Christopher K Andrews
March 25, 2013
... , Not Deterministic
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, students’ ability to acquire a slip is affected by their position in the class (i.e., class position), but it does not determine it. This reinforces the notion of the effect of one’s class position being probabilistic but not deterministic in shaping economic outcomes. Being in the front increases your chances of success, but does not guarantee it; similarly, students in the rear of the class may succeed in acquiring a slip. These instances help to highlight the probabilistic nature of class mobility (Blau and Duncan 1967; Lipset and Bendix 1959), and can be used to discuss the actual documented rates of mobility amongst various class groups.
These are but a few of the topics which one might discuss following the activity, though instructors may choose to selectively focus upon particular aspects or themes (e.g., deviance and crime, economic inequality, social class, etc.). Additionally, student comments and insights may lead discussion towards topics not mentioned above but relevant to other aspects of inequality (e.g., subjective dimensions of inequality). Overall, the activity is quite flexible and open to interpretation, and can therefore be used to yield a variety of sociological insights into social inequality.
Assessment
One way instructors might assess the quality of this exercise would be to administer a pre-/post-test survey of student attitudes prior to and following the activity in order to assess whether it is effectively in changing students’ self-reported attitudes and beliefs regarding inequality. For example, do students still cling to individualistic explanations following completion of the activity, or do they adopt new forms of reasoning and/or explanation? How durable are such individualistic ideologies when confronted with outcomes contrary to their assumptions?
Another method of evaluation might be to examine the extent to which students are able to independently make connections between the activity and course readings and/or concepts. For example, are students able to describe the desk assignments as comparable to one’s social class or family? Are they able to make connections between seating patterns and students’ attitudes concerning the fairness of the exercise?
More advanced assessments might ask students to focus on a particular aspect of the exercise (e.g. social networks, class-based politics) and then locate and summarize existing research on the subject. Alternatively, students might be asked assess the extent to which the exercise accurately reflects measured and documented aspects of social stratification in the United States (e.g., rates of social mobility).
Conclusion
Popular opinion regarding inequality reflects a dominant ideology that is class-blind. In explaining outcomes, a focus upon individual characteristics tends to lead to individual blame, or what psychologists term the ‘fundamental attribution error’. Simply put, what happens to people is a(n) (in)direct result of their actions. Wealth is achieved, rather than inherited; poverty reflects an individual failing.
As a result, sociology courses are often difficult to teach because they conflict with this prevailing view of methodological individualism. Yet, social structure is regarded as one of the most important concepts in the social sciences (Grusky 2003). Although sociology acknowledges the individual and individual action (e.g., agency), some argue that it is this primary concern with structure that distinguishes sociology from other disciplines (Mayhew 1980). Indeed, it is hard to imagine sociology as a discipline without social structure!
The utility of this activity is that it directs students’ attention to extra-individual factors and sensitizes students to structural factors that create and maintain inequality. Rather than being asked to be the obliging recipient of second-hand facts and figures, this exercise allows students to experience inequality first-hand. The sense of exhilaration and frustration that students experience is real in a way that textbooks cannot communicate; the first-hand experience lends it a certain credibility and authenticity. Most importantly, though, it allows students to ‘discover’ social structure, to see it emerge in their midst and to observe the effect of their actions within it.
Stratification Game vs. ‘Star Power’
Readers may note several similarities between this exercise and the game ‘Star Power’ (Dundes and Harlow 2004; Shirts 1969). There are, however, a number of important differences worth noting, including thematic flexibility, simplicity, and cost.
First, as is suggested in the name, Star Power is primarily concerned with the nature and distribution of power; indeed, much of the game focuses upon rule-making, the reproduction of an existing social and political order, and the status symbols associated with the distribution of power. My exercise is more concerned with the structural nature of stratification in general, and not any single or particular dimension. While it can be used to address power and politics, it can also be used to address the powerful yet arbitrariness of one’s class of origin, the probabilistic nature of social mobility, or various popular theories concerning inequality.
