1: Introduction

This chapter discusses some of the disciplines and sub-disciplines that fall under the “umbrella” of the social sciences.

1) What are the Social Sciences?

The Six Social Sciences

The social sciences include many different disciplinary and sub-disciplinary areas. These include, for example, sociology, anthropology, criminology, archaeology, social policy, human geography, and many more. The ones we will focus on in this text are six: anthropology, sociology, economics, political science, history, and psychology.

Anthropology is the study of humanity. It is the study of everything and anything that makes humans human. Anthropologists examine every dimension of humanity by asking questions like: How did we come to be human and who are our ancestors? Why do people look and act so differently throughout the world? What do we all have in common? How have we changed culturally and biologically over time? What factors influence diverse human beliefs and behaviors throughout the world?

Anthropology is an expansive field of study. It is comprised of four subfields that in the United States include cultural anthropology, archaeology, biological (or physical) anthropology, and linguistic anthropology. Together, these subfields provide a multi-faceted picture of the human condition. Applied anthropology is another area of specialization that aims to solve specific practical problems in collaboration with governmental, non-profit, and community organizations as well as businesses and corporations.

Sociology is the systematic study of all those aspects of life designated by the adjective “social.” They concern relationships, and what happens when more than one person is involved. These aspects of social life never simply occur; they are organized processes. They can be the briefest and most unconscious of everyday interactions — moving to the right to let someone pass on a busy sidewalk, for example — or the largest and most enduring interactions — such as the billions of daily exchanges that constitute the circuits of global capitalism. If there are at least two people involved, even in the seclusion of one’s own mind, then there is a social interaction. Why does the person move to the right on the sidewalk? What collective processes lead to the decision that moving to the right rather than the left is normal? Is it different in countries where people drive on the left?

Think about the T-shirts in the chest of drawers at home. What are the sequences of linkages, exchanges, transportation conduits, and social relationships that connect one’s T-shirts to the dangerous and hyper-exploitative garment factories in rural China or Bangladesh? These are the type of questions that sociology seeks to explore and understand.

Economics is a social science that examines how people choose among the limited alternatives available to them. Every economy must answer the following questions:

· What should be produced? Using the economy’s resources to produce one thing often requires giving up another. Producing better education, for example, may require cutting back on other services, such as health care. A decision to preserve a wilderness area requires giving up other uses of the land. Every society must decide what it will produce with its resources.

· How should goods and services be produced? There are all sorts of choices to be made in determining how goods and services should be produced. Should a firm employ a few skilled or a lot of unskilled workers? Should it produce in its own country or should it use foreign plants? Should manufacturing firms use new or recycled raw materials to make their products?

· For whom should goods and services be produced? If a good or service is produced, a decision must be made about who will get it. A decision to have one person or group receive a good or service usually means it will not be available to someone else. For example, representatives of the poorest nations on earth often complain that energy consumption per person in the United States is 17 times greater than energy consumption per person in the world’s 62 poorest countries. Critics argue that the world’s energy should be more evenly allocated. Should it? That is a “for whom” question.

Every economy must determine what should be produced, how it should be produced, and for whom it should be produced. Economics looks at this.

Political Science

The systematic study of the process of who gets what, when, and how—political science—investigates the reasons behind the decisions governments make. For example, political scientists investigate the degree of control governments choose to exercise over various forms of communication, like your smartphone. Political scientists examine both the ways individuals and groups seek to influence governmental action and the ways governmental decisions in turn affect individuals and groups.

Political scientists may not have lab coats or electron microscopes, but like other types of scientists, they use theory, logic, and evidence in an attempt to answer questions, to make predictions, or to arrive at conclusions. Some political scientists strive to understand the fundamental laws of politics in much the same way theoretical physicists seek to comprehend the cosmos for pure knowledge. These political scientists try to uncover the universal principles of how humans and their institutions aim to prevail in political conflicts. But most political scientists accept that human behavior is not entirely deterministic (that is, perfectly predictable, strictly obeying set laws), so they instead look for patterns that may enable them to predict in general how humans and their institutions interact.

History

The study of history is about more than giving a recounting of past events. It is about helping us know more about ourselves and our present. Once historians muster as many facts as they can about the past, they then try to understand causation. Causation is the why behind events. What are the forces that shape history, that shift it one way or another, that move people to change on both an individual and a societal level? Then, with greater understanding of how the past brought us to the present, historians can also ask, what can or should society or individuals do in that present to change the future?

