Social Divisions and Inequalities - Research Paper Example

SOCIAL DIVISIONS AND INEQUALITIES By Social Divisions and Inequalities Introduction The study makes an attempt to see how the East European migration was racialized. In 2004 the UK allowed migrants from the EU’s eight member states from East Europe Countries to access its land; however in 2007, we find Roman and Bulgarian migrants EU’s next members being restricted from accessing UK. Nonetheless these East European migrants together with the Jewish and Irish people can attest to the fact that shared whiteness with the UK inhabitants did not exempt them from facing racism. The study depicts that Race is often not a characteristic of the migrants but a social outcome that entails proper exclusion such as the implementation of structured inequalities.Racialization is complex and does not often depend on only biological differences but also on culturally diverse traits in an individual; the absence of physical differences does not prevent the occurrence of racism. There are two comparisons that try to expound on the nature of the racialization of migrants. The first on is between what the immigration policies attribute to and how the journalists present the migrants to the public eye. The second study comparison is between the East Europe migrants who came into the UK in 2004 (A8) and those who came into the UK in 2007 (A2).This paper will hence evaluate the case study on the basis of its background information, issues addressed, the approach taken and the key findings. It will then show how the case-study connects to the key patterns of social inequality and diversity in the contemporary world. Background of the Study In the early 2000’s the UK became a good candidate for cheap labor from the East; however, this dire need for cheap labor attracted large numbers of workers such that the estimated work force of 5,000-13,000 sky rocketed to 1.5 million workers by 2011 . Two thirds of these workers came from Poland, Hungarians being more than 75,000 hence accounting for 5 % of the A8workers (Kahanec and Zimmermann, 2010). Previously the A8 workers were allowed to move about, however in 2011 a new policy came up that required them to register for employment and work for a year before claiming benefits. The A2 migrants (over 80,000 Romanians and 55,000 Bulgarians) received work registration in the UK since 2007; irrespective their access to the labor market was much more restricted as compared to the A8workers (Calbeaz, 2014). The accession worker card scheme allowedA2 workers to access specific jobs such as food processing and agriculture; however after working for a year they could get a ‘blue card’ that granted them unrestricted market access. Issues addressed Immigration Policy Immigration control in Britain seemed to rely on racially desirable or undesirable migrants; for instance the East European Jews faced exclusion due to their race, today the British Immigration Policy appears to favor groups that appear racially desirable (Silva, 2014). Incidentally, in the 1940’s East Europeans were recruited for employment based on their racial suitability yet the policy was quite accurate to exempt the Jews even at that point. The Irish are an example of migrants considered racially desirable as they were exempted from immigration control thus could access the UK and the jobs in place. Regardless of these racialized preferences by the immigration did not protect the migrants from discrimination and racism (Isaacs et.al, 2015). However, the immigration policy made attempts to see to it that its laws are anti-discriminatory so as to do away with racism; for example, the A8 policy was influenced by economic considerations, to fill gaps in the low-skilled labor market of the economic sector (Ahmed, 2014). The migrants from East European were meant to serve an Economic purpose in the UK; it beats logic how then this economic motivations became racially inflected or informed. This hence makes it clear that what was happening in the UK was none other than institutionalized racism that was embedded in institutional practices and routines through showing prejudice and discrimination against the Romanians (Andersen and Taylor, 2008). The recruitment of desirable migrants reflects how racialized preferences have been embedded in the immigration policy over the years in the UK. The racialization of the migrants was not outright as it was the institutional policies in the governing and administrative bodies that enhanced the racialization (Newman, 2011).It is evident that shared whiteness did not by all means give Romanians and Bulgarians easy access into the UK; if anything they were subjected to harsher immigration policies. These controls against the Romanians were not racially motivated but they ended up producing racialized effects as at the end of the day they were denied their rightful status as white people (Ahmed, 2014). The changes in British Immigration policy basically reflect that whiteness