social inequality in society essay

The Sociology of Social Inequality

• Key Concepts
• Major Sociologists
• News & Issues
• Research, Samples, and Statistics
• Recommended Reading
• Archaeology

Social inequality results from a society organized by hierarchies of class, race, and gender that unequally distributes access to resources and rights.

It can manifest in a variety of ways, like income and wealth inequality, unequal access to education and cultural resources, and differential treatment by the police and judicial system, among others. Social inequality goes hand in hand with social stratification .

Social inequality is characterized by the existence of unequal opportunities and rewards for different social positions or statuses within a group or society. It contains structured and recurrent patterns of unequal distributions of goods, wealth, opportunities, rewards, and punishments.

Racism , for example, is understood to be a phenomenon whereby access to rights and resources is unfairly distributed across racial lines. In the context of the United States, people of color typically experience racism, which benefits white people by conferring on them white privilege , which allows them greater access to rights and resources than other Americans.

There are two main ways to measure social inequality:

• Inequality of conditions
• Inequality of opportunities

Inequality of conditions refers to the unequal distribution of income, wealth, and material goods. Housing, for example, is inequality of conditions with the homeless and those living in housing projects sitting at the bottom of the hierarchy while those living in multi-million dollar mansions sit at the top.

Another example is at the level of whole communities, where some are poor, unstable, and plagued by violence, while others are invested in by businesses and government so that they thrive and provide safe, secure, and happy conditions for their inhabitants.

Inequality of opportunities refers to the unequal distribution of life chances across individuals. This is reflected in measures such as level of education, health status, and treatment by the criminal justice system.

For example, studies have shown that college and university professors are more likely to ignore emails from women and people of color than they are to ignore those from white men,   which privileges the educational outcomes of white men by channeling a biased amount of mentoring and educational resources to them.

Discrimination of an individual, community, and institutional levels is a major part of the process of reproducing social inequalities of race, class, gender , and sexuality. For example, women are systematically paid less than men for doing the same work.  

2 Main Theories

There are two main views of social inequality within sociology. One view aligns with the functionalist theory, and the other aligns with conflict theory.

• Functionalist theorists believe that inequality is inevitable and desirable and plays an important function in society. Important positions in society require more training and thus should receive more rewards. Social inequality and social stratification, according to this view, lead to a meritocracy based on ability.
• Conflict theorists, on the other hand, view inequality as resulting from groups with power dominating less powerful groups. They believe that social inequality prevents and hinders societal progress as those in power repress the powerless people to maintain the status quo. In today's world, this work of domination is achieved primarily through the power of ideology, our thoughts, values, beliefs, worldviews, norms, and expectations, through a process known as cultural hegemony .

How It's Studied

Sociologically, social inequality can be studied as a social problem that encompasses three dimensions: structural conditions, ideological supports, and social reforms.

Structural conditions include things that can be objectively measured and that contribute to social inequality. Sociologists study how things like educational attainment, wealth, poverty, occupations, and power lead to social inequality between individuals and groups of people.

Ideological supports include ideas and assumptions that support the social inequality present in a society. Sociologists examine how things such as formal laws, public policies, and dominant values both lead to social inequality, and help sustain it. For example, consider this discussion of the role that words and the ideas attached to them play in this process.

Social reforms are things such as organized resistance, protest groups, and social movements. Sociologists study how these social reforms help shape or change social inequality that exists in a society, as well as their origins, impact, and long-term effects.

Today, social media plays a large role in social reform campaigns and was harnessed in 2014 by British actress Emma Watson , on behalf of the United Nations, to launch a campaign for gender equality called #HeForShe.

Milkman, Katherine L., et al. “ What Happens before? A Field Experiment Exploring How Pay and Representation Differentially Shape Bias on the Pathway into Organizations. ”  Journal of Applied Psychology , vol. 100, no. 6, 2015, pp. 1678–1712., 2015, doi:10.1037/apl0000022

“ Highlights of Women's Earnings in 2017 .”  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics , Aug. 2018.

• What Is Social Stratification, and Why Does It Matter?
• Introduction to Sociology
• What You Need to Know About Economic Inequality
• The Sociology of Education
• Visualizing Social Stratification in the U.S.
• How Expectation States Theory Explains Social Inequality
• What Is Social Oppression?
• What's the Difference Between Prejudice and Racism?
• Theories of Ideology
• The Sociology of Gender
• The Sociology of Consumption
• Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge
• Sociology Of Religion
• Understanding Poverty and Its Various Types
• What Is Distributive Justice?
• The Concept of Social Structure in Sociology

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 9. Social Inequality

9.1. What Is Social Inequality?

Sociologists use the term social inequality to describe the unequal distribution of valued resources, rewards, and social positions in a society. Key to the concept are the notions of social differentiation and social stratification . The question for sociologists is: how are systems of stratification formed? What is the basis of systematic social inequality in society?

Social differentiation refers to the social characteristics — social differences, identities, and roles — used to differentiate people and divide them into different categories, such as race, gender, age, class, occupation, and education. These social categories have implications for social inequality. Social differentiation by itself does not necessarily imply a division of individuals into a hierarchy of rank, privilege, and power. However, when a social category like class, occupation, gender, or race puts people in a position where they can claim a greater share of resources or rewards, then social differentiation becomes the basis of social inequality.

The term social stratification refers to an institutionalized system of social inequality. It refers to a situation in which social inequality has solidified into an ongoing system that determines and reinforces who gets what, when, and why. Social differentiation based on different characteristics becomes the basis for social inequality.

Students may remember the word “stratification” from geology class. The distinct horizontal layers found in rock, called “strata,” are a good way to visualize social structure. Society’s layers are made of people, and society’s resources are distributed unevenly throughout the layers. The people with the most resources represent the top layer of the social structure of stratification. Other groups of people, with progressively fewer and fewer resources, represent the lower layers of society. Social stratification assigns people to socio-economic strata based on a process of social differentiation — “these type of people go here, and those type of people go there.” The outcome is differences in wealth, income and power. Again, the question for sociologists is how systems of stratification are formed. What is the basis of systematic social inequality in society?

Equality of Condition and Equality of Opportunity

In Canada, the dominant ideological presumption about social inequality is that everyone has an equal chance at success. This is the belief in equality of opportunity , which can be contrasted with the concept of equality of condition . Equality of opportunity is the idea that everyone has an equal possibility of becoming successful. It exists when people have the same chance to pursue economic or social rewards. This is often seen as a function of equal access to education, meritocracy (where individual merit determines social standing), and formal or informal measures to eliminate social discrimination.

Equality of condition is the situation in which everyone in a society has a similar actual level of wealth, status, and power. Although degrees of equality of condition vary markedly in modern societies, it is clear that even the most egalitarian societies today have considerable degrees of inequality of condition. Ultimately, equality of opportunity means that inequalities of condition are not so great that they greatly hamper a person’s opportunities or life chances. Whether Canada is a society characterized by equality of opportunity, or not, is a subject of considerable sociological debate.

To a certain extent, Ted Rogers’ story illustrates the idea of equality of opportunity. His personal narrative is one in which hard work and talent — not inherent privilege, birthright, prejudicial treatment, or societal values — determined his social rank. This emphasis on individual effort is based on the belief that people individually control where they end up in the social hierarchy, which is a key piece in the idea of equality of opportunity. Most people connect inequalities of wealth, status, and power to the individual characteristics of those who succeed or fail. The story of the Aboriginal gang members, although it is also a story of personal choices, casts that belief into doubt. It is clear that the type of choices available to the Aboriginal gang members are of a different range and quality than those available to the Rogers family. The available choices and opportunities are a product of habitus and location within the system of social stratification .

While there are always inequalities between individuals in terms of talent, skill, drive, chance, and so on, sociologists are interested in larger social patterns. Social inequality is not about individual qualities and differences, but about systematic inequalities based on group membership, class, gender, ethnicity, and other variables that structure access to rewards and status. In other words, sociologists are interested in examining the structural conditions of social inequality. There are of course differences in individuals’ abilities and talents that will affect their life chances. The larger question, however, is how inequality becomes systematically structured in economic, social, and political life. In terms of individual ability: Who gets the opportunities to develop their abilities and talents, and who does not? Where does “ability” or “talent” come from? As Canadians live in a society that emphasizes the individual (individual effort, individual morality, individual choice, individual responsibility, individual talent, etc.) it is often difficult to see the way in which life chances are socially structured.

Wealth, Income, Power and Status

Factors that define the layers of stratification vary in different societies. In most modern societies, stratification is indicated by differences in wealth , the net value of money and assets a person has, and income , a person’s wages, salary, or investment dividends. It can also be defined by differences in power (e.g., how many people a person must take orders from versus how many people a person can give orders to, or how many people are affected by one’s orders) and status (the degree of honour or prestige one has in the eyes of others). These four factors create a complex amalgam that defines an individual’s social standing within a hierarchy.

Usually the four factors coincide, as in the case of corporate CEOs, like Ted Rogers, at the top of the hierarchy — wealthy, powerful, and prestigious — and the Aboriginal offenders at the bottom — poor, powerless, and abject. Sociologists use the term status consistency to describe the consistency of an individual’s rank across these factors.

Students can also think of someone like the Canadian Prime Minister — who ranks high in power, but with a salary of approximately $320,000 — earns much less than comparable executives in the private sector (albeit eight times the average Canadian salary). The Prime Minister’s status or prestige also rises and falls with the fluctuations of politics and public opinion. The Nam-Boyd scale of status, based on education and income, ranks politicians (legislators) at 66/100, the same status as cable TV technicians (Boyd, 2008). There is status inconsistency in the prime minister’s position.

Teachers often have high levels of education, which give them high status (92/100 according to the Nam-Boyd scale), but they receive relatively low pay. Many believe that teaching is a noble profession, so teachers should do their jobs for the love of their profession and the good of their students, not for money. Yet no successful executive or entrepreneur would embrace that attitude in the business world, where profits are valued as a driving force. Cultural attitudes and beliefs like these support and perpetuate social inequalities.

Systems of Stratification

Sociologists distinguish between two types of stratification systems. Closed systems accommodate little change in social position. They do not allow people to shift levels and do not permit social relations between levels. Open systems, which are based on achievement, allow movement and interaction between layers and classes. The different systems also produce and foster different cultural values, like the values of loyalty and traditions versus the values of innovation and individualism. The difference in stratification systems can be examined by the comparison between class systems and caste systems.

The Caste System

Caste systems are closed stratification systems in which people can do little or nothing to change their social standing. A caste system is one in which people are born into their social standing and remain in it their whole lives. It is based on fixed or rigid status distinctions, rather than economic classes per se.

As noted above, status is defined by the level of honour or prestige one receives by virtue of membership in a group. Sociologists make a distinction between ascribed status: a status one receives by virtue of being born into a category or group (e.g., caste, hereditary position, gender, race, ethnicity, etc.), and achieved status:   a status one receives through individual effort or merits (e.g., occupation, educational level, moral character, etc.). Caste systems are based on a hierarchy of ascribed statuses, because people are born into fixed caste groups. A person’s occupation and opportunity for education follow from their caste position.

In a caste system, people are assigned roles regardless of their individual talents, interests, or potential. Marriage is endogamous (from endo- ‘within’ and  Greek gamos ‘marriage’) which means marriage between castes is forbidden, whereas exogamous marriage is a marriage union between people from different social groups. There are virtually no opportunities to improve one’s social position. Instead, the relationship between castes is bound by institutionalized rules, and highly ritualistic procedures come into play when people from different castes come into contact. People value traditions and often devote considerable time to perfecting the details of ritualistic procedures.

The feudal systems of Europe and Japan can, in some ways, be seen as caste systems in that the statuses of positions in the social stratification systems were fixed, and there was little or no opportunity for movement through marriage or economic opportunities. In Europe, the feudal estate system divided the population into clergy (first estate), nobility (second estate), and commoners (third estate), which included artisans, merchants, and peasants. In early European feudalism, it was still possible for a peasant or a warrior to achieve a high position in the clergy or nobility, but later the divisions became more rigid. In Japan, between 1603 and 1867, the mibunsei system divided society into five rigid strata in which social standing was inherited. At the top was the Emperor, then court nobles ( kuge ), military commander-in-chief ( shogun ), and land-owning lords ( daimyo ). Beneath them were four classes or castes: the military nobility ( samurai ), peasants, craftsmen, and merchants. The merchants were considered the lowest class because they did not produce anything with their own hands. There was also an outcast or untouchable caste known as the burakumin, who were considered impure or defiled because of their association with death: executioners, undertakers, slaughterhouse workers, tanners, and butchers (Kerbo, 2006).

The caste system in India from 4,000 years ago until the 20th century probably best typifies the system of stratification. In the Hindu caste tradition, people were expected to work in the occupation of their caste and enter into marriage according to their caste. Originally there were four castes: Brahmans (priests), Kshatriyas (military), Vaisyas (merchants), and Sudras (artisans, farmers). There were also the Dalits or Harijans (“untouchables”). Hindu scripture said, “In order to preserve the universe, Brahma (the Supreme) caused the Brahmin to proceed from his mouth, the Kshatriya to proceed from his arm, the Vaishya to proceed from his thigh, and the Shudra to proceed from his foot” (Kashmeri, 1990).

Accepting this social standing was considered a moral duty. Cultural values and economic restrictions reinforced the system. Caste systems promote beliefs in fate, destiny, and the will of a higher power, rather than promoting individual freedom as a value. A person who lives in a caste society is socialized to accept their social standing, and this is reinforced by the society’s dominant norms and values.

Although the caste system in India has been officially dismantled, its residual presence in Indian society is deeply embedded. In rural areas, aspects of the tradition are more likely to remain, while urban centres show less evidence of this past. In India’s larger cities, people now have opportunities to choose their own career paths and marriage partners. As a global centre of employment, corporations have introduced merit-based hiring and employment to the nation. The caste system has been largely replaced by a class system of structured inequality. Nevertheless, Dalits continue to experience violence and discrimination in hiring or obtaining business loans (Jodhka, 2018).

The Class System

A class system is based on both socio-economic factors and individual achievement. It is at least a partially open system. A class consists of a set of people who have the same relationship to the means of production or productive property — that is, to the things used to produce the goods and services needed for survival, such as tools, technologies, resources, land, workplaces, etc. In Karl Marx’s (1848) analysis, class systems form around the institution of private property, dividing those who own or control productive property from those who do not, who survive on the basis of selling their labour. In capitalist societies, for example, the dominant classes are the capitalist class and the working class.

In a class system, social inequality is structural , meaning it is built into the organization of the economy. The relationship to the means of production (i.e., ownership/non-ownership) defines a persistent, objective pattern of social relationships that exists independently of individuals’ personal or voluntary choices and motives.

Unlike caste systems, however, class systems are open in the sense that individuals are able to change class position. Individuals are at least formally free to gain a different level of education or occupation than their parents. They can move up and down within the stratification system. They can also socialize with and marry members of other classes, allowing people to move from one class to another. In other words, individuals can move up and down the class hierarchy, even while the class categories and the class hierarchy itself remain relatively stable. It is not impossible for individuals to pass back and forth between classes through social mobility , but the class structure itself remains intact, structuring people’s lives, privileges, wealth, and social possibilities.

In a class system, one’s occupation is not fixed at birth. Though family background tends to predict where one ends up in the stratification system, personal factors play a role. For example, Ted Rogers Jr. chose a career in media like his father but managed to move upward from a position of modest wealth and privilege in the petite bourgeoisie, to being the fifth-wealthiest bourgeois in the country. On the other hand, his father Ted Sr. chose a career in radio based on individual interests that differed from his own father’s. Ted Sr.’s father, Albert Rogers, held a position as a director of Imperial Oil. Ted Sr. therefore moved downward from the class of the bourgeoisie to the class of the petite bourgeoisie.

