TMA06 OUcourse.htm

Individual and collective agents are severely constrained by social structures. Evaluate this claim drawing on material from at least three blocks of DD100

Society is made up of structures, whether they be official, i.e. the law or unofficial, i.e. taboos and cultural norms. How much freedom do we really have both as individuals and as groups? This essay sets out to evaluate the claim that we are severely constrained by the structures around us. And will draw evidence from 3 blocks of DD100

Firstly a few definitions would be useful. Structures can be broad i.e. gender or specific i.e. an institution. Agency can be both individual or as a group choice. Agents are not only restrained by the structures around them but help define and shape them by innovation, deviation and protest. Severely, meaning harsh and exacting, not lenient.

The first structure I have chosen to investigate is gender. This structure is defined at birth by a qualified professional and is thereafter unchangeable regardless of our wishes (the birth certificate can not be altered)

Identity as investigated in block 1 is greatly influenced by our gender, even before we are born our identity starts to be formed. Do you want a boy or a girl? Painting the nursery etc. There are gendered assumptions about behavior; girls are more pacifistic, boys will be boys, big boys don’t cry and that is a boys/girls toy. Do we really have choice here?

This shows a severe restraint on our individual agency even before we are aware of ourselves as individuals. Even later choices are still constrained by gender assumptions, which toys they have, who they are allowed to play with, which school they go to, and many others. This continues into later life, even if a choice is made to be of a different gender the structure of the birth certification of sex is still paramount, a person can only marry another of the opposite gender regardless of physical change. We are stereotyped by our gender our whole life and this shows a severe constraint. Slowly attitudes are changing due to individual and collective agency (the feminist movement for example) but still society clings to the old gender assumptions.

In block 3 we investigate ordering lives. Family work and welfare and again gender applies constraints, from the stereotype of the male breadwinner to the inequality of pay for women. The nuclear family seems to be in decline, new units are being accepted as families and more women are going out to work. Does this show a lessening of gender constraints? Not really but attitudes are changing slowly. Individuals and collective agents deviating from the accepted norm cause the change.

In family life there are still both official and unconscious gendered restraints. A female breadwinner is still seen as the nurturer by both her employer and the family unit. Men who stay at home to look after the children are still seen as not normal, single fathers face prejudice and stereotyping. Same sex relationships and co-operative rearing practices are seen as abnormal. These are social unconscious constraints on what is seen as acceptable by the time and place.

Legally and state sanctioned gender discrimination is also in place. The courts still see the mother as parent of choice in any dispute unless real evidence to the contrary can be produced, child benefit is paid to mothers, and fathers have fewer rights at work for paid leave and emergency considerations.

This constraint is not as severe as it once was but it is still limiting individual choice.

Block4 investigates globalization. This phenomenon has far reaching consequences for the structure of gender. New technologies have opened up a new labor market, the mass export of western culture has show women in less liberal countries that there is another way and the internet and communication technologies have given an unprecedented amount of information to a large number of people. For collective agents it has given a worldwide base for their voice and they can garner support form other countries.

The new microchip industries are staffed by mainly female part time or temporary workers who though classed as unskilled are a valuable resource. The new flexible working practices allow women to chose hours to suit child rearing. There is still a wage

Inequality restraint here; these kinds of jobs are relatively low paid so the wage power structure in the family is still biased to the “main” breadwinner

So it seems that globalization tends towards a less severe gender constraint than the other

Blocks have shown but the gender constraints still exist.

The second structure I have chosen is that of work opportunities. The work market has undergone a large change since the post war period causing uncertainty and new constraints along with new opportunities.

Block 1 investigates the link between work and identity. The changing structure of the work market has forced a change in the way people define their own identities.

People are constrained by the work they can do and the kinds of employment available to them, the growth in the transient job sector has limited the ways in which we can define our identity through our jobs. The enforcement of flexible working practices and the

Larger number of women at work has also meant a loss of work identity in men; there is no longer a job for life it seems.

Class identity has also changed as the growth of the middle rich continues, white collar workers and communications technology workers are inhabiting a new class somewhere in-between working and upper. However the scope for agency is larger than would first be apparent, re-training and relocation have become easier and more common so the

choice of where to work is more open than ever. So here it would suggest a less severe constraint than in previous years.

In block 2 the effect on the family of the new work market is seen clearly, the loss of the old industries has seen more work opportunities for women. This is an example of how a structure can provide opportunity as well as constraint. The advent of working from home has also meant a decentralization of living; it is no longer necessary to live close to your place of work in some of the new industries so people have more choice of where to live.

More women at work have forced more childcare provisions and working from home is an advantage for working mothers. New training and new schooling subjects have prepared the workforce for the workplace in a way not seen before, I.T. classes and business schools are opening up avenues for many more people.

Even with the gendered assumptions noted in the previous section the amount of individual agency in the workplace has increased

It is however in block 4 on globalization that show the most marked growth in individual and collective agency. For much the same reasons for the change in work markets mentioned above the range of choices now in the workplace is much larger

However with this comes a new structure, one of market competitiveness. Companies now have to compete worldwide and this have forced a change in working practices, as evidenced in the story of the Long bridge car plant (block 3 pg 94,95) The need to be competitive has forced the workers into a new way of working that was not to their Liking. The same has seen true of the call center jobs, other countries with more compliant workers can charge more and therefore get the contracts.

So this shows both a lessening of severity and a new structure that is very restrictive.

Now to evaluate the claim made in the question that Individual and collective agents are severely constrained by social structures. I would say that the claim is generally correct but with some significant arguments against.

Firstly the coherence of the claim, the claim itself is quite straightforward but the use of the word severely causes some debate, how do you measure severity. It is not as if social scientists have a scale of 1-10 to measure severity. Severity also differs with time and place so even more than is usual we have to take care not to generalize.

Empirical adequacy is also hard to measure, as the evidence I have chosen to explore is quite contradictory, the evidence from blocks 1 and 3 do seem to support the claim, however the evidence from block 4 on globalization seems to deny it.

It is worth bearing in mind that I could have chosen very different evidence and that could have made a very different evaluation process. This is where the comprehensiveness comes into the argument, the claim does not hold true in all cases, even between people of similar backgrounds and there are many factors not taken into account by the theory.

 I would then have to make a new claim that attempted to be more comprehensive or make a more specific claim, perhaps separating out a more specific structure. And the questioning process would begin again.