Frameworks of Social Analysis | My Assignment Tutor

The material following this cover page is protected by copyright and has beenshared with permission from the copyright holder. This copy may only bedistributed in a password-protected environment such as eCentennial and onlyfor the students enrolled in the course listed.GNED500Learning OUTCOMeSChapter 4LO-1 Examine dominant ideologies and their originsLO-2 Compare and contrast dominant andtransformative ideologiesLO-3 Review … Continue reading “Frameworks of Social Analysis | My Assignment Tutor”

The material following this cover page is protected by copyright and has beenshared with permission from the copyright holder. This copy may only bedistributed in a password-protected environment such as eCentennial and onlyfor the students enrolled in the course listed.GNED500Learning OUTCOMeSChapter 4LO-1 Examine dominant ideologies and their originsLO-2 Compare and contrast dominant andtransformative ideologiesLO-3 Review dominant discourses that feed intoinequality and other social problemsLO-4 Discuss and assess two frameworks of socialanalysisLO-5 Apply a social analysis framework to examine asocial issueApplying Concepts andFrameworks of Social AnalysisChet SinghIdeology touches every aspect of life and shows up in our words, actions, andpractices…. Because ideology structures our thoughts and interpretations ofreality, it typically operates often beneath our conscious awareness…it shapeswhat seems “natural,” and it makes what we think and do “right.”—Eisenberg quoted in Allen, 2011IntrOductIOnTo conduct social analysis we need to understand the concept of ideology andidentify ideological frameworks. Ideologies refer to a complex set of beliefs, ideas,perceptions, and assumptions that provide members of a society or social groupwith an understanding and explanation of the community, society, or larger world(Brock, 2003). Ideologies offer a vision of how an ideal society should be organized, what values should be embraced, how we ought to treat each other, and howwe should live together as a society (Adams, 2001). In this section we will considerthree of the dominant ideologies in the Western world: liberalism, conservatism,and socialism. We will also consider transformative ideologies that attempt to challenge dominant structures of power and exploitation. Finally, we will conclude byChapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 55NEL1. A system of knowledge that limits what we can think and say, who we can be, what we can do, and what canbe done to us. The medical model is a discourse, law and order is a discourse, and the accepted theories forvarious academic disciplines and programs are discourses.looking at two models of social analysis: the triangle model and the self-reflectivemodel.IdeOLOgyIdeologies exist in relation to each other. They compete to establish their visionof the best way to organize society, how we should understand societal problems,and how these should be addressed (see Figure 4.1 on page 64). Therefore powerrelations are central to our understanding of how certain ideologies become dominant and how discourses are used to establish norms (socially accepted attitudes,values, and beliefs) that shape what people think, believe, and value about the waysociety is organized. Various ideologies frame the source of problems according tothe interests they serve. Dominant ideologies in conjunction with dominant discourses1 (how we understand topics or issues and acceptable ways of talking aboutthem) function to legitimize social structures and what we can and cannot say aboutproblems in society. As a result, many people adopt dominant ideological perspectives as commonsense explanations for social problems without being aware of thefact that they are subscribing to a particular ideology, belief, perception, or assumption (O’Brien & Szeman, 2010).Political and social ideologies are dynamic because they mobilize people tochange the structure of society and preserve their interests or what they perceiveto be their interests. Since any ideology is vulnerable to challenge, discourses arecontinually used by such societal institutions as media, schools, and governmentto reinforce dominant ideologies. Oppressive ideologies are inherently unstableand can be challenged by various groups. These may include groups based onclass interests, oppressed social identity groups (e.g., women, racialized people,LGBTQ individuals, poor or working class), political coalitions, and religious interests. These groups may question the status quo and attempt to reform it, developan alternative ideology, attempt to change existing social, political, and economicarrangements, or propose ideas for restructuring society (Storey, 2009).There are many different types of ideologies. Political ideologies are generallybased on concepts of individualism versus collectivism, the size and the role ofthe state, and the type of economic system. Other ideologies are associated withsocial and environmental causes (green movement/ecologism), or social identity/human rights-based causes (anti-Apartheid, indigenous sovereignty, anti-racism,feminism, LGBTQ, disability, etc.). For our purposes we will refer to these ideologies as transformative ideologies. Still, other ideologies support nationalist andnormsSocial expectationsabout attitudes, values,and beliefs.racializedThe process ofcreating, preserving,and communicating asystem of dominancebased on racethrough agencies ofsocialization and culturaltransmission such as themass media, schools,religious doctrines,symbols, and images.56 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNEL2. An intellectual and scientific movement in Europe that promoted ideas of rational and scientific thoughtapplied to religious, social, and political issues.3. A recent world economic system based on the ownership of private property where a few own or control themeans of production and accumulate capital from the sale of products for profit. Most workers experienceexploitation because the value of wages remains below the value of goods produced or services provided.Increasingly, capital is now accumulated through financial speculation. More recently, this led to theeconomic crisis in the U.S. where banks that created the problem were bailed out with taxpayers’ money butthose with mortgages involved in this speculative scheme lost their houses.4. Rule or authority over other national territories through control of their economics, resources, military, andpolitical structures.5. The systematic privilege and entitlements conferred upon men over women and children through social,economic, and political control. Patriarchy is always present regardless of how men act upon that privilegeand whether or not they have privilege over other areas of their lives.6. An internalized belief developed during colonialism that white people are superior to all other races. Thiswas reinforced through government policy, legislation and laws, and academic and cultural production toglorify whiteness and malign colour. This is similar to casteism in India.supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexual orientation (white supremacy, Apartheid, Nazism, patriarchy, heterosexism, casteism,ethnicism, and religious fundamentalism).An awareness of how various ideologies shape our thinking is an essential component of self-reflection and social analysis. First, by examining various ideologies,particularly dominant ideologies, we can identify the values or biases that each promotes. Second, we can disentangle different and conflicting arguments about socialproblems by understanding how various ideologies shape our understanding ofthe social world. Third, understanding ideologies helps us to connect our everydayexperiences with social, economic, and political processes. We can then question our everyday practices and our experiences. Fourth, once we recognize thebiases, ideologies, and assumptions, we can anticipate how others may respond toissues. And finally, being aware of how we interpret social phenomena and socialproblems can help us to make the connections between ideology and social action(Singh, 2008).the OrIgIns Of dOmInant POLItIcaL IdeOLOgIesThe three dominant political ideologies in the Western world over the last threecenturies are liberalism, conservatism, and socialism (Wallerstein, 1989). Westernpolitical ideologies, and in particular classic liberalism, were all influenced by theEnlightenment,2 a major intellectual movement in the late 17th century Europe.Classic liberalism as an Enlightenment ideology stood for free enterprise, free trade,free competition, individual freedom and liberty, which was enhanced by equalityof rights, constitutional governments, rule of law, and toleration (Adams, 2001).However, these ideas of equality existed in a state of inequality because they did notapply to everyone. Historically liberalism as it evolved under capitalism3 and imperialism4 promoted systems of class inequality, patriarchy,5 and white supremacy.6white supremacyA belief that whitepeople are superiorto all other races. Thiswas reinforced throughgovernment policy,legislation and laws, andacademic and culturalproduction to glorifywhiteness and maligncolour.patriarchyThe systematic privilegeand entitlementsconferred upon menover women andchildren through social,economic, and politicalcontrol.Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 57NELClassic conservatism arose as a rejection of Enlightenment thinking and its ideasregarding the extension of democracy and rights. Its early proponents also had adistrust of reason and the appropriateness of using it as a solution for social problems. Religion plays an important role for conservatives because of its deep respectfor authority. One of its primary objectives was to reassert the rule of the churchand monarchist state as rightful structures to maintain order in a society that conservatives claimed was ordained by God (Adams, 2001). For classic conservatives,individual liberty is more important than equality while hierarchy and stratification (different levels of caste, class, privilege, or status) are the natural order of afunctioning society. Conservatives have a deep respect for tradition and embracechange only if it is gradual. As an elitist ideology, conservatives believe that themasses are inferior, some individuals and groups are superior and therefore bettersuited to be rulers and leaders. For classic conservatives, a stratified and unequalsociety is natural and ordered and therefore works in the interests of all classes(Mullaly, 2010).European socialism was consolidated in the 19th century as a reaction to thesocial and economic impacts of industrialization and the evolving capitalist economic system. Socialism’s egalitarian (equal rights and distribution of resources)ethic is diametrically opposed to that of private ownership and private profitbecause of the inequalities that result from the free market system’s competitiveindividualism favouring those that are already wealthy and privileged.Socialists believe that we need to understand authoritarian power in order totransform oppressive conditions. To do this, social structures, social relationships,and social change must be understood in their historical, political, and economiccontext. This means that the material conditions that create wealth and povertymust be examined as historical formations created by powerful elites in theirinterest. Socialists point out that the capitalist system is based on exploitationsince it relies on an unfair labour exchange where the owners of resources profitat the expense of the labouring classes. The capitalist system, they argue, has to bereplaced with a system based on cooperation, harmony, and justice. This meanscommon ownership of the economy, no private property, no class system, andequality of wealth, power, and opportunity. Everyone would work for the commongood of the community based on the principle of each according to their ability andeach according to their need. Its main philosopher Karl Marx proposed that in sucha system human nature would not be distorted by poverty or greed and a caring andsharing human nature would flourish (Adams, 2001).Socialist ideas were influential in shaping Western economic policies by challenging the excesses of class inequality until the rise of neoliberalism in the 1970s.Countries that adopt aspects of socialism such as Medicare and social welfare arereferred to as social democratic countries. With the dominance of neoconservaneoliberalismAn ideology whichis premised on theright of individuals tocompete in the capitalistmarketplace to acquireconsumer goods andwealth. It advocatesthat human well-beingis best achieved bycreating conditionsfor entrepreneurialfreedoms and skillswithin a system of freemarkets and free tradesupported by the state(Harvey, 2005).58 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNEL7. Americans that stand to benefit from universal healthcare reject it on the grounds that it is a socialist idea.8. An idea that assumes capital must be allowed unregulated access to national and global markets in order tobe competitive. A drawback is that corporations and the wealthy can hide money to avoid taxes.9. The theory that deregulating markets (eliminating trade barriers, financial controls, and devaluing localcurrencies), cutting public expenditure (education, health, welfare, etc.) will make exports and hence theeconomy more competitive.tive and neoliberal discourses, socialism is perceived negatively.7 A number of factors account for this. Socialist governments, while achieving some of the ideology’segalitarian aims, have engaged in totalitarian practices such as political repressionto maintain governmental power (this was especially true during the Cold Warwhen the Soviet Union and the United States vied for global dominance). Also,since socialist countries generate relatively little wealth for the majority of thepopulation, life tends to be barely above minimum living conditions. Additionally,centralized state control of the political and economic systems tends to reproducea hierarchy that is undemocratic and places a great deal of trust in political leadersthat they will act in the best interests of all members of the society. And finally,socialism has embraced industrial models that are as destructive to the environment as those of capitalism (Adams, 2001; Mullaly, 2010). The overt restrictionof individual liberty in socialist countries makes the hegemonic control (powerthrough consent) in capitalist liberal democracies appear mild in comparison.dOmInant POLItIcaL IdeOLOgIes tOdayThe dominant political ideologies today are neoliberalism and neoconservatism.These ideologies are offshoots of classical liberalism and conservatism. Neoliberalism and neoconservatism evolved in the United States and Western Europe.They emerged in the 1970s as an attack on the idea of collectivism, an ethic thatconsiders the collective good of society by developing policies to address inequalityand alleviate suffering caused by social structures.NeoliberalismNeoliberalism promotes individualism and free enterprise ideas and a limited rolefor government. Neoliberalism’s prescription for promoting human dignity andindividual freedom is premised on the right of individuals to compete in the capitalist marketplace to acquire consumer goods and wealth. It advocates that humanwell-being is best achieved by creating conditions for entrepreneurial freedomsand skills within a system of free markets8 and free trade9 supported by the state(Harvey, 2005).A major premise of neoliberalism is that equality of opportunity exists for anyindividual to pursue; therefore “success” or “failure” largely depends on the indineoconservativismAn ideology thatsubscribes to similareconomic policies asneoliberalism, butuses divisive politicssuch as racism, sexism,homophobia, the Waron Terror, Islamophobia,and immigration toenlist support for itseconomic vision andsocial policies (Smith,2004).social structuresThe network of socialrelationships createdamong people whenthey interact with eachother, within societalinstitutions accordingto their statuses in thatsociety.Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 59NEL10. The conquest and control of other peoples’ lands and resources through genocide enslavement and in someinstances settlement. Canada being such an example.11. An adverse reaction, usually from privileged social groups, to a social ideology that becomes influentialsuch as feminism, or to measures intended to address social problems such as systemic discrimination (e.g.,employment equity).12. Historians generally ignore the fact that, at the time, whites were the primary beneficiaries of measuressuch as preferential home ownership loans as African American and other racialized groups were excluded.Hence, today working class whites have more savings and equity than middle class blacks. See http://blackamericaweb.com/2013/02/13/the-history-of-racial-economic-inequality-part-2-the-new-deal-theamerican-dream/13. http://www.econexus.info/publication/corporations-are-not-human-so-why-should-they-have-humanrightshttp://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/corporateperson.html14. Most people don’t recognize that the financial break that middle classes get through RRSPs and subsidizedhigher education are public subsidies similar to welfare, however, they are not stigmatized like welfare andviewed instead as entitlements.vidual. Poverty is considered an individual problem, but also points to the failure orineffectiveness of public institutions. Neoliberals assume that all individuals compete on a level playing field ignoring the structural, economic, and social advantages that privileged groups have accumulated historically. Also concealed are thehistoric circumstances that created global structural inequality and systemic discrimination against minoritized groups (inquisition, enclosures, colonization,10enslavement, and neocolonialism).Neoliberalism emerged in the 1970s as a backlash11 against liberal social policiesand programs. They were created in response to the Great Depression of the 1940sand union demands for fair wages and safe working conditions in the early part ofthe 1900s in Canada, U.S., Britain, and other Western capitalist economies. Thesesocial programs provided government relief for the middle and working classesdisplaced by the capitalist economic system.12 These measures also provided government money to stimulate the economy. The financial sector, which was implicated in these problems, was reformed in an attempt to avoid another depression byadding government oversight to the increasingly powerful corporate and financialsector.13 However, these programs were viewed as a class compromise between therich and the poor—economic growth through free trade and worker protection aswell as social welfare for the underemployed and tax entitlements for the middleclasses14 (Apple, 1993). The wealthiest in society (or “the 1%”) made a concertedeffort to devise strategies to ensure greater wealth accumulation by influencinggovernment policy and society’s perceptions of the working class, and by securinggreater control over financial markets.The central idea promoted to win over public opinion and shape economic discourse was that prosperity for all would only occur when the wealthy and corporations were free from government constraints. First, this required governmentto deregulate public protection measures such as food safety, pharmaceuticals,backlashAn adverse reaction toa social ideology thatbecomes influentialsuch as feminism, or tomeasures intended toaddress social problemssuch as systemicdiscrimination.60 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNEL15. For example see the case of Nancy Olivieri vs. pharmaceutical corporation Apotex, athttp://www.academia.edu/4004495/Beyond_Academic_Freedom_Canadian_Neoliberal_Universities_in_the_Global_Context; http://dfa.ns.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/OCUFA-Joel-Westheimer.pdf16. For example, the economic crisis, Watergate, the Civil Rights Movement, Black Power, the Womens’Movement, Red Power, rainbow coalitions, and anti-colonial movements.environmental protection, genetically modified foods, etc., and replace these withcorporate self-regulation. Second, the size of government needed to be reduced.This meant less bureaucracy and, consequently, cutbacks or elimination of social,cultural, human rights, and environmental protection programs. Third, public services such as healthcare, education, social services, prisons, public land, water, etc.,had to be privatized (run by corporations). Fourth, taxes for the wealthy had to becut (Klein, 2007).Neoliberal discourses were highly successful. Funding to public institutions hasbeen cut drastically and governments have adopted business models for essentialpublic services. Increasingly, aspects of healthcare and higher education have beenprivatized. Public institutions such as colleges and universities are no longer accessible and tuition for high-paying professional careers has been deregulated (e.g.,MBA, legal, and medical degrees) making these programs out of reach for many.Additionally, critics point out that these institutions have been forced to seek outcorporate sponsors, which has eroded academic freedom. This is most evident inareas of scientific research sponsored by corporations where research harmful tothe public but profitable to the corporations is withheld from publication.15 Criticsclaim that neoliberals have undermined structures for democratic decision-makingsince corporate lobbyists can influence government policy that undermines thewelfare of citizens.The impact after four decades of neoliberalism demonstrates that these policieshave achieved their objectives. Governments have been reduced in scope and size,the wealthy have benefited through the deregulation or “freeing up” of financialmarkets, and many accept this ideology’s societal vision as inevitable even thoughthey have been negatively affected.NeoconservatismNeoconservatism’s primary difference from neoliberalism is its embrace of traditional and fundamentalist social, moral, and religious values. While this ideologysubscribes to similar economic policies as neoliberalism, it uses divisive politicssuch as racism, sexism, homophobia, the War on Terror, Islamophobia, and immigration to enlist support for its economic vision and social policies (Smith, 2004).Apple (1993) claims that the seeds of neoconservatism were sown in NorthAmerica and Britain in response to social upheavals such as human rights and anticolonial struggles in the 1960s and 1970s.16 These national liberation movementsChapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 61NEL17. Racialization is the framework of interpretation and meaning for racial thought in society. It creates andpreserves a system of dominance based on race and is communicated and reproduced through meanssuch as the mass media, schools and universities, religious doctrines, symbols and images, art, music, andliterature.challenged neocolonial policies and corporate control of economic resources thatperpetuated global inequality. The gradual success of these struggles to advanceequity and human rights in North American and European societies was viewedby conservative elites as a breakdown of the moral order of society. Public policyto address discrimination and inequality, such as human rights policies, positivespace campaigns, and employment equity, was characterized as political correctness, politicizing education, and attacking the traditions of Western civilization(D’Souza, 1991).To counter these collectivist social policy developments, a number of neoconservative think tanks were established. They devised strategies to promote the ideathat social and economic problems in society were caused by socialist-inspiredinterventions in public services such as accessible education, welfare, and Medicare. Neoconservatives claimed that these programs were not only the cause ofeconomic problems, they were a drain on the public purse and a slippery slope tosocialism (Smith, 2004).Advocates of neoconservatism argue that “political correctness” is radicallyaltering traditional notions of community, nation, and family. They view multiculturalism, sexual harassment, and human rights policy initiatives as a victim’s revolution that has produced a “grievance industry.” According to neoconservatives,allegations of racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination are invented tohide the inability of women and minorities to keep up with college-level work andget academic research grants (Fekete, 1995).Neoconservatives use race, sexual orientation, and other marginalized socialidentities as a wedge to gain public consensus on their economic and social vision.They advance a we versus they status. We are the real British, Canadians, and Americans and they are the other. We are law-abiding, hard-working, and homogeneous (similar, alike). They are lazy, immoral, heterogeneous (dissimilar, unlike),and multicultural. These distinctions distance the racialized,17 LGBTQ, and othergroups from the community of regular individuals. Neoconservatives argue thatthese others are making unreasonable demands. They are taking over and gettingsomething for nothing. Neoconservatives also believe that human rights and equitypolicies are supporting the others and sapping our way of life, draining most of oureconomic resources, and creating “reverse discrimination” and government control of our lives. In essence, the neoconservative framing of social problems suggests that those that have historically faced discrimination and oppression are nowoppressing the real Americans and Canadians (Apple, 1993; King & Singh, 1991).62 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNEL18. Some emphasize certain forms of oppression while minimizing others. For instance, third wave feministperspectives have critiqued first and second wave feminist perspectives for the exclusion of racializedand queer perspectives. Similarly, there are anti-racist perspectives that minimize queer and genderedperspectives. And there are feminists and anti-racists that embrace liberal and socialist political ideologies.Neoconservative discourses were highly successful as people bought into theassumption that social and economic problems in society were the result of collectivist (social democratic) government interventions in education, welfare, health,and programs aimed at increasing opportunities for marginalized groups. Thesewere deemed as expensive and not the role of government. The role of governmentis to facilitate freedom, which is equated with commercial enterprise not democratic initiatives and collectivist ideals. As neoconservatism became a dominantdiscourse, there was a backlash against collectivist policies. By the early 1990sgovernment dismantled legislation enacted to bring about equity and structuralchange such as labour standards, collective bargaining for workers, harassment anddiscrimination policies, fair employment practices such as employment equity, andenvironmental protection (Singh, 2004).Transformative Ideologies and Critical DiscoursesIf you’ve come here to help me, you’re wasting your time. But if you’ve comebecause your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.