Making Connections: Case Study

The commoner who could be queen.

On April 29, 2011, in London, England, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, married Catherine (“Kate”) Middleton, a commoner. Throughout its history, it has been rare, though not unheard of, for a member of the British royal family to marry a commoner. Kate Middleton had an upper-middle-class upbringing. Her father was a former flight dispatcher, and her mother was a former flight attendant. The family then formed a lucrative mail order business for party accessories. William was the elder son of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Diana, Princess of Wales. Kate and William met when they were both students at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland (Köhler, 2010).

The rules regarding the marriage of royals trace their history to Britain’s formal feudal monarchy, which arose with William of Normandy’s conquest in 1066. Feudal social hierarchy was originally based on landholding. The monarch’s family (royalty) was at the top, vassals, nobles and knights (landholders) below the king, and commoners or serfs on the bottom. This was generally a closed system, with people born into positions of nobility or serfdom. Wealth was passed from generation to generation through primogeniture , a law stating that all property was to be inherited by the firstborn son. If the family had no son, the land went to the next closest male relation. Women could not inherit property, and their social standing was primarily determined through marriage. From the late feudal era onward, a royal marrying a commoner was a scandal. In 1937, the British parliament obliged Edward VIII to abdicate his succession to King of the United Kingdom, so he could marry the American divorcée, Wallis Simpson. Not only was she a commoner, but she was also divorced , which contradicted the Church of England doctrine.

The rise of capitalism changed Britain’s class structure. The feudal commoner class generated both the new dominant class of the bourgeoisie or capitalists and the new subordinate class of the proletariat or wage labourers. The aristocracy and the royals continued as a class through their wealth and property, but their position in society became increasingly based on status and tradition alone. Today, the British government is a constitutional monarchy, with the prime minister and other ministers elected to their positions.  The royal family’s role is largely ceremonial. The historical differences between nobility and commoners have blurred, and the modern class system in Britain is similar to Canada. Since Edward VIII’s abdication in 1937, Queen Elizabeth II’s sister and several of her children and grandchildren have married commoners.

Today, the royal family still commands wealth, power, and a great deal of attention. In 2017, Forbes estimated the total wealth of the royal family to be $88 billion (Rodriguez, 2017). Since Queen Elizabeth II passed away in September 2022, Prince Charles has ascended the throne as king. His wife Camille Parker-Bowles, also a commoner and divorcée, is expected to become “Princess Consort.” If Charles had abdicated (chosen not to become king) or died, the position would go to Prince William. If that happened, Kate Middleton would be called Queen Catherine and hold the position of Queen Consort. She would be one of the few queens in history to have earned a university degree (Marquand, 2011). Of note here is, of course, Prince Harry, who married the commoner and divorcée Meghan Markle. Prince Harry is currently 6th in line for the British throne, after Prince William’s children. If she succeeded to Queen Consort, Meghan Markle would be the first queen with African heritage.

Initially there was a great deal of social pressure on Kate Middleton not only to behave as a royal, but to bear children. The royal family recently changed its succession laws to allow daughters, not just sons, to ascend the throne. Her firstborn son, Prince George, was born on July 22, 2013, so the new succession law is not likely to be tested in the near future. However, behind George is Princess Charlotte (b. 2015) and Prince Louis (b. 2018). Kate’s experience — from commoner to possible queen — demonstrates the fluidity of social class position in modern society.

Social Class

Social class is both obvious and not so obvious in Canadian society. It is based on subjective impressions, outward symbols, and less visible structural determinants. Can one tell a person’s education level based on clothing? Is opening an $80 bottle of wine for dinner normal, an exceptional occasion, or an insane waste of money? Can one guess a person’s income by the car they drive? There was a time in Canada when people’s class was more visibly apparent. In some countries, like the United Kingdom, class differences can still be gauged by differences in schooling, lifestyle, and even accent. In Canada, however, it is harder to determine class from outward appearances.

For sociologists, too, categorizing class is a fluid science. One debate in the discipline is between Marxist and Weberian approaches to social class (Abercrombie & Urry, 1983).

Marx’s analysis emphasizes a historical materialist approach to the underlying structures of the capitalist economy. Classes are historical formations that distribute people into categories based on the organization and structure of the economy. Marx’s definition of social class rests essentially on one materialist variable: a group’s relation to the means of production (ownership or non-ownership of productive property or capital). Therefore, in Marxist class analysis, there are two dominant classes in capitalism — the working class and the owning class — and any divisions within the classes based on occupation, status, education, etc. are less important than the tendency toward increasing separation and polarization of these two classes.

Marx referred to these two classes as the bourgeoisie and the proletariat . The capitalist class (bourgeoisie) lives from the proceeds of owning or controlling productive property (capital assets like factories, technology, software platforms or machinery, or capital itself in the form of investments, stocks, and bonds).  The working class (proletariat) live from selling their labour to the capitalists for a wage or salary.  Their interests are in conflict, as higher profits depend on lower wages, which accounts for the characteristic power dynamics, conflicts, instabilities and periodic crises of capitalist societies.

In addition, he described the classes of the petite bourgeoisie (the little bourgeoisie) and the lumpenproletariat (the sub-proletariat). The petite bourgeoisie are those like small business owners, farmers, and contractors who own some property and perhaps employ a few workers, but still rely on their own labour to survive. The lumpenproletariat are the chronically unemployed or irregularly employed, who are in and out of the workforce. They are what Marx referred to as the “reserve army of labour,” a pool of potential labourers who are surplus to the needs of production at any particular time.

Weber defined social class slightly differently, as the life chances one shares in common with others by virtue of possession of property, goods, skills or opportunities for income (1969). Life chances refer to the ability or probability of an individual to act on opportunities and attain a certain standard of living. Owning property or capital, or not owning property or capital, is still the basic variable that defines a person’s class situation or life chances. However, class position is defined with respect to markets rather than the process of production . It is the value of one’s capital, products or skills in the commodity or labour markets at any particular time that determines whether one has greater or fewer life chances.

This yields a model of class hierarchy based on multiple gradations of socio-economic status, instead of a division between two principle classes. Analyses of class inspired by Weber tend to emphasize gradations of status relating to several variables like wealth, income, education, and occupation. Class stratification is not just determined by a group’s economic position, but by the prestige of the group’s occupation, education level, consumption, and lifestyle. It is a matter of status — the level of honour or prestige one holds in the community by virtue of one’s social position — as much as a matter of class.

Based on the Weberian approach, some sociologists talk about upper, middle, and lower classes (with many subcategories within them) in a way that mixes status categories with class categories. These gradations are often referred to as a group’s socio-economic status ( SES ): their social position relative to others based on income, education, and prestige of occupation . For example, although plumbers might earn more than high school teachers and have greater “life chances” in a particular economy, the status division between blue-collar work (people who “work with their hands”) and white-collar work (people who “work with their minds”) means the plumbers might be characterized as lower class but teachers as middle class.

There is a randomness in the division of classes into upper, middle, and lower in the Weberian model. However, this manner of classification based on status distinctions captures something about the subjective experience of class and the shared lifestyle and consumption patterns of class that Marx’s categories often do not. An NHL hockey player receiving a salary of $6 million a year is a member of the working class, strictly speaking. He might even go on strike or get locked out according to the dynamic of capital and labour conflict described by Marx. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see what the life chances of the hockey player have in common with a landscaper or receptionist, despite the fact that they might share a common working-class background.

Class: Materialist and Interpretive Factors

Social class is a complex category to analyze. It has both a strictly materialist quality relating to a group’s structural position within the economic system, and an interpretive quality relating to the formation of status gradations, common subjective perceptions of class, differences of power in society, and class-based lifestyles and consumption patterns. Considering both the Marxist and Weberian models, social class has at least three objective components: a group’s position in the occupational structure (i.e., the status and salary of one’s job), a group’s position in the power structure (i.e., who has authority over whom), and a group’s position in the property structure (i.e., ownership or non-ownership of capital). It also has an important subjective component that relates to recognitions of status, distinctions of lifestyle, and ultimately how people perceive their place in the class hierarchy.

Making Connections: Classic Sociologists

Marx and weber on social class: how do they differ.

Often, Marx and Weber are perceived as at odds in their approaches to class and social inequality, but it is perhaps better to see them as articulating different styles of analysis.

Weber’s analysis presents a more complex model of the social hierarchy of capitalist society than Marx. Weber’s model goes beyond the economic structural class position to include the variables of status (degree of social prestige or honour) and power (degree of political influence). Thus, Weber provides a multi-dimensional model of social hierarchy. As a result, although individuals might be from the same objective class, their position in the social hierarchy might differ according to their status and political influence. For example, women and men might be equal in terms of their class position, but because of the inequality in the status of the genders within each class, women (as a group) remain lower in the social hierarchy.

With respect to class specifically, Weber also relies on a different definition than Marx. As noted above, Weber (1969) defines class as the “life chances” one shares in common with others by virtue of one’s possession of goods or opportunities for income. Class is defined with respect to markets, rather than the process of production. As in Marx’s analysis, the economic position that stems from owning property and capital, or not owning property and capital, is still the basic variable that defines one’s class situation or life chances. However, as the value of different types of capital or property (e.g., industrial, real estate, financial, etc.), or the value of different types of opportunity for income (i.e., different types of marketable skills), varies according to changes in the commodity or labour markets, Weber can provide a more nuanced description of an individual’s class position than Marx. A skilled tradesman like a pipe welder might enjoy a higher class position and greater life chances in Northern Alberta where such skills are in demand, than a high school teacher in Vancouver or Victoria where the number of qualified teachers exceeds the number of positions available. If one adds the element of status into the picture, the situation becomes even more complex, as the educational requirements and social responsibilities of the high school teacher usually confer more social prestige than the requirements and responsibilities of the pipe welder.

Nevertheless, Weber’s analysis is descriptive rather than analytical . It can provide a useful description of differences between the levels or “strata” in a social hierarchy or stratification system but does not provide an analysis of the formation of classes themselves.

On the other hand, Marx’s analysis of class is essentially one-dimensional. It has one variable: the relationship to the means of production. If one is a professional hockey player, a doctor in a hospital, or a clerk in a supermarket, one works for a wage and is therefore a member of the working class. In this regard, his analysis challenges common sense, as the difference between these different “fragments” of the working class seems paramount — at least from the point of view of the subjective experience of class. It would seem that hockey players, doctors, lawyers, professors, and business executives have very little in common with grocery clerks, factory or agricultural workers, tradespeople, or low level administrative staff, despite the fact that they all depend on being paid wages by someone.

However, the key point of Marx’s analysis is not to ignore the existence of status distinctions within classes, but to examine class structure dialectically in order to provide a more comprehensive and historical picture of class dynamics.

The four components of dialectical analysis were described in Chapter 1. An Introduction to Sociology : (1) Everything in society is related; (2) everything is caught up in a process of change; (3) change proceeds from the quantitative to the qualitative; and (4) change is the product of oppositions and struggles in society. These dialectical qualities are also central to Marx’s account of the hierarchical structure of classes in capitalist society.

With regard to the first point — everything in society is related — the main point of the dialectical analysis of class is that the working class and the owning class have to be understood in a structural relationship to one another. They emerged together out of the old class structure of feudalism. More significantly for Marx, each exists only because the other exists. The wages that define the wage labourer are paid by the capitalist; the profit and capital accumulated by the capitalist are products of the workers’ labour.

In Marx’s dialectical model, “everything is caught up in a process of change” occurs because the system is characterized by the struggle of opposites.  The classes are structurally in conflict because the contradiction in their class interests is built into the economic system. The bourgeoisie as a class is defined by the economic drive to accumulate capital and increase profit. The key means to achieve this in a competitive marketplace is by reducing the cost of production by lowering the cost of labour (by reducing wages, moving production to lower wage areas, or replacing workers with labour-saving technologies). This conflicts with the interests of the proletariat who seek to establish a sustainable standard of living by maintaining their level of wages and employment in society. While individual capitalists and individual workers might not see it this way, structurally, their class interests clash and define a persistent pattern of management-labour conflict and political cleavage in modern, capitalist societies.

So, from the dialectical model, Marx can predict that the composition of classes changes over time: the statuses of different occupations vary, the proportions between workers’ income and capitalists’ profit change, and the types of production and the means of production change (through the introduction of labour-saving technologies, globalization, new products and consumption patterns, etc.). In addition, change proceeds from the quantitative to the qualitative, in the sense that the multiplicity of changes in purely quantitative variables like salary, working conditions, unemployment levels, rates of profitability, product sales, supply and demand, etc., lead to changes in qualitative variables like the subjective experience of inequality and injustice, the political divisions of “left” and “right,” the formation of class-consciousness, and eventually change in the entire economic system through new models of capital accumulation or even revolution.

The strength of Marx’s analysis is its ability to go beyond a description of where different groups fit within the class structure at a given moment in time to an analysis of why those groups and their relative positions change with respect to one another. The dialectical approach reveals the underlying logic of class structure as a dynamic system, and the potential commonality of interests and subjective experiences that define class-consciousness. As a result, in an era in which the precariousness of many high status “middle class” jobs has become clearer, the divisions of economic and political interests between the different segments of the working class becomes less so.

Media Attributions

• Figure 9.3 Office Politics: A Rise to the Top by Alex Proimos, via Flickr, is used under a CC BY-NC 2.0 licence.
• Figure 9.4 Strata in the Badlands by Just a Prairie Boy, via Flickr, is used under a CC BY 2.0 licence.
• Figure 9.5 Fort Mason Neighborhood by Orin Zebest, via Flickr, is used under a CC BY 2.0 licence.
• Figure 9.6  Woman, construction, worker, temple, india, manual, poor, labourer, labour , via PxHere, is used under a CC0 Public Domain licence. 
• Figure 9.7 Royal wedding Kate & William by Gerard Stolk, via Flickr, is used under a CC BY-NC 2.0  licence. 
• Figure 9.8 Item B-03624 – Group of Nanaimo coal miners at the pithead by unknown photographer, [ca. 1870]  (Creation) via the Royal BC Museum/ British Columbia Archives Collection (Item B-03624), is in the public domain .
• Figure 9.9 James and Laura Dunsmuir in Italian Garden at Hatley Park, by unknown photographer, 1912-1920  (Creation), courtesy of Craigdarroch Castle Society,  is in the public domain .
• Figure 9.10 File:MAX WEBER.jpg  by Power Renegadas, via Wikimedia Commons, is used under a CC BY-SA 4.0 licence.
• Figure 9.11   Karl Marx by John Mayall, via Wikimedia Commons, is in the public domain .

Introduction to Sociology – 3rd Canadian Edition Copyright © 2023 by William Little is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

How can the world address inequality? 7 experts explain

Leave no one behind. Image:  Priscilla Du Preez/Unsplash

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Abhinav Chugh

Listen to the article

• The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated socioeconomic inequalities.
• Mitigating inequality requires a mix of bottom-up and top-down changes that address the underlying social and economic systems.
• Seven experts shine a light on creating a future that leaves no one behind.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated socioeconomic inequalities within and across countries. The policy responses designed to mitigate them in the form of either relief and recovery packages or welfare protections have mostly proved to be short-term fixes. In the long-term, however, the distributional consequences of the pandemic between and within countries, as in during previous pandemics and recessions, are bound to widen inequality.

