The Sociological Imagination
In Betty’s case, these pressures include societal injustices like poverty, spousal abuse, and inadequate housing, which foster the conditions that render a person susceptible to addiction and homelessness. By considering Betty’s life in its larger context, we might challenge the conventional wisdom regarding the connection between homelessness and addiction. One might speculate how her circumstances might have been influenced by poverty, violence, and a lack of suitable shelter. It is crucial to look at the structural problems, such as unequal access to resources, a lack of appropriate social assistance, and discriminatory laws and practices, that put people like Betty at risk of homelessness and addiction.
Symbolic interactionism may be used to investigate how Betty’s relationships with others may affect her present circumstances and future chances (Hironimus and Wallace, 2019). It is better to comprehend the intricate social processes that influence Betty’s life and the lives of others facing homelessness and addiction by fusing these sociological ideas with the sociological imagination. The sociological imagination, a crucial tool for understanding the complex social issues that individuals and societies encounter, is said to have been developed by C. Wright Mills (Mills, 2020). This concept challenges one to go beyond the individual’s narrow constraints and consider the more critical societal elements that shape a person’s life and experiences.
In the instance of Betty, a 42-year-old woman living on the streets due to several issues, a rational interpretation of her circumstances may see her drug addiction as a personal decision or a character fault and her homelessness as a direct outcome of her drug usage. This is because Betty’s drug usage is a direct cause of her homelessness. When employing the sociological imagination and paying greater attention to the more critical social elements influencing Betty’s life, this interpretation may be put into doubt. It is also crucial to consider the structural injustices that have led to the development of the conditions that increase a person’s risk of homelessness and drug addiction, such as poverty, domestic abuse, and a lack of adequate housing. Looking into the systemic issues, such as unequal access to resources, a lack of social support, and discriminatory laws and practices that put people like Betty at risk, is also essential.
It is a practical application of structural functionalism to examine how Betty’s experience reflects larger social patterns and trends to answer this issue. Here, underlying societal structures, such as poverty and the prevalence of violent environments, have shaped Betty’s life and those of others who battle addiction and homelessness. By examining the connections between the various social systems that make up our society, we may better comprehend how individuals like (Mills, 2020) develop sensitivity to these difficulties.
Using the symbolic interactionism perspective, it is possible to investigate how Betty’s relationships with other people could affect her current situation and opportunities in the future. One can examine how her connections to her family, friends, and other community members may have impacted her capacity to utilize resources and services. One may also think about how the viewpoints and behaviors of those close to her may have influenced the situation she is in right now. By examining these specific relationships, one can better understand how people’s individual experiences contribute to a more positive social environment.
Suppose these sociological ideas are combined with the sociological imagination. In that case, one may better comprehend the intricate social dynamics that influence Betty’s life and the lives of other individuals who are homeless or addicted. This will give a better understanding of Betty’s life’s influences. This understanding could aid in coming up with solutions to the issue and assist us in creating ones that are both more practical and humane. If one recognizes the systemic nature of the difficulty that those affected by homelessness and addiction confront, they may benefit from the efforts to bring about a significant change.
Ethnocentrism, institutional Racism, and the Social Construction of Race
Understanding the persecution of Indigenous peoples in Canada, especially the legacy of residential schools can be aided by understanding ideas such as ethnocentrism, institutional racism, and the social construction of race. The idea that one’s cultural norms and values are superior to those of other cultures is known as ethnocentrism. Systemic disadvantages for some groups of individuals based on their race or ethnicity are perpetuated through institutional racism, which is when rules, practices, and standards exist inside institutions (Braveman et al., 2022). The system of residential schools served as a glaring illustration of institutional racism. It was a government-sponsored program aimed at eradicating Indigenous children’s native customs and languages in favor of assimilation into Euro-Canadian society. The social construction of race is the view that race is not a biological truth but rather a social and cultural construct molded by historical, cultural, and political settings.
One can better grasp the history and effects of residential schools for Indigenous people in Canada if one understands ethnocentrism, institutional racism, and the social construction of race. These ideas have led to the marginalization and abuse of Indigenous peoples in Canada, as seen by Mary’s residential school experience. Acknowledging and addressing these challenges is crucial to encourage reconciliation and a more equitable future for Indigenous peoples. One may better appreciate Mary’s experience with residential schools and the past and current maltreatment of Indigenous peoples in Canada by using the ideas of ethnocentrism, institutional racism, and the social construction of race.
The concept of ethnocentrism is the conviction that one’s cultural norms and values are superior to those of other cultures. Regarding residential schools, the governing bodies and religious leaders who founded and oversaw them thought that European culture was superior to Indigenous culture. The policies to assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture were based on this ethnocentric viewpoint and forbade using Indigenous languages and customs (Stevenson, 2022). The loss of Indigenous languages and traditions, as well as intergenerational trauma, were both impacted by this.
Systematic disadvantages for particular groups based on race or ethnicity are perpetuated through institutional racism, which is how policies, practices, and norms within institutions, such as the government and educational systems, operate. A blatant instance of institutional racism was the residential school system (Stevenson, 2022). At the expense of their own cultures and languages, it was a government-led campaign to assimilate Indigenous kids into Euro-Canadian culture. Due to this system, children were taken away from their families and communities, and Indigenous customs and traditions were also undermined. Children were also physically and emotionally abused.
The social construction of race is the view that race is not a biological truth but rather a social and cultural construct influenced by historical, cultural, and political settings. Colonialism and the historical marginalization of Indigenous peoples in Canada have impacted how race is socially constructed. Because it was created to integrate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian society and erase their Indigenous identities, the residential school system is a byproduct of this history (Sydänmaa, 2020). As a result, Indigenous peoples continue to be marginalized in Canadian society, reflected in their disproportionately high rates of poverty, ill health, and imprisonment.
