Is New Zealand/Aotearoa A Classless Society

I decl ar the following to be my own proceed, unless separatewise referenced, as defined by Unitec upstart Zealands policy on plagiarism. This attempt entrust argue that untried Zealand/Aotearoa is non a categorizeless baseb totally club. Moreover, it go out as well be demonstrated that juvenile Zealand is a tell apart society of which hu humankind body is only virtuoso part, and that sexual urge is the basis of well-disposed social social social social stratification. This discussion depart begin with a rendering of some key terms.In determine that hot Zealand is non a descriptorless society, the historical definition of caste will be examined and then cultivations in New Zealands society explored to as current the place configuration occupies in contemporary New Zealand society. At this depict the discussion will revert to the attitude that sexual practice is the predominate allele form of stratification and evidence will be provided to fight back thi s. passim the essay the effect of the industrial revolution will be explored as a mechanism that contri only ifed to two kinsfolk and sex consciousness.In concluding, an history of my own socially constructed opinion which has informed the jell I get under atomic turn 53s skin adopted will to a fault be offered. Before proceeding with this argument, it is commencement ceremony necessary to define cardinal key terms used in discussing this topic secernify and stratification. Stratification refers to the hi durationrchical organisation of groups within a society and the social inconsistency this produces (Jary & international adenineere Jary, 2005). Stratification and club engage such similar terminology in their analysis of structured inequali stands that class analysis and social stratification often argon inseparable concepts. sept is a term that has complex implications but at its simplest level, and echoing stratification, is a want defined in the Collins Dicti onary of Sociology as the hierarchical distinctions that populate in society (Jary & Jary, 2005). Sociologists tot that all societies are severalise in some way. A simple distinction between the dickens terms is that stratification can exist independently of class, but class and stratification are inseparable, since class is a form of stratification.The effect of stratification on any society is that by its hierarchical and divisive spirit it marginalises and disadvantages those outside of the dominant talk about and favours those who conform to that discourse. It forms distinct groups of people and is pocket in nature, creating an us and them paradigm. Marx argued that class was the extreme form of social stratification and that the control of economical re solutions and wealthiness defined class structure. Moreover, Marx argued that class was dogged by an individuals relationship to the mode of production.Marx substantial his possible action after analysing the s tructure of society, which solvinged from the capitalistic economy created by the industrial revolution. The two distinct classes this relationship formed were found on the exploitation of the childbed by the capitalists (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley, 2004). Marxs definition of class prevailed to a certain degree by with(predicate)out the 19th and 20th centuries and many theorists adopted elements of his definition, although his position of class as being the fundamental form of stratification has been challenged.weber agreed with Marx that economic relations were a determinant of class, but argued that inequality could not good be explained in terms of self-control and position, and that in addition, lieu and party essential as well be taken into name (Osborne & caravan Loon, 2004). Weber, therefore, held a similar envision to my own in that class is simply one means of stratification, although as with most new(prenominal) sociologists of his era, sexual activit y as a form of stratification was discounted.More tardily, Giddens (1997, p. 43) defines class as a large scale grouping of people who electric charge common economic resources, which strongly influence the type of lifestyle they are able to lead. He continues in this definition that the ownership of wealth, together with commerce are the chief bases of class differences. The similarities to Marxs theory are apparent, although this definition does not inextricably link class divisions to the mode of production. This essay will adopt Marxs definition of class in examining class as a form of stratification in New Zealand.Most discussions regarding class adopt a position that it is related to make water and economic life that it is determined (at least at some level) by job status and financial affluence. Conversely, the neo-Weberian theory postulates that position in the housing market loosely determines class, (McLennan et al. , 2004) and although this appears valid it is my opinion that shade rather than class underpins this theory. This view is back up by Conley (2001) in her study on housing and social stratification.I find it is often as difficult to separate class from culture and ethnicity as it is to separate class and stratification, since they distributively contain elements common to each other. Day (2001, p. 200) supports this view in stating that ultimately, of course, race, sexual urge, sexuality and culture cannot be un compassionate from class. Even allowing for differences in definition, class stratification is evident in New Zealand though its significance has diminished, as will be demonstrated.An analysis of class commonly involves the terms speed class, middle class and works class. These terms were introduced to New Zealand finished the period of colonisation in which Britain sought to expand its empire into new markets. Although the colonisers brought with them the prevailing discourses underpinning their discolour, wester n culture, it was also their intent to escape the restraints of the class structure of their homeland (McLennan et al. , 2004). This in itself supports my view that lass divisions are less pronounced in New Zealand. In continuing this argument, it is impossible for me to present this analysis of the class structure in New Zealand without also being influenced by my own interpretation of class, acquired through having been born and raised in England, where class has historically been a dominant social order. It is my view that membership to the upper class is not just dependent on social status in terms of wealth, pipeline and ownership.It has a unique culture of its own and is more often than not something one is born into rather than acquired. This culture includes ones accent, how one dresses and be arrests, where and with whom one socialises, ones hobbies, school attended etc. financial affluence is usually inherited and new money is unwelcome and excluded. In New Zealand this same level of class culture does not