According to the World Inequality Database 2020 update, Latin America and the Middle East stand as the world’s most unequal regions, with the top 10% of the income distribution capturing 54% and 56% of the average national income respectively. Despite Gulf countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia) having among the highest GDP per capita levels, they have also marked extreme inequality levels, with little variation since the 1990s. However, the starkest change has been the rise in concentration of incomes in the US, with the top 10% witnessing an increase from 34% to 45% of the national income between 1980 and 2019.

The data are an indicator that countries with strong investments in public services, social protection, and labour market policies have the lowest inequality levels, with Europe standing as the most equal of all regions driven by its redistribution and progressive taxation, seen in the Commitment to Reducing Inequality Index .

Have you read?

How covid deepened gender inequality - this week's radio davos podcast, 5 shocking facts about inequality, according to oxfam’s latest report, imf head: how governments can prevent widening inequality.

Looking at global inequality beyond purely from an income distribution lens, it is critical to take into consideration multidimensional factors such as social mobility, gender equality, livelihood infrastructure, technology access, the voice of civil society, privacy, social and environmental protections, progressive tax laws and labour rights when examining the how societies perform on reducing inequality and serving public interest.

The COVID crisis has forced us to reimagine our shared futures as the world attempts to rebuild. From proposals relating to basic income and collecting the tax deficit to the more emerging debate on inheritance for all , the asymmetric impact of the pandemic and divergent recovery beckon a universal call for us to build back broader .

Mitigating inequality will now demand a mix of bottom-up and top-down changes that recognize the social and economic systems aggravating inequality are a matter of choice. Where do we go from here?

We asked seven global experts from the World Economic Forum Expert Network to provide their perspective on how we can build a better future where we leave no one behind. Here’s what they said.

‘It is particularly crucial to increase the minimum wage'

Tak Niinami, Chief Executive Officer, Suntory Holdings and Senior Economic Advisor to the Prime Minister of Japan

The pandemic has made it apparent that Japan also faces the issue of inequality. A widening in the gap must be prevented by all means as it would bring social unrest and social divide. In the short-term, given Japan’s comparatively low wages, it is particularly crucial to increase the minimum wage and thoroughly implement an “equal pay for equal work” policy to bridge the gap between regular and non-regular workers.

The acceleration of redistribution of wealth is also imperative. Taxation on assets and capital gains should be increased so that this resource can be utilized to fund NPOs (nonprofit organizations) that can take measures against issues such as poverty and isolation.

Furthermore, in the long-term, I believe education is key in mitigating inequality. The widening education gap can spill over from generation to generation, creating a chain effect that must be avoided. Technology can prove to be a solution if it can be applied to ensure equal opportunities, enabling high-quality education to anyone and anywhere, no matter where you live.

‘ Well-funded and quality universal healthcare must be the legacy of the pandemic ’

Deepak Xavier, Head of Inequality Advocacy and Campaigns, Oxfam International

The world risks the greatest rise of inequality since records began , and today it is inequality that perpetuates COVID-19, which is ending so many lives. The grotesque inequality in accessing healthcare is proving fatal. To be without a hospital bed or medical oxygen in the face of a pandemic is frightening enough. However, for most of the world that has long been the case. Pre-pandemic 10,000 people were dying daily due to lack of access to healthcare.

Progress on universal healthcare is achievable – as countries such as Costa Rica have shown . Implementing a fair and progressive tax system to avoid concentration of wealth to the top 10% is one way to provide a fiscal boost. A 0.5% extra tax on the wealth of the richest 1% alone could raise $418bn each year which could be redistributed towards resilient healthcare systems. Issuing US$1 trillion of IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) global reserve asset would dramatically increase the funds available to countries – for example, the Ethiopian government will have access to an additional $630 million — enough to increase its health spending by 45%.

Well-funded and quality universal healthcare must be the legacy of the pandemic: to save lives and better tackle future pandemics.

'Support our people outside of the "nine to five".'

Leslie Parker, Partner and Member of the Board of Directors, Kearney

It used to be that there was very little crossover between our work and personal lives. Since COVID, that has changed. The new work-from-home model has given us intimate access to our colleagues’ personal lives – and surfaced a whole new set of inequalities.

We see family members juggling caring responsibilities with the demands of their jobs. We see people who live alone, who might not physically encounter another human being that week. We see housemates sitting three to a table, trying to work at the same time. And we see laptops propped on kitchen counters, stacks of boxes and pairs of knees, as people search for an elusive quiet space or change of scenery.

The ability to work from home is an incredibly privileged position for many. But with working patterns and norms changed beyond all recognition, we need policies that take on these and other new inequalities – including lack of choice over working location – into account. It’s not enough to dish out some grants for home office equipment. What about some let-up from home schooling or eldercare, or help to tackle loneliness? Why not help our teams create better connections with one another that can offer more than the virtual happy hour and more time behind a laptop? We need to go beyond one-dimensional Diversity, Equity, Inclusion programmes and policies, and really support our people outside of the ‘nine to five’.

At Kearney we have taken a first step by asking employees around the world to tell us what would improve their lives and how we can help as leaders. We are already seeing wellbeing, both physical and mental, as a major theme. We introduced more mental and physical health programmes with free classes available to employees, redesigned our future work model strategies to allow for flexibility of working hours and location (no longer adopting five-days-a-week office model), offered an option to go to co-working spaces to employees whose current situation is not supportive of their work or mental health and improved coaching and mentoring guidelines in the absence of in-person onboarding and support.

‘ Promote more transparent and accountable systems ’

Ibrahima Hathie, Distinguished Fellow, Initiative Prospective Agricole et Rurale (IPAR), Senegal and Southern Voice network member

Sustainable Development Goal 10 of the 2030 Agenda seeks to “reduce inequality within and among countries”. Yet, the goal’s targets and indicators focus on horizontal inequality and exclu­sion of the vulnerable and marginalized population from opportunities. The United Nations’ overarching principle of “ Leave No One Behind ” reflects this orientation and calls for a transformative agenda. However, it fails to address deep-rooted social, economic, and political systemic problems that preserve and often amplify vertical inequalities.

A path to achieving this must seek to reduce the political influence of elites in the formulation and implementation of public policies. It would promote more transparent and accountable systems. Tackling inequalities between countries is also imperative if we are to face the consequences these have on the most vulnerable in developing countries. Addressing overlapping disadvantages through a comprehensive development strategy can be an excellent response to horizontal inequalities. Vertical inequalities require more: progressive economic institutions with pro-poor taxation, investment, and trade.

In Senegal, for example , the government should choose and invest heavily in food value chains, funding of research of these value chains, training of family farmers, agricultural entrepreneurs, technicians, and engineers and introduce multisector governance to ensure smooth coordination to achieve the goals set out by the Malabo Declaration . This would lead to increased industrial development, improved health and nutrition, and decent and abundant jobs for young people and women.

‘The basic fundamentals of knowledge creation and collaboration must be addressed’

Marie McAuliffe, Head, Migration Research Division, International Organization for Migration

In addition to measures on improving social protection of migrant workers, reducing costs of international remittance transfers, and bolstering migrants' rights throughout the migration process, the fundamentals of knowledge creation and collaboration must be addressed. Affected communities impacted by increasing inequality must be part of processes aimed at formulating effective responses.

Developing country experts and research institutions must be able to meaningfully participate in researching, proposing, designing, and evaluating solutions according to their priorities and needs. A much greater focus on leveraging opportunities to undertake participatory and collaborative research with (and for) marginalized populations is needed. Only then can the programmatic and policy responses designed to reduce inequality globally be truly sustainable.

We advocated this approach as part of consultations on the UN Research Roadmap on COVID-19, which makes a strong case for participatory research to support long-term global transformations. In 2017, IOM invited the world’s leading migration researchers from around the world to join in sharing their expertise and knowledge in support of the 2018 global compact on safe, orderly and regular migration. As a consequence, the resolution on the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2018.”

‘Increase public investments in the formal and informal care economies’

Susan Ferguson, Women Representative for India, UN Women

The COVID-19 crisis in India has impacted millions, not only those suffering from the disease, but also those who care for them. As always, women have taken on the heavy burden of caring for the sick and finding ways to meet their family’s basic needs. A recent Oxfam report shows that Indian women and girls put in 3.26 billion hours of unpaid care work every day — a contribution of at least ₹19 trillion a year to the Indian economy.

Yet in India, duties performed at home have historically not been considered “work,” because of unequal gender and caste norms. And now, with after the second wave of COVID-19, the combination of illness, unpaid care, economic slowdown and lack of access to financing for female entrepreneurs means that many women are unable to return to work.

If these trends aren’t reversed, they will have a devastating impact on the economy and further exacerbate gender inequality. For this generation of women to emerge relatively unscathed from this pandemic and be able to return to the workforce, we must invest seriously in education and livelihoods of women and girls in India. UN Women’s Second Chance Education programme is a prime example of how we can and must focus on women’s livelihoods right now, before the equality gaps widen even more. Another way to mitigate the inequality crisis would be to increase public investments in the formal and informal care economies and tap into the job creation potential of the care economy.

In the end, it will come down to changing attitudes. Whether it’s at home, in the office or in the fields, we must stop taking women’s work for granted.

Read more here .

Don’t use the pandemic as a justification to discriminate and exclude

Melody Patry, Advocacy Director, Access Now

From Singapore to Jamaica, governments are scrambling for solutions to help the world return to a pre-virus normality. Vaccine certificates — or “passports” — that record and authenticate vaccination statuses, however, are short-term fixes that potentially pose long-term risks to human rights. These fast-tracked stopgaps are a blueprint for exclusion and discrimination, and present serious and disproportionate threats to the privacy and security of millions of people.

COVID-19 and its reverberations already impact our most vulnerable and underserved individuals and communities — from limited health care, to increased economic instability — we cannot allow techno-solutionism to exacerbate the divide further.

Global leaders, and their industry counterparts, must stop, recalibrate, and ensure technology plays a positive, cornerstone role in pandemic recovery. As laid out by U.N. Special Procedures on the eve of RightsCon 2021 , "we need to act together to embrace the fast-pace expansion of digital space and technological solutions that are safe, inclusive and rights-based."

World Economic Forum Strategic Intelligence , in partnership with the Institute for Global Prosperity , University College London (UCL) launched the transformation map on Inequality .

The experts cited in this article are part of the World Economic Forum Expert Network .

Related topics:

Advertisement

Social inequalities: theories, concepts and problematics

• Published: 17 May 2021
• Volume 1 , article number  116 , ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Renato Miguel Carmo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0052-4387 1  

2081 Accesses

2 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This article aims to present a concise perusal of the different approaches developed in the study of social inequalities and in the relationships that they establish with manifold social processes and problems. The text does not intend to be exhaustive from the theoretical point of view, but rather to present an overview of the analytical complexity of the inequalities systems and demonstrate that they should be tackled in a multidimensional, systemic and multiscale perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Social Determinants of Mental Health: Where We Are and Where We Need to Go

Margarita Alegría, Amanda NeMoyer, … Kiara Alvarez

The KOF Globalisation Index – revisited

Savina Gygli, Florian Haelg, … Jan-Egbert Sturm

Prevention Science and Health Equity: A Comprehensive Framework for Preventing Health Inequities and Disparities Associated with Race, Ethnicity, and Social Class

Anthony Biglan, Ronald J. Prinz & Diana Fishbein

Data availability

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

The most recent configuration of the ACM typology is composed of the following class categories: “ Employers and executives are employers or directors at private companies or in the public administration. They may be recruited from any of the groups in the occupational structure. Private Professionals are self-employed and very qualified in certain specialised professions, such as lawyers, architects, and so on. Professionals and managers are employees in upper or mid-level intellectual, scientific and technical jobs. They are different from the previous category essentially because they are not self-employed. Self-employed workers work on their own account without employees in administrative or similar occupations in services and commerce. They include craftsmen and similar workers, farmers and qualified workers in agriculture and fishery. Routine employees are administrative and similar personnel, service employees and salespeople. Industrial workers are manual workers employed in less qualified occupations in construction, industry, transports, agriculture and fishery (Carmo and Nunes 2013 , p. 378).

This section is based on Carmo ( 2014 , pp. 134–138).

Aboim S (2020) Covid-19 e desigualdades de género: uma perspetiva interseccional sobre os efeitos da pandemia. In: Carmo RM, Tavares I, Cândido AF (eds) Um Olhar Sociológico sobre a Crise Covid-19 em Livro. Observatório das Desigualdades, CIES-Iscte, Lisbon, pp. 130–148: https://www.observatorio-das-desigualdades.com/2020/11/29/umolharsociologicosobreacovid19emlivro

ADB—Asian Development Bank (2012) Outlook 2012. Confronting Rising Inequality in Asia s.1., ADB.

Atkinson AB (2015) Inequality: what can be done? Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Book   Google Scholar  

Barata A, Carmo RM (2015) O Futuro nas Mãos: de Regresso à Política do Bem-Comum. Tinta-da-China, Lisbon

Google Scholar  

Bhir A, Pfefferkorn R (2008) Le system des Inégalités. La Découverte, Paris

Bourdieu P (2010[1979]) A Distinção: uma crítica social da faculdade de juízo. Edições 70, Lisbon.

Cantante F (2019) O Risco da Desigualdade. Almedina, Coimbra

Carmo RM (2009) Coesão e capital social: uma perspetiva para as políticas públicas. In: Veloso L, Carmo RM (eds) A Constituição Social da Economia. Mundos Sociais, Lisbon, pp 197–230

Carmo RM (2014) Sociologia dos Territórios: Teorias. Estruturas e Deambulações, Mundos Sociais, Lisbon

Carmo RM, Nunes N (2013) Class and social capital in Europe: a transnational analysis of the European Social Survey. Eur Soc 15(3):373–387

Article   Google Scholar  

Carmo RM, Rio C, Medgyesi M (eds) (2018) Reducing inequalities: a challenge for the European Union? Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

Castells, M (2000) The information age. Economy, society and culture. 2ª ed., Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Costa AF (1998) Classificações Sociais. Leituras: Revista da Biblioteca Nacional 3(2):65–75

Costa AF (2012) Desigualdades Sociais Contemporâneas. Mundos Sociais, Lisbon

Costa AF, Mauritti R (2018) Classes sociais e interseções de desigualdades: Portugal e a Europa. In: Carmo RM et al (eds) Desigualdades Sociais: Portugal e a Europa. Mundos Sociais, Lisbon, pp 109–129

Hill Collins P (2019) Intersectionality as critical social theory. Duke University Press, Durham

Massey D (2007) World city. Polity Press, Cambridge

Milanovic B (2012) Global income inequality by the numbers: in history and know. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6259: 1–28

Milanovic B (2016) Global inequality. Cambridge, Belknap

OECD (2011) Divided we stand. Why inequality keeps rising. OECD Publications, Paris

OECD (2015) In it together: Why less inequality benefits all. OECD Publications, Paris

OECD (2018) A broken social elevator? How to promote social mobility. OECD Publications, Paris

Parkin F (1979) Marxism and class theory: a bourgeois critique. Tavistock, London

Piketty T (2020) Capital and ideology. Cambridge, Belknap

Rawls J (2001) [1971] Uma Teoria da Justiça, 2nd edn. Editorial Presença, Lisbon

Sassen S (2000) Cities in a world economy. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks

Sen A (1980) Equality of What? In: McMurrin S (ed) Tanner lectures on human values, vol I. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Sen A (2003) Desenvolvimento como Liberdade. Gradiva, Lisbon

Therborn G (ed) (2006) Inequalities of the world new theoretical frameworks: multiple empirical approaches. Verso, London

Therborn G (2013) The killing fields of inequality. Polity Press, Cambridge

Tilly C (2005) Historical perspectives on inequality. In: Romero M, Margolis E (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Inequalities. Blackwell, Malden, pp 15–30

UNDP (2019) Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: inequalities in human development in the 21st century. Human Development Report 2019.