—Australian Aboriginal Elder Lilla Watson attributes this to a women’scollective she belongs to in response to academic literature that cites her asthe original source of this idea/quoteTransformative ideologies are those that seek to transform systems that create,legitimize, and perpetuate inequalities, injustices, and ecological destruction.Many transformative ideologies have their roots in movements for equity arisingout of decolonization, gender equity, and political movements based on class. It isimportant to recognize that transformative ideologies are not homogeneous andtensions exist within them.18Socialist ideology is considered transformative since it seeks to change the structural inequalities of capitalist societies that legitimize the interests of the wealthyand corporations at the expense of the working class. Feminist ideologies challengepatriarchal ideologies, which normalize male domination over women. Feministspoint out that male dominance is built into social and institutional practices andexperiences. For instance, women often have to do a double shift in the home andat paid employment, are disproportionately the victims of male violence, and areamong the poorest social groups in society. Furthermore, women still experienceoccupational segregation (e.g., daycare workers) in certain sectors, earn less thanChapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 63NELmale counterparts, receive fewer benefits and pensions, and continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions in government and other institutions. Queertheories critique heteronormativity, a belief system that normalizes heterosexualidentity and relationships. These norms are reinforced by many institutions such asreligious institutions, legal systems, schools, and mainstream media. The result issocial stigmatization and violence among other social problems.Anti-racist/decolonizing ideologies define social problems as unresolved sovereignty rights of indigenous peoples, corporate exploitation of people and resources,environmental destruction, inequalities of income based on gender, race and status,unequal rights and access, patterns of state and hate violence, displacement, andoccupation. The elevation of Western culture, arts, philosophy, and science as thestandard that all societies must aspire to continues to privilege Western systems ofknowledge (Kulchyski, 2014; Lee, 1991).Ecological ideologies critique both socialist and capitalist devotion to thedestructive concept of “progress,” which promotes perpetual economic growth andindustrial expansion. They argue that these ideas are materialistic, unsustainable,endorse masculine values (hierarchy, competition, aggressiveness, and assertiveness), promote an anthropocentric view of the world (the earth and all living thingsare there to be exploited for human purpose), and privilege the economy abovemoral, social, and artistic values.Singh (2012) suggests that transformative ideologies present vastly differentvisions of how the world ought to be organized from the current dominant ideologies and have a number of commonalities. First, they put into a historical contexthow specific oppressive and harmful ideologies evolve as relations of exploitationand domination through conscious human activity unlike neoliberalism and neoconservatism that take an ahistorical approach to social problems and obscurethe historical roots of social problems (Lee & Lutz; 2005; Mirchandani & Butler,2006; Prasad, 2006). Examining the historical origins of social problems such asinequality challenges dominant ideologies and the structures they promote. Theyalso provide counter discourses by revealing models of egalitarian and cooperativesocieties, e.g., matriarchal societies, which have flourished previously. This createspossibilities for organizing economic, political, and social structures based on principles and values that are cooperative and egalitarian (Bishop, 2005; Smith, 2014).Second, they provide analytical tools and concepts to examine how dominationprocesses function to manufacture, legitimize, and perpetuate Eurocentric, patriarchal, heterosexist, ableist, and classist ideologies and discourses that maintain thedominant group’s power (Allen, 2011; Dei & Calliste, 2000; Fraser, 1989; Johnson,2006; Smith, 2004).Third, they document how commonsense discourses of citizenship, democracy,freedom, justice, work, and schooling embedded in social structures and practicesmask the operation of power, privilege, exploitation, and minoritization (Abu64 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNELLaban & Gabriel, 2002; Barnes & Nazim, 2004; James, 1996; Razack, 2002; Thobani,2007; Walcott, 2003; Zine, 2001).Fourth, transformative approaches examine and document the social, cultural,and psychological impacts of oppressive ideologies on minoritized peoples (Bannerji, 1995; Bishop, 2005; The Chilly Collective, 1995; Edward-Galabuzi, 2006).And fifth, they articulate alternative visions and strategies for working collaboratively on the liberation of all peoples and the protection of the biosphere (Saiz,2014).Figure 4.1 presents the dominant neoliberal and neoconservative ideologies withthose of transformative ideologies. It serves the analytical purpose of comparingand contrasting the ideas, attitudes, values, and the vision of society each proposes.Figure 4.1 Dominant Ideologies and Their Views of Society and Social Problems NeoliberalNeoconservativeTransformativeOriginsThe 17th century EuropeanEnlightenment. Embracesindividual rights, freedom, andparliamentary system.Concepts don’t apply to thecolonized who are exploited,eliminated, and/or assimilated.European wealth and powerderived from stolen andappropriated resources andterritories. Social ideologiesof white supremacy andpatriarchy justify enslavementand destruction of indigenouscultural, social, and economicsystems.Promotes values of competition,individualism, and consumerism.These usher in industrializationand the capitalist economicsystem.Arose as a rejection ofEnlightenment concepts offreedom, equality, and individualrights for European peasantsand serfs.An elitist ideology that believesin tradition, supports the returnto rule by aristocracy and theChurch. Asserts moral superiorityof aristocracy and other elites.Supports coercion or the threatof it.Supports discriminatory socialideologies based on race, class,and gender.Supports hierarchy, religion, andsocial Darwinism—some arenaturally “more fit” to rule thanothers.Archeological evidence indicatesthat early human societies wereegalitarian and many werematriarchal.Challenges oppressive conditionsof white supremacist, capitalist,patriarchal ideologies. Includescollectivist ideologies such associalism, anarchism, feminism,anti-racism, queer activism,decolonization/Indigenoussovereignty movements, andenvironmentalism.Proposes alternatives based onequity, sustainability, cooperativestructures, and non-hierarchicalarrangements.Source: Bishop, 2004; Korten, 2001; Mullaly, 2012; Singh, 2004, 2012. Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 65NEL NeoliberalNeoconservativeTransformativeAssumptionsAbout HumanNaturePeople can learn reason.People are moral, rational,competitive, cooperative.Recognizes class but claimspeople succeed and cantranscend class based on merit.Inequality is caused by individualdeficiency, pathology, lackof education, and othercircumstances.People are flawed.People are competitive,individualistic, acquisitive, andmotivated by financial gainand power over others. Greedis good, it is the engine of“progress.”Hierarchy is based on a Godgiven right. Some groupsare naturally superior; othersinferior.European civilization is superiorto others. Men are superior towomen. LGBTQ is unnatural.Whites are superior to other“races.” The poor are inferior.People are basically good.People acquire values throughsocialization. We are not bornselfish, competitive, racist, sexist,or homophobic. Historically,humans created egalitarian,cooperative, and collectivesocieties.Many indigenous societieswere based on cooperative andegalitarian structures and beliefs.Views ofHuman RightsAssumes that we are living in apost-discriminatory age, becauseindividuals are protected bylegislation.Does not acknowledge historicaland structural inequitiesthat advantage some anddisadvantage others.Believes that we all start froma level playing field and thewelfare state compensatesvictims of capitalism.Believes in tolerance ofall differences. Supportsmulticulturalism.There are no social problems,only individual problems causedby individuals who do not lookafter themselves.Poverty is good because itteaches discipline and providesincentives.Individual liberty is moreimportant than equality.Human rights policies are unjust,“politically correct,” censor freespeech, and promote “reversediscrimination” against whitemales.Does not support same-sexrelationships.Inequality and discriminationare historically embedded insocial structures and obscuredby dominant ideologies anddiscourses.Exploitation is gendered andracialized and utilizes childlabour.Imperialist governments haveengaged in cultural and physicalgenocide and suppressed thecollective rights of indigenouspeoples by refusing to settle landclaims and sovereignty rights.The state must promoteeducation and dismantleoppression and inequality. 66 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNEL NeoliberalNeoconservativeTransformativeRole ofthe State/Organization ofSocietyTo promote fair competitionamong stakeholdersthrough regulation and stateintervention.To reduce the worst excesses ofcapitalism. Culture and societydedicated to idea of trade andconsumption as the ultimatesource of well-being.Corporatist capitalism andtrickle-down theory: we allbenefit when the rich getricher. Everything should becommodified and privatized,size and role of governmentshould be reduced, economicoversights deregulated alongwith environmental protection.A necessary evil that maintainslaw and order for themanagement of trade andcommerce. Anything beyond thisis a threat to liberty.Assures conformity ofsubordinate groups to interestof dominant groups. Institutionssupport and serve the dominantideological base—hierarchicalclass-based consumerism andimperialism.Similar economic policy toneoliberalism. Opening up ofmarkets globally, people will bedisplaced, a necessary aspect ofwealth accumulation/progress.Facilitates the dismantling oftrade unions, labour protections,Keeps price of labour low withprograms such as seasonal andtemporary foreign workers.State should be a participatorydemocracy that facilitates socialjustice, equity, environmentalprotection, and equitabledistribution of society’sresources.Corporations need to beregulated in the public interest.They are now the dominantgovernance institution on theplanet. They have too muchinfluence on the nation stateand collude with governmentagainst citizens interests.The global north must endneocolonial and imperial policies.Economic growth must bebalanced with social prioritiesand environmental protection.Social ChangeSocial reforms that benefitindividuals are OK as long asthey keep the system intact.Does not support transformativechange. All social and economicadjustments or change mustbe consistent with the existingsystem.Conflict must be managed.Educational programs tochange discriminatory attitudespromoted over structuralchange.Focus on charity andvoluntarism: “helping” the“disadvantaged.” “Learning”about the disadvantagedand getting to “know” andmaking connections with thedisadvantaged.Keep the system the way it is forthe common good, it is naturaland right, inequality has alwaysexisted. There are those thatare superior and those that areinferior. We must take or betaken, defend what we have,the world is competitive.Does not acknowledge systemicissues and does not believe thatthe state should be involved insocial justice or other initiativesaimed at creating equity orjustice. Individuals must lookafter themselves.Any change should be slow andevolutionary.Change must involve everyone.Conflicts are caused by unjustsystems but can be a creativesource for transformation. Mustwork collaboratively to seeksocial structures that are just,equitable, and fair. We needto work on our own liberationwhile being an ally with otherforms of oppression.We need to become informedabout different oppressions andhow they are connected.Understand how oppressioncame about, how it ismaintained within individuals,recreated within institutions andsocial structures.Capitalism and dominantoppressive ideologies adapt tochallenges and reformulate tomaintain legitimacy. Structuralchange is very difficult toachieve. Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 67NELthemes that dOmInant dIscOurses use tOLegItImIZe InequaLIty and InjustIceThose who have studied worldwide liberation struggles know that themanipulation of information, including propaganda and disinformation, areprimary tactics employed in the domination process. Oppressive populationsdefame, stigmatize, stereotype, and distort the reality of dominated populations.Oppressive populations change the true human record through denial of thevery reality of the total human experience, including their own…. The massmedia, entertainment, and schools are an integral part of the informationprocess and, in oppressive societies, are a part of the domination processas well.—Hilliard, 1992*Powerful groups have the means to promote particular ideologies and circulatediscourses that serve their interests and legitimize their authority. Gaining consentfrom the population through the adoption of these ideas is referred to as hegemony.For example, the capitalist economic system creates vast inequality, a trend that isincreasing at a rapid rate (Piketty, 2014). However, most believe that it is the besteconomic system ever devised, that for the most part it works well for everyone,and we must fight to preserve this production and consumption driven way oflife, despite the costs to those who are exploited and the negative environmentalimpacts. This consensus has been achieved through the production of dominant NeoliberalNeoconservativeTransformativeEnvironmentThe earth, animals, plants areresources to be commerciallyexploited. They only have valuewhen they are commodified.The only way to protect nature isto give it a commercial value.Perpetual growth is a necessaryand natural form of progressand takes precedence overenvironmental protection.Control over nature, masteryover nature ordained to “man”by “god.”Nature is harsh and cruel. Weare separate from and in conflictwith nature.Against environmentalprotection, regulation, speciesprotection, and for opening upprotected areas such as nationalparks for resource development.The biosphere has intrinsic value.Some view nature as sacred.Humans are not separate fromor superior to nature. Naturegives life and is alive. Destroyingnature will ultimately lead to ourdemise. * Asa Hilliard III, “Why We Must Pluralize the Curriculum,” Educational Leadership, Dec/Jan, 1992, Pg. 12.68 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNELdiscourses. Dominant ideologies and discourses have been challenged throughouthistory by transformative ideologies and movements that expose how oppression,inequality, and injustice operate to enrich powerful groups and maintain power. Inorder to maintain hegemony, discourses must be altered or reinvented to maintainlegitimacy and manufacture consent from members of a society. Since commonsense assumptions derived from dominant discourses obscure the root causes ofsocial problems, or label them as individual problems, the task of social change is aformidable task (Chossudovsky, 2003).By examining the hidden