exist, social mobility is more notable and entry into the upper classes depends largely on wealth than other non tangible forms of social status.In this regard, access to the upper class, and bowel movement between the classes which in themselves are less defined is available to all (although usually on the basis of financial success), and is not limited to an sole(a) club. I therefore interpret class divisions as being a good deal weaker in New Zealand. Returning now to Marxs analysis of class, one of its limitations is that it does not account for the middle class, the nature of which has changed enormously due to changes in capitalist production and new forms of ownership.Historically the working class was comprised of muddy collar workers or manual workers the middle class, white collar workers and professionals and the upper class, the aristocracy, the very wealthy and pipeline/land owners (SocINDEX, 2003). Changes in New Zealands ec onomy transformed the nature of employment and pass on diminished the wandering class boundaries that did exist. Post war economic prosperity, characterised by full employment, and the existence of the welfare state diluted the financial disparities between the classes and in doing so also further weakened class divisions.More recently de-industrialisation, characterising the era of post-Fordism, and the formation of new service and technology based industries have contributed to operative changes in the working class structure of the manu occurrenceuring industry. The policy of economic systematisation adopted in the 1980s has also contributed to the evolution of an underclass which neer previously existed (McLennan et al. , 2004). As well as affecting the working class, these economic developments have also changed the nature of the middle class.Embourgeoisement refers to the process of the working class becoming more like the middle class, and is characterised by the rise i n white colour jobs at the expense of the decline in supplemental sector industries. In addition, the rising standards of living of blue collar workers have contributed to increase levels of affluence, whereby many now own their own homes and have the get power to access all manner of consumer goods to which they were previously financially excluded (Giddens, 1997). sept ownership is another factor which supports the argument against class stratification in New Zealand, according to Marxs theory. Whereas Marx linked class to the means of production, a growing debate centres on stratification now being mold more to changes in consumption (Saunders, 1990). This is particularly relevant in New Zealand since currently 70% of the population are home owners and this has been a source of income for many.However, it has been counter-argued that property as a source of income predominantly occurs in the briny centres of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, and that with property booms a nd slumps, much also depends on the time property was purchased. In addition, property commonly remain in the family and therefore tends to honor the financial position of the family rather than alter it dramatically (McLennan et al. , 2004). As a final word on the subject of class I would like to give way to the importance Marx also places on the exploitation of the workers by the business owners.In many industries today business owners are beginning to love the link between how workers are valued and increased production and profitability. In reward of their efforts employees are often invited to share in the profitability of the company, and force the rewards of their own cut into by access to employee share purchase schemes. With increased funding being provided by capital injections from various share occupyers, the nature of ownership is further questioned and the link between ownership and production is defined in unlimited shades of grey rather than Marxs black and whi te theory.Having demonstrated that class does still exist in New Zealand, but that its nature has altered due to various factors, I now return to my argument that sexuality is the dominant form of stratification. McLennan et al. (2004, p. 143) agree that there remains a reluctanceto see class as a commutation defining characteristic of New Zealand and that gender or ethnicity are grievous markers of group membership, and therefore are the basis for stratification (p. 139). In societies stratified by gender it is most often women who are disadvantaged, due to the venerable society that is characteristic of most first world civilisations.Indeed, the sociological discourse itself has historically privileged a very andocentric view in which sociological research has mostly focussed on men (Giddens, 1997 Osborne & Van Loon, 2004). The fact that sociology has historically been biased towards a male perspective offers support to my argument that gender is the dominant form of stratif ication in developed western societies. I will now expand upon this argument further and offer evidence in support of this claim. From the very moment a child is born society is preoccupied with gender, and boys and girls are treated other than based purely on sexual differences.This often begins with the way children are dressed blue for a boy and pink for a girl. McLennan et al. (2004) point out that although this might seem trivial, it amplifies the importance that is placed on gender and in high spiritslights the various settings to which gender differentiation is applied. In continuing to illustrate the development of the social construction of gender, by about age trine some(prenominal) girls and boys have developed a gender identity, although they have little spirit of what that means.At a young age children also develop gender role awareness, or a knowledge of what behaviours are expected of them (Morris & Maisto, 2002). Harold Garfunkel (1967) expanded on this conce pt and argued that in addition to the assignment of gender at birth, masculinity and femininity are discourses that are accomplished through our behaviours. In this way gender roles are ascribed and traits are learned through an ongoing process of socialisation. The following quotation mark highlights the profound effects that gender socialisation produces Gender assignment will shape the childs life in a myriad of ways, influencing the clothes it wears, the sports it plays, the education it receives, the miscellanea of job it will have, its income level, the illnesses it will suffer perhaps it will point explain how he or she will die. (McLennan et al. , 2004, p. 60) It is apparent from the above extract that life chances differ dramatically between the sexes and that gender is a fundamental factor which influences many, if not all, areas of life from birth to death.Giddens (1997, p. 260) supports this view in stating that gender itself is one of the most profound examples of stratification. Upon analysing New Zealand society it is fire up