Tag Archives: Weberian

How far the Holocaust Exhibition reinforces or challenges this interpretation of the ‘final solution?’

The holocaust was one of the historical events that would inherently embed the minds of many generations and the spillage of consequences and stereotypes at present. Zygmunt Bauman’s thesis was considered to be a tool to aid our understanding on the relationship between modernity and the holocaust. However, it was rumored to spark controversy among renowned historians, especially those with feminist views may stress that the holocaust symbolize the oppression of women and hamper spaces for female empowerment. In contrast, those with Marxist views may argue it illustrates class exploitation of proletarians by members of the ruling class. This essay compares Bauman’s work to my narrative journey at the holocaust exhibition and asks whether modernity is an incomplete project and how does it connect to the holocaust.

When I attended the exhibition, I discovered there was a persistent level of  resentment against the Jews. It began with the accusation made that they (Jews)  were responsible for killing Christ, which was seen as a motive for vengeance by Adolf Hitler. These acts of Antisemitism had stripped the Jews of their rights and freedom to be civilized and were left with two choices: be killed or be coerced into Christianity. An arson attack on the German Parliament gave Hitler a reason to capture thousands of Jews, political opponents, gypsies, blacks, homosexuals, mothers of young children, expectant mothers, unwed mothers and those with physical and mental disabilities. In 1543, Martin Luther, the originator of the German Protestantism published a book About the Jews and their lives turned strongly against the Jews and loathed them with passion after numerous failed attempts to convert them with Christianity. In 1761, Jews began to campaign for equal rights in which they succeeded in 1871 throughout the New State. In the 1500s, Poland became the largest Jewish community and is speculated to be the largest at present. From the years 1648 to 1689, the massacre of the Jews was seen as an outcome of the war and unrest in Poland which could be shaped by the pre-modern perception of Jews as the killers of Jesus, which stems from the betrayal of Jesus by Judas, one of his twelve disciples and that modernity was argued to play a partial influence on the development of machinery, science and technology in the uses of weapons, and railways which was considered to be cheapest form of transport to transfer Jews to the Auschwitz concentration camps where they were eventually killed.

The holocaust exhibition revealed hidden problems which cannot be explained and clarified in Zygmunt Bauman’s work such as the role of bureaucracy in Germany in great detail. From my experience, the German bureaucracy is rare and was granted the task to exterminate the Jews since Hitler was appointed as Chancellor of the German government (Bauman 1991: 104). The Nazis viewed the Jews as the ‘germs’ to the German society that needs to be washed off with bleach. Many historians argued that bureaucracy did not mark the anxiety of racial contamination, but created the holocaust. The Museum provided visual sources of information about bureaucracy, such as the role of the members in the Nazi party. Zygmunt Bauman reported that bureaucracy started with a method of an exact definition of the object, which was violence and social engineering on the basis of race, age, disability and sexual orientation and then register those who do not into the Nazi criteria (1991: 105). Callinicos (2008: 175) noted that Weber explained the failure of the German Reich foreign policy before and during the Great War which motivated political decision-making  by the German bureaucrats who lacked  the means to work on their own initiatives and were not risk takers and preferred to be in their political comfort zone. The exhibition revealed that the spread of propaganda through the modern means of communication was the key to Nazi success and the launch of its dictatorship.

It was believed there were motives for the disease of Anti Antisemitism in Russia as Jews were known as loan sharks. The main reason is that Max Weber could explain that Jews who give money are kind and considerate who acknowledged the teaching of reciprocity. However, those with Anti – Semetic views already see Jews were  sinful for killing Christ and therefore, assumed to be sinful for being financially deceptive and greedy. In his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism signifies the first study on the process of rationalisation, Weber identifies that the spirit of capitalism is all about making money to enjoy the freedom money delivers and some writers could argue that the Jewish society revolved around money. This led to the stereotypical perceptions of Jews as money -orientated and careers in the finance industry help shape that stereotypical image and are likely to obtain a millionaire status. However, they exploit money for their own means through deception of those who are poor to save their own skin (Callinicos 2008: 161). Those with the Weberian lens may argue that Anti – Semitism in Russia illustrates the notion of karma against the Jews for killing Christ and the holocaust evidently proves to be that example. Georg Simmel argues that money symbolises as an economic key to unlock the Jews from their slave status and simultaneously, serves as a vaccine against Anti – Semitic oppression  (Wolff 1950 cited in Callinicos 2008: 184). From the holocaust exhibition, Jews were described as “blood sucking capitalists” who use their greed and betrayal as their way of achieving status.