assumptions and arguments within dominant discourses and ideologies, we are able to make sense of the dominant culture’s currenthegemonic practices and reveal structural causes of problems in society. Our societyis structured to create vast economic, social, cultural, and political inequality. However, many believe that “developed” nations—the West, ruling elites, and privileged social groups—deserve their position because they have achieved their statusthrough superior effort and means. The oppressive, exploitative, and discriminatory systems necessary to maintain this position are concealed in the populardiscourses of mainstream media and schools. These hegemonic arrangementsnormalize the status quo and discredit alternative visions of organizing society tobenefit all members, such as living cooperatively, and protecting the ecosystem forits intrinsic value for the survival of future generations (Parenti, 1995). Rather, weaccept warfare for territorial control and resource acquisition as normal. Discussedbelow are a number of commonsense assumptions or hegemonic discourses thatperpetuate inequality and oppression that are useful for the analysis of social problems in the world today.Inequality, Hierarchy, Warfare, Exploitation, and DominationAre NormalConservatives tend to argue that hierarchy, inequality, and competitive individualism are natural, effective, and efficient ways of organizing society. The assumption is that society is imperfect and flawed. The “superior” should rule and organizesociety accordingly because the majority are “inferior,” dependent, easily manipulated, and psychologically weak (Heywood, 2007). This ideological assumptionnormalizes inequality as inevitable.Archaeological evidence and knowledge of human social, cultural, economic,and political systems indicate that dominance, individualism, inequality, and hierarchy were not common to all societies. Historically, humans exercised choice inthe design of societal organizations. Early recorded history reveals that many societies were egalitarian, cooperative, and gender equal. The land was held in commonand any surplus land supported common purposes such as religion, the arts, crafts,and literacy. Inequality and poverty developed when the aristocracy in varioushegemonic discourseA way of framingissues that becomes soembedded in a culturethat it appears silly toask “Why?” abouttheir assumptions.Commonsenseassumptionspredetermine answers,and also influence thequestions that can beasked.Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 69NELsocieties appropriated land for their private use and a few became very wealthyand powerful. This template was used by imperial powers throughout history invarious parts of the globe (Bishop, 2005). More recently, this occurred during theearly stages of capitalism in Europe when common land was made into privateproperty for the aristocracy and emerging commercial elites. This process was alsoused during colonization where land and local technologies were appropriated, andspiritual, economic, and political structures were destroyed to create cheap labourand dependency on the colonial power. This system has served wealthy groups andimperial nations at the expense of others. Consequently, social and economic structures that create and maintain poverty and inequality globally persist. The UnitedNations reports that the economic gap between the richest and poorest countryduring colonization was 3 to 1 in 1820, 35 to 1 in 1950, and 74 to 1 in 1997 (Cobb& Diaz, 2009).In these historical examples, the oppressed and dominated have always resistedthe imposition of individualistic values and hierarchical social organization. Wecontinue to see evidence of this today as many indigenous nations in Canada andelsewhere resist assimilation by dominant economic, political, and social ideologies that are rapidly encroaching on their remaining traditional lands. Canadianmining companies, hydroelectric dams, and oil exploration corporations in theAmazon are among those implicated in these ongoing neocolonial processes.However, the general public is ambivalent, unaware, or unconcerned about theseprocesses because little attention is given to these struggles and the assumption isthat eventually these “uncivilized” “remnants of the past” will be absorbed by theinevitable “march of progress” (Davis, 2009).There Is A Scarcity of Resources and Food For the GlobalPopulationThe myth of scarcity deflects attention away from the fact that the richest “1%”of the world owns 32 percent of the wealth (Cobb & Diaz, 2009). According toBishop (2005), there are enough resources in the world to provide for everyone.However, the myth of scarcity is frequently used to disguise the fact that a largeproportion of the world’s resources benefit very few people. The world’s resourcesare enough to give everyone a good quality of life. The problem is that the current economic system is structured to benefit the few, which creates and maintainsclass and global inequality. We in the West consume 80 percent of the world’s foodand energy resources when we are only 20 percent of the population. Many of usin the West die from diseases related to overconsumption and stress while 24,000children die from hunger every day. The richest 20 percent of the global populationmake 86 percent of consumer purchases and create 53 percent of the world’s carbonemissions, while the poorest 20 percent make 1.3 percent of consumer purchases70 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNEL19. The application of evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection to human social life.Economic principles were deemed similar to evolutionary principles and thus only the “fittest of the fit”survive.and create 3 percent of the world’s carbon emissions. One person living in the U.S.consumes a hundred times as much of the world’s resources as a citizen in one ofthe poorest countries and causes one hundred times the environmental damage(Lester, 2005). It is estimated that in the West we throw away 40 percent of ourfood; in Canada that adds up to $27 billion annually (CBC, 2014).The myth of scarcity is also a useful social Darwinist19 discourse that powerfulcountries (G8) and multinational corporations promote to legitimize internationalresource wars and unfair international trade structures (IMF, World Bank, and theWorld Trade Organization). The logic behind this neoconservative view is that onlythe fittest of the fit will survive in a competitive world.The “Economy” Is More Important Than Anything ElseDominant narratives derived from capitalist ideology and Christian religiousideology, fundamental to the colonizing processes, and global economic systemstoday, suggest that nature has no intrinsic value other than its commercial value.“God gave man dominion over the animals and the earth,” therefore the biosphereexists for the needs of humans. In contrast to other worldviews that do not privilege humans over nature, Western worldviews portray nature as a commodityto be exploited for commercial gain. Corporations now have tremendous swayand influence over government policy and stand to benefit most from this. Consequently, perpetual economic growth takes precedence over harmful and environmentally destructive practices (Conally, 2008). When these harmful, destructive,and unsustainable practices are challenged by environmentalists and scientists,discourses are used to discredit and dismiss their claims. This is most apparentwith governments such as Canada’s that work in concert with the oil corporationsand subscribe to these models of economic growth. The Canadian government hasput out ads in mainstream media suggesting that environmental problems relatedto the Keystone pipeline project are exaggerated by activists and radicals who arefunded by foreign interests. The Canadian government also ignores their own scientists whose studies reveal that the Alberta tar sands are poisoning the ecologicalsystem and affecting the health of indigenous communities that depend on theland. Canada is the only country that signed and ratified the Kyoto protocol andthen said it had no intention of meeting its targets. The federal government eliminated the only major federal renewable energy program in the country while providing over $1 billion a year in taxpayer dollars (corporate welfare) to subsidize theoil sector. Not surprisingly, Canada has won the Fossil of the Year award five timesChapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 71NEL(awarded to the country with the worst environmental reputation) (Climate ActionNetwork, 2014).Corporate economic activity is having a detrimental impact globally but Westerncountries, as well as India, China, and Japan, have done little to rethink the conceptof development. As a result of global industrial fishing practices, only 10 percentof big ocean fish remain, and 85 percent of all oyster reefs have been decimated.Rainforests that once covered 14 percent of the earth’s land surface now cover6 percent. It is estimated that at the current rate of deforestation the last remainingrainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years. Scientists estimate that we lose50,000 animal, plant, and insect species every year due to rainforest deforestation.For corporations and the government policies that support their economic interests, short-term gain trumps long-term planning and sustainable development forfuture generations.The “West” Is Best: Developed, Democratic, and the Apex ofCivilizationCritical anti-racist and feminist scholars maintain that the educational system,“experts,” mainstream media, and popular culture reinforce ideologies of whitesupremacist capitalist patriarchy through various discourses and media (hooks,1994; West, 1993). Textbooks, movies, and television shows, nursery rhymes,social commentary, literature, jokes, pictorial depictions, and other cultural mediums establish Western civilization, competitive individualism, heteronormativity,patriarchal gender roles and norms as the standard that all societies should aspireto. Other knowledge, cultures, and forms of social and political organization areomitted, distorted, or misrepresented through stereotyping and dehumanization.This misinformation is deemed to be objective and factual because it is backedby the legitimacy of powerful media and academic institutions. One example ofthis is the misrepresentation of the origins of the Industrial Revolution and its relationship with global inequality and notions of progress and development.History is still taught from the perspective of northern Europe as if it were“universal history.” In this narrative, the initiative that transformed Europe andmade it the centre of the modern world was the industrial revolution. Thatstory distorts the origins of the capitalist order and the world system. NorthernEuropean development was preceded by the colonization of Latin America bysouthern Europe and the transfer of gold, silver and the so-called “preciousvegetables,” above all sugar cane…. to the north…. This permitted them toaccumulate wealth and serve as the basis for…. the industrial revolution. Theindustrial revolution appears in the guise of universal history as somethingseparate from colonialism. (Cobb & Diaz, 2009)72 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNEL20. http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.htmlThe Dutch and other European colonizers were particularly barbaric in theirexploitation of the countries they colonized. They destroyed the Indonesian textileand ceramic industries, and then took these techniques back to Holland to builda profitable industry. By taking from Asia everything they could they became theworld’s financial centre before it was transferred to Britain. In the 18th century theBritish destroyed the Indian textile industry, which was superior to theirs, appropriated the technology, brought it back to Britain, and prevented merchants withinthe British Empire from importing Indian textiles. These practices destroyed socialstructures and livelihoods and led to famines. It is estimated that 25 million Africans died during the slave trade, 65 million indigenous peoples were eliminated inthe Americas, and 9 million women were killed during the Inquisition (Anderson,1995; Jones, 2014; Shovel, 2014).When colonized countries gained political independence, they were left withthe debts of the colonizers in violation of international law. This strategy was usedto exert control over their natural resources through debt. Another legacy of colonization, designed to make sure that former colonies remain poor and dependent,is the export of raw materials to be processed in Europe and North America andthe finished products exported back. Policies of the WTO, IMF, and World Bankhelp to facilitate the transfer of wealth to the North. Economist Susan George hascalculated that the South finances the North $200 billion every year (Cobb & Diaz,2009).Misinformation and lack of awareness lead many in the West to conclude thatour relative wealth is based on our superior culture, technology, and economicsystem. The “others” are impoverished because they are backward, uncivilized,undemocratic, and violators of human rights. Furthermore, democracy is equatedwith parliamentary electoral systems and conflated with the economic system ofcapitalism. The U.S. has two political parties that firmly support corporate capitalism. There are 67,000 people employed as lobbyists in Washington D.C.