Historians, particularly those trained in recent times, work to eliminate as much bias as they can. For example, historians in the 1960s and 1970s began to question their discipline’s traditional focus on elites and sought out new sources that highlight the lives of more ordinary people. Driven by a bias in favor of the counterculture and politics of the era, (such as the counterculture, the women’s movement, the civil rights movement, and the gay rights movement) they wanted to know more about what all people experienced. This opened up new realms of historical study and understanding. Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that people (even historians!) cannot wholly disconnect themselves from their environment and beliefs while studying the past.

Psychology

People tend to have a limited view of psychologists as people who provide professional services such as therapy or counseling. Of course, many people with education in psychology are involved in these activities. More, however, are devoted to other activities. In fact, the very large majority of people who have degrees in psychology devote their careers to some other goal than providing therapy or counseling.

Psychology refers to the scientific study of the mind and behavior. This is a very broad definition, and psychology is a very broad discipline. Psychology is made up of several major subdivisions. Biological psychology involves the study of the biological bases of behavior. Sensation and perception refer to the area of psychology that is focused on how information from our senses is received, and how this information is transformed into our perceptual experiences of the world around us. Cognitive psychology is concerned with the relationship that exists between thought and behavior, and developmental psychologists study the physical and cognitive changes that occur throughout one’s lifespan. Personality psychology focuses on individuals’ unique patterns of behavior, thought, and emotion.

Industrial and organizational psychology, health psychology, sport and exercise psychology, forensic psychology, and clinical psychology are all considered applied areas of psychology. Industrial and organizational psychologists apply psychological concepts to industrial and organizational settings. Health psychologists look for ways to help people live healthier lives, and clinical psychology involves the diagnosis and treatment of psychological disorders and other problematic behavioral patterns. Sport and exercise psychologists study the interactions between thoughts, emotions, and physical performance in sports, exercise, and other activities. Forensic psychologists carry out activities related to psychology in association with the justice system.

Development of Social Science

The study of the social sciences, as developed in the Western world, can be said to emerge from the Age of Enlightenment in the late 17th Century.

This is not to say that the study of the social sciences emerged exclusively from the West. Some of the earliest written and spoken accounts of human action, values, and the structure of society can be found in Ancient Greek, Islamic, Chinese and indigenous cultures.

For example, Ibn Khaldoun, a 14th-century North African philosopher, is considered a pioneer in the field of social sciences. He wrote the book Muqaddimah, which is regarded as the first comprehensive work in the social sciences. It charts an attempt to create a universal history based on studying and explaining the economic, social, and political factors that shape society and discussed the cyclical rise and fall of civilizations.

Moreover, indigenous peoples across the world have contributed in various and significant ways to the development of scientific knowledge and practices. Indeed, contemporary social science has much to learn from indigenous knowledges and methodologies, as well as much reconciling to do in terms of its treatment of indigenous peoples the world over.

Nevertheless, the dominant Western European narrative of the achievements of the enlightenment still tends to overlook and discredit much of this knowledge. Additionally, male thinkers have tended to dominate within the Western social sciences, while women have historically been excluded from academic institutions and their perspectives largely omitted from social science history and texts. Therefore, much of the history of the social sciences represent a predominantly white, masculine viewpoint. This is important to keep in mind as we go forward.

Beginning with René Descartes (1596-1650), both the natural and social sciences developed from the concept of the rational, thinking individual. Early Enlightenment thinkers argued that human beings use reason to understand the world, rather than only referring to religion.

Other thinkers around this time such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), M. de Voltaire (1694-1778) and Denis Diderot (1713-1784), began to develop different methodologies to scientifically explain processes in the body, the structure of society, and the limits of human knowledge.

In 1784, a Prussian philosopher named Immanuel Kant published a short essay entitled What is Enlightenment? According to Kant, Enlightenment was all about the courage to think for one's self, to question the accepted notions of any field of human knowledge rather than relying on a belief imposed by an outside authority.

Enlightenment thinkers embraced the idea that scientific progress was limitless. They argued that all citizens should be equal before the law. They claimed that the best forms of government were those with rational laws oriented to serve the public interest. In a major break from the past, they increasingly claimed that there was a real, physical universe that could be understood using the methods of science, in contrast to the false, made-up universe of “magic” suitable only for myths and storytelling. In short, Enlightenment thinkers proposed ideas that were novel at the time, but were eventually accepted by almost everyone in Europe (and many other places, including the colonies of the Americas).

The Enlightenment introduced themes of thought that undermined traditional religious beliefs, at least in the long run. Perhaps the major theme of Enlightenment thought that ran contrary to almost every form of religious practice at the time was the rejection of “superstitions,” things that simply could not happen according to science (such a virgin giving birth to a child, or wine turning into blood during Communion).