Bauman’s work was believed to be subjected to criticism, particularly ignoring the impact of the Great War and its destructive effects, socially, economically and politically, such as the loss of innocence among young soldiers, the promotion of violence which remains to be at present and the abuse of technology and machinery. This can lead many academics and writers to debate whether violence shapes the attitudes of masculinity. However, Beilharz (2001: 271) argued that thanks to scientific inventions and technology, men along with women have the capability to kill another human being and carry out other heinous sinful acts without remorse. He also argued that modernity was not to blame for making people evil but, it created opportunities for people to become evil by exploiting their free will and are seen as rational human beings who are capable of making decisions and therefore, be accountable for the consequences they created.

Some writers may criticise that Bauman used Weber’s notion of rationality and concentrates on the psychological and sociological impact of the holocaust rather than political and economic terms. He can also be criticized for using the theme of Marxism by concentrating on one particular area instead of adopting a helicopter view of the whole topic. Dr Arthur Gutt, Head of the National Hygiene Department in the Ministry of Interior illustrates that Nazi Policy’s main task was to preserve a white supremacist society , even though it involves killing the non – Nazis.

Genocide is defined as the mass execution of a particular group. Chalk and Jonassohn (1990 cited in Beilharz 2001: 277) defines genocide as a form of mass killing in which a state or other authorities plan to obliterate a group. Holocaust is seen as genocide that involves the killing of not only the Jews, but the homosexuals, blacks, gypsies and other groups who do not fit into the Nazi category. Feminist thinkers could argue that the Nazi subculture illustrates patriarchy and hegemonic masculinity and suggests that women were the most oppressed victims, as they felt the holocaust created opportunities for sexual violence to dominate, humiliate and degrade women and prevent them from progressing, and concurrently, to gain acceptance of Non-Nazis in the Nazi Society. Beilharz (2001: 277) noted that victims were not killed for what they have done, but were killed for being different. Back and Solomos (2008: 281) argued that racism was seen as a form of social engineering within the Nazi Policy and  prejudice was argued to be a motive to force the non -Nazis are “different” into people – pleasers with intention to be accepted even if they have abandon their ethnic identities.

Bauman (1989: 92) used the metaphor “The Garden” to explain the process of the obliterating the Jews as Nazis see them as “weeds” and needs to be killed off as soon as possible to prevent spreading to other regions. The development of gas chambers was based on the Nazis’ aspirations to create a perfect clean garden and was seen as a ” garden vacuum cleaner” with the aim of vacuuming up the selected group to die by being suffocated by the contents in the vacuum bag. Some historians argue the Nazi policy was sadistic and gruesome and it revolves around the glorification of violence and suffering of the Jews for their own pleasure rather than out of resentment and revenge. They could also argue that Nazi’s ideal garden is about torture and killing those who are defenceless and vulnerable.

The final solution started soon after Hitler was appointed as chancellor of the German government in 1933. The exhibition revealed deep information about the final solution, such as the arson of public libraries where books written by Jewish writers and renowned figures, such as Jack London, brothers Thomas and Henrich Mann and Sigmund Freud were destroyed. Jews were excluded from community activities and barred from local shops and were segregated from those who are Non – Jewish (Gutt 1938 cited in Back and Solomos 2009: 281). The Jews were deprived of their rights and freedom of movement. The holocaust exhibition revealed that Germany gained superiority over Poland due to a military needs and on 17th September 1939, the Soviet Union attacked Poland under a secret agreement with Germany. As a result, Poland was vanished from the map of Europe. In 1936, Jewish teachers were barred from teaching Aryan children and Jewish children were barred from public schools few months later. Kristallnacht , night of the broken glass, an event that took place in Germany on 9th November 1938 where synagogues, businesses and homes owned by members of Jewish community were destroyed by mobs with anti – Semitic views and it was the only the large – scale pogrom that happened on the streets of German towns throughout the holocaust (Bauman 1989: 91). Bauman sees that modern genocide as the purpose and symbolizes social engineering which is about social order and conforming to the designs of a perfect society (1989: 91). The exhibition revealed that children were poisoned with hatred towards the Jews through lessons and the use of text books and literature.

