for our efforts. Often, acceptance of these new acquisitions depends on the status of the discoverer. Like tradition, authority can both assist and hinder human inquiry.
We do well to trust the judgment of the person who has special training, expertise, and credentials in a given matter, especially in the face of controversy. At the same time, inquiry can be greatly hindered by the legitimate authorities who err within their own province.
Moreover, biological knowledge changes over time. Inquiry is also hindered when we depend on the authority of experts speaking outside their realm of expertise. For example, consider the political or religious leader with no medical or biochemical expertise who declares that marijuana can fry your brain.
The advertising industry plays heavily on this misuse of authority by, for example, having popular athletes discuss the nutritional value of breakfast cereals or having movie actors evaluate the performance of automobiles. Both tradition and authority, then, act as double-edged swords in the search for knowledge about the world.
Simply put, they provide us with a starting point for our own inquiry, but they can lead us to start at the wrong point and push us off in the wrong direction.
Errors in Inquiry, and Some Solutions Besides the potential dangers of tradition and authority, other pitfalls often cause us to stumble and fall when we set out to learn for ourselves. Inaccurate Observations Quite frequently, we make mistakes in our observations. Just making observation more deliberate helps reduce error.
You might also need a hobby. In many cases, both simple and complex measurement devices help guard against inaccurate observations.