Table of contents
LECTURE 1 1
Maussen, Hakhverdian: Social and political inequality 1
Tilly: Durable inequalities 4
LECTURE 2 9
Pierik: Developing responsibility-sensitive egalitarianism: A synthesis of five decades of
liberal-egalitarian theorizing 9
Nussbaum: A woman seeking justice 14
LECTURE 3 16
Piketty and Saez: Inequality in the long run 16
Bourdieu: The forms of capital 20
Lehmann: ‘I just didn’t feel like I fit in’: The role of habitus in university drop-out decisions
24
LECTURE 4 27
West and Zimmerman: Doing Gender 27
Celis et al.: Introduction: Gender and politics: A gendered world, a gendered discipline 32
LECTURE 1
Maussen, Hakhverdian: Social and political inequality
1. Introduction
In public discourse, political and social inequality is gaining momentum in recent years (e.g.
Occupy movement in NL; wealth gap concerns).
Social inequality is a subject of research in political science in at least two ways:
- Social inequality leads to an inexhaustible breeding ground for potential conflict
- Interest in the relationship between social inequality and inequality in terms of politics
and power; relationship between social and political power
2. Equality and inequality, both social and political
Social inequality = Unequal distribution of life chances among different people and groups
- Life chances enable the realisation of goals, ambitions and expectations.
- Life chances are determined by the access to resources.
Distinction between social and political inequality:
- Social inequality = unequal distribution of life chances
- Political inequality = unequal opportunities to influence decision-making
,Social inequalities are almost always pointed out, but they are not always regarded as
objectionable or unjust. E.g. in colonial times, social inequality was justified by racist
ideologies.
The rise of modern natural law (Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes) was a major turning point in the
thinking of social inequality => people were equal.
In the 18th century, critiques on social and political inequality arose in the lack of democracy.
Modern natural law, the enlightenment and the democratic revolutions converged in a
fundamental criticism of feudal society (social and political privileges intertwined with
lineage).
Tocquevill travelled to the US in the 1830s and wrote that Americans were passionate about
equality.
In 1948, the UNDHR formulated that there was a moral equivalence of all people.
3. Social inequality
Diversity = When entities are not the same, they are different.
Inequality = More versus less, better versus worse, healthier versus more unhealthy and so
on.
In society, social differentiation (occupation, roles, etc.) go hand in hand with social
inequalities.
Natural inequalities (mental faculties, hereditary differences) does not yet determine whether
these differences will lead to unequal life chances; however, they are determined by
common interpretations and social power relations that are predominant at a given moment.
=> Inequality only occurs when certain evaluations are applied to these natural traits.
Life chances are formed by having a combination of resources (material, qualifications,
capacities, talents, social network) and freedoms (formal and socially determined) at one’s
disposal. Whether these determine life chances depend on three more factors:
- Value of resources
- Whether you can convert a resource into something that can help you realise your
goal (e.g. converting money into political power)
- The wants of the person in question; inequality because of obstacles or wants?
The structure of social inequality signifies the pattern of social inequality; accentuating the
fact that it is not accidental. Also, the concept of a structure denotes that some inequalities
go together as well as it persists for quite some time and that it is shaped by social patterns
and relations. The structuring of social inequality has two basic forms:
- Positional inequality: resources and freedoms that come with social positions are
unequally distributed
, - Allocative or ascriptive inequalities: criteria and mechanisms for attaining or being
excluded from a social position (not only talents but also characteristics attributed to
people by society)
4. Political inequality
Marxism was, traditionally, the paradigm for investigating how social and economic
conditions meant that groups that were worse off came into conflict with the groups that, by
contrast, benefitted from a certain social and political order.
In a democracy, all citizens should be able to participate as equals in the decision-making
process. Lincoln: government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Unequal distribution of all kinds of resources continues to shape political views and
behaviour of citizens and has a considerable effect on the extent to which they participate in
politics.
a. Unequal participation
The abolishment of compulsory voting led to decreased levels of political participation of
some demographics of society.
The inequality of participation is conditioned by education, because:
- Education allows for human capital that allows for participation
- Education enables access to certain social circles
At a relatively young age in the NL, children are selected into different educational tracks
that makes it difficult later in life to move to a higher level of education.
Parents' level of education affects childrens’ level as well; e.g. paying for tutoring and
examination training.
b. Descriptive representation
More than 90% of the Dutch Lower house have a bachelor's degree while the comparable
level in Dutch society is 30%.
The educational attainment of the Dutch lower house follows a U-shaped chart (according to
Bovens and Wille) in which the level of education was lowest after the introduction of
universal suffrage.
Female representation at the lower house has stagnated between 30-40% and none of the
bigger parties has ever had a female leader. The Dutch political elite remains predominantly
male.
Of Dutch non-whites in parliament, Turkish and Moroccan backgrounds dominate.
5. Inequality and political representation
The problem with politics being dominated by one educational group is that groups of
different educational backgrounds show patterns of different political opinions.
, - The lower educated hold multiculturalism in lower regards
- The lower educated favours European integration to a lesser extent
Opinions can, to some or a large extent be traced back to peoples’ material or non-material
interests.
Research shows that in almost every policy area, the Dutch lower house reflects the views of
those with a higher education. Also, the opinions of members of parliament reflect especially
the views of citizens with a higher income.
=> ‘Diploma democracy’
The process of ideological representation works a good deal better at the local level.
In America, there has been evidence of more political influence for wealthy Americans.
However, the American system is also distinctive in some regards; money is of greater
importance as a political resource with donations to candidates and PACs. Elections in the
NL, however, are run on a much lower budget.
6. Conclusion
=> Societies are still characterised by inequality in every way, shape and form.
Tilly: Durable inequalities
Height correlates with unfavorable childhood health experiences and lesser body strength.
(As was particularly evident during the beginning of the 19th century) rising height gives a
good indication that the well-being of the population is increasing; and marked adult height
differentials by social category is a strong indicator of durable inequality.
This kind of material inequality (poor nutrition => short) persist in prosperity (evidence in
lower-class Sweden).
Most within-group differences of height is due to heredity, while most between-group
variation is due to childhood environment.
In class, gender, race, ethnicity, and similar “categories” => differences in nutritional,
hygienic, disease and stress experiences, contribute to differences in adult stature.
Gender differentiation in nutrition, with the usual but not universal condition being inferior
nutrition for females; (related to the gender differentiated tasks that children perform).
Innumerable amount of evidence to support the hypotheses of widespread unequal
treatment of males and females, of inequality in their resulting life chances, hence of a social
contribution to gender differences in weight and height as well.
Question of book: How, why and what consequences do long-lasting/systematic inequalities
in life chances distinguish members of different socially defined categories of persons? How
do categorical inequalities form, change and disappear?