Marxist writers could suggest that the massacre of the Jews was an expression of capitalism and exploitation of the proletariats by the bourgeoisies. Callinicos (2001: 391) noted that Nazis have fascist views which include ruthless dictatorship of the lower working class. Tim Mason, a Marxist Historian of the Third Reich confessed in his quote that he was emotionally and intellectually moved by the barbaric and horrific torment the victims were subjected to (1993 cited in Callinicos 2001: 388). Bauman’s work on Marxism can be criticised for being very limited and the holocaust is seen as the most severe case of modern capitalism. Ernest Mendel argues that the germ of the holocaust is to found in colonialism and imperialism’s extreme racism (1986 cited in Callinicos 2001: 386).

In December 1941, the first extermination camp was opened in Chelmo near the large ghetto of Lodz which was built on request of local Reich governor Arthur Greiser.  Nazis used railways to abduct and transport people to their deaths as it was considered cheap. Beilharz (2001: 268) noted that the camps were not old human escaping dungeons but they were modern and could stay till the end of time. He also argues the concentration camps were symbols of modern invention thanks to the emergence of modernity, which could agree with Marxism as concentration camp was seen as an Anti-Semitic “vacuum” invented to satisfy the interest of the ruling class.

Inside the concentration camps, the Jews and other groups, such as blacks, homosexuals and gypsies were divided and assessed on their physical strength. Carbon monoxide was a commonly used to exterminate these groups. Other groups included pregnant women and mothers with young children were also selected for the gruesome process. The people who passed the physical tests were coercive into labour making machines that were evetually designed to kill them in appalling conditions. Bauman (1989: 92) argued that the extermination machines were designed to favour the Nazis’ barbaric interest. The exhibition revealed that people who were behind the killings of the Jews had careers in medicine, dentistry, accounting, law and teaching. Scientists carried out experiments with attempt to cure homosexual men off their homosexuality as it was sinful and deviant and prevent homosexuality from spreading.

He (Bauman) noted that there was a strict hierarchy and functional division of labour which can be applied on slave labour among the workers. It can be suggested that this type of labour was mechanical that the workers were required to share the same task and obey the same rules.  Bauman felt that the Nazis exploited the divisions of labour for their own interests and also argued that the holocaust cannot be seen as a form of academic interest for two reasons. The first reason is that it changed a little about history and there is little evidence that impacted on people’s meanings and historical movement of modern civilization. The second reason is that there is more of a narrative about the holocaust than it is written by scholars (Bauman 1989: 85 – 6), who soley rely on academics and personal accounts of those being involved in the holocaust is more favorable including the diary of Anne Frank.

Jews were deported to the ghettos in Poland, because of the hostility and ignorance of Anti – Semetism where the Jewish language Yiddish was developed . The ghettos were seen as the opportunity for freedom and resilience through Jewish religion. Functionalist writers such as Talcott Parsons and Emile Durkheim could apply social cohesion in the ghettos by arguing that the ghettos were designed to create a bond between the remaining survivors who escaped Auschwitz together to celebrate peace and happiness brought by their own escape to freedom.

This essay concludes that Bauman’s work is based on Max Weber’s notion of rationality which is applied on bureaucracy rather than concentrating on political democracy. The exhibition revealed  the betrayal of Jesus Christ by Jude was the core root of Antisemitism. Christianity was seen as an aid of terror used by the Anti – Semetic society with the attempt to brainwash the Jews to forget about their identities with the threat of murder if they refused. Callinicos highlighted that modernity did not create evil people as they were rational beings prior to the enlightenment. However, modernity increased their opportunities to become evil without any remorse regardless of Sigmund Freud who could argue that humans are capable of feeling guilty. Modernity reveals the possibility of racism and scientific technology was exploited and manipulated by hands of people who chose to be evil. Marxist perspective made a good point by arguing the division of labour was exploited by the Nazis who were considered to be the ruling class.

Bauman, Z (1989) Modernity and the Holocaust, Cambridge, Polity Press

(1991) Modernity and the Holocaust, Cambridge, Polity Press (paperback)

(2009) Modernity, Racism and Extermination in Back, L and Solomos, J Theories of Race and Racism: A Reader, 2nd edition, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge.

Beilharz, P (2001) The Bauman Reader, Wiley, Blackwell

Callinicos, A (2001) ‘Plumbing the Depths: Marxism and the Holocaust’ Yale Journal of Criticism

(2008) Social Theory: A Historical Introduction, Cambridge, Polity Press

Gutt, A (1938) ‘Population Policy’, in Germany Speaks (London: Thornton Butterworth)pp35 – 52

Chalk, F and Jonassohn, K (1990) The History of Sociology and Genocide: Analysis and Case Studies, New Haven, Yale University Press.