Most Enlightenment thinkers argued that the “real” natural universe was governed by natural laws, all watched over by a benevolent but completely remote “supreme being” who took no direct interest or action in human affairs. While few Enlightenment thinkers were outright atheists, almost all of them decried many church practices and what they perceived as the ignorance and injustice behind church (especially Catholic) laws.

The Enlightenment was also against “tyranny,” which meant the arbitrary rule of a monarch indifferent to the welfare of his or her subjects. Almost no Enlightenment thinkers openly rejected monarchy as a form of government - indeed, some Enlightenment thinkers befriended powerful kings and queens - but they roundly condemned cruelty and selfishness among individual monarchs. The perfect state was, in the eyes of most Enlightenment thinkers, one with an “enlightened” monarch at its head, presiding over a set of reasonable laws. Many Enlightenment thinkers thus looked to Great Britain, since 1689 ruled by a monarch who agreed to its written constitution and worked closely with an elected parliament, as the best extant model of enlightened rule.

Behind the rejection of tyranny was a focus on the human mind’s capacity for reason. Reason is the mental faculty that takes sensory data and orders it into thoughts and ideas. The basic argument that underwrote the thought of the Enlightenment is that reason is universal and inherent to humans, and that if society could strip away the pernicious patterns of tradition, superstition, and ignorance, humankind would arrive naturally at a harmonious society. Thus, almost all of the major thinkers of the Enlightenment tried to get to the bottom of just that task: what is standing in the way of reason, and how can humanity become more reasonable?

It is this kind of thinking, as described above, that the world, people, society, and government can be understood, and changed through reason and effort, rather than the belief that the world is run by forces beyond our understanding or control, that gives rise to the social sciences.

It should be noted however that despite their more progressive view of society, most Enlightenment thinkers did not advocate equality for all, regardless of race, gender, or class. Rather, they insisted that rights and freedoms were not hereditary. This perspective attacked the traditionally exclusive position of the European aristocracy, but was still largely limited to expanding the political and individual rights of middle and upper class white males. Most women, men at the lower end of the social hierarchy, and people of color were generally excluded from participating in the Enlightenment or benefiting from its ideals of social and political equality.

Some elite women, such as the French philosophers Émilie du Châtelet and Germaine de Staël, assumed leadership roles in the era’s vibrant intellectual debates and gained recognition for their contributions. Some Enlightenment thinkers, however, did not consider women to be equal in status to their male counterparts. Rousseau, for example, described women as subordinate to men based on the assumption that they were weaker and less rational by nature. On this premise, Rousseau argued that women belonged in the domestic space of the home, while the public space of politics and business was the preserve of men. Other thinkers such as Locke supported women’s increased access to education and participation in the public sphere, but they asserted that men should retain leadership roles within the household and in public life due to their greater strength and ability. Although a small number of women played important roles in the Enlightenment, most did not immediately benefit from its emphasis on ideals of equality and freedom.

In what later became the United States and in some European countries, Enlightenment theories coexisted with the institution of slavery, the appropriation of lands from Indigenous people, and access to political participation and the protections afforded by the state that were generally limited to White men of property. These contradictions were often justified by asserting that because Indigenous peoples resided in a nonpolitical state, and because they were believed to lack the capacity to reason, they were not entitled to the rights and protections afforded to other peoples. Enlightenment lawyers defended slavery on the grounds that either it was a justifiable consequence of conquest or that Black people were incapable of governing themselves without the protection of White owners.

Although Enlightenment ways of thinking helped form the foundations of documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, the ideals of rights and freedoms Enlightenment thinking espoused coexisted with ingrained racial injustices that formed the foundation of slavery and colonialism.

2) What Do the Social Sciences Do?

Natural Sciences vs. Social Sciences

Often in public and political discourse, the natural sciences are seen as being more ‘scientific’ and a source of ‘stronger’ or ‘more objective’ knowledge than the social sciences. However, the reality is that both have equally important but different things to offer.

Natural sciences try to create explanatory and predictive universal theories and truths that explain the natural world and can predict how it will behave – like studying the weather. This type of science deals with what is, not what should be. In this sense it is empirical – dealing with observable facts and events. For example, you can observe and count how many polling places there are in a state (what is), but that does not and cannot tell you how many polling places there should be to properly serve the population of that state.

The social sciences analyze people and societies to help create practical values-based action to better those societies. Social inquiry does not generally seek universal laws or principles that can be used to predict courses of action, but instead offers a critical assessment of values, norms, and structures of power and dominance. (A norm is an accepted standard or expectation regarding behavior.)

Social inquiry then is linked to questions of the good life, that is, to questions of what we ought to do to live well. In this sense the social sciences are normative – dealing with values and norms and the idea of what should be (rather than the empirical focus, which is on what is).