that the gendered discourse privileges men and marginalises women. James & Saville-Smith (1989) give credence to this argument in acknowledging that the gendered culture itself is progressively being acknowledged, and not only by womens liberationists, as a source of social disorder and social problems. booking status is another opineable means of social stratification in New Zealand and is inextricably linked to gender, although that is not to say that it is only women who are marginalised through employment. Nevertheless, its inclusion is relevant to my argument on gender stratification in three ways gender is a dominant perspective of stratification in the area of work and economic life work is a fundamental element of human existence and women are the whizz group marginalised by employment.The dominant discourse regarding work in New Zealand is that paid work is more socially and economically significant t han other forms of work. This in itself creates a gendered discourse that marginalises women. In New Zealand, studies by Marilyn Waring agree that womens unpaid work is vitally important, that it contributes significantly to the economy and public assistance of society, but is typically ignored (cited in McLennan et al. , 2004). The notion of work as excluding domestic labour is one effect of the andocentric perspective that underpins New Zealand society.As in other colonised countries, the womans role in New Zealand has been to provide unpaid care-giving and household services, whereas the man is considered the income earner (Robertson, 2001). In addition, men are regarded as dominant, strong and aggressive, whereas women are considered passive, emotional and nurturing. New Zealands gendered culture financially disadvantages mothers by restricting their participation in the paid labour market and therefore, the life chances women are afforded are mischievously restricted. As such, women are marginalised both biologically and psychologically.Biological accounts of gender tie womens destinies to their bodies as opposed to the psychological theory that has already been discussed, based on gender as a social construction. It was the emerging capitalist economy resulting from the industrial revolution which redefined the nature of work. As a result of this separation of work from home domestic work was devalued since it was not rewarded with payment. The industrial revolution also gave rise to the sexual division of labour which ascribed gender roles to specific activities, and defined them as being womens work or mens work.As a result, in capitalist societies, women are concentrated in particular industries, such as the caring professions, and receive lower levels of pay than their male counterparts. In New Zealand womens average remuneration equate to only 77. 1% of male earnings (cited in McLennan et al. , 2004). It is also a sociological truth that the oppor tunity for women to hold positions of superiority in the workforce is much lower than for men (Osborne & Van Loon, 2004).The workforce is not the only place where gender differences are apparent. There are also clear gender differences regarding the division of labour in the home and much of womens work is rendered invisible by applying the concept of work only to those activities for which payment is received. Studies have shown that regardless of the number of hours women spend in paid work, their domestic responsibilities at home strike only very slightly, and they continue to spend many more hours in unpaid work than men do (Else, 1997).This significantly contributes to womens position of disadvantage in society as Else (1997, p. 19) argues in the following summons It can not be too strongly stressed that the essential cause of womens disadvantageous financial position and their consequently high level of financial dependence (on male earnings or on the state) is not that they are deficient in various measures for example in terms of skill, experience, or working hours compared with men.Instead it is that they carry excess righteousness for unpaid work, particularly childcare. In addition to gender being a contributing factor in restricting womens access to the workforce, women are also disadvantaged when they have secured employment, as illustrated in the following quote from Davis and Jackson (1993, pp. 150-151) The reality isthat women, particularly women with domestic commitments, may not be in as strong a position to negotiate wages, employment conditions and training opportunities of their own choice as menTheir disadvantage results from three fundamental factors the way that women are socialized and perceived the impact of care commitments on choice and the effect of present structural inequalities. The argument then far has provided substantial evidence that gender is the fundamental form of stratification in New Zealand and that class no longer holds the dominance it enjoyed historically. some sociologists even argue that we are moving towards a completely democratic society (Osborne & Van Loon, 2004). As already alluded to, much depends on the definition given to class and as with all other discourses, class is a discourse that is socially constructed and is affected by culture and time. It must also be noted that although this essay has adopted a feminist perspective, the intention is not to discount other forms of gender based stratification such as homosexuality.Gender socialisation occurs across a inner circle of domains. It is written into laws concerning which sexes may marry one another and until very recently outlawed homosexual relationships between men. The church is still an institution which unlawfully criminalises homosexuality and excludes women from certain positions in its hierarchy. It has been demonstrated that human beings are learn by gender from birth and the gendered roles we are ascrib ed affect us both at home and at work, undoubtedly the two largest sectors of life.Moreover, gender also impacts on leisure time and to a large extent determines the sports and tranquillity activities that are deemed appropriate for the different sexes. Perhaps one of the few do when we are not affected by gender is when we are drowsy In closing I feel it necessary to state that this essay reflects my own unique socially constructed viewpoint in adopting the feminist perspective of placing gender at the centre of this discussion. My experience of society centres on the fact that I am a woman first and foremost.Secondary to my gender is my culture I am a white woman of slope heritage. This is somewhat dichotomous in its effect, since as a white psyche I form part of the dominant (and therefore privileged) culture, yet as a woman I am continually marginalised and disadvantaged by my gender. I have little doubt that a black man would feel more marginalised by his culture than his gender and would therefore consider culture to be a more dominant form of stratification than gender.