Wilkinson R, Pickett K (2009) The spirit level. Why more equal societies almost always do better. Allen Lane, London

Wright EO (1994) Análises de classes, história e emancipação. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais 40:3–35

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was developed within the project EmployALL—The employment crisis and the Welfare State in Portugal: deterring drivers of social vulnerability and inequality, funded by the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (PTDC/SOC-SOC/30543/2017).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

ISCTE – University Institute of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

Renato Miguel Carmo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renato Miguel Carmo .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Carmo, R.M. Social inequalities: theories, concepts and problematics. SN Soc Sci 1 , 116 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00134-5

Download citation

Received : 11 April 2021

Accepted : 16 April 2021

Published : 17 May 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00134-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Inequalities
• Social theory
• Public policy
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Social Inequality - List of Essay Samples And Topic Ideas

Social inequality refers to the unequal distribution of resources, opportunities, and privileges among individuals or groups within a society. Essays can explore the various forms of social inequality such as income inequality, gender inequality, racial inequality, and their underlying causes. Moreover, discussions could extend to the implications of social inequality on societal cohesion, economic development, and the strategies aimed at mitigating inequality. We’ve gathered an extensive assortment of free essay samples on the topic of Social Inequality you can find at PapersOwl Website. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

Hand to Mouth: an Analysis of Poverty Social Inequality  

In Linda Tirado’s Hand to Mouth: Living in Bootstrap America, Tirado undergoes poverty on multiple counts and elaborates on her experiences from living in poverty. Throughout the book, Tirado speaks from a first-person perspective and thoroughly explains how living in poverty negatively impacts her personal and professional life. For example, she illustrates in great detail what it’s like to raise kids, work several jobs, put food on the table, and pay for a roof over her head while struggling in […]

Social Inequality: then V.s Now

Social inequality, by definition, occurs when resources in a given society are distributed unevenly is a problem that is has been in this world for thousands of years. The first signs of social inequality originated in the Paleolithic era, which occurred 40,000 thousand years ago. Social inequality can be seen as negative due to it causing a separation between a group of people. The idea of social inequality is discussed in multiple ways. Examples include the poem “Social Classes” by […]

Racial Inequality in America

The United States has been struggling with racial inequality for decades, and the media has been paying more attention to this issue. Race can impact the likelihood of graduating high school, attending college, or even maintaining a livable income as an adult (Back and Solomos, 2020). An individual's racial ethnicity is a factor when determining these outcomes and is worth noting. If you are skeptical of your race's role in the number of options you have, look no further than […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

Is Racism Still a Current Issue in America

Racism is defined as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. It is no secret that America has a racist past, with issues like hate crimes, police brutality, and slavery. However, the concern of racism is still apparent in American society today. Completely eliminating racism will be very hard. However, to start the process of eliminating this issue, we need to start by recognizing our own […]

Racial Discrimination Within the Workplace

Racial Discrimination Within the Workplace Racial discrimination has played a big part in the United States history without a doubt however, there is still an argument on whether or not racial discrimination still exist in the U.S. in particular the workplace. According to Pew Research Center, over 150 million American are employed and of those 150 million 12.6% of employees are African American but many still say that they have experienced racism within the workplace. Racial discrimination is not only […]

Society and Racial Discrimination

Racial Discrimination Our society has turned into a hatred and politics place throughout the years. Racial discrimination is into what America has grown up on. This issue has always existed because of fundamental part of America's history. From the KKK's aggressive campaign against immigrants, to the police violence against black people, racism and discrimination continue to be a big controversial problem. People need to take the responsibility of this culture to address racism and learn how to accept and embrace […]

Institutional Racism and Police Brutality in Education System

In today society there are several police brutality against black people, and in some institutional systems black people still experience racism from people who thinks they are superior. Racism is an issue which emerged from history till now and it has become a major problem in our society. This has affected some families to live their dreams and influences other people mindset towards each other. Institutional Racism is expressed in social and political institution which is governed by the behavioral […]

A Simple Introduction to Three Main Types of Racism

Race plays an important role in both personal and social life, and racial issues are some of the most heated debates in the world due to their complexity, involving the diverse historical and cultural backgrounds of different ethnic groups. Consciously or unconsciously, when one race holds prejudice, discrimination, and a sense of superiority to oppress another race, the issue of racism arises. Based on aspects of individual biases, social institutions, and cultural backgrounds, the three most common types of racism […]

Closing the Education Gap by Attacking Poverty Among Children

Looking around the campus of an Ivy League schools, one wonders how students from such diverse backgrounds ultimately wound up at the same place. From having a mother who works in admissions, I grew up hearing that no matter where you came from, your socioeconomic status, and even sometimes your grades, all kids have the potential to attend a prestigious university. However, I find that hard to believe. With a combination of taking this class on homelessness this semester, growing […]

Anti LGBT Discrimination

Anti LGBT Discrimination The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) population has long fought for their right to equal treatment with some progress made. As society's values change and adjust to become more accepting of this marginalized community, the more our policies and lawmakers include them. Anti-LGBT policy is at risk. Under the Trump administration, the federal civil rights law, Title IX, that bans sex discrimination, would enact that sex only include female, or male orientation and is strictly determined […]

Development of Discrimination in Workplace

Discrimination happens everyday in the world. Many people face discrimination at work, school, driving, or normal everyday activities. Some examples include different treatment based on race, gender, religion, national origin, physical or mental disability, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity by employers. The major type of discrimination that is sweeping the nation is racial discrimination. The toss up of racial discrimination may seem so crazy to people. Unfortunately, there are many people who are dealing with this problem across America. […]

Racism Around the World

Racism has existed for a long time, but during the last two centuries, hate towards racial minorities and majorities has changed. Racism happens every day throughout the world, anyone can be a victim of it and it will always exist. In the movie The Revenant, racism appeared to be clear when Fitzgerald expressed his hate to Glass, because Glass's wife and son were native Indians. There are three types of racism; scientific racism, cultural racism, and institutional racism (Morehouse). Scientific […]

A Problem of Social Justice in World

Multiple people are discriminated for their race, their religion, or their sexuality. The idea of entitlement has been an issue in the United States for centuries. Even before the United States became a country in 1776, racial prejudice existed. At first it was the Native Americans' who were looked down on and forced to do the new white settlers dirty work. Then it became African Americans. Whites have been seen to be superior to African Americans for many years, more […]

Economic Inequality and Governmental Responsibility

Ever since the emergence of civilization several hundreds of years ago, social inequality has been a prevalent aspect of many societies across the world. This social structure developed as a result of several factors, amongst them political and economic status in the society. During the early stages of civilization, social and political status was closely related whereby the few powerful political leaders tended to be wealthier than the lesser politically influential majority. Although this dynamic is still prevalent in developing […]

Martin Luther King and the Fight against Racism in the US

Racism is one of the social problems that have continued from the past centuries to the present. Even though the question of racism has changed throughout history, it always succeeds in finding a place in the daily hustle of human life. Racist and separatist policies take root and become traditional in society. If we say that idea about inequality in other words, racism is not at the core of society, it is learned later by individuals who make up society […]

Racial Discrimination in Modern World

Racial discrimination occurs when an individual is treated less favorably than someone else in a similar situation due to their race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin, or immigrant status. Members of racial and ethnic minorities continue to fight for equal access and opportunity, especially during times of stringent economic conditions. Often, the targeted race faces more difficulties, such as acquiring a well-paid job or housing. Racial prejudice and stereotypes continue to negatively impact job opportunities in this country. Prejudice […]

A Reflective Summary on Racism and the Socio-Economic Effects of Segregation in America

Slavery is rightfully considered by many to be America’s original sin. This paper examines the deleterious effect of systemic racism on its victims and on race relations. My reflection will be anchored primarily by W.E. Du Bois’ acclaimed publication The Souls of Black Folk, with additional support from other historical and contemporary sources. All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (U.S. Declaration […]

The Institutional Racism

In today society there is several police brutality against black people, and it is governed by the behavioral norms which defined the social and political institution that support institutional systems. Black people still experience racism from people who think they are superior, it is a major problem in our society which emerged from history till date and it has influences other people mindset towards each other to live their dreams. In the educational system, staffs face several challenges among black […]

An Issue of Racial Discrimination in America

America has always been known to be the best continent from the entire world. As a requirement, a world greatest country in the world is expected to have equality in every way possible. However, inequality still exists today, deeply rooted in most prejudiced societies causing minorities pain. My paper address one of the most common social problems that affect many societies in the United States, which is racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is the action or behavior that results in unequal […]

Work Discrimination against Women

In today's society, there are a lot of gender-linked social issues that affect people in a countless amount of ways. A gender-linked problem I women would like to touch on is work discrimination against women in the work place.  Studies have shown that 42 percent of working women in the United This gender-linked problem draws me to the question, how does work discrimination affect women in the United States? The first way women face workplace discrimination is through the hiring […]

Racist and Ethnic Discrimination

Abstract I have chosen these two author it gave me the different opinion how they describe about racial and ethnic discrimination. The first author (Barkan) opinion that he will describe about racial and ethnic discrimination go back history for instinct Civil War and through Christopher Columbus. The next author (McConahaybetty), his opinion is different than Barkan. He states that white do not discriminate against African American and treat them equality. He also states about different color marriage that it should […]

What is Racism: a Definition and Examples

What is racism? Racism is discrimination and/or being prejudice against another race. My paper is going to inform you on events on racism that have affected us humans throughout history. There has been so many events based on racism that are still on going to this day. I will give you my personal thoughts on how I feel about racism. Racism and prejudice has been around for centuries and is still very popular today. My topic is mainly focused on […]

Unconscious Racism and how it Affects People of Color

I want to concentrate primarily on racial microaggressions in the classroom and how teachers believe that their intentions, remarks, or actions are not deemed as racist. Racism is an exceedingly controversial issue here in America. It dates to as early as the Colonial Period when blacks were used for slavery. Sadly, racism is still very prevalent in society today; however, it is not always presented in the forms many are used to. You don't have to use the n-word and […]

Discrimination of Races

Discrimination of races is something that is occuring in our society everyday. It still exists today because it started so long ago and once certain races had the hierarchy, some refuse to let go of the idea that they have more power just because they look a certain way and they choose to discriminate the minorities. Discrimination against a person's race occurs when an individual or group of individuals are treated unequally because of their true or perceived race. I […]

A Major Reproducer of Social Inequalities Due to Law Enforcement and the Judicial Court System

Abstract: This paper focuses on the social inequalities produced by the criminal justice system and how that contributes to the disproportionate distribution of punishment in the United States. The institution that is a key reproducer of social inequalities in the U.S. is the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is significant and plays a major role in upholding social control by imposing penalties on those who have been arrested, convicted, prosecuted, or sentenced for committing criminal offenses (National Center […]

Educational Disparities Among Black and Hispanics

Introduction Educational disparities based on race have been evident in the United States for a long time. They exist in many forms example Hispanics and Blacks commonly score low grades and perform poorly on the standardized exams, their number of enrollment in public colleges is smaller than the whites, their drop out level is also high. Study has shown that they get low grades compared to other races Asians included. In the last 45 years in the United States, there […]

Sociology Exam

What is culture? Provide an example of Australian norms that illustrates your answer. Culture is the social heritage of an organized group or community, the shared behavior patterns, subjective constructs and productive relationships that are learned through the course of socialization. These shared norms recognize members of a particular cultural group as unique setting it apart from other teams. The intangible aspect of societies such as values and interpretation of symbols form the primary elements that define culture. People from […]

Problem of Discrimination in Plain Sight

Race relations has arguably been the most divisive and hotly contested issue in contemporary American politics and throughout United States history. A solution to this issue in the past was to "level the playing field" through programs now colloquially named affirmative action. Many people feel that these programs are necessary to either counteract injustices or ensure the advancement of certain minorities. However, there is evidence to show that affirmative action has become a form of discrimination in and of itself […]

The Poverty Among Us

In our current society, poverty is an issue that plagues third world nations. All countries are interwoven with one another because of everyone needing each other for certain resources. When one country is in need, it interrupts a process that all countries have with one another. Poverty is an issue that everyone should pay attention to even if it does not occur where we live or does not affect us directly as much as it does other nations. Not only […]

Racism and Shootings

With the massacre in Parkland, Florida and the recent shooting in Indiana, there has been more emphasis on the topic of school shootings in the past year. In response to this issue, Donald Trump has suggested the idea of arming teachers as the preventative action. Even though many may see this as a way to protect students, guns in the hands of teachers could bring potential risk to students of color who fear for their safety. When the concept of […]

Additional Example Essays

• About Gender Discrimination in Sports
• Socioautobiography Choices and Experiences Growing up
• A Class Divided
• Gender Inequality in Education
• Poverty and Homelessness in America
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race
• Analysis of "The True Cost" Documentary
• Short Essay on Feminism
• Social Hierarchies in Ancient Civilizations
• Personal Philosophy of Leadership
• “Allegory of the Cave”
• Cinderella Marxism

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Rising inequality: A major issue of our time

Subscribe to global connection, zia qureshi zia qureshi senior fellow - global economy and development.

May 16, 2023

Income and wealth inequality has risen in many countries in recent decades. Rising inequality and related disparities and anxieties have been stoking social discontent and are a major driver of the increased political polarization and populist nationalism that are so evident today. An increasingly unequal society can weaken trust in public institutions and undermine democratic governance. Mounting global disparities can imperil geopolitical stability. Rising inequality has emerged as an important topic of political debate and a major public policy concern.

High and rising inequality

Current inequality levels are high. Contemporary global inequalities are close to the peak levels observed in the early 20th century, at the end of the prewar era (variously described as the Belle Époque or the Gilded Age) that saw sharp increases in global inequality.

Over the past four decades, there has been a broad trend of rising income inequality across countries. Income inequality has risen in most advanced economies and major emerging economies, which together account for about two-thirds of the world’s population and 85 percent of global GDP (Figure 1). The increase has been particularly large in the United States, among advanced economies, and in China, India, and Russia, among major emerging economies.

Figure 1. Inequality has risen in most advanced and major emerging economies Richest 10% income share, 1980-2020

Source: Author, using data from World Inequality Database . Note: Pre-tax national income. Some data points are extrapolated.

Beyond these groups of countries, the trend in the developing world at large has been more mixed, but many countries have seen increases in inequality. In regions such as Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa, income inequality levels on average have been relatively more stable, but inequality was already at high levels in these regions—the highest in the world.

Wealth inequality within countries is typically much higher than income inequality. It has followed a rising trend across countries since around 1980, similar to income inequality. Higher wealth inequality feeds higher future income inequality through capital income and inheritance.

The increase in inequality has been especially marked at the top end of the income distribution, with the income share of the top 10 percent (and even more so that of the top 1 percent) rising sharply in many countries. This was so particularly up to the global financial crisis of 2008-09. Those in low- and middle-income groups have suffered a loss of income share, with those in the bottom 50 percent typically experiencing larger losses of income share. These trends in inequality have been associated with an erosion of the middle class and a decline in intergenerational mobility , especially in advanced economies experiencing larger increases in inequality and a greater polarization in income distribution.