does exist in varying shades this is because the policy that made A8 workers more white for economic reasons was the same one that made A2 workers less white. This is preferences are but a clear depiction of institutionalized racism within the British immigration policy such that whiteness is not just the determinant of immigration policy it is now an outcome of immigration policies and procedures. Tabloid Media The media in the UK viewed culture as a basis of inclusion and it played a huge role in determining how the general public interpreted the migration process. The media in the UK presented the Hungarian and Romanian migration through a racialized frame; wherein it used racialized plotlines from previous migration to show the general public that things were not going to change. From the study, a press search resulted in 94 articles for the Hungarians and 691 articles for the Romanians which had racialized framings and in tabloids as follows (Johanson, 2007). The first racialized framing has to do with numbers which has by all means amplified and exaggerated the scope and scale of migrations. Headlines in the media had to do with such content as, ‘immigrant invasion’, ‘one million flood in’ which by all means caught the public attention making the public extremely concerned (University of Glasgow, 2011). Additionally, the media too caused alarm about theA2migrant’s numbers claiming they were going to come into the country in hundreds of thousands yet it is evident from the immigration policy that their immigration into Britain was highly limited and restricted (Torre, 2008). This numbers game created a notion in the general public that the Britain inhabitants would now have to fight for employment opportunities with the migrants. Use of terms such as hordes, floods and invasions by the media painted the migrants as a nuisance, a menace thus introducing racialized perceptions of these migrants as the cause for alarm (Suciu, 2010). The second racialized frame pertaining to the media was crime; wherein the media linked the migrants particularly the Romanians to crime or criminal acts. Interestingly, even before the Romanians got into the UK the media had had already reported to the general public that they needed to be aware of the arrival of ‘’illegal’’ migrants who had forged documents and ill intentions (Calbeaza, 2014). Romanians upon arrival were linked to most of the crimes according to media reports e.g. credit card theft, child- trafficking, prostitution and begging (The migration observatory, 2014). Hungarians also did not escape the crime reporting as at one point there was a report that a Hungarian migrant had murdered a girl; adding that this migrant was a serial sex offender. Such reporting is completely anti-immigrant as it violates the integrity of the migrants themselves (University of Glasgow, 2011). Crime in this perspective presents the migrants as parasites and anti-socials who have no concern for the well-meaning hosts. This brings out the racialization where crime is attached to the characters of the migrants, crime making out what they are. The third racialization is the ‘roma’ frame; it goes hand in hand with the numbers and game frame. It capitalizes on stereotypes pertaining to the origins of the migrants, viewing where they come from as backward, poverty-stricken and conflict-prone (Sik, 2002). In the 1990’s the Roma arrived in the UK and were associated with begging, crime and spreading diseases (European Dialogue, 2009). The roma frame hence uses this prejudices as a reference point to understand the newly arrive East Europe Roma.This term was used on all the migrants who were not necessarily Roma, in the media, the Romanians who were found to b beggars were simply termed as Roma when reporting. The Romanians have however tried so hard to separate themselves from the term but the media has racialized this by consistently referring them as roma. Racialization is clear as the stigma that comes with the term ‘roma’ has now been transferred to the Romanians; hence further depriving them of their whiteness and giving them a marginalized position (Torre, 2008). The Approach Taken The study brought into perspective the historical research wherein the researcher study’s the events of the past by virtue of the interpretations of those events as captured in written works (Piketty, 2014). It entails using a method that captures the way history has been and how it has been written (Danto, 2008). From the study the researcher has quoted some of the immigration policies since time in memorial, the researcher has also used some of the articles that the media had put out in various newspapers e.g. Eurostar. The study has emanated from historical events but as captured in written documents; wherein the contents of the tabloids and the contents of the policies. Additionally the historical data was gathered and interpreted as seen in the study by the comprehensive conclusion given, an aspect that is very important in research in sociology (Giddens, 2006). Key Findings The main findings of the study lie within this sentiment; Shared whiteness created room for racialized inclusion while cultural difference created a platform for racialized exclusion. The Hungarians experienced the shared whiteness with the Europe inhabitants while the Romanians experienced Cultural difference that made them face great and immense exclusion and marginalization (Knowles, 2007). The tabloids have reflected cultural racism as they discriminate against the migrants based on their social characteristics and cultural practices. Romanians seem to have suffered the bulk of the tabloid media; this could be attributed to the fact that they were at first marginalized economically hence it is easier to marginalize them discursively (The migration observatory, 2014). The strict immigration policies saw to it that Romanians remain almost disabled economically yet they did match the preferred profile of migrants; this in turn created a platform from which the media could demoralize them even further on the basis of complicating their implicit racial profile. This media suffering could also be attributed to the depiction of the Romanians on the basis of the Roma in the 1990’s as they lived in the UK. The lives led by the Roma saw to it that the Romanians were received with scorn and racialization in different parts of Europe (European Dialogue, 2009). The Hungarians on the other hand benefited from shared witness while the Romanians have suffered through cultural differences. Clearly, the Hungarians fell under a more generic category of East Europeans thus did not have to suffer through the marginalization that the Romanians did (Isaacs et.al, 2015) .More to it, Hungarians experienced some sort of racial elision where they fell into an even broader category of the white people as the immigration policy allowed them access to what the Europeans could access (Andersen and Taylor, 2008). The fact that they blended into society made them more or less invisible as the media could not invade this invisibility (University of Glasgow, 2011). Whiteness from the study is not seen as the starting point of racializing others but as the end point from which one could be racialized by others (Kahanec and Zimmermann, 2010). From the two institutions, the media and immigration policy it is evident to see how the processes encompassed in the two did result in the whitening (Hungarian) and darkening (Romanian) of the migrants. The Hungarians were perceived as being whiter and the Romanians were perceived less white (Torre, 2008). Therefore, whiteness did birth the processes of racialization that the migrants went through. The two cohorts of migrants are almost indistinguishable but they were subjected to two different situations clearly bringing out the fact that similar dynamics of racialization can indeed bring forth different racialized outcomes (Sialsi and Simina, 2007). The relationship between the Case-study and patterns of social inequality and diversity in the world Finding a common ground that defines inequality is challenging; this is due to the fact that it remains a complicated issue given the fact that it arises from different sources (Held and Kaya, 2007).However, “social inequalities are differences in income, resources, power and status within and between societies. Such inequalities are maintained by those in powerful positions via institutions and social processes” (Booth 2013, p. 3).From the case-study social inequality is evident through institutionalized racism wherein the institutions in place in this light the immigration policies and media upheld racialization of the Romanian migrants especially. The difference in status saw to it that the immigration policies favored the Hungarians making them more white while the tabloid media darkened the Romanians making them less white hence discriminating against them. Social inequality is even more important as Morgan and Maguire (2012) explain because we tend to compare ourselves to others such that when others seem to have even when we have much more than them this starts to cause problems. It is evident from the study, soon as the media started to report that the Romanians would challenge the inhabitants for employment, the migrants were viewed as threats. Social exclusion is a term closely related to inequality, it refers to what can happen to an individual who suffers from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, crime or bad health. Social exclusion is said to have three main domains: resources entailing access to economic services, participation this is by working and quality of life that entails the well-being of a person (Wall et.al, 2010).However, social inequality has various patterns to it inclusive of gender, class and race (Beynon and Glavanis, 2103). Racism is the social inequality that the migrants faced in Europe, though not out rightly and directly the institutions in place did reflect themes of racialization against the migrants. Britain has for a while had issues pertaining to racism thus the racialaization of the Romanian migrant especially is but a manifestation of what has been in existence (Pewarz et. al, 2013). The Romanians lived under social inequality based on the harsh immigration policies that were in place reflecting “whoever belongs to a unit of social inequality obeys not only an administrational definitional power but also emerges from the agency of active transnatinalization” (Beck 2007, p. 18). The Romanians were basically not considered white enough in light of the immigration policies hence had to face adverse marginalization from the Media in Europe who considered them if anything quite illegit (Tryoyna, 2012).This perception of being darkened is but a reflection of cultural based racialization which is often discrimination against a person based on the inability to perceive and internalize the differences in existence (Korzeniewick and Moran, 2009). In conclusion, Racism is however a sensitive area of social inequality as it deprives a person of an identity within society at large (Amin, 2002). Undoubtedly, institutions could harbor racism and be a reproduction of racist activities (Price, 2004).It is hence important for countries to pay attention to the institutions that they uphold to see to it that racialization of people from other nations stops at all costs. It is possible for this racialization to be reproduced on the basis of past events which should not be the case as it brings forth uncalled forth suffering (Moore, 2008). Bibliography Ahmed, D., 2014. Labor and health economics in the Mediterranean region: migration and mobility of medical doctors. USA: IGI Global Amin, A January 2002, A report for the department of Transport on ethnicity and the multiculturalicity of living with diversity, pp. 1-25 Andersen, M and Taylor, H., 2008. Sociology: understanding a diverse society. USA: Thomson Wadsworth Beck, U., 2007, ‘Beyond class and nation: reframing social inequalities in a globalizing world’, the British journal of sociology, vol. 58, no. 4, pp 1-28 Beynon, H and Glavanis, P., 2013. Patterns of Social Inequality. London: routledge Booth, L., 2013. Social inequality. New York: SAGE publications Cabeaza, A June 2014, a report on the anti-migration discourse with regard to Romanian and Bulgarian citizens in France and Great Britain: between blame, culture, negative stereotypes and prejudice, pp. 1-23 Danto, E., 2008. Historical Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press Inc European Dialogue 2009, getting to know the Roma Communities in England, pp. 1-42 Giddens, A., 2006. Sociology. UK: Polity Press Held, D and Kaya, A., 2007.Global Inequality. New York: Polity Press Isaacs, S., Blundell, D., Foley, A., Ginsburg, N., McDonough, B., Silverstone, D and Young, T., 2015. Social problems in the UK: an introduction. Abingdon: Routledge Johanson, S 2007, a report on reading tabloids: tabloid newspapers and their readers, pp. 1-221 Kahanec, M and Zimmermann, K., 2010. EU Labor markets after post- enlargement migration. USA: Springer Heidelberg Knowles, V., 2007. Strangers at our gates: Canadian Immigration and Immigration Policy, 1540-2007. Canada: Dundurn Press Korzeniewick, R and Moran, T., 2009.Unveiling inequality: a world- historical perspective. New York: Russel Sage Foundation Moore, W., 2008.Reproducing Racism. London: rowman and littelefield publishers Morgan, R and Maguire, M., 2012.The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press Newman, D., 2011. Sociology: explaining the architecture of everyday life. USA: SAGE publications Pewarz, Z Chaudhary, A and Staverene, I., November 2013. “Indices of social development” Diversity, inclusiveness and social cohesion.2013 (1), pp. 1-51 Piketty, T., 2014.Capital in the twenty-first century. Washington: president and fellows of Harvard college Price, D., 2004.Borrowing inequality: race, class and student loans. USA: lynne and Rienner Publishers Sik, E., 2002. Roma Migration. Budapest: Institute of Minority Research Silasi, G and Simina, O 2007, a report on Romania and the new economy of migration: costs, decisions, networks development, West University of Timisoara, pp. 1-16 Silva, E., 2014. Racism without racists. UK: rowman and Littelefield Publishers Suciu, O 2010, a report on migration in Europe: migration and demographic trends in Romania a brief historical outlook, pp. 1-32 The Migration Observatory August 2014, a report on the Bulgarians and Romanians in the British National Press, University of Oxford, pp. 1-20 Torre, A January 2008, a report on living transnationally: Romanian migrants in London, Runnymede, pp. 1-32 Troyna, B., 2012. Racial inequality in Education. Abingdon: Routledge University of Glasgow September 2011, A report on the public perception of A8 migrants: the discourse of the media and its impact, pp. 1-77 Wall, K., Leitau, M and Ramos, V April 2010, A report on social inequality and diversity of families Read More