Power and the Social Sciences

In order to undertake this kind of inquiry, the issue of power, who has it, and how it is exercised must be addressed. Power shapes what individuals can do, have, and achieve. Power is however not equally distributed. Some people, groups, and institutions have more, some have less. The distribution of power shapes society and affects people’s lives in profound ways. Social sciences, in its concern for what should be, then must concern itself with the idea and practice of power.

The analysis, assessment, and interpretation that social science engages in regarding society and its power structures, if it is conducted publicly and in ways that engage the public can challenge power structures and support efforts to promote social change. It can also be used to thwart change and to defend the status quo (i.e., the existing state of affairs). In this way then the practice of the social sciences is also a use of power – to change or to defend the current shape of society.

Let’s take a look at some of the ways social science studies varies aspects of people, society, and power.

Social Science, the Self, and the Other

The social sciences use a range of methods to study the self (especially in psychology) and others (especially in anthropology). Social science tries to understand more about ourselves by studying others, searching for common traits or cultural and social differences between “us” and “the other.” In this process, the “Other” and their characteristics of otherness are often studied to better understand relationships between ”us” and “Other.”

However, the process of labelling someone as “Other” inherently places them at the margins, setting them apart from mainstream society on the basis of particular traits, and decentering their own identity. Moreover, “othering” often takes place on the basis of particular traits, such as a person’s religious, social, cultural, sexual, or ethnic identities. This can have significant negative effects, leading to ostracization and discrimination. This process feeds into an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality that creates ‘in’ and ‘out’ groups – power imbalances - as a result.

Examples of a social identity that can give way to “othering” and consequent power imbalances are sex, gender and sexuality. Sex refers to a biological classification based on anatomy, hormones, and chromosomes. Gender refers to the social and cultural norms, expectations, and behaviors that are associated with being labeled a particular sex (for example, dressing in certain ways). Gender is not solely based on biological sex and can vary across cultures and time periods.

Many genders exist – cisgender (in which you identify with the gender you were assigned at birth based on physical traits), transgender (in which you do not so identify), agender, genderfluid, nonbinary, and more. For more on this, you should refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mzNEKd7yCE

There are also intersex people, who are not clearly either male or female at birth. For more on this, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7lXq54ioa4

Typically, ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ are gendered traits that are used to describe certain qualities and behaviors that are expected to be associated with being male or female. Masculinity is often associated with toughness, assertiveness, and competitiveness, while femininity is often associated with softness, emotional expressiveness, and nurturing.

In reality, however, traits that are considered either ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ exist on a spectrum; individuals can exhibit both masculine and feminine traits, regardless of their biological sex or gender identity.

Critical scholars have also drawn attention to the ways in which these gendered traits are bound up in expressions of power and domination. That is, these categories themselves are oppressive social constructs rather than objective reflections of reality. For example, in US history, “feminine” traits were deemed to be an indication of mental weakness, thereby serving as an excuse to deprive women of legal rights such as the right to vote and to keep them out of the economic, political, social spheres dominated by men, keeping men in power.

Feminist scholar Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986), provides an example of how the notion of femininity can be used to oppress and deny rights and freedoms to those who identify as women. In her book ‘The Second Sex’ (1949), she argued that femininity was a myth that served to oppress women and deny their rights to free and equal participation in society.

To learn more, watch the video below and think about the kinds of implications this thinking has had on the social institution of the family, and on conceptions of gender today.

Feminine beauty – a social construct? (YouTube, 2:01) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT6wjgssVK4

In addition to gender, sexuality refers to an individual’s sexual orientation and desires. For instance, sexual orientation can include, among other things, heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and pansexuality. The LGBTQI+ acronym stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, and intersex, with the plus sign representing a variety of other identities, including asexual, aromantic, and more. Sexuality is a complex and multi-faceted aspect of our identities that can be shaped by a variety of influences, including biological, social, cultural, and psychological factors.

Sexuality, like sex and gender, can be a sources of opportunity or oppression, depending on the society and culture within which a person exists. A gay man or a transgender woman for example may find themselves being “othered” in various ways in society, from being shunned socially, to being denied basic rights, to fearing for their physical safety. A straight person, on the other hand, would not encounter these obstacles, and could even benefit from the ostracization of these “others” in terms of opportunity.

It’s also important to keep in mind though that individuals can face multiple forms of oppression and/or privilege based on not only on one of these factors, but on other aspects of their identity as well.

For example, a transgender woman of color may face discrimination and prejudice based on both her gender identity and her race. Additionally, individuals may also experience privilege based on one aspect of their identity while facing oppression based on another aspect. For instance, a white, gay man may face discrimination based on his sexual orientation, but also benefit from privilege based on his race. This is the concept of intersectionality.