While within-country inequality has been rising, inequality between countries (reflecting per capita income differences) has been falling in recent decades. Faster-growing emerging economies, especially the large ones such as China and India, have been narrowing the income gap with advanced economies. Global inequality—the sum of within-country and between-country inequality—has declined somewhat since around 2000, with the fall in between-country inequality more than offsetting the rise in within-country inequality. As within-country inequality has been rising, it now accounts for a much larger part of global inequality (about two-thirds in 2020, up from less than half in 1980). Looking ahead, how within-country inequality evolves will matter even more for global inequality.

Related Books

Zia Qureshi, Cheonsik Woo

January 11, 2022

Hyeon-Wook Kim, Zia Qureshi

February 25, 2020

The interplay between the evolution of within-country inequality and between-country inequality, coupled with the differential growth performance of emerging and advanced economies, in recent decades presents an interesting picture of middle-class dynamics at the global level (as depicted by the well-known “ elephant curve ” of the incidence of global economic growth). It shows, for the period since 1980, a rising middle class in the emerging world and a squeezed middle class in rich countries. It also shows an increasing concentration of income at the very top of the income distribution globally.

Drivers of rising inequality

Shifting economic paradigms are altering distributional dynamics. Transformative technological change, led by digital technologies, has been reshaping markets, business models, and the nature of work in ways that can increase inequality within economies. While the specifics differ across countries, this has been happening broadly through three channels: more unequal distribution of labor income with rising wage inequality as technology shifts labor demand from routine low- to middle-level skills to new, higher-level skills; shift of income from labor to capital with increasing automation and a decoupling of wages from firm profitability; and more unequal distribution of capital income with rising market power and economic rents enjoyed by dominant firms in increasingly concentrated and winner-takes-all markets. These dynamics are more evident in advanced economies but could increasingly impact developing economies as the new technologies favoring capital and higher-level skills make deeper inroads there.

Globalization (international trade, offshoring) also has contributed to rising inequality within economies, especially in advanced economies by negatively affecting wages and jobs of lower-skilled workers in tradable sectors. These sectors increasingly extend beyond manufacturing as digital globalization expands the range of activities, including services, deliverable across borders.

In emerging economies, technology is reshaping how international trade affects national inequality. The new technologies, born in advanced economies, are shifting manufacturing and global value chains toward higher capital and skill intensity. Leading manufacturing firms located in emerging economies and engaged in exporting are adopting these technologies in order to be able to compete, diminishing employment generation and wage growth prospects for less-skilled workers from this higher-productivity segment of industry in economies whose factor endowments would warrant less capital- and skill-intensive technologies—and thus limiting the potential of international trade to reduce inequality within these economies by boosting demand for their more abundant factor endowment (less-skilled workers). Meanwhile, smaller firms that absorb most such workers in these economies remain engaged in low-productivity activities, many in the informal economy and in petty service sectors.

Globalization has been a force in recent decades for reducing inequality between economies by expanding export opportunities for emerging economies and spurring their economic growth. But globalization’s role in promoting international economic convergence faces new challenges as technological change alters production processes and trade patterns (more on this below).

Other broad trends in recent decades affecting the distribution of income and wealth include changes in institutional settings such as economic deregulation, increasing financialization of economies coupled with a high concentration of financial income and wealth, and erosion of labor market institutions such as minimum wage laws and collective bargaining. Moreover, the redistributive role of the state has been weakening with declining tax progressivity and with transfer programs facing the pressure of tighter fiscal constraints.

Role of public policy

Large and persistent increases in inequality within economies are not an inevitable consequence of forces such as technological change and globalization. Much depends on how public policy responds to the new dynamics that these forces generate. In the midst of these common forces of change, the rise in inequality has been uneven across countries. The difference lies largely in countries’ institutional and policy settings and how they have responded. In general, looking across countries, public policy has been behind the curve. It has been slow to rise to the new challenges to promote more inclusive outcomes from economic change.

Public policy to reduce inequality is often viewed narrowly in terms of redistribution―taxes and transfers. This is indeed an important element, especially in view of the erosion of the state’s redistributive role in recent decades. But there is a much broader policy agenda of “predistribution” that can make the growth process itself more inclusive and produce better market outcomes—by promoting wider access to new opportunities for firms and workers and enhancing their capabilities to adjust as market dynamics shift.

This latter agenda of reforms spans competition policy and regulatory frameworks to keep markets competitive and inclusive in the digital age; innovation ecosystems and technology policies to put innovation to work for broader groups of people; digital infrastructure and literacy to reduce the digital divide; education and (re)training programs to upskill and reskill workers while addressing inequalities in access to these programs; and labor market policies and social protection systems to enable workers to obtain a fair share of economic returns and to support them in times of transition. In many of these reform areas, the new dynamics that economies are facing call for fresh thinking and significant policy overhaul.

Outlook for inequality

Absent more responsive policies to combat inequality, the current high levels of inequality are likely to persist or even rise further. Artificial intelligence and related new waves of digital technologies and automation could increase inequality further within countries. Even as new technologies increase productivity and produce greater economic affluence, and new jobs and tasks emerge to replace those displaced and so prevent large technological unemployment, inequality could reach much higher levels. The economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced some of the inequality-increasing dynamics. Also, a high and increasing concentration of wealth can exacerbate income inequality in a mutually reinforcing cycle.

Technological change also poses new challenges to global economic convergence that has reduced inequality between countries in the past couple of decades. Faster growth in emerging economies led by export of manufactures has depended greatly on their comparative advantage in labor-intensive manufacturing based on large populations of low-skill, low-wage workers. This source of comparative advantage increasingly will erode as automation of low-skill work expands. Emerging economies face the challenge of recalibrating their growth models as technology disrupts traditional pathways to growth and development.

Emerging economies’ growth prospects also face other headwinds, including the scarring effects of the pandemic and global supply chain disruptions exacerbated by the war in Ukraine and an unsettled global geopolitical environment, which would hit the more trade-dependent economies harder. If growth in emerging economies falters, the decline in between-country inequality will slow, which could stall or even reverse the modest decline in global inequality observed since about 2000 if within-country inequality continues to mount.

Climate change is another factor that could worsen inequality within and between countries. Low-income groups and countries are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and have less capacity to cope with them.

Income and wealth inequality is elevated. In the absence of policies to counter recent trends, inequality could rise to still higher levels. High and rising inequality entails adverse economic, social, and political consequences. Policymakers must pay more attention to the changing distributional dynamics in the digital age and harness the forces of change for more inclusive prosperity. History tells us that large and unabated rises in inequality can end up badly.

Related Content

Kersten Stamm, Dana Vorisek

February 22, 2023

Sarah E. Mendelson

April 10, 2023

Vinod Thomas

May 3, 2023

Emerging Markets & Developing Economies

Global Economy and Development

Homi Kharas, Charlotte Rivard

April 16, 2024

Homi Kharas, Vera Songwe

April 15, 2024

Douglas A. Rediker

21 Social Inequality Examples

Social inequality is “the condition where people have unequal access to valued resources, services and positions in society” (Kerbo, 2003, p. 11).

It is broader than just wealth inequality because it also includes factors like discrimination and access to government support.

When social inequality occurs, there is an uneven distribution of resources between individuals or groups, and this happens in almost all societies. These resources and rights go from education, to power, status and so on.

Social inequality is the result of social hierarchy or stratification , with class, gender, race, ethnicity , or sexuality being part of the experience of social inequality. According to theories like the Davis-Moore thesis , it’s also an inevitable feature of society.

Social Inequality Definition

In the field of sociology, unlike economics, social inequality is taken to include differences on many levels: income, resources, power, status, social capital, as well as in levels of social inclusion and exclusion (Warwick-Booth, 2018).

When social inequality occurs, there is an unequal distribution of and unequal access to material and non-material goods:

• Material goods could be income, but also things like housing.
• Non-material social goods refer to intangible things such as access to social networks or social status .

In this sense, social inequality is a multi-faceted approach to uneven differences in access to resources for different social positions or statuses within a group or society.

Thus, dimensions like gender, sexuality, ethnicity or class all impact on being able to access, or not, social goods and resources as well as opportunities.

Social inequality is important because it has an impact on people’s life chances, in their living conditions, their work opportunities and the overall life outcomes of both individuals and groups (Suter, 2014).

Social Inequality Examples

• Wealth inequality: Wealth plays a major role in social perpetuating inequality. People with higher net worth have greater access to resources, can out-bid poorer people for access to limited resources, and can buy access to people in power.
• Income inequality: Income inequality functions in a similar way to wealth inequality, but refers to unequal distribution of money in the workforce. For example, the wage differential between CEOs and workers has spiked in recent decades, which has exacerbated social inequalities.
• Access to basic education: Access to basic education is unequal when wealthier neighborhoods have better primary schools, or when lack of public transit to schooling acts as a substantial barrier for poorer people.
• Access to higher education: Inequal access to education can be a result of factors such as geographical barriers and financial barriers. Without higher education, it is harder to achieve social mobility .
• Age inequality : Also known as ageism , this refers to discrimination against people based on their age. For example, it occurs in relation to access to employment for those over the age of 50.
• Deprived neighborhoods: Deprived neighborhoods are an example of how it is not only individuals who suffer inequality. Sometimes, whole areas can be affected by the unequal distribution of rights and resources. This happens, for example, when some neighborhoods have restricted access to hospitals and transport.
• Housing inequality: Having access to a house, or living in sufficient accommodation, is both a cause and a consequence of social inequality. Living in a social housing, for example, is related to being at the bottom of the social hierarchy.
• Racial inequality: Inequality based on race can be a result of systemic and intergenerational racism, a discriminatory attitude by which access to rights has not been distributed equally across people of different races, and which has been passed down through generations of deprivation.
• Gender inequality: Inequality based on gender is called sexism, a discriminatory attitude by which women are more likely to be worse off in the equality scales. For example, they tend to earn less than men for the same jobs.
• Health access inequality: Inequal access to healthcare is most starkly shown by the rural-urban divide (where rural people often need to travel to cities to receive care) and the class divide, where working-class people often find funding to be a barrier to access to quality care ( see more social determinants of health here ).
• Caste systems: Traditional caste societies deny access to jobs based on your ascribed status at birth. Furthermore, they may deny people from marrying one another across castes.
• Geographical inequality: Geographical inequality can be within a nation (e.g. the rural-urban divide) as well as globally (e.g. developing vs developed nations).
• Citizenship status: People may face limited protections based upon their citizenship. While it’s generally accepted that a tourist in a country shouldn’t access some public services covered by taxation, when non-citizens are denied human rights like access to a lawyer, we might start to consider citizenship status as a dimension of inequality in a society.
• Child poverty: Child poverty is a key driver of social inequality. People born into poverty can experience malnutrition, poorer educational results, and lower overall lifetime earnings on average.
• Power and status inequality: Access to powerful people is unequally distributed. People who are privileged on the social hierarchy have higher social status and consequently have more access to people in powerful political and corporate positions. There is also inequal power distribution between men and women, as demonstrated by the glass ceiling phenomenon .
• LGBT discrimination: Historically, LGBT people have faced discrimination that has affected their ability to do many things heterosexual people can access, including starting and raising a family, and accessing healthcare as spouses.
• Intergenerational inequality: This occurs when one generation in society has had greater access to resources than others at similar points in their lives. For example, in the UK and Australia, baby boomers had free higher education, which was denied to future generations who had to pay for it. This affected future generations’ prospects in a way that did not affect baby bookers.
• Incarceration rates: Taking a look at incarceration rates versus rates in which different racial groups commit crimes can demonstrate how people of color are more likely to be imprisoned if they are caught committing a crime.
• Service inequality: Unequal access to services can be seen across many vectors of society, including the rural-urban divide and rich-poor divide.
• Discriminatory laws: Laws that entrench discrimination, such as segregation laws , can be a source of social inequality.
• Indigenous inequality: Fist nations groups have long suffered from inequal access to resources in society. One demonstration of this is the lack of clean drinking water in many first nations communities in Canada.

Case Studies

1. social inequality and gender.

Gender is a key dimension of social inequality, as for a variety of reasons, the unfair treatment of people based on their gender still happens in contemporary society. 

There are three main areas in which gender inequality can be found: health, education, and the workplace.

For example, in relation to health, although women live longer than men, they have more ill health throughout their lives.

In terms of education, there is still segregation in certain subjects, for example, computing or engineering are still dominated by men. Finally, in the workplace, we find that is called the glass ceiling , which stops women from progressing in their careers. 

2. Social inequality and ethnicity

Racism is the expression of social inequality based on a person’s, or a group, race or ethnicity.

It has been shown that people of ethnic minority backgrounds experience higher rates of unemployment, they are more likely to be prosecuted by the criminal justice, and also be victims of crime, live in inadequate housing, have bad mental and physical health or be excluded from education. These are examples of institutional racism .

All of these cause social inequality in the middle and longer term and slims down ethnic minorities’ life chances.

3. Social inequality and health

There is a clear relation between social inequality and health, for multiple reasons.

For example, income determines being able to afford things like gym membership or fresh fruit, which keeps people healthier..

Occupation also has a role in health inequality a life expectancy, for example, teachers live longer than plumbers.

Finally, in countries in which there is no universal health coverage those with higher incomes will have greater access to services, from health promotion, to prevention or treatment.

4. Social inequality and age

Ageism refers to stereotypes (how we think), prejudice (how we feel) and discrimination (how we act) towards others or oneself based on age.

While ageism can be directed towards younger or older people, in terms of inequality, it is in older groups that the focus will be put on. People who are older may experience discrimination in the workplace, for example, in terms of accessing jobs which can lead to higher rates of unemployment.

Furthermore, older people with small pensions have less spending power and thus less access to certain resources, for example, paying for leisure and cultural activities , thus putting them at a disadvantage.

5. Social inequality and income or wealth

While social inequality is not solely based on income or wealth, money, whether from the job one does or from access to family wealth, plays a role in accessing resources.

This greater access to resources mean that some people at a greater advantage than others, for example, in relation to good health and educations. As has been explained, this difference in access to resources is at the heart of social inequality and it impacts on people’s life changes, hence its importance.

Social inequality is a complex subject due to its transversal nature: as it has been pointed out, it is more than just having more or less money. In social inequality there are many factors at play, such as gender, age or ethnicity as well as other aspects like class or neighborhood.

The importance of fighting off social inequality lies in its cumulative nature and in how it determines people’s life chances, sometimes for generations.

Doob, C. B. (2019). Social inequality and social stratification in US society. London: Routledge.

Hurst, C.; Fitz Gibon, H. & Nurse, A. (2016) Social Inequality: Forms, Causes, and Consequences . New York: Routledge

Kerbo, H. R. (2003).  Social stratification and inequality. Class conflict in historical, comparative, and global perspective . Boston: McGrawHill.

Thompson, R. (2019). Education, Inequality and Social Class. Expansion and Stratification in Educational Opportunity . New York: Routledge.

Warwick-Booth, L. (2018). Social Inequality . New York: Sage

Wisdom, S., Leavitt, L., & Bice, C. (Eds.). (2019).  Handbook of research on social inequality and education . London: IGI Global.

Rosa Panades (PhD)

Dr. Panades is a multifaceted sociologist with experience working in a variety of fields, from familiy relations, to teenage pregnancy, housing, women in science or social innvovation. She has worked in international, european and local projects, both in the UK and in Spain. She has an inquisitive and analytical mind and a passion for knowledge, cultural and social issues.

Rosa holds a PhD in Sociology on the topic of young fatherhood from the University of Greenwich, London.