—thatmakes 125 corporate lobbyists for each elected member of Congress (Williams,2004). The U.S. and their allies have invaded democratically governed countries onnumerous occasions to secure geopolitical and resource interests.20Popular culture and academia present the Western way of life as universal andself-evident. Global cultures are evaluated as “modern” based on their similarity toWestern consumer capitalism. Furthermore, economic trade liberalization resultingfrom globalization has had the effect where non-Western societies aspire to the“American way of life,” which is regarded as the pinnacle of human achievement. Inschools, business texts regard capitalism as a given. They contrast ideal capitalismChapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 73NEL21. This does not represent an endorsement of socialism. As previously mentioned, socialism as practised bystates like Russia and China did not live up to its egalitarian ideal. This is largely because of hierarchical andmilitaristic governmental structures and geopolitical competition with dominant imperial capitalist stateslike the United States and England.against real socialism as implemented by totalitarian states such as the USSR andNorth Korea21 (Paul, 2014). In addition, much critical analysis is omitted and othereconomic systems are not considered worthy of study or examined in relation tocapitalism. The growth of monopolies and corporations and government programssuch as corporate welfare that contradict capitalist theory is omitted from analysis.We Are Meritocratic and Democratic: Anyone Can Succeed IfThey Try Hard EnoughAnother discourse that minimizes inequality and discrimination is the myth ofmeritocracy. This discourse suggests that North American society is based on equalopportunity on a level playing field. The assumption is that all it takes to succeed ishard work—you will be hired based on merit, not your race, class, gender, disability,age, etc. Therefore individuals are responsible for their own success or failure. Tosome extent this is true, but only for the very few.This discourse promotes the assumption that wealthy elites deserve their wealthand success, having achieved these entirely through hard work. While this may betrue in a small number of cases, unacknowledged is the reality that this wealth hasbeen acquired through exclusion and/or exploitation during colonization, throughdifferential distribution of resources, and differential treatment of minoritizedgroups. The vast majority of those who are wealthy and successful have advantages that others don’t. They enjoy privileged access to jobs, social capital, preferredcitizenship, and preferential treatment from societal institutions and structuraladvantage.Western societies are highly stratified along lines of race, class, gender, disability,and sexual orientation (Edward-Galabuzi, 2006; Nestel & Kanee, 2008). Gendered,racialized, and disabled minoritized groups are the poorest in society because theysupply cheap labour and do most of the dangerous jobs in society. However, discriminatory discourses suggest that “we are providing jobs for them,” “they arenewcomers and all newcomers have to go through this stage.” In the case of gender,women continue to hit the glass ceiling because of stereotypical discourses thatmarginalize women: “women are not breadwinners,” “women have kids, thereforeare unreliable,” women are not as capable as men, or “women are too emotional.”Women continue to earn less than men doing the same job, and only about fiveof the top Fortune 500 company CEOs are racialized and female (Mullaly, 2010).Yet, most who subscribe to this discourse would consider systems of inequality asundemocratic or unfair.74 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNELNorth Americans Are Living In A Post-Discriminatory EraHuman rights legislation, the denial of privilege, tokenism, and the backlash againstequality programs, unions, feminism, and anti-racism are representative of discourses that suggest that we are living in a post-discriminatory society. In referenceto race, Henry and Tator (2002) have referred to these contradictions as democraticracism. We may have friends of other “races” at work, but we continue to hold on tostereotypes, do not have deeper connections such as marriage, and may even engagein discriminatory behaviour, all the while thinking we are progressive. Other formsof denial are found in discourses that blame the victim. This belief blames minoritized group members for their own oppression. In North American and other societies women continue to be blamed for male violence such as rape and harassment.Misogynistic ideas that circulate in social structures and in legal institutions oftenre-victimize women. The first questions asked of women who have been raped is,“what was she wearing?” “what did she do, was she drinking?” and “what kind ofwoman is she?” This was exactly the inference made at a recent lecture at a Torontolaw school by a police sergeant who noted that “women should avoid dressing likesluts in order not to be victimized.” Women responded by organizing a “slut” walkto challenge these sexist ideas that continue to persist.Goodman (2001) claims that dominant discourses have a tendency to entitlepeople from privileged groups. Because it’s not likely to be their experience, therefore it doesn’t exist; she refers to this as “willful innocence.” Along with a sense ofsuperiority it becomes easy to proclaim that discrimination and oppression doesnot exist. When claims about discrimination or harassment are made, those raisingthem are dismissed as politically correct, as having a chip on their shoulder, asoversensitive or as radical trouble makers.We In the West Are Good and Charitable“We are the World,” “Live Aid,” and “World Vision” discourses that promote volunteerism, charity, and foreign aid make those in the West look and feel generous,alleviate symptoms of inequality, which is worthy in itself but does very little tochange the structures that create and maintain suffering and oppression. Regardlessof our socio-economic positions, those of us in the wealthy corners of the world areafforded the opportunity to feel good about ourselves by giving up a few luxuries todonate or volunteer overseas. Pop stars can sell a lot of records and advance theirprofiles by getting involved in charitable causes. In fact, charities themselves havebecome businesses where most of the money goes to advertising and fundraisingand a very small percentage goes to the actual cause. The non-profit organizationset up by Bono of U2 received £9.6 million (C$17.5 million) in donations in 2008and handed out only £118,000 (C$215,600) to charity (1.2 percent); £5.1 million(C$9.32 million) went towards paying salaries (Patterson, 2014).Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 75NELsOcIaL anaLysIs methOdOLOgIesActivism is about how we actively change the world.—Julia (Butterfly) HillThroughout the last two chapters we have introduced concepts such as criticalthinking, power, ideology, discourse, and hegemony that can be applied to socialanalysis methodologies. Engaging in social analysis means gathering and siftingthrough information in order to arrive at an informed opinion about social problems. Social analysis concepts and methods are essential components of the socialanalysis tool kit; they are not rigid guidelines. They can be applied creatively toanalyze specific social problems. Two models of social analysis are described belowand one is applied to the documentary film, Black Gold, which addresses an aspectof global inequality.The Triangle Model of Social AnalysisThe triangle model (Figure 4.2) is useful for analyzing how hegemony (powerthrough consent) is expressed through the interdependent relationship betweendominant ideologies, societal institutions, and individual beliefs and actions.This model helps us to identify how dominant ideologies frame social problems,how societal structures and institutions reinforce these ideas, and how we adoptinfluential ideas and discourses as commonsense explanations of social problems.It also reveals how the present arrangement of society relies on our consent andparticipation as we embrace particular perspectives and support the ruling systemthrough our actions as citizens and consumers.This triangle model analyzes how particular ideologies rationalize structures ofinequality and oppression. It examines how dominant ideologies marginalize andexploit subordinate groups and societies through the omission and misrepresentation of facts, as well as through objectification, stereotyping, and dehumanization.This model also reveals how dominant discourses and language are used to legitimize the position and actions of those that benefit from inequality and exploitation and blame the victims of these structures of domination. It also requires thatwe examine the social, psychological, physical, and economic impacts of harmfulideologies and discourses.The triangle model draws a connection between dominant ideologies and institutional structures such as the government, financial institutions, legal systems, corporations, media, schools, and religious organizations. It requires that we examinehow particular ideas are normalized through institutional policy and practices thatcan mask exploitation, inequality, discrimination, and marginalization.76 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNELFigure 4.2 The Triangle Model of Social Analysis Source: © Chet Singh, 2014.Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 77NELFinally, this model examines how dominant ideologies and discourses and socialstructures influence our individual expressions through the commonsense assumptions we adopt and our everyday behaviours. How do we as individuals participatein these structural and social relationships? What do we know about relationshipsof domination and exploitation? What don’t we know? What are the consequences?How do our beliefs and actions support relations of domination? How can we resistinequality and exploitation through individual or collective agency?Using Documentary Films for Social AnalysisWe will illustrate how to apply the triangle model to a social problem using thedocumentary film, Black Gold (2006), which examines why Western corporationsmake billions from coffee annually but the small farmers that grow the beans areimpoverished.Documentary films are excellent educational tools for social analysis. The viewerexperiences the information on multiple levels. In addition to revealing information that can be empowering, enlightening, or disturbing, films can be visuallystunning pieces of art. Since they relay information through storytelling, at theemotional level we can see the human and ecological impact of issues and experience the subject’s anger, joy, or insight. At the cognitive level we get the filmmaker’sideological point of view. Documentary films present the filmmaker’s version of“the truth.” Therefore, it is impossible to completely arrive at an accurate portrayalof events, people, organizations, or issues. As we view documentaries on variousissues consider the following critical thinking questions as you gather informationto analyze the social problems and solutions presented by the filmmakers:• What is the dominant ideology of the film? Who funded the film? How doesthe film construct ideas about the social problem? Does the filmmaker’sideological bias prevent her/him from considering other perspectives on theissue?• What information is used to examine the social problem? Has information,relevant voices, or sources been omitted that could alter the perspective ofthe issue, broaden the issue, make important interconnections with relatedissues, and alter the conclusions or arguments?• Who are the experts in the documentary? Who are they affiliated with andwhat is their background or involvement with the issue? Are they directlyaffected by the issue or distant observers?• What social identities do they represent (occupation, political affiliations,race, gender, class, religion, sexual orientation, disability, age). Who benefitsfrom the dominant perspective in the film?• What techniques are used in the film? Does music or framing attempt tomanipulate your emotions or create a negative or positive bias towards78 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNELa subject or situation? Is this a perspective that would be represented inmainstream corporate media? What do you know about the social orenvironmental problem prior to viewing the documentary? How did youcome to know about the problem?• Does it challenge your commonsense assumptions/worldview? How doesthis cause you to react?The Coffee Trade: Black Gold, 2006The filmmakers state that Black Gold (2006) was made to challenge commonsenseassumptions and stereotypical views about poverty in African countries by exposingthe collusion among global financial institutions, multinational corporations, andWestern governments to extract wealth from the global South. The narrative of thefilm and how it constructs what we know about the coffee trade is influenced bytransformative ideological perspectives.The documentary examines global financial institutions and government andcorporate structures to demonstrate that there is an ongoing neocolonial relationship of power that relies on the participation of Western consumers. Trade regulations designed by the powerful Western institutions enlist our participation asconsumers in a system that keeps farmers in developing countries impoverished.The four corporations that control the coffee trade make billions annually whilethe Ethiopian coffee farmers live in poverty because they are not adequately compensated for producing coffee. In fact, the price they are paid has been steadilydropping for the last 30 years. The filmmakers requested interviews with the corporations that control the coffee trade but all declined to be interviewed so theirvoices are absent from the film.IndividualThe film’s narrative centres on Tadesse Meskele, a man who attempts to save frombankruptcy the 74,000 struggling coffee farmers he has organized into a fair tradecooperative. To make the connection to Western consumers, the film switchesbetween the coffee farming communities in Ethiopia to Western urban scenes ashipsters and others consume coffee as they go about their daily business unawarethat they are key participants in a global trading system that is unfair. It createsgreat wealth for four multinational corporations off the backs of poor farmers whoproduce coffee, bananas, and other commodities.The film challenges neoconservative and neoliberal assumptions of globalinequality common in stereotypical and decontextualized mainstream media representations that many adopt uncritically. Mainstream movies and news storiespresent “Third World” subjects and countries as “underdeveloped,” impoverished,and helpless. They construct the social problem of inequality in African and “ThirdChapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 79NELWorld” countries as primarily arising from the actions of African countries andAfricans. At the individual level, the video reminds us that our beliefs and actionshave powerful social, economic, and political consequences. The