One of the greatest challenges for the introductory sociology student is learning that the answers to many questions can, and oftentimes should, be examined from a societal or sociological perspective, rather than solely from an individual perspective. In fact, American culture has socialized us (conditioned us) against the easy development of a sociological perspective. Most American students are indoctrinated (trained) into the dominant American values of individualism and hard work long before we are ever exposed to the field of sociology, and in many ways those values are opposed to a sociological perspective.
For example, let’s look at social class inequality. American culture and values teach us that the best way to achieve (or maintain) middle- or upper-class status is to work hard (and maybe get a little lucky).
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
American Socialization vs. the Sociological (Societal) Perspective
Just from $13/Page
American culture and values teach us that a person may be born poor, but that upward mobility is available to those who are willing to work hard. This line of thinking is also called the “myth of meritocracy,” which means that “getting ahead” or “making it” is based on choices that an individual makes and his or her own natural abilities – working hard, having the right attitude, and being trustworthy and honest (McNamee and Miller 2004).
The myth of meritocracy gives all credit for upward social mobility to the individual. If a person fails to become a success in life, this is also blamed on the individual. A sociologist, on the other hand, approaches the question of social class status from a societal perspective – that is, they look at how outside, social forces and systemic factors play a role in social class inequalities throughout society, as well as in any individual’s social class status.
To better understand the differences between the individualistic and the societal explanations, let’s look at two of the factors most often associated with social class status: education and income.
Education
An individualistic explanation of success in education will say that students who are reasonably intelligent and work hard will be rewarded with good grades, and will graduate from high school and a good college. Students who do not succeed are believed to have failed because they simply did not try hard enough.
A sociologist, on the other hand, will point out that there are numerous structural factors that can impact educational opportunity and success. Public schools, for example, are by and large funded by property taxes. This means that poor students often attend the least-well-funded schools – the ones with the largest classes, the fewest resources, and in a run-down condition. Those students who do graduate from underfunded schools often find themselves less well prepared for college than do their more affluent (wealthier) peers. (On average, 15.6% fewer poor high school students graduate than do non-poor students; Cosman and GradNation 2014)
Income
Another important factor in social class and social mobility is income.
An individualistic explanation of income inequality will look very much like the individualistic explanation of education. It is believed that those same people who worked hard at school will also work at finding a good job, work overtime, and impress their superiors. So, they will be rewarded with promotions, and will see their incomes increase.
The sociological perspective on income will also acknowledge the connection between education and income – this is undeniable.
But rather than explaining those differences in terms of individual work ethics, the sociologist will again turn to structural explanations.
Those same poor students who were disadvantaged in school will be disadvantaged when they enter the job market. Job opportunities are clearly related to the amount and type of education available, but they are also related to location (the jobs available in or near poor neighborhoods tend to be lower-paying) and social networks (through which individuals can find out about job openings as well as having friends and acquaintances recommend them to those who are offering the jobs).
The individual perspective, in other words, prevents us from seeing how social mobility is limited by structural factors.
Put more broadly, by focusing on the individual, the ideology of meritocracy makes it very hard to develop a sociological perspective. American students enter the world of sociology having been told for our whole lives that anything can be overcome if you just work hard enough. This belief is then called into question when sociology professors ask their students to think about the ways that society as a whole impacts our individual lives and the lives of everyone else around us.
This post focuses on individual vs. societal explanations for social class inequality. Think about these different perspectives as you answer the following questions:
1. How were you socialized into the “myth of meritocracy?” How did you learn about this American value?
2. Are the structural/societal explanations for inequalities easy for you to accept?
3. Is there room within sociology for individualistic explanations of social class inequality?