• Rosa Panades (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Manifest Functions in Sociology (10 Examples)
• Rosa Panades (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Latent Functions in Sociology (with 10 Examples)
• Rosa Panades (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Oppression Examples
• Rosa Panades (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 10 Institutional Discrimination Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Positive Punishment Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Dissociation Examples (Psychology)
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Zone of Proximal Development Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Perception Checking: 15 Examples and Definition

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

A Developmental Science Perspective on Social Inequality

Laura elenbaas.

1 University of Rochester

Michael T. Rizzo

2 New York University

3 Beyond Conflict Innovation Lab, Boston, MA

Melanie Killen

4 University of Maryland

Many people believe in equality of opportunity, but overlook and minimize the structural factors that shape social inequalities in the United States and around the world, such as systematic exclusion (e.g., educational, occupational) based on group membership (e.g., gender, race, socioeconomic status). As a result, social inequalities persist, and place marginalized social groups at elevated risk for negative emotional, learning, and health outcomes. Where do the beliefs and behaviors that underlie social inequalities originate? Recent evidence from developmental science indicates that an awareness of social inequalities begins in childhood, and that children seek to explain the underlying causes of the disparities that they observe and experience. Moreover, children and adolescents show early capacities for understanding and rectifying inequalities when regulating access to resources in peer contexts. Drawing on a social reasoning developmental framework, this paper synthesizes what is currently known about children’s and adolescents’ awareness, beliefs, and behavior concerning social inequalities, and highlights promising avenues by which developmental science can help reduce harmful assumptions and foster a more just society.

Despite the fact that many people believe in equality of opportunity, many also overlook the structural factors that shape social and economic disparities in the United States and around the world. These structural factors include, for example, historical and current exclusion from residential, educational, and occupational opportunities on the basis of gender, race, socioeconomic status, or other group memberships ( Bullock, 2019 ; Kraus et al., 2019 ). As a result, excluded social groups continue to have fewer opportunities for upward mobility and experience elevated risk for negative emotional, learning, and health outcomes ( Duncan & Mumane, 2011 ; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2017 ). Psychological science plays a crucial role in illuminating the processes that underlie people’s responses to social inequality. For example, research has shown that social inequalities persist in part because many people under-estimate their true magnitude, are not motivated to correct disparities that benefit their social groups, or hold negative stereotypes about marginalized groups ( Arsenio, 2018 ; Lott, 2012 ; Roberts & Rizzo, 2020 ). In order to address the psychological roots of these inequalities, we need to know where these beliefs and attitudes come from, and how we might encourage a more equitable and just understanding of the causes and consequences of social inequalities. In this paper, we offer a developmental perspective that begins to address these two questions.

In the past decade, developmental scientists have been at the forefront of efforts to understand how youth develop an awareness of social inequalities, seek explanations for their causes, form judgments of their consequences, and enact behavioral responses, based on their personal experiences with social inequalities and the influences of micro (e.g., family, peer) and macro (e.g., school, media) social contexts ( Arsenio, 2015 ; Ruck et al., 2019 ). Although children have few direct opportunities to influence societal-level inequalities (e.g., through voting, protesting), they regularly experience social inequalities in their peer and family contexts, and take on a range of different roles (e.g., perpetuator, rectifier, victim, witness) within these inequalities ( Killen et al., 2018 ). As a result, research is beginning to uncover not only the developmental processes that exacerbate social inequalities, but also potential pathways for promoting greater consideration of equity in childhood. In fact, developmental science is uniquely positioned to illuminate the factors that motivate children and adults to either ignore, exacerbate, or challenge social inequalities in their everyday interactions.

Social Reasoning Developmental Model

One branch of current research on how youth conceptualize social inequalities is informed by the social reasoning developmental (SRD) model ( Killen et al., 2018 ; Rutland et al., 2010 ). The SRD model focuses on reasoning, judgments, and decisions about moral and social issues, and how these processes change across development. It integrates concepts from social domain theory (e.g., how children reason about social-conventional, moral, and personal concerns) and social identity theory (e.g., how intra- and inter-group dynamics shape decisionmaking) to provide a framework for understanding how children make sense of moral issues (e.g., denial of resources) that occur in inter-group contexts.

The SRD model takes a constructivist view in postulating that children’s social-cognitive development stems from their reflections and abstractions based on their everyday interactions which, in turn, enable them to infer, evaluate, and judge actions and events in their world ( Killen & Rutland, 2011 ). In contrast to nativist or socialization perspectives, constructivist theories regarding the origins of social cognition emphasize the central role of the child in actively interpreting and making sense of their social world ( Killen & Smetana, 2015 ; Turiel, 1983 ). Within this broader theoretical perspective, the SRD model proposes that reasoning about morality, group identity, and the psychological states of others emerges early in childhood and coexists throughout development (see Figure 1 ). Each of these domains of knowledge are brought to bear when children and adolescents consider complex issues, such as social inequalities. What changes across development is the complexity of children’s and adolescents’ moral reasoning, the depth of their understanding of social group dynamics, their awareness of others’ mental state capacities, and their ability to coordinate and balance these overlapping concerns.

Social Reasoning Developmental (SRD) Model proposes that children and adolescents bring three forms of knowledge to bear on their reasoning about social inequalities: moral, group, and psychological.

In order to understand the orgins, development, and sources of influence on thinking about social inequalities, research from the SRD perspective has examined how children’s and adolescents’ understanding of moral, group, and psychological concepts are applied to their emerging: 1) awareness of social inequalities, 2) explanations for these inequalities, and 3) behavior aimed at increasing or reducing social inequalities. In this paper, we synthesize research from the SRD framework, as well as related research in developmental science, to outline what is currently known about children’s and adolescents’ awareness, beliefs, and behavior concerning social inequalities, and highlight promising avenues to encourage positive change.

Awareness of Social Inequalities

Being aware of social inequalities means recognizing the existence of disparities in access to resources or opportunities between social groups. On the most basic level, children are cognitively equipped to notice resource inequalities from early in development. Already in their first year of life, infants notice when someone has more toys than someone else ( Sommerville, 2018 ). By the time they reach kindergarten, children attend to wealth inequalities, identifying their peers as “poor” or “rich”, alongside other forms of social categorization (e.g., gender, ethnicity) ( Hazelbaker et al., 2018 ; Shutts, 2015 ). Over the course of adolescence, youth view U.S. society as increasingly economically stratified and also increasingly link economic status and race, associating White and Asian Americans with higher income and wealth than Black and Latinx Americans ( Arsenio & Willems, 2017 ; Ghavami & Mistry, 2019 ). However, even adults under-estimate the true extent to which wealth is unequally distributed in society, as well as the true magnitude of current racial wealth gaps ( Arsenio, 2018 ; Kraus et al., 2019 ).

Moreover, children’s own status or the status of their social group can lead them to deny or minimize the extent of social inequalities. For example, in one recent experiment, Rizzo and Killen (2020) randomly assigned 3- to 8 year-old children to either an advantaged group (had more resources than an outgroup) or a disadvantaged group (had fewer resources than an outgroup). Children assigned to the advantaged group were more likely to see the resource inequality as fair, support attempts to perpetuate the inequality, and keep more resources for their own group when given the chance.

Similarly, Elenbaas and colleagues (2016) randomly assigned European-American and African-American children, ages 5- to 6 and 10- to 11 years, to witness an experimental inequality of school supplies that placed either their racial ingroup or outgroup at a disadvantage. Young children whose ingroup was disadvantaged judged the inequality to be unfair and took steps to correct it, but young children whose outgroup was disadvantaged did not (see Figure 2 ). Older children, by contrast, rectified the inequality under both conditions and reasoned about the importance of ensuring equal access to resources (e.g., “Both schools should have the same amount of supplies for learning”).

Young children corrected a resource inequality that disadvantaged their racial ingroup but not an inequality that disadvantaged their outgroup.

From an SRD perspective, these results reveal what happens when children prioritize group concerns over moral concerns, and how the prioritization of these concerns develops during childhood. Whereas younger children in both studies struggled to balance concerns for ingroup benefit with concerns for equity, older children’s reasoning and decision-making reflected a more generalized concern for ensuring fair access to resources that took precedence over social preferences. Because ingroup concerns remain common throughout development, however, it is important to identify which social contexts enable children and adolescents to see the bigger picture and align their moral behavior with their moral judgments.

Explanations for Social Inequalities

Generating an explanation for a social inequality entails forming beliefs about how disparities in access to resources or opportunities between social groups came to be. Children and adolescents are able to consider multiple possible sources for social inequalities, and not all sources are perceived to be unfair ( Arsenio & Willems, 2017 ; Flanagan et al., 2014 ; Starmans et al., 2017 ). For instance, many people –youth and adults– explain social inequalities in terms of traditions and authority, including the need to maintain a predictable status quo and the idea that it is normal or typical for some groups to succeed and others not to. Other explanations are moral in nature. For instance, social inequalities cause direct and indirect harm to members of marginalized groups as a result of systemic discrimination and are thus in need of rectification. Finally, many explanations weigh moral, societal (economic systems), and psychological rationales, including beliefs that economic systems are designed to give everyone an equal pportunity for upward mobility and that a certain amount of inequality in society is motivating for people.

By kindergarten, children believe that greater effort entitles an individual person to a greater share of rewards (e.g., someone who tries harder at a game deserves to keep their winnings) ( Rizzo et al., 2016 ). However, when scaled up to the social group level, early-emerging judgments about merit can lead to negative stereotypes that marginalized and excluded groups “deserve” their status. For instance, young children stereotype poor peers as less competent than rich peers ( Shutts et al., 2016 ). Similarly, children hold stereotypes that African-Americans are less hardworking than European-Americans and girls are less intelligent than boys ( Bian et al., 2017 ; Pauker et al., 2016 ). In fact, although adolescents are more likely than children to generate structural explanations for social inequalities (e.g., systemic racism, classism, or sexism), these explanations typically exist alongside problematic assumptions about differences in social groups’ motivation, effort, and ingenuity, rather than replacing them ( Flanagan et al., 2014 ; Godfrey et al., 2019 ).

Explaining the underlying causes of social inequalities is challenging because observing an existing disparity (e.g., a racial disparity in access to education) does not provide enough information to infer its cause, and because the messages that children receive (e.g., from adults, media sources) about the nature and origins of social inequalities are often incomplete or ambiguous. As a result, children’s awareness and understanding of the complex structural factors underlying social inequalities (e.g., political systems that exclude the poor, residential systems that exclude ethnic minorities, educational systems that exclude girls) is limited and interacts with other cognitive biases. For example, when children are asked to generate explanations for resource inequalities between novel groups (e.g., the Orps and the Blarks), children often assume that group differences resulted from internal factors (e.g., work ethic, natural ability) rather than external factors (e.g., discrimination) ( Hussak & Cimpian, 2015 ).

Behavior in Contexts Involving Social Inequalities

Children’s and adolescents’ reasoning about the causes of social inequalities informs their thinking about what (if anything) should be done to address them. For example, in one experiment, Rizzo and colleagues (2018) tested 3- to 8-year-old children’s responses to individually-based inequalities (i.e., one peer received more prizes than another because they worked harder) or structurally-based inequalities (i.e., one peer received more prizes than another because the person giving out prizes had a gender bias). In response to the individually-based inequality, children gave more resources to the hardworking peer and reasoned about merit (e.g., “She did a better job at the activities”). In response to the structurally-based inequality, children gave more resources to the peer who had received less because of a gender bias and reasoned about equality (e.g., “They should get the same number”). These results confirm young children’s belief that individual effort should be rewarded, but also highlight emerging concerns for equity in response to structurally-based inequalities. When children had clear and unambiguous evidence that resources were allocated unjustly, they acted to correct the disparity.

Similarly, one recent experiment informed early adolescents that access to an educational opportunity (a science summer camp) had historically been restricted such that only wealthy children or only poor children had attended ( Elenbaas, 2019a ). When they had the chance to determine who should attend the camp “this summer,” participants favored the group that had been excluded in the past, particularly when that group was poor. Moreover, the larger the economic “gap” in access to opportunities that participants perceived in broader society, the more they supported including poor peers in this particular opportunity (see Figure 3 ) and reasoned about fair access to learning (e.g., “Everyone has the right to education no matter what background they come from”).

Early adolescents who perceived a larger economic “gap” in access to opportunities in favor of high-wealth peers were more supportive of including low-wealth peers in a learning opportunity.

These studies, both drawing on the SRD model to understand children’s and adolescents’ reasoning and behavior in contexts involving moral issues (differential access to resources and opportunities) on inter-group levels (involving gender or social class), have intriguing implications for how to reduce harmful stereotypes about the causes of social inequalities. When children know –from their own direct observations or from others’ testimony– that an inequality is rooted in structural discrimination or bias, most children support efforts to reduce it. The challenge is that children rarely receive this direct and unambiguous evidence. While the idea that anyone can achieve success with enough effort and ambition is widely available to children in national, social, and educational discourse, children receive far less consistent information about the historical and societal contexts for why some social groups are advantaged over others. However, this may offer a point of entry for adults interested in increasing children’s recognition of the complex structural causes of social inequalities.

Supporting Complex Reasoning about Social Inequalities

Providing opportunities for analysis and reflection on the sources and consequences of social inequalities may help youth develop a critical understanding of the social, economic, and political systems that they are a part of ( Seider et al., 2018 ). For example, research on family racial-ethnic socialization indicates that conversations about discrimination can contribute to adolescents’ structural explanations for social inequalities (e.g., systemic racism) ( Bañales et al., 2019 ). Similarly, research on civic engagement has shown that adolescents who frequently discuss current events with their parents have a better understanding of structural contributors to poverty ( Flanagan et al., 2014 ). Likewise, research on critical consciousness indicates that discussions with parents, teachers, mentors, and peers can foster adolescents’ awareness of sociopolitical conditions and motivation to address social inequalities ( Diemer et al., 2016 ). Although little research has examined the messages about social inequality that pre-adolescent children may receive, they, too, are becoming aware of social inequalities, and likely consider their parents’ and teachers’ opinions when forming beliefs about their causes.

Relationships with peers whose experiences differ from their own may also help youth reject stereotypes and develop a deeper understanding of social inequalities. For instance, research on inter-group contact indicates that having a friend from a different racial background is associated with lower racial stereotypes ( Aboud & Brown, 2013 ). Similarly, cross-SES friendships may encourage children’s fairness reasoning. In one recent study, children from zupper-middle income families who reported more contact with peers from lower-income backgrounds were more likely to reason about differences in access to resources when sharing toys, and shared more equitably ( Elenbaas, 2019b ). Although, it is not yet known whether interactions with higher-SES peers have a similar impact on lower-SES children’s reasoning, these results point to how everyday interactions with friends may raise children’s consideration of the immediate consequences of resource disparities.

Future Directions for Research

Understanding children’s and adolescents’ thinking about social inequality is a new area of research in developmental science ( Ruck et al., 2019 ). We now know that youth face challenges in becoming aware of the existence and extent of social inequalities, understanding their structural causes, and deciding how to address social inequalities. Moreover, both the potential for ingroup benefit and negative stereotypes about disadvantaged groups lead to more exclusive and inequitable behavior.

We also know, however, that children’s concerns for justice and fairness emerge early, and enable them to identify and work to correct instances of inequality within their sphere of influence. We suggest a continued research focus on the questions of origins and development that have framed a great deal of work in this area thus far, but also increased attention to the sources of influence on children’s thinking. Drawing on the constructivist perspective of the SRD model, we suggest that future studies investigate the joint and separate roles of interacting with diverse peers, interpreting conversations’ with parents and teachers, and reflecting on societal structures on children’s and adolescents’ reasoning, judgments, and behaviors in contexts of social inequality. Continued investigation of how children recognize, explain, and respond to social inequalities may provide a basis for ameliorating their detrimental outcomes and fostering a more just society.