Second, because there are very few rules, the game is simple and easy to learn. These two factors minimize the time required to prepare for the exercise and therefore allow the class to spend the majority of the class engaged in and, afterwards, discussing the activity. Star Power, on the other hand, prescribes a much lengthier duration, suggesting students play for over an hour followed by an additional period of time for discussion – somewhat impractical for typical introductory courses that last only an hour or less.
A third major difference concerns cost. My exercise is free and requires little to no equipment or materials; Star Power, on the other hand, is sold commercially for over two hundred dollars, and includes several different types of chips, envelopes of various shapes, and badges to reflect various social strata or status groups.
References
Abrahamson, Mark. 1994. “Stratification, Mobility, and a Playing Cards Metaphor.” Teaching Sociology, 22:183-88.
Bettie, Julie. 2003. Women Without Class: Girls, Race, and Identity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Blau, Peter M. and Otis D. Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational Structure. New York: Free Press.
Brezina, Timothy. 1996. “Teaching Inequality: A Simple Counterfactual Exercise.” Teaching Sociology, 24:218-224.
Coghlan, Catherine L., and Denise W. Huggins. 2004. “”That’s Not Fair!”: A Simulation Exercise in Social Stratification and Structural Inequality.” Teaching Sociology, 32:177-187.
Davis, Nancy J. 1992. “Teaching About Inequality: Student Resistance, Paralysis, and Rage.” Teaching Sociology, 20:232-38.
Dodds, Peter Sheridan, Roby Muhamad, and Duncan J. Watts. 2003. “An Experimental Study of Search in Global Social Networks.” Science, 301: 827-28.
Dorn, Dean S. 1989. “Simulation Games: One More Tool On The Pedagogical Shelf.” Teaching Sociology, 17:1-18.
Dundes, Lauren and Roxanna Harlow. 2005. “Illustrating the Nature of Social Inequality with the Simulation Star Power.” Teaching Sociology, 33: 32-43.
Eells, Laura W. 1987. “So Inequality Is Fair?: Demonstrating Structured Inequality in the Classroom.” Teaching Sociology, 15:73-75.
Feagin, Joe R. 1975. Subordinating the Poor: Welfare and American Beliefs. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Feagin, Joe R., Clairece B Feagin, and David V. Baker. 2006. Social Problems: A Critical Power-Conflict Perspective, Sixth Edition. New Jersey: Pearson.
Granovetter, Mark.
1995. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Groves, Julian M., Charles Warren, and Jerome Witschger. 1996. “Reversal of Fortune: A Simulation Game For Teaching Inequality in the Classroom.” Teaching Sociology, 24:364-371.
Grusky, David. 2003. “Social structure.” Pgs. 627-628 in Outhwaite (ed.) The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, Second Edition. UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Katz, Michael B. 1989. The Undeserving Poor. New York: Pantheon Books.
Kleugel, James R. and Elliot R. Smith. 1986. Beliefs About Inequality. New York: Aldine.
Lewis, Oscar. 1966. La Vida; A Puerto Rican Family In The Culture Of Poverty--San Juan And New York. New York: Random House.
Lipset, Seymour M. and Reinhard Bendix. 1959. Social Mobility in Industrial Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Marx, Karl 1959 [1852]. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Pp. 318-348 in Lewis S. Feuer (ed.), Marx and Engles. New York: Doubleday.
Mayhew, Bruce. 1980. “Structuralism Versus. Individualism: Part 1, Shadowboxing in the Dark.” Social Forces, 59: 335-375.
McCammon, Lucy. 1999. “Introducing Social Stratification and Inequality: An Active Learning Technique.” Teaching Sociology, 27:44-54.
Merton, Robert K. 1938. "Social Structure and Anomie". American Sociological Review 3:672-82.
Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward. 1993. Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare. New York: Vintage.
Ryan, William. 1976. Blaming the Victim. New York: Vintage.