Intersectionality highlights the importance of recognizing the unique experiences and perspectives of individuals who belong to multiple marginalized communities. For example, a black, lesbian woman may face discrimination and prejudice based on her race, sexuality, and gender identity, and may also experience unique forms of discrimination and violence that are specific to her intersecting identities.

Social science studies these and other kinds of “othering,” how they connect to power, and the effects they have on individuals and society.

Social Science, Borders, Globalization, and Capitalism

The social sciences are also interested in explaining how different cultures and societies interact with each other on a global as well as local scale. From the ancient empires that rose and fell, to colonization during the expansion of the British and Spanish empires, to the new forms imperialism led by American expansionism, human history has long been a global history. This history, far from a unified tale of the equality of human beings sharing a single world, is divided: along lines of class, race, religion, nationality, and gender. It is the job of social scientists to address these conflicts and inconsistencies, so as to imagine a better world united by a shared humanity.

Borders mark the formal boundaries between different nation-states. Borders between groups of people are nothing new, but the formalized demarcation between political units or nation-states as marked in maps and determined to be legally binding is a relatively new development. Early borders were physical, such as rivers, mountains and the sea. People were often divided into lowland and highland peoples, or land and sea peoples, who traded and were in contact, even though they were physically distanced.

With the rise of the nation-state in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries, borders became more politically significant. Nation-states sought to define their territories and assert their sovereignty over their borders. To do this, they employed techniques such as boundary markers, boundary surveys, and maps. These techniques were used to physically demarcate the border and provide a clear visual representation of the territory controlled by a given state. Thus, bordering techniques include the physical building of border fences, walls and other barriers as well as the technological in the form of passports and other identification documents that tie us via citizenship to a particular nation-state.

Borders and bordering techniques have a long history tied to war, imperialism, and economic exploitation. Legal boundaries are often disputed by different ethnic, religious, or otherwise distinctive groups. Conflicts over borders as the result of colonization are often the result of arbitrary border lines drawn on a map, then sanctified as law by colonizing entities.

For example, due to the haphazard divisions of geographic areas without consideration for the people who lived there, such as across Africa in the late 1800s, and across Australia from the late 1700s, the peoples that occupy a particular area often became forcibly unified under a nation-state, despite significant cultural differences. In other cases ethnic groups were split up by arbitrary borders across multiple nation-states such as after the Mexican-American war in the 1840s.

The nation-state is also closely linked to the emergence of capitalism and both developed together. The nation-state provided the security, infrastructure and regulations across a larger geographic area that capitalism needed to grow. Fundamentally an economic system, capitalism has nevertheless evolved over its relatively short history into a political and social system which profoundly affects the lives of individuals. As an example, there is the phenomenon of globalization and capitalism’s role in it.

Globalization refers to the increasing interconnectedness and interdependence of the world’s economies, societies, and cultures due to advancements in communication, transportation, and technology. While it was a celebrated concept and reality in the 1990s and early 2000s, when euphoria of this interconnectedness and global connection was meant to diminish conflict in a new liberal world order of peace and prosperity, such analysis was short lived. Critics soon showed that globalization rests on exploitation and unequal global power relations.

For example, Eric Wolf’s work, “Europe and the People Without History” shows how globalization has been driven by the interests of dominant states (nations) and the interest of capital (e.g., large business concerns and powerful wealthy business leaders). This then lead to cultural and economic imperialism.

Economic imperialism is when one nation (or business concern) has substantial power over the economy or economic resources of another nation, region, or people. This power can be used for various purposes that profit the imperial nation at the expense of the dominated one. The imperial nation can, for instance, control the development and sale of the subject nation’s raw materials (such as tea in India by Britain), exploit its people for cheap labor (such as in sweatshops in Asian nations), or seek unequal but profitable business opportunities (such as the US in Latin America).

Cultural imperialism is when a dominant nation uses cultural means to maintain its economic dominance over another nation, region, or people. This is often done through mass media, and seeks to impose the values and beliefs of the dominant country onto the subject country (including the beliefs that support imperialism).

According to his world systems theory, the global economy can be divided into three main categories: core, semi-periphery, and periphery.

Core countries are highly industrialized and economically dominant, possessing a disproportionate amount of wealth and power in the world system. Peripheral countries, on the other hand, are less industrialized and economically dependent, often serving as suppliers of raw materials for the core. Semi-peripheral countries occupy a middle ground between the two, sometimes acting as intermediaries between the core and periphery.