Acknowledgements

Melanie Killen was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, BCS1728918 and the National Institutes of Health, NICHDR01HD093698 while working on this paper.

• Aboud FE, & Brown CS (2013). Positive and negative intergroup contact among children and its effect on attitudes. In Hodson G & Hewstone M (Eds.), Advances in intergroup contact (pp. 176–199). Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arsenio WF (2015). Moral psychological perspectives on distributive justice and societal inequalities . Child Development Perspectives , 9 ( 2 ), 91–95. 10.1111/cdep.12115. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ] A social domain theory perspective on how individuals understand and morally evaluate the distribution of societal resources
• Arsenio WF (2018). The wealth of nations: International judgments regarding actual and ideal resource distributions . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 27 ( 5 ), 357–362. 10.1177/0963721418762377 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arsenio WF, & Willems C (2017). Adolescents’ conceptions of national wealth distribution: Connections with perceived societal fairness and academic plans . Developmental Psychology , 53 ( 3 ), 463–474. 10.1037/dev0000263 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bañales J, Marchand AD, Skinner OD, Anyiwo N, Rowley SJ, & Kurtz-Costes B (2019). Black adolescents’ critical reflection development: Parents’ racial socialization and attributions about race achievement gaps . Journal of Research on Adolescence , 30 ( S2 ), 403–417. 10.1111/jora.12485 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bian L, Leslie SJ, & Cimpian A (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests . Science , 355 ( 6323 ), 389–391. 10.1126/science.aah6524 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bullock ΗE (2019). Psychology’s contributions to understanding and alleviating poverty and economic inequality: Introduction to the special section . American Psychologist , 74 ( 6 ), 635–640. 10.1037/amp0000532 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diemer MA, Rapa LJ, Voight AM, & McWhirter EH (2016). Critical consciousness: A developmental approach to addressing marginalization and oppression . Child Development Perspectives , 10 ( 4 ), 216–221. 10.1111/cdep.12193 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan GJ, & Murnane RJ (Eds.). (2011). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances . Russell Sage Foundation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elenbaas L (2019a). Perceptions of economic inequality are related to children’s judgments about access to opportunities . Developmental Psychology , 55 ( 3 ), 471–481. 10.1037/dev0000550 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elenbaas L (2019b). Interwealth contact and young children’s concern for equity . Child Development , 90 ( 1 ), 108–116. 10.1111/cdev.13157 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elenbaas L, Rizzo MT, Cooley S, & Killen M (2016). Rectifying inequalities in a resource allocation task . Cognition , 155 , 176–187. 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.07.002 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flanagan CA, Kim T, Pykett A, Finlay A, Gallay EE, & Pancer M (2014). Adolescents’ theories about economic inequality: Why are some people poor while others are rich? Developmental Psychology , 50 ( 11 ), 2512–2525. 10.1037/a0037934 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghavami N, & Mistry RS (2019). Urban ethnically diverse adolescents’ perceptions of social class at the intersection of race, gender, and sexual orientation . Developmental Psychology , 55 ( 3 ), 457–470. 10.1037/dev0000572 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Godfrey EB, Santos CE, & Burson E (2019). For better or worse? System-justifying beliefs in sixth grade predict trajectories of self esteem and behavior across early adolescence . Child Development , 90 ( 1 ), 180–195. 10.1111/cdev.12854 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hazelbaker T, Griffin KM, Nenadal L, & Mistry RS (2018). Early elementary school children’s conceptions of neighborhood social stratification and fairness . Translational Issues in Psychological Science , 4 ( 2 ), 153–164. 10.1037/tps0000153 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hussak LJ, & Cimpian A (2015). An early-emerging explanatory heuristic promotes support for the status quo . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 109 ( 5 ), 739–752. 10.1037/pspa0000033 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Killen M, Elenbaas L, & Rizzo MT (2018). Young children’s ability to recognize and challenge unfair treatment of others in group contexts . Human Development , 61 ( 4 ), 281– 296. 10.1159/000492804. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ] A social reasoning developmental perspective on how young children’s emerging understanding of group membershp and mental states prepares them to challenge the unfair treatment of peers.
• Killen M, & Rutland A (2011). Children and social exclusion: Morality, prejudice, and group identity . Wiley/Blackwell Publishers, 10.1002/9781444396317 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Killen M, & Smetana JG (2015). Origins and development of morality. In Lamb ME (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science , Vol. 3 (7th ed., pp. 701–749). Wiley-Blackwell. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kraus MW, Onyeador IN, Daumeyer NM, Rucker JM, & Richeson JA (2019). The misperception of racial economic inequality . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 14 ( 6 ), 899–921. 10.1177/1745691619863049 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lott B (2012). The social psychology of class and classism . American Psychologist , 67 ( 8 ), 650–658. 10.1037/a0029369 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pauker K, Xu Y, Williams A, & Biddle AM (2016). Race essentialism and social contextual differences in children’s racial stereotyping . Child Development , 57 ( 5 ), 1409– 1422. 10.1111/cdev.12592 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rizzo MT, Elenbaas L, Cooley S, & Killen M (2016). Children’s recognition of fairness and others’ welfare in a resource allocation task: Age related changes . Developmental Psychology , 52 ( 8 ), 1307–1317. 10.1037/dev0000134 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rizzo MT, Elenbaas L, & Vanderbilt KE (2018). Do children distinguish between resource inequalities with individual versus structural origins? Child Development . 10.1111/cdev.13181 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rizzo MT, & Killen M (2020). Children’s evaluations of individually- and structurally-based inequalities: The role of status . Manuscript Submittedfor Publication. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts SO, & Rizzo MT (2020). The psychology of American racism . American Psychologist , 10.1037/amp0000642 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruck MD, Mistry RS, & Flanagan CA (2019). Children’s and adolescents’ understanding and experiences of economic inequality: An introduction to the special section . Developmental Psychology , 55 ( 3 ), 449–456. 10.1037/dev0000694. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ] An overview of a special section on youths’ perceptions, experiences, and reasoning about economic inequality.
• Rutland A, Killen M, & Abrams D (2010). A new social-cognitive developmental perspective on prejudice: The interplay between morality and group identity . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 5 ( 3 ), 279–291. 10.1177/1745691610369468 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seider S, Kelly L, Clark S, Jennett P, El-Amin A, Graves D, Soutter M, Malhotra S, & Cabral M (2018). Fostering the sociopolitical development of African American and Latinx adolescents to analyze and challenge racial and economic inequality . Youth and Society , 1–39. 10.1177/0044118X18767783 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shutts K (2015). Young children’s preferences: Gender, race, and social status . Child Development Perspectives , 9 ( 4 ), 262–266. 10.1111/cdep.12154 . [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ] A social categorization perspective on children’s attitudes about gender, race, and social class
• Shutts K, Brey EL, Dornbusch LA, Slywotzky N, & Olson KR (2016). Children use wealth cues to evaluate others . PLoS ONE , 77 ( 3 ), e0149360. 10.1371/journal.pone.0149360 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sommerville JA (2018). Infants’ understanding of distributive fairness as a test case for identifying the extents and limits of infants’ sociomoral cognition and behavior . Child Development Perspectives , 12 ( 3 ), 141–145. 10.1111/cdep.12283 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Starmans C, Sheskin M, & Bloom P (2017). Why people prefer unequal societies . Nature Human Behaviour , 7 ( 4 ), 0082. 10.1038/s41562-017-0082 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turiel E (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention . Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilkinson RG, & Pickett KE (2017). The enemy between us: The psychological and social costs of inequality . European Journal of Social Psychology , 47 ( 1 ), 11–24. 10.1002/ejsp.2275 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Black Americans Have a Clear Vision for Reducing Racism but Little Hope It Will Happen

Many say key U.S. institutions should be rebuilt to ensure fair treatment

Table of contents.

• Black Americans see little improvement in their lives despite increased national attention to racial issues
• Few Black adults expect equality for Black people in the U.S.
• Black adults say racism and police brutality are extremely big problems for Black people in the U.S.
• Personal experiences with discrimination are widespread among Black Americans
• Black adults see voting as the most effective strategy for moving toward equality in the U.S.
• Some Black adults see Black businesses and communities as effective remedies for inequality
• Black Americans say race matters little when choosing political allies
• The legacy of slavery affects Black Americans today
• Most Black adults agree the descendants of enslaved people should be repaid
• The types of repayment Black adults think would be most helpful
• Responsibility for reparations and the likelihood repayment will occur
• Black adults say the criminal justice system needs to be completely rebuilt
• Black adults say political, economic and health care systems need major changes to ensure fair treatment
• Most Black adults say funding for police departments should stay the same or increase
• Acknowledgments
• Appendix: Supplemental tables
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand the nuances among Black people on issues of racial inequality and social change in the United States. This in-depth survey explores differences among Black Americans in their views on the social status of the Black population in the U.S.; their assessments of racial inequality; their visions for institutional and social change; and their outlook on the chances that these improvements will be made. The analysis is the latest in the Center’s series of in-depth surveys of public opinion among Black Americans (read the first, “ Faith Among Black Americans ” and “ Race Is Central to Identity for Black Americans and Affects How They Connect With Each Other ”).

The online survey of 3,912 Black U.S. adults was conducted Oct. 4-17, 2021. Black U.S. adults include those who are single-race, non-Hispanic Black Americans; multiracial non-Hispanic Black Americans; and adults who indicate they are Black and Hispanic. The survey includes 1,025 Black adults on Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP) and 2,887 Black adults on Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel. Respondents on both panels are recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses.

Recruiting panelists by phone or mail ensures that nearly all U.S. Black adults have a chance of selection. This gives us confidence that any sample can represent the whole population (see our Methods 101 explainer on random sampling). Here are the questions used for the survey of Black adults, along with its responses and methodology .

The terms “Black Americans,” “Black people” and “Black adults” are used interchangeably throughout this report to refer to U.S. adults who self-identify as Black, either alone or in combination with other races or Hispanic identity.

Throughout this report, “Black, non-Hispanic” respondents are those who identify as single-race Black and say they have no Hispanic background. “Black Hispanic” respondents are those who identify as Black and say they have Hispanic background. We use the terms “Black Hispanic” and “Hispanic Black” interchangeably. “Multiracial” respondents are those who indicate two or more racial backgrounds (one of which is Black) and say they are not Hispanic.

Respondents were asked a question about how important being Black was to how they think about themselves. In this report, we use the term “being Black” when referencing responses to this question.

In this report, “immigrant” refers to people who were not U.S. citizens at birth – in other words, those born outside the U.S., Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories to parents who were not U.S. citizens. We use the terms “immigrant,” “born abroad” and “foreign-born” interchangeably.

Throughout this report, “Democrats and Democratic leaners” and just “Democrats” both refer to respondents who identify politically with the Democratic Party or who are independent or some other party but lean toward the Democratic Party. “Republicans and Republican leaners” and just “Republicans” both refer to respondents who identify politically with the Republican Party or are independent or some other party but lean toward the Republican Party.

Respondents were asked a question about their voter registration status. In this report, respondents are considered registered to vote if they self-report being absolutely certain they are registered at their current address. Respondents are considered not registered to vote if they report not being registered or express uncertainty about their registration.

To create the upper-, middle- and lower-income tiers, respondents’ 2020 family incomes were adjusted for differences in purchasing power by geographic region and household size. Respondents were then placed into income tiers: “Middle income” is defined as two-thirds to double the median annual income for the entire survey sample. “Lower income” falls below that range, and “upper income” lies above it. For more information about how the income tiers were created, read the methodology .

More than a year after the murder of George Floyd and the national protests, debate and political promises that ensued, 65% of Black Americans say the increased national attention on racial inequality has not led to changes that improved their lives. 1 And 44% say equality for Black people in the United States is not likely to be achieved, according to newly released findings from an October 2021 survey of Black Americans by Pew Research Center.

This is somewhat of a reversal in views from September 2020, when half of Black adults said the increased national focus on issues of race would lead to major policy changes to address racial inequality in the country and 56% expected changes that would make their lives better.

At the same time, many Black Americans are concerned about racial discrimination and its impact. Roughly eight-in-ten say they have personally experienced discrimination because of their race or ethnicity (79%), and most also say discrimination is the main reason many Black people cannot get ahead (68%).  

Even so, Black Americans have a clear vision for how to achieve change when it comes to racial inequality. This includes support for significant reforms to or complete overhauls of several U.S. institutions to ensure fair treatment, particularly the criminal justice system; political engagement, primarily in the form of voting; support for Black businesses to advance Black communities; and reparations in the forms of educational, business and homeownership assistance. Yet alongside their assessments of inequality and ideas about progress exists pessimism about whether U.S. society and its institutions will change in ways that would reduce racism.

These findings emerge from an extensive Pew Research Center survey of 3,912 Black Americans conducted online Oct. 4-17, 2021. The survey explores how Black Americans assess their position in U.S. society and their ideas about social change. Overall, Black Americans are clear on what they think the problems are facing the country and how to remedy them. However, they are skeptical that meaningful changes will take place in their lifetime.

Black Americans see racism in our laws as a big problem and discrimination as a roadblock to progress

Black adults were asked in the survey to assess the current nature of racism in the United States and whether structural or individual sources of this racism are a bigger problem for Black people. About half of Black adults (52%) say racism in our laws is a bigger problem than racism by individual people, while four-in-ten (43%) say acts of racism committed by individual people is the bigger problem. Only 3% of Black adults say that Black people do not experience discrimination in the U.S. today.

In assessing the magnitude of problems that they face, the majority of Black Americans say racism (63%), police brutality (60%) and economic inequality (54%) are extremely or very big problems for Black people living in the U.S. Slightly smaller shares say the same about the affordability of health care (47%), limitations on voting (46%), and the quality of K-12 schools (40%).

Aside from their critiques of U.S. institutions, Black adults also feel the impact of racial inequality personally. Most Black adults say they occasionally or frequently experience unfair treatment because of their race or ethnicity (79%), and two-thirds (68%) cite racial discrimination as the main reason many Black people cannot get ahead today.

Black Americans’ views on reducing racial inequality

Black Americans are clear on the challenges they face because of racism. They are also clear on the solutions. These range from overhauls of policing practices and the criminal justice system to civic engagement and reparations to descendants of people enslaved in the United States.

Changing U.S. institutions such as policing, courts and prison systems

About nine-in-ten Black adults say multiple aspects of the criminal justice system need some kind of change (minor, major or a complete overhaul) to ensure fair treatment, with nearly all saying so about policing (95%), the courts and judicial process (95%), and the prison system (94%).

Roughly half of Black adults say policing (49%), the courts and judicial process (48%), and the prison system (54%) need to be completely rebuilt for Black people to be treated fairly. Smaller shares say the same about the political system (42%), the economic system (37%) and the health care system (34%), according to the October survey.

While Black Americans are in favor of significant changes to policing, most want spending on police departments in their communities to stay the same (39%) or increase (35%). A little more than one-in-five (23%) think spending on police departments in their area should be decreased.

Black adults who favor decreases in police spending are most likely to name medical, mental health and social services (40%) as the top priority for those reappropriated funds. Smaller shares say K-12 schools (25%), roads, water systems and other infrastructure (12%), and reducing taxes (13%) should be the top priority.