cup of coffee ortea we consume at Starbucks or Tim Hortons is not just a satisfying buzz or a personal expression of brand appeal; it is attached to historical colonial relationships ofinequality, embedded in capitalist consumer ideologies, and controlled by politicaland financial systems of power.IdeologyAfter oil, coffee is the most valuable exported commodity from the “Third World.”Neoliberal capitalism promotes the idea that inequality is the cost of doing business in a competitive environment. Discriminatory media discourses suggest thatglobal economic and social inequalities are outcomes of a natural hierarchy and thesuperiority of the West. These discourses are historically embedded in socially constructed discourses such as “First World” and “Third World.” The former is the termused to describe the industrialized countries of Europe and North America. ThirdWorld characterizes the impoverished countries of Africa, Asia, Pacific Rim, andLatin America, which are also called “underdeveloped.” Eurocentric historians andeconomists frame “underdevelopment” and impoverishment as an original historical condition. It is never framed as rooted in the history of colonization and imperialism. This dominant narrative tells us that these conditions have always existed;“Third World” peoples are always “backward,” in need of “civilizing,” development,and charity; that this is an ongoing project of the benevolent West.Historical ContextParenti (1995) reminds us that Europeans went to these countries to steal andplunder the vast treasures of food, minerals, and other precious resources (gold,silver, furs, spices, timber, sugar, rum, rubber, tobacco, coffee, cotton, copper, tin,iron, ivory, oil, zinc, manganese, mercury, platinum, cobalt, bauxite, aluminum,uranium, etc.). The Third World has always been incredibly rich; it is its peoplesthat have been and continue to be impoverished by exploitative and oppressiveneocolonial practices and comprador elites.European society in the 15th to 19th centuries was not the epitome of culturalsupremacy. Europe led in hangings, murders, other violent crimes; venereal disease, small pox, typhoid, and other plagues; social inequality and poverty; abuse ofwomen and children; famine, slavery, prostitution, piracy, religious massacre, andinquisitional torture (Parenti, 1995). Chossudovsky (2003) proposes that superiorfirepower, greed, and brutality, not superior culture is what brought Europeans andEuro-North Americans to positions of power and that today is still maintainedby force and hegemonic discourses. Social customs of indigenous people in theSouth were characterized by European “explorers” as humane and less autocraticcomprador elitesThe local businessclass who derive theirwealth and statusfrom multinationalcorporations and linksto imperial and/orformer colonial empires.80 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNEL22. The G8 is comprised of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, and the UnitedStates.and repressive than European society at the time. Southern civilizations also hadsuperior technologies in textiles, ceramics, and impressive skills in agriculture,architecture, and medicine. All had philosophical, artistic, and cultural traditions.Nonetheless, these were diverse societies and some had cruel and brutal practicesof their own (Parenti, 1995). However, much of the information about colonizedsocieties are omitted or distorted by Western historical and academic discourses,to justify their subjugation.StructuresAs European colonizers gained control over local economic structures, foodsupply systems were dismantled, local technologies appropriated, and colonialeconomies were structured to extract wealth for European elites. Coffee was oneof the commodities that fuelled European colonial economies by replacing localfood production and industries with mono-crops for export to Europe. New markets were created for coffee consumption in Europe and colonies were now madedependent on European manufactured goods (Cobb & Diaz, 2009). This modelwas repeated with other commodities and contributed to the wealth of Europeand North America and the “underdevelopment” or impoverishment of the globalSouth (O’Brien & Szeman, 2010). Though the nations of the South have gainedpolitical independence in theory, they certainly do not have economic independence because they continue to be exploited by former European and Euro-NorthAmerican imperialist powers. Trade regulations that benefit Western economiesand corporations force developing countries to adopt agricultural practices thatconsign them to continued poverty.Global neocolonial trade structures and capitalist institutions such as corporations continue to enrich the West and exploit the Third World’s’ labour and resourcesthrough the use of force (invasions and assassinations), and the manipulation offinancial and commodity markets (Perkins, 2008). According to economists andAfrican politicians interviewed in the film, trade regulations imposed by globalfinancial institutions such as the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank facilitate neocolonial exploitation of the South’scommodities that perpetuate poverty and inequality. The WTO is controlled by theG822 and governs the rules of global trade. It has imposed arbitrary rules that areundemocratic and unfair to the South but benefit the West and its corporations.For instance, European and North American governments are allowed to subsidizetheir agricultural corporations up to $350 billion with tax dollars. As mentionedpreviously, this is money given to corporations by government and referred to asChapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 81NEL“corporate welfare.” These subsidies are designed to drive down the price of commodities since Western corporations are then able to sell their produce below thecost of production. Under these trade rules “Third World” farmers are not allowedsubsidies, nor can their governments provide them. African politicians point outthat these policies have reduced Africa’s share of global trade to 1 percent. Whatimpoverished African countries need is trade—not aid. For example, a 1 percentincrease in trade will result in the generation of $70 billion, five times more thanthe continent receives in aid annually (Francis & Francis, 2006). Third World countries have suffered a 70 percent drop in the price of agricultural exports comparedto manufactured exports (Cobb & Diaz, 2009).ImpactsAnother structural reason for the growing inequality is that the coffee industry isnow controlled by four western corporations (Proctor & Gamble, Sara Lee, Kraft,and Nestlé) who exercise disproportionate control over the wages received by thegrowers and the prices paid by consumers. The price of coffee paid to southernfarmers has been declining over the last 30 years since the collapse of the International Coffee Agreement. Most of the world’s coffee is produced by the poorerThird World countries where 25 million families on small farms and highlyexploited low wage workers eke out a living. Most farmers receive $0.14 per kilogram for green beans, which are sold to the large multinationals who control theroasting, marketing, and distribution. Multinationals make $26.40 per kilogram—a7000 percent increase in profits. In 2003 Starbucks’ CEO, Orin Smith, was paid over$38 million—the combined annual income of 36,000 Ethiopian workers (Fridell,2012).In Ethiopia many farmers have been forced off the land into slums because theyare unable to make a living. Some grow the narcotic “chat” alongside coffee tomake ends meet. The filmmakers do not address the role of the Ethiopian government in addressing the plight of the farmers. More recently, Human Rights Watchreports that indigenous farmers in the South are forced off their traditional landsby neocolonial and neoliberal policies in the biggest land grab since colonization.Western, Indian, and Saudi corporations are buying up massive tracts of land orsecuring cheap leases for corporate food production. In Ethiopia, the governmentis facilitating this process and hundreds of thousands of indigenous peoples havebeen displaced, there are reported human rights abuses, and in the process theirtraditions have been destroyed. In addition 70,000 coffee farmers have been forcedoff their lands (Mauduy & Pelleray, 2014; Westhead, 2014).Another negative impact of coffee and other large-scale commodity productionfor the Western market is the environmental degradation of the land. The development of new high-yield varieties has pressured producers to turn to large-scalemono-cropping, which creates soil erosion, reliance on fertilizers, and chemical82 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNELpesticides. This has negative effects on the land, wildlife, and the health of the localpeople (Fridell, 2012).Multinationals spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising andbranding to get us drinking coffee. Tim Hortons’ brand is that of a caring andcommunity-based Canadian corporation and Starbucks promotes its brand as hipand progressive. These brands have been embraced by North Americans and continue to expand. However, what is hidden from consumers is the exploitation ofcoffee farmers in the drive for increased profits by these Western corporations. AsWestern consumers we have no idea about the lives of the coffee farmers; to uscoffee, like most products we consume, is an abstract commodity on the shelf in thesupermarket. It is independent of exploitative economic, historical, political andsocial relationships (O’Brien & Szeman, 2010). Yet Tim Hortons and Starbucks arenothing like the advertising mythologies they create. Both are large multinationals,Tim Hortons has more coffee shops than McDonald’s and has been owned by theU.S. corporation Wendy’s since 1995. Not only does Tim Hortons and Starbucksexploit low-paid coffee workers and small farmers they also exploit low-paid nonunionized North American workers. These corporations utilize a range of methodsto keep wages low. They use primarily piecework and seasonal employment, relyheavily on female workers who are vulnerable to exploitation because of patriarchalnorms, and receive significantly less pay than men. Coffee servers and workers relyon unpredictable and unstable employment. In addition to non–full-time statusand low pay, they get limited health and pension benefits. Most workers are fromeasily exploited groups such as older workers, youth, single mothers, AboriginalCanadians, recent immigrants, and persons with disabilities. Because of poor conditions, the annual turnover rate for the coffee sector is 200 percent, among thehighest in any sector of the economy. Neoliberal ideologies have allowed coffee corporations to lobby governments to lower or freeze real minimum wages, employment and welfare benefits, corporate taxes, and aggressively fight unionizations andworker’s rights to collective bargaining (Fridell, 2012).HegemonyDomination by Western liberal democracies is subtle with less obvious benefitsfor dominant groups because of hegemonic practices and discourses. Dominanceis secured through interpersonal, cultural/ideological, and institutional forcesworking together to produce systemic impacts that legitimize power and privilege.Dominant groups control institutions for their own advantage and can establishpolicies and procedures that can provide, deny, or limit opportunities and accessto resources and power. Institutions such as media organizations, schools, entertainment, and advertisers normalize the exploitative relationships of neoliberalcapitalism—we take inequality for granted and fail to acknowledge the historical conflicts and ideological contexts. We see inequality as the result of a naturalChapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 83NELglobal hierarchy of the “superior” West and the “backward” South. As we sip our(non-fair trade) morning coffee or flock to Tim Hortons and Starbucks, most areunaware that we are a link in the chain of corporate monopoly structures implicated in creating conditions of inequality, poverty, and displacement. Many of uswant to “help” with poverty in Africa and elsewhere but have no understanding ofthe scope of these problems.A shortcoming of the triangle model is that it focuses primarily on deconstructing the social problem to help us to understand the invisibility of power asexpressed in ideologies and structures of power; it does not focus on agency, whatindividuals and groups do to challenge oppression and exploitation. One positiveaspect of the video Black Gold is that rather than present a picture of victimization,it looks at ways that Ethiopians are challenging neocolonial and corporate control. Tadesse Meskele, general manager of the Oromia Coffee Farmers Co-operativeUnion attempts to bypass the multinationals by selling fair trade coffee. The fairtrade movement comprises organizations committed to an economic relationshipthat sustains producers rather than just the profits of multinational buyers, roasters,and distributers. Growers can get up to twice the market price. It also encouragesgrowing methods that are environmentally sustainable such as small-scale farmsunder forest canopies (Swift, Davies, Clarke, & Czerny, 2003).In recent years, the growth of fair trade is being driven by multinational corporations and international institutions that use token fair trade to mask their free tradeneoliberal agenda. For example, a corporation such as Starbucks gains positivepublicity for selling fair trade coffee. However, only 6 percent of its coffee beans arefair trade and the other 94 percent is supplied under the old exploitative conditions.When the Ethiopian government tried to trademark its renowned coffee beans tocontrol their brands, Starbucks was instrumental in killing this initiative. Activistorganization Oxfam was able to mobilize 96,000 people to contact Starbucksthrough emails, faxes, phone calls, postcards, and in-store visits. Fearing damage toits brand image it was forced to sign an agreement with the Ethiopian governmentwho then successfully registered the trademark in Europe, North America, andJapan. Ethiopia depends on coffee for two-thirds of its export earnings; an Ethiopian coffee worker earns 50 cents a day producing beans that are processed anddistributed by multinationals for upwards of $26 per kilogram in the West (Fridell,2012).Post Viewing ReactionsAfter viewing documentaries that challenge dominant perspectives of social problems individuals demonstrate a range of reactions. The most common reaction isdisbelief or cognitive dissonance. Viewers are shocked that unfair, exploitative,manipulative, and undemocratic practices actually occur in the global tradingsystem. Most individuals are shocked to learn of the arbitrary and unfair policies ofcognitive dissonanceThe resulting tensionone experiences whenholding on to twoconflicting beliefs orstruggling with newinformation in light ofold (Gorski, 2014).84 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNELglobal financial institutions in enacting policies that benefit Western corporationsthrough exploitation and displacement of indigenous peoples. In some cases, individuals deflect the issue, or deny responsibility of the powerful Western nations.Some suggest this is the way the world has always been, and the West is able to dothis because of superior technology. Others focus on the growing of “chat,” the narcotic used to supplement the income from coffee, and argue that they are engagingin illegal practices and could do something else. These reactions are understandable as individuals process this information. These structures of inequality we participate in and derive privilege from are invisible to us as Western consumers. Wepurchase commodities, and don’t have to think about how and where they wereproduced, an example of what Goodman (2001) calls “willful innocence.”the seLf-refLectIve sOcIaL actIOn mOdeLWhen we drop fear, we can draw nearer to people, we can draw nearer to theearth, we can draw nearer to all the heavenly creatures that surround us.