Shirts, R. Garry. 1969. Star Power. Del Mar, CA: Simulation Training Systems, Inc.
Straus, Roger A. 1986. “Simple Games for Teaching Sociological Perspectives: Four Examples of the Do-It-Yourself Approach.” Teaching Sociology, 14:119-128.
Travers, Jeffrey and Stanley Milgram. 1969. "An Experimental Study of the Small World Problem." Sociometry, 32: 425-443.
Weber, Max. 1968. “The Distribution of Power Within the Political Community: Class, Status, Party.” Pp. 926-940 in G. Roth and C. Wittich (trans.) Economy and Society. New York: Bedminster Press.
Wilson, William J. 1996. When Work Disappears. New York: Vintage.
� Any suggestions for an appropriate name would be welcomed and appreciated by the author.
PAGE
18 Challenging the Gospel of Individualism: An Exercise in Social Stratification
Suggested Citation:
When using resources from TRAILS, please include a clear and legible citation
Andrews, Christopher K. 2013. "Challenging the Gospel of Individualism: An Exercise in Social Stratification." Class Activity published in TRAILS: Teaching Resources and Innovations Library for Sociology. Washington DC: American Sociological Association. (http://trails.asanet.org)
Abstract:
Social stratification is a difficult topic to teach to undergraduate students, especially given the popular American ethic of individualism. This paper describes an activity designed to simulate key aspects of social stratification, including the nature and impact of social structure. Discussion following the game often highlights not only the material and economic aspects of stratification, but also a variety of other related issues and can be used to sensitize students to the overall significance of social structure in understanding economic processes and outcomes
Details:
Resource Types
Class Activity
Authors
Christopher K Andrews
Drew University
Date Published
3/25/2013
Subject Area
Stratification/Mobility
Class Level
Any
Class Size
Any
Language
English
Usage Notes:
For those teaching an introductory course in sociology, this activity is best done prior to covering the chapter on inequality when students have not yet been exposed to sociological explanations of inequality. Likewise, those teaching an intermediate or advanced course on social inequality or stratification should consider doing this exercise early in the semester so as to be able to draw upon the experience later throughout the term.
In addition, while this exercise can be used in a large class, it is best done using a desk-based seating arrangement rather than a theater-style lecture hall since the latter will impede movement, even among those closest to the front of the class.
Learning Goals and Assessments:
Goal
That structural – not just individual – factors play a major role in shaping one’s life chances.The arbitrariness of one’s family background or ‘class of origin’ and the powerful influence it has on social mobility.
Assessment
For those seeking to examine a change in attitude using quantitative methods, one could use a pre-/post-test survey to highlight how students’ own attitudes towards individualism and inequality change following the survey.
Goal
How attitudes towards systems of economic distribution reflect one’s relative position and associated economic interest (i.e., class-based politics or Weberian ‘class action’).That class-based outcomes are probabilistic rather than deterministic.
Assessment
Those favoring a discussion-based class might simply ask, “what does this exercise suggest?” or “what aspect of society do you think the desks represent?”, allowing students to offer their own interpretations and insights.
Goal
The role of social networks in shaping inequality (e.g., proximity, social ties).How specific attitudes and behaviors associated with the poor (i.e., the ‘culture of poverty’) reflect structural factors rather than individual traits.
Assessment
More advanced assessments might ask students to focus on a particular aspect of the exercise (e.g. social networks, class action, social mobility) and then locate and summarize existing research on the subject.
Resource Files:
Challenging the Gospel of Individualism - An Exercise in Social Stratification (Revised Copy).doc
citation.docx ..."
-
Subject Area(s):
- Stratification/Mobility
-
Resource Type(s):
- Class Activity
-
Class Level(s):
- Any Level
-
Class Size(s):
- Any
- Abstract:
-
Social stratification is a difficult topic to teach to undergraduate students, especially given the popular American ethic of individualism. This paper describes an activity designed to simulate key aspects of social stratification, including the nature and impact of...