Wolff, K. H (1950) The Sociology of Georg Simmel, New York, New York Press.

Leave a comment

Filed under Academic Writings

How can the impact of poverty be understood in contemporary society?

poverty729-620x349When the word poverty is mentioned, we are captivated by an image of a child no younger than seven wandering the dusty wide streets of a third world country. The feelings of desperation, hunger, sadness, loneliness and vulnerability through his swollen tearful eyes after an hours’ search for a taste of satisfaction soften our hearts melting with sorrow, helplessness and compassion. A picture of his skeletal body pressing onto his flesh mounted on every charity leaflet displayed by street fundraisers we are approached by in our local high streets or a homeless man at the street corner only be heard by the cardboard held by his hands reading: Homeless and Hungry Please help with an exclamation mark as he bows his head down with his eyes peering down at the ground.

Tower block of flats with stairwells overpowered by heavy stench of  urine littered with dirty needles, debris of dust, empty food packets, dried on newspapers and magazine strips. A row of houses with windows patched with wood and walls patterned by graffiti, showing threats, offensive slurs and hatred presumably written by domineering and bullying feral minded youths with the routine of getting drunk on cheap alcohol purchased from shops on what their ignorant dictionary refer as “The Paki Shop”  a typical derogatory banter shared between among feral subcultures, an obvious reaction after being intoxicated by the cheap booze, brought with their “free money” from the government and the result of wave of immigration for South Asia in the 1960s. Their vocabularies are largely spat out with a tirade of profanity and their only reputation is to be thugs and anti – social menaces. This obviously captures our mind with resentment and awareness about the consequences of what poverty can bring, hostility and resentment towards those are from middle and upper class backgrounds.

Poverty is a major social issue along with racism, ageism, social exclusion and sexism. Although poverty is acknowledged and there are certain policies with the aim to neutralise  its high numbers, it continues to be a major issue worldwide. Poverty is not difficult to define as comes in two forms. Absolute poverty,  according to Rowntree (1890’s) is to have insufficient funds for their human rights. In clarity, the amount of income a person needs to pay rent, for food and clothing. Being poor also defines not having the materialistic needs to be accepted within the social norms of society in which Townsend (1970’s) defines as relative poverty. Relative poverty is obviously used to explain poverty in western societies where computers and mobile phones are used to be seen as luxuries in the past. Today, it’s becoming a norm for people to own them. If they do not have any of those items, they may be classified as poor and could make them feel excluded from society.

Functionalists like Davis and Moore (1967) and Parsons (1951) see inequality as unavoidable and is essential for society to create social cohesion. In comparison to other social groups, those who from below the poverty-stricken backgrounds remain stuck especially those as their environment lack opportunities that help them to escape poverty, such as apprenticeships, education and work training programmes. Thus, can be a breeding ground for anti-social behaviour caused by the feelings of frustration among subcultures that live there. Poverty can be seen as an incentive to motivate people, especially those who live poverty-stricken towns and neighbourhoods to find ways to better their chances to leave the depressing position behind by taking advantage of education and government related employment programmes. However, they are motivated by financial rewards rather than enrolling on programmes that aims to help them build their self esteem and self confidence.

Marxists thinkers like Westgaard and Resler (1976) and Kincaid (1979) argue that the bourgeoisie use poverty as an aid to help them meet their own selfish interest by exploiting the feelings of powerlessness and frustration held in the proletarians . Consequently, inequalities are created and eventually, lead to conflict and resentment among the proletarians towards the bourgeoisie . The strength of this explanation is that it highlights the concentration of wealth in the capitalist market and explains the ruling class uses the welfare state as a weapon to prevent the poor from rebelling against the capitalist system. Another criticism of the Marxist lens is it ignores the positives inequalities may bring. For example, it will give the poor and those from working class backgrounds the motivation and persistence to succeed and additionally, ameliorate their levels in resilience and coping skills.

Weberian thinkers like Townsend (1970) believe that inequalities are a result of the demands from the labour market and it is strongly influenced by characteristics, such as race, gender, age and level of education. This explanation highlights some points that people can be blamed for causing poverty especially concern revolve around race and gender. They (Weberians) also believe that people are enslaved in the poverty trap because they lack the power to force other social groups to increase their level of reward. However, Weberian thinkers can be criticised for ignoring the causes of poverty in individuals, such as discrimination in race, age, disability and socio-economic backgrounds. This (Weberian) approach is seen as  more sensitive to these issues of stratification and inequalities and do not see inequality as the cause of poverty. They see that inequalities focus on power and demands from the labour market. Weberians concurs  with the Marxists that inequality is unavoidable in the capitalist system. However, they do not mean that poverty itself is unavoidable. Inequalities can be reduced through progressive taxation, which means that the more money people earn, the more taxes they pay and suggest that relative poverty should be eliminated. This they believe could neutralise the financial burdens endured by those who are from lower and working class backgrounds.