Voting and ‘buying Black’ viewed as important strategies for Black community advancement

Black Americans also have clear views on the types of political and civic engagement they believe will move Black communities forward. About six-in-ten Black adults say voting (63%) and supporting Black businesses or “buying Black” (58%) are extremely or very effective strategies for moving Black people toward equality in the U.S. Smaller though still significant shares say the same about volunteering with organizations dedicated to Black equality (48%), protesting (42%) and contacting elected officials (40%).

Black adults were also asked about the effectiveness of Black economic and political independence in moving them toward equality. About four-in-ten (39%) say Black ownership of all businesses in Black neighborhoods would be an extremely or very effective strategy for moving toward racial equality, while roughly three-in-ten (31%) say the same about establishing a national Black political party. And about a quarter of Black adults (27%) say having Black neighborhoods governed entirely by Black elected officials would be extremely or very effective in moving Black people toward equality.

Most Black Americans support repayment for slavery

Discussions about atonement for slavery predate the founding of the United States. As early as 1672 , Quaker abolitionists advocated for enslaved people to be paid for their labor once they were free. And in recent years, some U.S. cities and institutions have implemented reparations policies to do just that.

Most Black Americans say the legacy of slavery affects the position of Black people in the U.S. either a great deal (55%) or a fair amount (30%), according to the survey. And roughly three-quarters (77%) say descendants of people enslaved in the U.S. should be repaid in some way.

Black adults who say descendants of the enslaved should be repaid support doing so in different ways. About eight-in-ten say repayment in the forms of educational scholarships (80%), financial assistance for starting or improving a business (77%), and financial assistance for buying or remodeling a home (76%) would be extremely or very helpful. A slightly smaller share (69%) say cash payments would be extremely or very helpful forms of repayment for the descendants of enslaved people.

Where the responsibility for repayment lies is also clear for Black Americans. Among those who say the descendants of enslaved people should be repaid, 81% say the U.S. federal government should have all or most of the responsibility for repayment. About three-quarters (76%) say businesses and banks that profited from slavery should bear all or most of the responsibility for repayment. And roughly six-in-ten say the same about colleges and universities that benefited from slavery (63%) and descendants of families who engaged in the slave trade (60%).

Black Americans are skeptical change will happen

Even though Black Americans’ visions for social change are clear, very few expect them to be implemented. Overall, 44% of Black adults say equality for Black people in the U.S. is a little or not at all likely. A little over a third (38%) say it is somewhat likely and only 13% say it is extremely or very likely.

They also do not think specific institutions will change. Two-thirds of Black adults say changes to the prison system (67%) and the courts and judicial process (65%) that would ensure fair treatment for Black people are a little or not at all likely in their lifetime. About six-in-ten (58%) say the same about policing. Only about one-in-ten say changes to policing (13%), the courts and judicial process (12%), and the prison system (11%) are extremely or very likely.

This pessimism is not only about the criminal justice system. The majority of Black adults say the political (63%), economic (62%) and health care (51%) systems are also unlikely to change in their lifetime.

Black Americans’ vision for social change includes reparations. However, much like their pessimism about institutional change, very few think they will see reparations in their lifetime. Among Black adults who say the descendants of people enslaved in the U.S. should be repaid, 82% say reparations for slavery are unlikely to occur in their lifetime. About one-in-ten (11%) say repayment is somewhat likely, while only 7% say repayment is extremely or very likely to happen in their lifetime.

Black Democrats, Republicans differ on assessments of inequality and visions for social change

Party affiliation is one key point of difference among Black Americans in their assessments of racial inequality and their visions for social change. Black Republicans and Republican leaners are more likely than Black Democrats and Democratic leaners to focus on the acts of individuals. For example, when summarizing the nature of racism against Black people in the U.S., the majority of Black Republicans (59%) say racist acts committed by individual people is a bigger problem for Black people than racism in our laws. Black Democrats (41%) are less likely to hold this view.

Black Republicans (45%) are also more likely than Black Democrats (21%) to say that Black people who cannot get ahead in the U.S. are mostly responsible for their own condition. And while similar shares of Black Republicans (79%) and Democrats (80%) say they experience racial discrimination on a regular basis, Republicans (64%) are more likely than Democrats (36%) to say that most Black people who want to get ahead can make it if they are willing to work hard.

On the other hand, Black Democrats are more likely than Black Republicans to focus on the impact that racial inequality has on Black Americans. Seven-in-ten Black Democrats (73%) say racial discrimination is the main reason many Black people cannot get ahead in the U.S, while about four-in-ten Black Republicans (44%) say the same. And Black Democrats are more likely than Black Republicans to say racism (67% vs. 46%) and police brutality (65% vs. 44%) are extremely big problems for Black people today.

Black Democrats are also more critical of U.S. institutions than Black Republicans are. For example, Black Democrats are more likely than Black Republicans to say the prison system (57% vs. 35%), policing (52% vs. 29%) and the courts and judicial process (50% vs. 35%) should be completely rebuilt for Black people to be treated fairly.

While the share of Black Democrats who want to see large-scale changes to the criminal justice system exceeds that of Black Republicans, they share similar views on police funding. Four-in-ten each of Black Democrats and Black Republicans say funding for police departments in their communities should remain the same, while around a third of each partisan coalition (36% and 37%, respectively) says funding should increase. Only about one-in-four Black Democrats (24%) and one-in-five Black Republicans (21%) say funding for police departments in their communities should decrease.

Among the survey’s other findings:

Black adults differ by age in their views on political strategies. Black adults ages 65 and older (77%) are most likely to say voting is an extremely or very effective strategy for moving Black people toward equality. They are significantly more likely than Black adults ages 18 to 29 (48%) and 30 to 49 (60%) to say this. Black adults 65 and older (48%) are also more likely than those ages 30 to 49 (38%) and 50 to 64 (42%) to say protesting is an extremely or very effective strategy. Roughly four-in-ten Black adults ages 18 to 29 say this (44%).

Gender plays a role in how Black adults view policing. Though majorities of Black women (65%) and men (56%) say police brutality is an extremely big problem for Black people living in the U.S. today, Black women are more likely than Black men to hold this view. When it comes to criminal justice, Black women (56%) and men (51%) are about equally likely to share the view that the prison system should be completely rebuilt to ensure fair treatment of Black people. However, Black women (52%) are slightly more likely than Black men (45%) to say this about policing. On the matter of police funding, Black women (39%) are slightly more likely than Black men (31%) to say police funding in their communities should be increased. On the other hand, Black men are more likely than Black women to prefer that funding stay the same (44% vs. 36%). Smaller shares of both Black men (23%) and women (22%) would like to see police funding decreased.

Income impacts Black adults’ views on reparations. Roughly eight-in-ten Black adults with lower (78%), middle (77%) and upper incomes (79%) say the descendants of people enslaved in the U.S. should receive reparations. Among those who support reparations, Black adults with upper and middle incomes (both 84%) are more likely than those with lower incomes (75%) to say educational scholarships would be an extremely or very helpful form of repayment. However, of those who support reparations, Black adults with lower (72%) and middle incomes (68%) are more likely than those with higher incomes (57%) to say cash payments would be an extremely or very helpful form of repayment for slavery.

• Black adults in the September 2020 survey only include those who say their race is Black alone and are non-Hispanic. The same is true only for the questions of improvements to Black people’s lives and equality in the United States in the October 2021 survey. Throughout the rest of this report, Black adults include those who say their race is Black alone and non-Hispanic; those who say their race is Black and at least one other race and non-Hispanic; or Black and Hispanic, unless otherwise noted. ↩

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Black Americans
• Criminal Justice
• Discrimination & Prejudice
• Economic Inequality
• Race, Ethnicity & Politics

A look at Black-owned businesses in the U.S.

8 facts about black americans and the news, black americans’ views on success in the u.s., among black adults, those with higher incomes are most likely to say they are happy, fewer than half of black americans say the news often covers the issues that are important to them, most popular, report materials.

• American Trends Panel Wave 97

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Racism and Inequality in Society Essay

Race has been a serving system of shaping individual and collective identities and influencing social relations. The notion justifies the superiority of specific social groups, perpetuating systemic inequalities and injustices. For many centuries, authorities used the diversity as a tool of segregation, making economical and political profit. Race is a social construct influenced by historical, economic, and political variables rather than a biological truth.

The idea of race as a social construct is examined in the first episode of the documentary series “The Power of an Illusion.” The movie shows that the idea of race is not biological but rather socially formed and influenced by political, economic, and historical circumstances (Kanopy: Stream Classic Cinema, Indie Film and Top Documentaries). In my social science lectures, I did not see any new angles at which race can be analyzed, since I have previously studied this issue deeply.

I focused on the political and historical reasons that influenced the development of racial classifications was instructive. To reveal the essence of racism, it is necessary to show how the idea of race was created to humiliate particular groups of people (Omi and Winant 118). After that, I would present how race classifies people according to their physical features. The Omi and Winant reading explores the concept of racial formation. The authors argue that race is not an objective category, but a social construct shaped by historical and political factors. They discuss how racial categories are formed through the intersection of biological, cultural, and historical factors and how they are reproduced through social institutions and practices (Omi and Winant 114). The video and the reading both emphasize the role of power relations in shaping racial categories and the importance of understanding race as a dynamic and changing concept.

In conclusion, to understand how racism and inequality function in society, it is essential to understand race as a social construct. The film and Omi and Winant’s reading offer insightful perspectives on how race has been introduced as a tool of discrimination. Admitting that race is only a cultural phenomenon, one can guarantee a more equal society that gives space to multiplicity and true personal freedom.

Works Cited

“ Kanopy: Stream Classic Cinema, Indie Film and Top Documentaries .” Kanopy , Web.

Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States . Routledge, 2014.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 15). Racism and Inequality in Society. https://ivypanda.com/essays/racism-and-inequality-in-society/

"Racism and Inequality in Society." IvyPanda , 15 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/racism-and-inequality-in-society/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Racism and Inequality in Society'. 15 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Racism and Inequality in Society." February 15, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/racism-and-inequality-in-society/.

1. IvyPanda . "Racism and Inequality in Society." February 15, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/racism-and-inequality-in-society/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Racism and Inequality in Society." February 15, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/racism-and-inequality-in-society/.

• “Racial Formation in the United States” by Omi & Winant
• Race Identity Evaluation in the Film "Malcolm X"
• Racial Formation Theory in American History
• Race, Class, and Gender: Rothenberg’s book
• Racial Formation and Its Importance
• Colorblind Society: Race and Skin Color in America
• The Theory of Racial Formation and Its Use
• How Inequality Is Reproduced in Everyday Life?
• Racism in Movies: Stereotypes and Prejudices
• Diversity of Social Groups: Multiplicity of Social Groupings
• The "Killing the Black Body" Book by Dorothy Roberts
• The Racial Inequality Problem and Its Relevance
• James Weldon Johnson's "The Red Summer" Term
• The Issue of Racism in the United States
• Realities of Racial Inequality and Injustice in the United States

Essay on Social Inequality

Students are often asked to write an essay on Social Inequality in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Social Inequality

Social inequality: a divide in society.

Social inequality refers to the unfair and unjust differences in the way people are treated in a society. It can be based on factors like wealth, power, gender, race, caste, religion, or other characteristics.

Causes of Social Inequality

There are many factors that contribute to social inequality, including:

• Economic inequality: The unequal distribution of wealth, income, and resources among different groups of people.
• Discrimination: The unfair treatment of people based on their race, gender, caste, religion, or other characteristics.
• Lack of opportunity: The unequal access to education, employment, and other opportunities that can help people improve their lives.

Consequences of Social Inequality

Social inequality has many negative consequences, including:

• Poverty: Social inequality can lead to poverty, as people who are discriminated against or lack opportunities may have difficulty finding jobs and earning a decent income.
• Health problems: Social inequality can also lead to health problems, as people who are poor or discriminated against may not have access to adequate healthcare.
• Crime: Social inequality can also lead to crime, as people who are poor or discriminated against may be more likely to turn to crime as a way to survive.

Addressing Social Inequality

There are many things that can be done to address social inequality, including:

• Promoting economic equality: Governments can take steps to promote economic equality, such as by raising the minimum wage, providing tax breaks for low-income families, and investing in affordable housing.
• Ending discrimination: Governments and individuals can take steps to end discrimination, such as by passing anti-discrimination laws and promoting diversity and inclusion.
• Expanding opportunities: Governments and individuals can take steps to expand opportunities for people who are disadvantaged, such as by providing access to education, job training, and healthcare.

By working together, we can create a more just and equitable society for all.

250 Words Essay on Social Inequality

What is social inequality.

Social inequality is when people in a society do not have equal rights, opportunities, or resources. This means some people have more money, better education, or more power than others. It’s like being in a race where some people have to wear heavy shoes, making it unfair.

Types of Social Inequality

There are many types of social inequality. Some people are treated unfairly because of their skin color, which is called racial inequality. Others might face problems because they are women, which is known as gender inequality. Then, there are those who are looked down upon because they come from a poor family, which is economic inequality.

Effects of Social Inequality

Social inequality can make life very hard for some people. For example, if you do not have much money, you might not be able to go to a good school. This can make it hard for you to get a good job when you grow up. It can also make people feel sad or left out because they are treated differently.

What Can We Do?

Everyone can help fight social inequality. We can start by treating everyone the same, no matter what they look like or where they come from. Schools can teach kids about why it’s important to be fair. And, people can work together to help those who do not have as much, like donating to charities or volunteering.

Social inequality is a big problem, but if we all work together, we can make the world a fairer place for everyone.

500 Words Essay on Social Inequality

Social inequality is when people in a society do not have equal rights, opportunities, or resources. Imagine a race where some runners have to wear heavy backpacks while others don’t. The race is unfair because not everyone has the same chance to win. In the same way, in our society, not everyone starts from the same place or has the same chances to succeed.

There are many kinds of social inequality. One major type is economic inequality, which is about the differences in wealth and income. Some people have a lot of money and can buy whatever they want, while others struggle to pay for basic needs like food and a home. Another type is racial inequality, where people are treated differently because of their race. Gender inequality is also common, where men and women are not given the same opportunities or respect.

Social inequality does not just happen; it is caused by many factors. One big cause is the way society’s rules and laws are set up, which can favor some people over others. For example, if a country’s laws make it harder for women to work or own property, this creates gender inequality. Another cause is discrimination, where people are treated unfairly because of things like their race, gender, or religion. Lastly, economic systems can cause inequality when they allow some people to become very rich while others stay poor.

Social inequality can have many bad effects on people and society. People who face inequality might not be able to get good jobs or education, which makes it hard for them to improve their lives. This can lead to poverty and even affect their health. For society, inequality can cause problems like crime and violence, as people who feel treated unfairly might turn to these as a way to express their frustration or to survive.

What Can Be Done?

Fighting social inequality is not easy, but there are things that can be done. Governments can create laws and policies that give everyone equal chances, like making sure all children can go to good schools or making it illegal to pay women less than men for the same work. People can also help by standing up against discrimination and supporting groups that work to make society more fair. Education is key, as understanding the causes and effects of inequality can help us find ways to fix it.

In conclusion, social inequality is a big problem that affects many aspects of life. It’s about not having the same chances because of things like how much money you have, your race, or your gender. It’s caused by unfair laws, discrimination, and economic systems. It can lead to poverty, poor health, and even crime. But by changing laws, fighting discrimination, and educating people, we can work towards a society where everyone has the same opportunities to succeed.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Social Impact Of Mobile Phones
• Essay on Social Entrepreneurship
• Essay on Social Discrimination

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.