The relationships between these three groups are characterized by unequal power dynamics and exploitation. Core countries are seen as benefiting from the exploitation of peripheral countries, which are subjected to low wages, poor working conditions, and limited access to (often their own) resources. Over time, this leads to unequal development, poverty, and underdevelopment in peripheral countries, perpetuating their position as suppliers of cheap labor and raw materials.

Social Science and Institutions

Social institutions are important to social scientists because they form a critical part of the fabric of our societies and have considerable influence on our lives. They also function as sources of power.

Key social institutions include (but are not limited to):

• The state
• Work
• The family
• Education
• The economy
• Media
• Religion
• Health care
• Criminal justice system

Social institutions are typically long lasting, though their shape and structure often change incrementally over time, and they sometimes also experience significant changes in response to particularly revolutionary moments (e.g. the feminism of the 1960s-80s had considerable and relatively quick impacts on the social institution of the family).

We will briefly consider a few of these institutions – namely, family, the state, religion, education, and work below.

The family

The family unit has changed dramatically over time but remains a critically important social institution. Changes to the family unit have often occurred along gender lines; because (after the industrial revolution) men have typically earned higher wages in the formal economy. They are the ones who have most often undertaken waged labor while women have generally tended to work in the domestic realm (the informal economy). The changing nature of work has, thus, had a significant impact on women’s role in the family, as shown in the figure below.

Pre-industrial revolution - Separation between work and home was not as clear...Industrial revolution - Men, women & children worked; men earned more... Post-industrial revolution - Women & children exited workforce; men earned higher wages and thus, continued... women resigned to domestic duties. Early 20th Century - Men went to war; women entered workforce... Enter the 'second shift' - While women are now in the workforce at much higher rates, they still undertake the bulk of unpaid domestic and caring duties - what Hochschild termed the 'second shift'. To handle this, women are overrepresented in part-time and casual work; they still earn less than their male colleagues. Post-World Wars - Women return to domestic duties... Feminist calls for women to re-enter the workforce; women re- enter at higher rates...

The feminism of the 1960s-80s saw the re-entry of large numbers of women into the workforce and significant changes to the family unit as a result. The paid childcare sector stepped into fill the gap and, as contraception became more readily available, women gained greater control over planning their families, or choosing not to have children at all (though social norms differ across geography and culture). However, even though women now participate in the formal economy at much higher rates, the playing field is far from even.

Arlie Hochschild shed light on what one of her research participants called the ‘second shift’. Women would go off to work in the formal economy, do their ‘day shift’, and then come home and do a second shift that consisted of unpaid work: cooking dinner, preparing children for bed, doing the washing, cleaning and other domestic duties. Women also tend to absorb these duties by taking on less work in the formal economy — e.g., through part-time and casual positions. As a result, women – particularly women of color and First Nations women – are far more likely across the globe to earn less and experience poverty. This represents, among other things, a power imbalance in the institution of the family.

The nation state

The state might be considered a ‘meta-institution’, insofar as it is a social institution that — to an extent — has an overarching role in organizing other social institutions. For example, governments typically preside over the organization and administration of education, the economy, the criminal justice system, and more.

According to international law, nation states have sovereignty over their territories. They govern citizens of their territory in accordance with an invisible ‘social contract’. A social contract is a sort of agreement between the state and its citizens in which citizens agree to abide by the laws and rulings of the state in return for being able to live peaceably within the nation state’s bounds and receive other benefits from the state, such as citizenship rights (e.g. access to welfare, health care and more).

However, we can also consider how the state can also operate as a key site of power and oppression.

As a settler colony*, Australia as we know it today was erected on the stolen lands of Indigenous peoples who lived here for 65,000+ years prior. It was stolen on the basis that it was erroneously understood to be a ‘no man’s land’; that is, uncivilized and uncultivated. There is, today, still no formal recognition of the unceded sovereignty of Indigenous Australians, nor any reckoning for the theft of Indigenous lands, including the violent genocide that has accompanied and enabled colonization. The experience of indigenous people in the United States has been similar.

(*Settler colonialism is when colonizers and settlers invade and occupy territory to permanently replace the existing society with the society of the colonizers. As noted above, the United States is also a settler colony.)

Nevertheless, there have been strong and ongoing proposals by Indigenous Australians for a stronger voice in governance and policymaking, including through the Yirrkala bark petitions in 1963 and the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017 which called for a recognition of the unceded sovereignty of Indigenous peoples, as well as for three structural reforms (a ‘voice’ in the Australian constitution, treaty, and truth-telling via a Makkarata Commission).

When we take a critical perspective to thinking about the state as a key social institution, we can also delve more deeply into how it can operate as a source of stability for some, while simultaneously operating as a site of instability and oppression for others.