—bell hooksThe self-reflective social action model (Figure 4.3) uses similar methodologies asthe triangle model but has two notable differences. First, it begins with the individual as a subject of analysis. Its fundamental premise is that we cannot engage insocial analysis unless we begin with self-analysis. We are encouraged to examineprivileges, biases, stereotypes, and other perceptual filters (emotions and triggers)that hinder our quest for some measure of objectivity. The second notable difference from the triangle model (refer to Figure 4.2) is that this self-reflective modelfocuses on agency. It asks: what can individuals and groups do to challenge injustice, inequality, and environmental destruction?The self-reflective social action model suggests that our understanding ofsocial problems and social change is an ongoing process. This particular framework requires continual reevaluation of our understanding of social problems,lifelong learning about how we are implicated in perpetuating social problems,and ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of strategies for engaging in socialchange. As indicated in Figure 4.3, this model uses similar analytical tools as thetriangle model; it emphasises the importance of examining the historical contextfrom which social problems arise, understanding how dominant political ideologies (e.g., neoliberalism and neoconservatism) and social ideologies (e.g., whitesupremacy, capitalism, patriarchy, heterosexism) function through discourses toenlist our consent. In addition, we are encouraged to explore how ideologies andhegemonic discourses circulate within social, economic, political institutionalChapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 85NELSelf-Reflective Social Action ModelChet Singh, 2014The Self‐Reflective Social Action ModelCOUNTER DISCOURSES HEGEMONIC DISCOURSESProposed Solutions‐ How do different ideologies frame the issues &solutions?‐ What solutions are proposed by those in power andthose affected?‐ Are change strategies bureaucratic: top down,legislative? Grassroots/transformative: allies,consensus, cooperative, long term?‐ Does the strategy address symptoms or root causes:charity or structural/philosophical change?‐ Is language/discourse used to justify bureaucraticstrategies: reasonable/practical/radical?‐ Are strategies contested by stakeholders, activists/government, various media?‐ What are the impacts? Whose interests are served?Whose are not? What facts, events, help to answerthis?Social Problems‐ What is the problem: What claims are made about justice,freedom, equity, oppression?‐ Who sees it as a problem/who does not?‐ Who are in positions of power to define the problem?‐ Who are the experts called upon to speak about the problem?‐ Whose voices are marginalized /discredited/omitted?Social and Individual Change‐ What’s your vision/goal regarding the issue?‐ Has social analysis changed your understanding ofhow the problem can be framed differently?‐ Have you sought out marginalized/omittedvoices/perspectives?‐ Are you considered an ally, or is your approachconsidered paternalistic?‐ What spheres of influence does your social actioninvolve (personal, community, institutional,political)?‐ How does ideology influence your actionplan/strategy?‐ How are others impacted by your actions/inactions?Moving Forward: Ongoing Learning‐ What’s changed? What have you achieved?‐ Have oppressive structures changed/remerged?‐ Have hegemonic discourses been reformulated?‐ Have some positive outcomes been achieved?How have you changed? Blind spots: What do youneed to keep working on/learning?‐ How have you incorporated your learning intoongoing social and individual change?On Going Self-Analysis‐ What is your view of the issue?‐ What sources inform your view?‐ Relationship to the issue: insider/outsider?‐ Awareness of your ideologies/worldview/biases/stereotypes?‐ Privileged/marginalized social identities?‐ Awareness of psychological triggers‐ Denial of problem/cognitive dissonance?‐ On going self‐reflection/analysis….Dominant Ideologies/Discourses‐ What are the historical and contemporary(political/social/economic) contexts of the problem?‐ How are they interconnected with other problems?‐ Who are the key players?‐ What are the ideological positions?‐ Can you recognize dominant discourses/norms/assumptions?‐ How is stereotyping, scapegoating, distortions,omissions, language used?‐ Who perpetuates these ideologies and discourses?Who is targeted?‐ Personal/societal/environmental impacts?Structures of Power‐ How do power/privilege circulate in economic,social/political/global institutions?‐ Which groups control key institutions?‐ How do various institutions and structures utilize andlegitimize dominant ideologies?‐ Whose interest is served by current arrangements ofpower?‐ Who benefits/who is disenfranchised from policiesand legislation?‐ How is wealth distributed? How are resourcesallocated?‐ What are the human and ecological costs?Figure 4.3 Self-Reflective Social Action Model Source: © Chet Singh, 2014.86 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNELstructures to establish norms and commonsense understanding about social problems and how they should be managed or eradicated.Locating ourselves within relationships of power (intersecting privileged andminoritized identities, ideologies, and institutional structures) can be a catalyst fordeep learning that can be empowering, uncomfortable, or destabilizing. When longheld values and beliefs are decentred we can experience cognitive dissonance; theresulting tension one experiences when holding on to two conflicting beliefs orstruggling with new information in light of old (Gorski, 2014). If we subscribe to anideological position that denies systemic patterns of discrimination and inequality,refuse to acknowledge that social identities are socially constructed, that theyconfer status and minoritize individuals and groups, and buy into the hegemonicdiscourse that we are a post-discriminatory society, when presented with irrefutable facts that contradict our views, we may experience cognitive dissonance. Someof us will accept new insights or information and reevaluate our position, some willhold on to and defend our worldviews even though they are sexist or homophobic,or we may respond defensively as we grapple with dissonance. It is important toacknowledge these reactions as we try to make sense of the social analysis process.Watt (2007) has identified a number of responses to cognitive dissonance. Acommon defensive reaction to dissonance is denial of the social problem—I havenever witnessed racism or sexism, and therefore it doesn’t exist. The individual’sperception of their social experience becomes the universal experience of everyoneelse. We blame the victim, “I know many minorities who are successful; you can’tget a job because you haven’t looked hard enough.” Or, “you are overly sensitive”;“you see racism and sexism even when it doesn’t exist.”Another response to dissonance is to deflect the issue. “Well, I am white, wegrew up poor, we were stigmatized and now we are successful because we workedhard. So, I am tired of hearing about how black and brown people face racism; theyare not the only ones who experience discrimination.” “Women are equally responsible for the sexual objectification of women. If women choose to present themselves as sexual objects in advertising what do they expect.” In the first example,racial discrimination is displaced by introducing class discrimination as experienced by someone who has race privilege. Rather than looking at discriminationas intersecting, a competing hierarchy is introduced—my discrimination vs. yourdiscrimination. This individual does not recognize that we can have privileged andminoritized identities and is deploying a privileged identity to minimize racial discrimination in hiring and in pay. It sets up a competing hierarchy of discriminationby not examining the specificity of discrimination, in this instance racism. Thoughoppressions intersect, they also have specific histories. In the second examplethe individual fails to acknowledge that the advertising industry is controlled bypowerful men who are in positions to make conscious choices. They chose to represent women as sexual objects for the purpose of selling products and do so in waysChapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 87NELthat are sexist, racist, and homophobic (Whitehead, Talahite, & Moodley, 2013).Furthermore, patriarchal ideology is not only held by men; rather, both men andwomen can subscribe to sexist ideas or participate in the perpetuation of sexistpractices and ideologies. By adopting hegemonic discourses, minoritized peoplesalso collude with discriminatory ideas and practices (hooks, 1994).Another response to dissonance is false envy. “As a white person I don’t have anyculture, we don’t even have a white history month…Your culture is so exotic, myculture is boring.” These responses fail to grasp the social and political context ofracialized societies and avoid a deeper exploration with superficial admiration of aminoritized culture. There is a failure to acknowledge that the dominant culture isso pervasive that it is invisible, the content of television shows, the timing of holidays, the historical perspective in textbooks, all centres on dominant Euro-NorthAmerican cultural traditions (Singh, 2004).Individuals can also rationalize social problems by invoking dominant discoursesthat normalize inequality. “It’s human nature, throughout history we have alwaysoppressed and exploited other groups. It’s happened in the past, it will happen inthe future, there is nothing we can do about it.” This response ultimately leads toparalysis and resignation. This assertion is not entirely correct. As stated earlier,human societies have made choices, some have embraced inequality others have not(Bishop, 2005). Globally, societies continue to make advancements by addressingvarious forms of inequality. All of these gains have come about through the workof many people, usually activists who are able to get legislation and laws in place,and raise awareness to challenge discriminatory norms and practices. Change onlycomes through deliberate effort. As the leading African-American voice of the 19thcentury, Frederick Douglass said, “power concedes nothing without a demand.”Using a personal or religious principle is a response that avoids a deeper exploration of homophobia and heterosexism. In a class discussion on sexual orientationa student states, “I understand that gays and lesbians face problems but my religionis against same-sex marriage therefore it’s not discrimination.” Here, the individualis facing contradictory thoughts about this issue; to resolve the dissonance, theyresort to a religious principle in an effort to alleviate the conflict. However, thisposition is still discriminatory and not different from previous discriminatory positions and norms than have been refuted (Watt, 2007).Another response is to attack the messenger or the message (Singh, 2004). Inresponse to the requirement to take a mandatory human rights course for the lawand justice program at a community college, the predominantly white male studentsenrolled in the course directed their displeasure with the material by attacking thefemale instructors. The white female instructor was bullied and the black femaleinstructor’s car was vandalized and racial slurs were written on the classroom wall.The chair of the program responded that perhaps the course should be suspendedsince it was causing problems. Female, LGBTQ, and racialized faculty members are88 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNELroutinely rated lower on course evaluations than their counterparts; more so whenteaching courses related to discrimination and inequality. The chair’s reaction isan indication of the importance he places on learning such concepts and skills forthe workplace. He does not acknowledge that a hostile climate has been created forthe female faculty. Rather than address the racist, sexist, and criminal behaviour heblames the course for causing these problems. This is a dramatic example of denialand how it can sometimes manifest within the learning environment.Examining our responses to information that challenges our worldviews iscritical to social analysis. It is also important for personal growth. The downsideof not being able to acknowledge privilege or denying discrimination and oppression is that it can dehumanize us, rob us of our humanity and the ability to developauthentic relationships with those that we consider different from ourselves(Goodman, 