The New Right believe capitalist economies play a key role in poverty  because businesses need to gain more profits by making sure that public spending are kept short. They (New Right) also believe the welfare state is to blame for causing poverty indirectly by forcing entrepreneurs to make higher tax payments. Consequently,  job opportunities are not created. They  feel the welfare state is responsible for encouraging people to be more interested in claiming benefits, which creates fatalistic attitudes, believing they are better off living on handouts rather than working for a minimum wage as they are put off by the possiblity of rejection from potential employers and a vicious no win situation. However, a criticism of the New Right is that poverty would increase if the welfare state was eradicated, thus exacerbating the levels of mixed emotions among those who are already trapped. They will unable to afford a healthy diet, leaving them susceptible to common illnesses, which could leave them absent from the labour market. This means, they won’t be receive a regular income to cover the basic needs for survival.

Women are more likely to suffer from poverty than men because of discrimination and demands of their stereotypical roles within the patriarchal society. Since the feminist’s movement in the 1960s, which severed ties with patriarchy, women are now striving for education and careers. However, women are more likely to gain part – time and menial jobs and this could have an impact on their pensions in later life. Women tend to dominate single parent families than men, making their chances of obtaining employment more challenging because of childcare duties. As a result, become more dependent on the state, leaving them sinking into a vicious circle. Feminists, especially those with radical views can argue the welfare state discourages women from seeking employment and as welfare state symbolises patriarchal control and feel threatened to be sanctioned if they work. Glendinning and Millar (1994) stressed that women may be restricted of access to other types of benefits and only 60% of women are entitled for maternity leave.

Women who are in the poverty trap are likely to exploit the welfare state by producing more babies and could lose their benefits if they obtain employment which agrees with Pollak (1961) who argue that women take advantage of their stereotypical roles. This can be seen as a criticism ignored by feminist thinkers additionally, the subject of prostitution, where women will engage in this risky activity to achieve the basic needs for survival especially those with children. This would result them to abuse particularly rape by their pimps and clients if they refuse to give them their services, in fear of having unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. This would eventually leave them permanently incarcerated in the poverty trap.

Neera Sharma, a Policy Officer from Barnados (BBC News) says that poverty can impact a child’s personal, social and educational development. Lack of a healthy diet, hygiene and unconditional love play a part in child poverty. The cycle of deprivation by Rutter and Madge (1976) illustrates on how poverty can have an effect on people. For example, a child be born into poverty, grows up in a council estate and gains the lower class status. They may suffer from health problems because of their poor diet and this would affect their education performance and consequently, drop outwith no qualifications and difficulties of holding down a job and the cycle persists into adulthood. This could provoke them to engage in criminal activities to achieve the basic, materialistic or both needs . Therefore, it would make it difficult for them obtain employment, mirroring the cycle of deprivation. Eventually this cycle can be passed on from generation to generation. This can influence them and adopt this as a way of life manifest the fatalistic attitudes and refuse opportunities in employment and education.

People with disabilities are at risk of  poverty their  able – bodied counterparts as their physical health restricts them from seeking employment and if they do obtain employment, it would be low skilled and low paid. Oppenheim and Harker (1996) estimated that 47% of disabled were living in poverty in the 1980s. They also argue that higher rates of poverty among disabled people were partly due to social exclusion and discrimination because of the hostile attitudes held in the minds of the able-bodied and the stigma held in mainstream society, where they are labelled as “abnormal”. Alcock (1997) points out that disabled people are more likely to suffer from social exclusion and material poverty than able-bodied, thus increasing levels of depression and low self-esteem.

Disabled people have higher spending costs on items such as heating, adaptable aids, transport and heating than most people. 46% of disabled people lived in the poorest conditions in 1985 and reduced down to 38% in 1996 and 1997. The disability living allowance is designed to prevent financial hardships in disabled people and provided incentives, such as skills training and work preparation enabling them to seek employment. However, it can be criticised for ignoring that people can overcome their overcome with the right support and help from charities and governmental programmes specialising in disabilities. Another criticism of disability as it tends to concentrate on physical immobility and not those who are suffer specific learning disabilities, such as Dyslexia, ADHD, Dyspraxia and Asperger’s Syndrome. Thirdly, mental health is ignored as those who live with conditions particularly, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are prone to prejudice and discrimination as the hostility held in society unconsciously views  them “crazy” or “mentally abnormal”. Thus excerabates their chances of entering the labour market and integrate to mainstream society.