Mary’s residential school experience illustrates how these ideas have exacerbated Canada’s marginalization and oppression of Indigenous peoples. Mary suffered physical, mental, and sexual abuse, was removed from her family, and was otherwise punished for expressing herself in her Indigenous culture and language. All of this was done to assimilate into Euro-Canadian culture to maintain the supremacy of European culture and the social construction of race that saw Indigenous peoples as less than human.
In conclusion, by using Mary’s case study as an illustration of the ongoing effects of this legacy on Indigenous peoples, we can better understand the history and heritage of Indigenous residential schools in Canada by understanding ethnocentrism, institutional racism, and the social construction of race. Acknowledging and dealing with these concerns is crucial to advance reconciliation and a more equitable future for Indigenous peoples in Canada.
Sex, gender, and sexuality, binary constructionism
If one understands sex, gender, sexuality, and binary constructionism, one can more critically evaluate how gender is socially produced. Sex refers to the biological differences between men and females, whereas gender refers to the social and cultural expectations and standards associated with being male or female (Lloyd and Galupo, 2019). Yet, sexuality refers to a person’s sexual desire and conduct. The binary constructionist theory states that there are only two gender categories—male and female.
This concept has a long history in Western civilization and has been utilized to combat prejudice and gender inequality. Conversely, social constructionism contends that gender is a social construct created and supported by society. According to this perspective, socialization and cultural conditioning, not biology, determine gender.
The case study of David Reimer highlights the differences between the theories of gender: social constructionism and biological determinism. David was reared as a female after a botched circumcision, and to make herself appear more feminine, she underwent hormone therapy and cosmetic surgery. Despite this, he insisted on identifying as a male; as an adult, he had surgery to change his gender. David’s example shows that gender identity and sexual orientation are socially created rather than just biological traits.
A person’s chromosomes, hormones, and genitalia all have a part in establishing their gender, according to the biological determinism of gender theory. The essential distinctions between men and women, according to this view, are what cause the behavioral and cognitive disparities between the sexes. Gender, according to social constructionism, is a result of social and cultural norms and expectations rather than biology.
Understanding sex, gender, and binary constructionism may help with a critical evaluation of the social construction of gender. The case study of David Reimer highlights the differences between social constructionism and biological determinism of gender. In contrast to biological determinism, which maintains that a person’s gender is determined by their Genes, social constructionism asserts that gender results from social and cultural conditioning (Maddux et al.,2019). Understanding these concepts and viewpoints may more effectively appreciate and combat gender inequality and prejudice in society.
Binary Constructionism
According to binary constructionism, only two genders are male and female. This perspective, firmly embedded in Western society, is used to defend against discrimination and gender inequity. According to binary constructionism, gender is a biologically established trait that is permanent and unchangeable. For being too simplified and neglecting the variety of gender identities and manifestations, binary constructionism is frequently criticized (Hosking, 2018). Non-binary gender identities that don’t easily fit into the male-female dichotomy, such as genderqueer, androgynous, or genderfluid, aren’t considered.
Social Constructionism
Gender is a social construct that society has created and is continuously upholding, according to social constructionism. According to this viewpoint, socialization and cultural conditioning, not biology, determine gender. Gender, according to social constructionism, is neither rigid nor unchanging but evolves through time and across cultural boundaries (Maddux et al.,2019). The social constructionist hypothesis holds that gender is created by socialization and perpetuated by cultural norms. Gender socialization begins at birth and continues as people learn gender-specific norms, actions, and responsibilities.
The Case of David Reimer
David Reimer was raised as a girl after a botched circumcision, and to seem female, he underwent hormone treatments and cosmetic surgery. Despite this, he insisted on identifying as a male; as an adult, he had surgery to change his gender. The David narrative highlights the differences between gender’s social constructionism and biological determinism.
Biological Determinism
A person’s chromosomes, hormones, and genitalia all have a part in establishing their gender, according to the biological determinism of gender theory. The essential distinctions between men and women, according to this view, are what account for the behavioral and cognitive disparities between the sexes (Lewontin, 2019). Gender is fixed, unchanging, and biologically determined, according to biological determinism. It is not considered how socialization and cultural conditioning affect gender identity and expression.
References
Braveman, P. A., Arkin, E., Proctor, D., Kauh, T., & Holm, N. (2022). Systemic And Structural Racism: Definitions, Examples, Health Damages, And Approaches To Dismantling: Study examines definitions, examples, health damages, and dismantling systemic and structural racism. Health Affairs, 41(2), 171-178.
Hironimus-Wendt, R. J., & Wallace, L. E. (2019). The sociological imagination and social responsibility. Teaching Sociology, 37(1), 76-88.
Hosking, D. M. (2018). Can constructionism be critical. Handbook of constructionist research, 669-686.
Lewontin, R. C. (2019). Sociobiology: Another biological determinism. In Women and Health (pp. 243-260). Routledge.
Lloyd, A. E., & Galupo, M. P. (2019). What people with normative identities believe about sex, gender and sexual orientation. Psychology & Sexuality, 10(3), 269-280.
Maddux, J. E., Gosselin, J. T., & Winstead, B. A. (2019). Conceptions of psychopathology: A social constructionist perspective. In Psychopathology (pp. 3-18). Routledge.
Mills, C. W. (2020). The sociological imagination. Oxford University Press.
Stevenson, A. (2020). Intimate integration: A history of the sixties scoop and the colonization of Indigenous kinship (Vol. 51). University of Toronto Press.
Sydänmaa, B. N. (2020). Culture Saves Lives: Colonization trauma and indigenous healing on the East Side.
write