Religion

Religion plays an important role in life around the world. It is an umbrella term to describe a range of beliefs and practices. There are many definitions of religion with most but not all focusing on the supernatural. Broadly, religion is a system of beliefs with symbols and rituals or performances that provide meaning to life.

There are several functions of religion as a social institution:

1. Religions can provide answers to the most fundamental questions of life and death, such as why are we here? or why do people suffer? The religious answers can be reassuring and provide meaning to people’s existence on Earth.

2. Religion as social institution can create social solidarity as its members adhere to a shared set of social norms and worldview. In everyday religious life and on special occasions, such as birth, marriage or death, rituals act to bind community together.

3. The socialization or initiation into a religious community and larger social institution with rules and norms leads to social cohesion and provides for a meaningful place for people in society.

4. Religions act as a source of social control in many societies. A religion’s moral codes can direct believers to act in certain ways to avoid judgement or punishment by supernatural or earthly judges (e.g., God or clergy). The possibility of divine punishments can then act to control behavior and even thoughts. Clergy and other earthly religious figures, speakers, or writers may also act to police behavior and thoughts of people in ways they deem acceptable.

There are several critiques of the social functions of religions. For example, religion can be used to perpetuate social inequality by reflecting the interests of the rich and powerful. This is done by claiming that the order of things as it is is somehow divinely mandated (that this or that situation is somehow “natural” or “part of God’s order”), or that those in power are in power because they are the favored of God (their wealth and power is proof of God’s favor). It can also be used to reassure those that are oppressed or marginalized in the system that their best strategy is to accept their lot and hope for happiness in the afterlife – which they will only achieve if they don’t make trouble or raise questions about the current status quo on Earth.

When people believe either of these ideas, it makes any change in the status quo that much more difficult to make and keeps the oppressed or marginalized in that position. In these ways then religion can solidify and perpetuate political and economic inequalities.

Religion can also perpetuate gender and racial inequalities. God and other divine figures are almost exclusively depicted as male. Almost all of the world’s major religions, including Christianity, are patriarchal. Many religions ban women from serving as clergy, and place rules on women’s behavior to keep them in a subordinate position. Slavery in the US South was defended as being approved by God and the Bible.

This is not to say that all religions are conservative or reactionary. Some, like the Quaker sect in the US, fought for the abolition of slavery and women’s suffrage. But it’s important to keep in mind that religion does not inhabit some sort of neutral sphere in society. It is not separate from power and the use of power to gain certain ends. This can and is then studied by social sciences.

Education

Education was and still is a process of socialization whereby children become exposed to the social, cultural and political conventions of larger society and are taught how to perform skills and tasks that may be later required of them in the workplace. While education serves a variety of important social functions, it is also a site within which power imbalances are reflected and reinforced.

For example, boys were typically sent to school while girls stayed home; the gender pay gap meant (and in lots of cases, still means) boys and men were the ones who would later be able to bring in a larger income. Early feminist writers, such as Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) argued that girls and women should also have equal rights to education and work. However, it wasn’t until the late 1800s that schools were made compulsory for both boys and girls; even then, girls were directed towards subjects that taught domestic duties (e.g., home economics) and guided into what were considered ‘feminine’ professions (e.g., administration, nursing, teaching), the latter of which continue to be paid less, overall, than other professions.

Who and what are included as part of a “typical” education is also important in terms of power. For instance, for many years in US history, the stories of minorities, common folk, and women were left out of standard history texts. That changed over the years, however, the tide has been shifting again to specifically exclude diverse voices in some states. For example, in 2022, the governor of Florida banned instruction concerning sexual orientation and gender identity and limited what schools in Florida can teach about racism. Other states have taken similar actions. To control what people can and can’t learn is an exercise of power.

Further, a main motivation to access education today is the credential (degree, diploma or certificate) that one attains at the end. This has created a tendency to value education mainly based on the eventual credential one attains and not the learning that happens in between.

We often hear that education is a social equalizer. However, many also challenge this myth. Consider the following scenario:

Raul and Jean both want to go to college, study hard, and get ahead. Raul is able to draw on a variety of family resources, including money, social connections, and a knowledge of how the institution of college works, because both his parents are college graduates. Janet however is the first of her family to attend college, they are not that well off, and they have no connections. Janet will have to hold down a job as well as study and will not be able to join any of the prestigious sororities or clubs on campus.

As we can see, then, class has important implications for educational engagement and outcomes. So do other aspects of social identity (e.g., gender, race, sexuality and more). This is because educational institutions tend to reflect and reinforce dominant social norms. What is not accepted in larger society tends not to be as easily accepted in schools either. Education also tend to judge students’ abilities and behaviors against socially determined benchmarks, which can serve to perpetuate rather than alleviate inequality (for example, neurodivergent* students may be judged more harshly than neurotypical students).