Members from Black and Ethnic minority backgrounds are twice at risk of experiencing poverty than their white counterparts. Racial discrimination is obviously seen as the core root of poverty and unemployment. Institutional racism in education is a major problem in contemporary society as teachers hold subconscious negative racial stereotypes and lack understanding in cultural diversity and direction in schools, which result in low education attainment and poor academic performance within black and ethnic minoritity groups, provoking them to drop out. This eventually leads to a restriction of job opportunities and therefore, subject them to be permanently trapped in the cycle of deprivation. Thus, engage in criminal activities, such as drug dealing, theft, fraud and robberies against their white counterparts to express deep-rooted feelings of resentment.

Scott and Fulcher (1999) note that two – thirds of Pakistani and Bangladeshi families are in the bottom fifth of the income distribution in Britain. He also argues that ethnic minorities can experience problems with the benefits system as they receive a fewer amount benefits than their white counterparts and they feel the welfare state does not respond to cultural or family issues  e.g. Afro – Caribbeans are more likely to face poverty because they have higher numbers of single parenthood and treatment by staff at their local job centre. Ethnic groups are more like to be socially excluded due to of racism and language barriers if English is not their first language. Alcock (1997) notes that poor housing; ill-health and lack of education could be linked to financial inequality in the Black and Ethnic minorities, making it obvious that strong levels of racist attitudes held in hegemonic institutions, which can back up argument  causes of poverty within the black  and ethnic communities. Alcock can be criticised for ignoring the link between racial hostility and poverty in black and ethnic minorities especially held in institutions and towns that are predominately white.

Poverty continues to make a negative impact in contemporary society, through the theoretical lenses. Marxist thinkers resent the ruling class for the cause of poverty among the poor. However, the chances to rise above the poverty line lies in the self-belief and personal responsibility regardless of their characteristics. Unfortunately, enraged by the negative feelings experienced by poverty, some turn to crime, not knowing it would create a cycle of deprivation for their offsprings. Weberians made good points that people are to blame for their own poverty by refusing to take offers from the labor market and opportunities in education because of their fatalistic attitude. They also argue that poverty indicates the issue of power and status within the labour market along with inequalities. Functionalist thinkers argue poverty cannot be eradicated as it is needed to a certain degree to create social cohesion. Feminist thinkers feel that poverty reveal issues of sexism feeling the welfare state and benefit handouts favours the interest of patriarchy and women are seen as victims of  so-called “patriarchal welfare slavery”.

 

Alcock, P. (1997) Understanding Poverty, 2nd edn, Macmillan Basingstoke.

Class handouts: Sociology AS for AQA, Wealth poverty and welfare p274 – 81.

Class handouts: Poverty and Inequalities.

Class handouts: Theoretical explanations for poverty and the Welfare State.

Class handouts: Individual and groups most at risk of poverty.

Class handouts: Chapter 4 Poverty and social exclusion p 258 – 61.

Davis, K and Moore, W.E (1967 first published, 1945) ‘Some principles of stratifications’ in Bendix and Lipset (eds) (1967).

Haralambos, M, Holborn, M, Heald, R Sociology Themes and Perspectives: Chapter 5: Poverty and social exclusion, (2000), 5ed, HarperCollins, London, p313 – 14, 334 – 41.

Kincaid, J. (1979) ‘Poverty and the Welfare State’ in Irvine et al (ed.) (1979).

Parsons, T (1951) The Social System, The Free Press, New York.

Glendinning, C. and Millar, J. (1994) Women and Poverty in Britain: The 1990s, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead.

Pollak, O (1961) The Criminality of women A.S Barnes. University of Michigan

Oppenheim, C. and Harker, L. (1996) Poverty: Facts, 3rd edn, CPAG, London.

Rowntree, S. (1901) Poverty: A study of Town Life, Macmillan, London.

Townsend, P. (1970) ‘Measures and explanations of poverty in high and low-income countries in Townsend (ed.) (1970). (ed.) (1970) The Concept of Poverty, Heinemann, London.

Westergaard, J. and Resler, H. (1976) Class in a Capitalist Society, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles