Traditionally, Labour was a party with a key policy of common ownership; a policy in which the state owned key industries, after the Second World War, Labour nationalized major industries, giving the state control over such industries. This is another key, traditional policy which the New Labour appeared to abandon. New Labour began to
Firstly, whether a family live in a symmetrical family or not will have an effect on the divisions of labour. March of Progress theorists (Liberal Feminists) such as Young and Willmott argue that family life is gradually improving for all its members, becoming more equal and democratic. For example, women now go out to work, just as men now help with housework and childcare. However Radical Feminists reject the ‘March of Progress’ theory, and argue that women remain unequal within the family. Anne Oakley argues that we still live in a patriarchal (male dominated) society, and therefore women occupy a subordinate and dependant role within the family and wider society.
This has occurred as a result of rapid advances in transport and telecommunications technology, such that it is now possible to buy and sell stock, place orders for delivery/production of good and discuss business strategy at the click of a button. World cities are cities such as New York, London, Paris and Tokyo, and they fall into global hierarchy of dominance and dependence more of which will be discussed in character. Mega cities in the developing world contract a great deal to this. Whereas world cities play important roles globally, megacities in the DW tend to have their influence limited to the nation in which they exist. This is a result of the fact that more than 40% of the less developed nations population live in megacities; making them large hubs for population, employment and free riding off services such as sanitation and water not provided in rural areas (and only marginally supplied in megacities incidentally).
Recently however the debate has shifted from the classical questions that Marx and Weber were asking over a century ago- How is class defined? What are the elements that make up a social class? Too the question of whether or not class is relevant anymore with regards to the contemporary societies in which we live. The classical approaches of Marx and Weber and their criticisms will be discussed first, and then the theories relating to class of contemporary sociologists Giddens and Bourdieu In order to tackle the question of whether or not classical approaches are relevant to contemporary societies, we need to look at the ideas on class of Marx and Weber. Karl Marx was a late 19th Century thinker.
The American Revolution was revolutionary by bringing change in economy. Due to the Revolution there was a big change at the state level where power went to the less wealthy (Doc I). Also the economy was changed by abolishing primogeniture (Doc G). Doing so enabled other people to get wealthy without having come from a wealthy family. Economy was an initiative to stop prevents people from supporting Great Britain.
Overall it could therefore be argued that rather than partners becoming more equal, women now have to carry a ‘dual burden’, whereby she is responsible for two jobs of unpaid or paid labour. Factors such as patriarchy and conforming to a gender script will lead to these divisions. Secondly, it could be argued that the money management within a family has an effect on the power relations between couples. Edgell argues that the reason why men are likely to take the decisions is because they earn more; women usually earn less than their husbands, and as a result of being dependant on them, have less say in the decision making. Similarly, Michelle Barrett and Mary McIntosh additionally argue that men usually make the decisions about spending on important items.
His father and mother were quite different from one another, while they both influenced Carnegie from different point of views. His father was a weaver, before he was laid off, while his mother was the type of woman to do anything to make sure the family was financially stable. Andrew couldn’t help but admire both his figures, but he also had envy and a few bits of dislike towards them. He was always made the odd one out, as his parents always took a more liking to his older brother. Such other influences such as their family’s poverty and lack of opportunities has made him realize that he didn’t want to live such a life, as he got older.
The distinctions between the workers in regards to sex and age were lost also contributing to the sense of unity. They were all exploited by their bosses and other bourgeoisie such as their landlords. Modern industry also allowed for more means of communication between them also allowing them to have a sense of unification amongst themselves. 5. Why is the Bourgeoisie no longer fit to rule society?
Finn states that confidential government papers that were disclosed to the London publication Time Out in 1983 show that the true purpose of the youth training schemes was to restrict the number of workers who would join trade unions, in order to minimise the bargaining power of the workforce. John Clarke and Paul Willis came to a similar conclusion. They argued that the new vocationalism was a means of producing people who wanted to work but who were caught in the middle between education and the world of work. Trainees could be used instead of other full-time workers, and as a result would be cheaper for the
So having a large family meant everyone had to contribute financially which was much easier as it was less risky and also required the family to become smaller as the children couldn't work due to geographical mobility. Parsons said that industrialization did lead to the decrease of extended families and the rise of nuclear families as he believed that geographical mobility was caused by Industrialisation which meant individuals had to move around finding work meaning they would have to move to the city where there was less open space and smaller homes which required families to get smaller due to smaller living spaces and families also became isolated from their relatives and less reliant on kin for economic and social supports. Parsons claimed that nuclear family members became more dependant and focused on each other, more home-centred and less prone to pressures from their extended kin and community. Parsons named the father figure in the house the "instrumental leader" this meant that they had to work and bring money home to support the rest of the family and the females were given the name "expressive leader" which meant they had to look after and care for the emotional needs of the family which is part of the warm