*Neurodivergent means that a person’s brain processes information differently than a typical brain. This term covers a wide range of situations, including ADHD and being on the autism spectrum, or having differences in terms of sensory processing, communication style, and behavior.

Work/The economy

We typically think about “work” through a very narrow frame — that is, work in the formal economy. The formal economy is the part of an economy that is recognized and regulated by government, such as in terms of contract and company law, taxation, and labor law. Working as a librarian, or as a teacher, or as a banker are all examples of jobs in the formal economy.

However, this narrow framing tends to exclude lots of different forms of work, including:

• work in the black (illegal) economy
• work in the informal economy (e.g. unpaid care work, volunteer work, domestic work)
• work inside versus outside the home.

Work hasn’t always been conceptualized in the way it is today; understanding this helps us critique current conceptualizations of work and the impact these narrow frames have on our lives.

What we consider to be “work” has changed over time. In pre-industrial societies, families tended to work on the land and/or in craft-like trades. Work was typically undertaken at home or very close to home; the distinction between work and home was not as strong as it is today (though COVID-19 has challenged this!). Domestic responsibilities, including caring for children, were more evenly shared amongst families and communities. People also tended to be more self-sufficient and independent (e.g., growing their food locally and perhaps also participating in local bartering).

These workers often owned and had a stake in the product of their labor. For instance, if a family managed to grow 2 pounds of tomatoes, but only needed 1 pound to sustain themselves, they could sell the extra tomatoes and directly reap the benefit of their labor — that is, they would be paid directly for the tomatoes they produced.

Then things changed. Technological advances led to the industrial revolution, more people began to work in mills and factories, which started to pop up as the mass manufacture of goods became more commonplace. Families also moved away from the land and into cities to take up work in these new industries.

The shift to wage work meant that workers no longer owned the product of their labor.

People started working for wages. This meant the extra benefit that might be accumulated through an individual’s hard work was redirected away from workers and to employers. Returning to the example of tomatoes, while pre-industrial workers would directly reap the rewards of producing an extra pound of tomatoes, workers during the industrial revolution were instead paid the same wage regardless of how many tomatoes they produced. Any extra capital from surplus tomatoes instead went to the employer.

Conditions were terrible in early industrial workplaces; horrific workplace accidents and deaths were commonplace. However, because families began to move into industrial cities at extremely high rates, employers had a surplus workforce to choose from. This meant that employees had very little power. If they demanded better working conditions or higher wages, they could be fired and easily replaced. Workers began to realize that they had greater power in numbers and, so, began to see value in unionizing as a means of pooling their collective bargaining power. It was more difficult to fire and replace an entire workforce than it was when dealing with just one or two people.

Workers’ unions made some great gains, such as demanding higher wages and time off (e.g., we owe the concept of the weekend to unions). However, union membership has decreased dramatically in recent decades. Many have argued that this is related to the erosion of workers’ rights and concomitant rise in more precarious and insecure forms of work.

This more precarious work includes such work as:

· part-time, temporary (“temp”), or casual work,

· self-employment, and

· chronically low, sporadic and/or stagnant wages.

Precarious workers are also often unable to enjoy social protections, like vacations, pensions, or sick or maternity leave. The impacts of increasingly insecure and precarious work are now felt across most industries and by people from a range of backgrounds. When other factors come into play, such as racism, sexism, ableism and more, some workers can effectively be locked out of the labor market for long periods of time.

There are several contributing factors to the emergence of these types of workers, including:

· a surplus of workers but not a surplus of jobs (so employees increasingly have to take whatever’s offered, rather than what might be in their best interest),

· a decline in the general quality of work conditions and workers’ rights, which has been accompanied by significant declines in unions,

· government policies that are directed towards supporting increasingly unregulated capitalism, and

· the rise of technology, which has resulted in new platforms for work (like the ‘gig economy’). (The gig economy is when independent or freelance workers are hired for short-term work projects, rather than salaried employees.)

Work, definitions of work, structures of work, are all areas where power plays a role in determining how a person will live, what opportunities they will have, and how they will be treated in society.

Social scientists observe the specific features of society and its organization. These elements include structures, institutions, power considerations, and role of human agency. Identifying problematic elements in society allows us to ponder the question: how should the world look? The answer to that question then can lead to re-thinking society. The job of social scientists is to see past the barriers that prevent change by striving for a better world for all. This kind of “blue sky thinking” is what allows societies to progress, by imagining an ideal world without social problems and then endeavoring to get as close to that ideal as possible.