Sociology Beyond Inequality
What would our discipline look like if we no longer obsessed over inequality?
Credit: From javiercalvoparapar at Pixabay.
Social inequality is extremely important, and sociologists are correct to study it. At the same time, you can study it too much. In a previous post, I argued that inequality is not nearly as important as other things. For example, it’s better to have a society where most people are not poor and some are super-rich than a society where everyone is poor even though the latter is much more equal than the former.
If you accept this very fundamental point, your priorities as an empirical sociologist should radically change. Inequality research would still be important, but you’d start obsessively focusing on other questions. Here is what a non-inequality sociology might look like.
First, we would examine the transition out of massive, global poverty in much more detail. Of course, we’d see more sociologists understand the origins of the industrial revolution, but we’d see way more sociologists look at places like China, India, and Korea where hundreds of millions of people moved out of poverty following partial market liberalization.
Second, we’d see much more focus on the decline of poverty in industrialized countries. A well-known fact is that poverty has declined over the last fifty years using the standard US Census definition. When the Census started measuring poverty in the 1960s as having less income than needed to buy a basic bundle of goods, the rate was 22%. In 2022, it’s fallen to 9%. Poverty is always terrible, but you might think that sociologists would see this sort of trend as a point of celebration. We would expect a ream of studies trying to explain how 10% of America moved out of this dire state.
Third, non-inequality obsessed sociologists would focus on the link between national wealth and the protection of minority rights. If you look at a single country with an eye for inequality, you might conclude that the wealthy nations treat minorities terribly. The issue, in my opinion, is that the wealthier nations have two characteristics: people will still be racist or sexist to considerable degree, but they have cultures that generate debate and reform. In other words, if you have a movement for women’s rights or trans rights that is notable and successful, you’re more likely to see it start and succeed in London or New York than Bejing or Moscow. Liberal capitalists societies have this remarkable dynamic that needs more discussion.
How else would non-inequality obsessed sociology look? Use the comments!
++++++
My books: Grad Skool Rulz - cheap advice manual for grad students / The history of Black Studies / Obama and the antiwar movement / A Social Theory book you will enjoy reading / Intro Sociology for $1 per chapter
"it’s better to have a society where most people are not poor and some are super-rich than a society" was essentially New Labour's stance in the UK priot to the credit crunch (see Peter Mandelson quote about not carng if a few folk got filthy rich if the tide raised all boats, or something like that). Except, for most gains were illusory; women returning to work after pregancy sooner boosted household incomes, cheap credit boosted house prices/wealth (until it didn't) and thanks to China lots of things got cheaper and higher spec, all masking the fact median real incomes were stagnating. Essentially your hypothetical replicates the rhetoric used to justify inequality while ignoring the latter's impact on the polity that being the rich buying (or at the very least disproportionately shaping) the tax, environmental or employment legislation they want. So no, I get your point arithmetically, kinda, it's crazy selective with the data points, assumes change over time is what registers the most, (also why not track say home ownership as a measure of wealth) and presents a strawman version of inequality as a subject.