2001). Those with privileged identities often elevate themselves in relation to minoritized social identities and consequently feel entitled because theyhave an elevated sense of their place in society (Johnson, 2006).As we develop critical consciousness through self-analysis we are better positioned to conduct social analysis and engage in social action. Chapter 8 exploresthe many layers of social change and social action from being a conscious consumer to becoming a community or global activist; working outside the systemon structural change or trying to reform the system from within. Our level of selfawareness and how we process the information and insights from social analysiswill lead to many different outcomes for social action. If we are unable to movebeyond dissonance, acknowledge privilege, or hold on to discriminatory views ourapproach to change may have limited or even harmful impacts.Social change strategies require a deep understanding of the issues based onself-analysis, an understanding of ideologies and dominant discourses, institutionsstructures, what those in power propose as change strategies, and how this differsfrom what is proposed by those affected by the problem. It requires that we recognize our privileges and social locations. When we skip the difficult work involvedin self-analysis, change strategies can be problematic.Some strategies focus on providing an awareness of the problem but do notmove beyond awareness. Other strategies promote inclusion into an economic orpolitical system that is fundamentally flawed because it perpetuates inequality orlack of democracy. Some strategies can be paternalistic, and focus on helping theother. “I went on a volunteer trip to Honduras. I am so touched by the gratitudeof those who I helped. I can really make a difference by helping the less fortunate.”This approach is based on an act of charity and the focus is on the benevolence ofthe volunteer. Acts of charity alleviate the symptoms of problems and are importanton their own. However, ignorance of the structural causes of global inequality orother social problems helps to maintain structures of dominance and exploitation(Illich, 1968).Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 89NELProblematic change strategies also include strategies that minimize the magnitude of the social problem. Many educational programs and workshops focus onunderstanding the “other”—how can we become culturally competent to understand minoritized people? How are “they” oppressed and how can our institutions“help” “them.” These programs reduce social problems to simple facts and statistics; homogenize complex cultures by providing check lists on particular culturalnuances (Nestle, 2008; Singh, 2012). This attempt at cross-cultural exchange canreproduce stereotypes and does not address deeper systemic change. These aresome of the most common pitfalls of social action/social change strategies. Theygive the appearance of creating social change but in reality they maintain thestatus quo with superficial efforts that don’t change the fundamental structures ofinequality and oppression.CRITICAL THINkING qUESTIoNS1. How does understanding the concepts of ideology anddiscourse help us to think about our thinking processes,our assumptions, and conclusions about socialproblems?2. After reviewing the dominant ideologies discussed inthis chapter, can you identify which ideology has asignificant influence on your worldview?3. Can you identify any problems in your thinking? Howdo you respond to ideas and facts that challengecherished beliefs? Do you expect more of others thanyourself?4. Identify a cultural or national group that you are familiarwith. Next, construct a hierarchy of the social groupswithin it. Can you identify which groups have morepower, wealth, privilege, and prestige? How are thesegroups characterized? Now identify the social groupswith less and less power until you reach the groups withthe least power. What characteristics are attributed tothese groups? How do the groups with the most powerkeep their power? How is inequality viewed within thiscultural or national group? If groups with less powercome to accept their limited power and conditionsof inequality, what term best describes these rulingprocesses? To what extent is it possible for groups withless power to increase their power or demand moreequity?reFereNcesAbu-Laban Y., & Gabriel, C. (2002). Selling diversity: Immigration, multiculturalism,employment equity and globalism. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.Adams, I. (2001). Political ideology today. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.Allen, B. (2011). Difference matters: Communicating social identity. Long Grove, IL: WavelandPress Inc.Anderson, S. E. (1995). The Black Holocaust for beginners. New York: Writers & ReadersPublishing.90 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNELArnold, R., Burke, B., James, C., Martin, D., & Thomas, B. (1991) Educating for a change. DorisMarshall Institute for Education and Change. Toronto: Between the Lines Publishing.Apple, M. (1993). Constructing the “other”; Rightist reconstructions of common sense. In C.McCarthy & W. Crichlow (Eds.), Race, identity and representation in education (pp. 24–39).New York: Routledge.Bannerji, H. (1995). Thinking through: Essays on feminism, Marxism and anti-racism. Toronto:Women’s Press.Barnes, C., & Nazim, Z. (2004). Diversity management and the legacy of Canadianmulticulturalism: Moving towards a critical social framework. International Journal ofDiversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations, 4, 1101–114.Bishop, A. (2002). Becoming an ally: Breaking the cycle of oppression in people. Halifax:Fernwood Publishing.Bishop, A. (2004). Grassroots leaders building skills: A course in community leadership. Halifax:Fernwood Publishing Company.Bishop, A. (2005). Beyond token change: Breaking the cycle of oppression in institutions. Halifax:Fernwood Publishing.Brock, D. (2003). Making normal: Social regulation in Canada. Toronto: Thomson Nelson.Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/news/what-a-waste-new-study-says-canadians-waste-27-billion-worth-of-food-every-yearThe Chilly Collective. (Eds.). (1995). Breaking anonymity: The chilly climate for women faculty.Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.Chossudovsky, M. (2003). The globalization of poverty and the new world order. Montreal:Global Research.Climate Action Network. (2014). Retrieved from http://climateactionnetwork.ca/2013/11/22/canada-wins-lifetime-unachievement-fossil-award-at-warsaw-climate-talks/Cobb, C., & Diaz, P. (2009). Why global poverty? Think again. New York: Robert SchalkenbachFoundation.Conally, W. (2008). Capitalism and Christianity, American style. Durham, NC: Duke UniversityPress.Davis, W. (2009). The wayfinders: Why ancient wisdom matters in the modern world. Toronto:Anansi Press.Dei, G., & Calliste, A. (2000). Power, knowledge and anti-racism; A critical reader. Halifax:Fernwood Publishing.D’Souza, D. (1991, March). Illiberal education. The Atlantic Monthly, 267(3), 51–79.Edward-Galabuzi, G. (2006). Canada’s economic apartheid: The social exclusion of racializedgroups in the new century. Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press.Fekete, J. (1995). Moral panic. USA: Gray Sky Books.Francis, M., & Francis, N. (2006). Black gold [Motion picture]. England: Speakit Films.Fraser, N. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse and gender in contemporary social theory.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 91NELFridell, G. (2012). Coffee and commodity fetishism. In D. Brock, R. Raby, & M. P. Thomas,Power and everyday practices (pp. 277–98). Toronto: Nelson Education.Goodman, A. (2001). Promoting diversity and social justice. Toronto: Sage Publications.Gorski, P. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.edchange.org/publications/cognitive-dissonance.pdfHarvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Henry, F., & Tator, C. (2002) Discourses of domination: Racial bias in the Canadian Englishlanguage press. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Heywood, A. (2007). Political ideologies, an introduction (4th ed.). Basingstoke and New York:Palgrave MacMillan.Hilliard, A. (1992, December/January). Why we must pluralize the curriculum. EducationalLeadership, 49(4), 12.hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York:Routledge.Illich, I. (1968). Retrieved from http://civicreflection.org/resources/library/browse/to-hellwith-good-intentionsJames, C. (Ed.). (1996). Perspectives on racism and the human services sector: A case for change.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Johnson, A. G. (2006). Privilege, power, and difference. Whitby, ON: McGraw-Hill HigherEducation.Jones, A. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.htmlKing, R., & Singh, C. (1991, July 16). Political correctness and the new right. The Globe andMail.Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Toronto: Knopf Canada.Korten, D. (2001). When corporations rule the world. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-KoehlerPublishers.Kulchyski, P. (2014). Retrieved from http://manitobawildlands.org/pdfs/bp3cec/peguis_kulchyski_aboriginal-rights-are-not-human-rights.pdfKumashiro, K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education.Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 25–53.Lee, E. (1984). Letters to Marcia: A teacher’s guide to anti-racist education. Toronto: CrossCultural Communications Centre.Lee, E. (1991). Taking multicultural, anti-racist education seriously. Rethinking Schools, 6(1).Lee, J., & Lutz, J. (2005). Situating “race” and racism in space, time and theory: Critical essays foractivists and scholars. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Lester, D. (2005). Gruesome acts of capitalism. Winnipeg, MB: Arveiter Ring Publishing.Mauduy. V., & Pelleray, R. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2014/01/ethiopia-land-sale-20141289498158575.html92 Chapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social AnalysisNELMirchandani, K., & Butler, A. (2006). Beyond inclusion and equity: Contributions fromtransnational anti-racist feminism. In A. Konrad, J. Pringle, & A. Prasad, Handbook ofworkplace diversity. Toronto: Sage Publications. Inc.Mullaly, B. (2010). Challenging oppression and confronting privilege. Toronto: Oxford UniversityPress.Mullaly, B. (2012). The new structural social work: Ideology, theory, practice. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.Nestel S., & Kanee, M. (2008). Diversity and human rights in the work environment: Aqualitative research study of diversity and human rights in the workplace. Toronto: MountSinai Hospital.Nestle, S. (2008). Cultural competency or anti-oppressive educational practice? Thinkingthrough classroom practices that promote equity and diversity. (Unpublished).O’Brien, S., & Szeman, I. (2010). Popular culture: A user’s guide. Toronto: Nelson Education.Parenti, M. (1995). Against empire. San Francisco, CA: City Lights Books.Patterson, M. (2014). Retrieved from http://capitalresearch.org/2012/04/bono-wants-to-savethe-world-but-he-needs-your-money-to-do-it/Paul, R. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/richard-paulanthology/1139Perkins, J. (2008). The secret history of the American empire. Toronto: Plume Books.Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.Prasad, A. (2006). The jewel in the crown: Postcolonial theory and workplace diversity.In A. Konrad, J. Pringle, & A. Prasad, Handbook of workplace diversity. Toronto: SagePublications. Inc.Razack, S. (2002). Race, space and the law. Toronto: Between the Lines Publishing.Saiz, A.V. (2014). Retrieved from http://atarazanas.sci.uma.es/docs/tesisuma/16613703.pdfShovel, D. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.dickshovel.com/500.htmlSingh, C. (2004). Curriculum diversity framework document. Centre for InstructionalDevelopment, Centennial College.Singh, C. (2004). The politics of human rights organizational change and development(Unpublished M.A., Thesis). Trent University.Singh, C. (2008). Faculty competencies: Educating students for global citizenship. Centre forOrganizational Training and Development, Centennial College.Singh, C. (2012). Three phases of human rights policy struggles at an urban communitycollege. (Unpublished dissertation, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University ofToronto).Smith, A. (2014). Retrieved from http://loveharder.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/andrea-smith.pdfSmith, D. (2004). Despoiling professional autonomy: A women’s perspective. In Insidecorporate U: Women in the academy speak out. Toronto: Sumach PressChapter 4 Applying Concepts and Frameworks of Social Analysis 93NELStewart, D., & Douglas, D. (2000). Social construction of identity. (Unpublished).Storey, J. (2009). Cultural theory and popular culture: An introduction. Toronto: PearsonLongman.Swift, J., Davies, J. M. Clarke, R. G., & Czerny, M. (2003). Getting started on social analysis inCanada. Toronto: Between the Lines Publishing.Thobani, S. (2007). Exalted subjects: Studies in the making of race and nation in Canada.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Walcott, R. (2003). Black like who: Writing Black Canada. London, ON: Insomniac Press.Wallerstein, I. (1989). The modern world-system. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Watt, S.K. (2007, Spring). Difficult dialogues, privilege and social justice: Uses of the privilegedidentity exploration (PIE) model in student affairs practice. College Student Affairs Journal,Special Issue, 26(2), 114–26.West, C. (1993). Beyond Eurocentricism and multiculturalism. Monroe, ME: Common CouragePress.Westhead, R. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2012/01/17/at_least_70000_forced_off_their_land_in_ethiopia_rights_group_reports.htmlWhitehead, S., Talahite, A., & Moodley, R. (2013). Gender and identity: Key themes and newdirections. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Williams, J. (2004). 50 Facts that should change the world. New York: The DisinformationCompany Ltd.Zine, J. (2001). “Negotiating equity”: The dynamics of minority community engagement inconstructing inclusive educational policy. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(2).