Sample Hypothesis-Testing Papers
Sample Hypothesis-Testing Paper #1: Society's A Stage
Anonymous
I. Summary
Karl Marx's most pervading
theory is his theory on class struggles. Marx theorizes that society consists
of different
systems, much like different stages, which result from revolutions,
and that these stages must be followed through in a specific
order, before success may be achieved. Marx also theorizes that communism
is the ultimate system of society. Perhaps Marx's
theory is incorrect, as communism did not succeed in Russia. The best
way to test the hypothesis that Karl Marx's theory may
be fallible, is by performing research in Russia. As Russia has attempted
to go through Marx's stages both in order and out of
order, it proves to be a very appropriate research site. The accuracy
of the hypothesis that Marx's theory is incorrect and that
countries do not have to go through the specific stage order laid out
by Marx, may be tested by researching the rate of
production, environmental state, economic state and uprisings of communist
Russia. By looking at the results of Russia's past
attempts at communism, as well. as its present attempts at capitalism,
the hypothesis that Marx's theory is fallible is
disconfirmed. While other theories like those of Vladimir Lenin have
failed, it appears that the former countries of the Soviet
Union are attempting to follow through with Marx's theory, as they
revert back to the stage where they left off - capitalism.
II. Theory
Perhaps one of Karl Marx's
most eminent theories is his theory on class struggles. Not only are such
class struggles
prominent in everyday life, according to Marx, but they are also prominent
in the majority of Marx's theories. In writing about
the ever-present class struggles, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels explain
that "Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord
and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed,
stood in constant opposition to one another"
throughout history (Marx & Engels, "Class Struggle," p. 43). All
of these oppositions exist in history, while Engels notes that in
prehistory, "primitive communism" existed as a "common ownership of
land" (Marx & Engels, "Note to 1888 English Edition of
Manifesto of Communist Party," p. 34). As such, society has followed
a path from "primitive communism" to slavery, to
feudalism, to capitalism, (Marx & Engels, "Class Struggle," p.
43). In other words, Marx sees every period in history as being
marked by a constant battle between those who rule and those who are
ruled.
What system of society was
to follow capitalism? According to Marx, "In the course of their development,
society's forces
of production or productive forces of labour are socialized, and become
directly social (collective) thanks to co-operation, the
division of labour on the shopfloor, the use of mechanization and,
in general, the changes which the process of production
undergoes..." (Marx, "The 'Economics,'" p. 511). Thus, socialism is
to follow capitalism, as socialism is a natural product of the
very essence of capitalism (Marx, "The 'Economics,'" p. 511). Progression
next lends itself to the emergence of communism.
Socialism contains "proposals [which] point solely to the disappearance
of class antagonisms," and "these proposals... are of a
purely Utopian character" (Marx & Engels, "Manifesto of the Communist
Party," p. 63). Enter: communism, "where people may
enjoy themselves and be themselves: Communism is the positive abolition
of private property, of human self-alienation, and thus
the real appropriation of human nature through and for man" (Marx,
"Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts," p. 127).
Socialism and then communism
are the systems for which society should strive for, while following along
its path of
systems - from "primitive communism" to slavery, to feudalism, to capitalism,
to socialism, and then to communism (Marx &
Engels, "Class Struggle," p. 43). Marx writes, "Just as the economists
are the scientific representatives of the bourgeois class, so
the Socialists and the Communists are the theoreticians of the proletarian
class" (Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, p. 92)
Under socialism and communism, the working class is finally to be represented
(Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, p. 92).
How do these changes in
the system come to fruition? According to Marx and Engels, "The bourgeoisie
cannot exist
without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and
thereby the relations of production, and with them the
whole relations of society" (Marx & Engels, "Class Struggle," p.
45). "The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism
to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself" (Marx
& Engels, "Class Struggle," p. 45). Thus, there is a pattern
and order to the revolutions which must take place. According to Marx,
these revolutions result from the bourgeoisie constantly
having to evolve and improve its productivity. Moreover, Marx and Engels
describe Communists saying that "In the various
states of development which the struggle of the working class against
the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and
everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole" (Marx
& Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, p. 46).
In essence, each system is a part of the process, a stage which society
must go through before it may advance to the next
system successfully (Marx & Engels, Manifesto of the Communist
Party, p. 46). Is Marx's theory correct? Many have
hypothesized Marx's theory to be incorrect, including Vladirnir Lenin,
who took it upon himself to make a few adjustments to
Marx's theory, essentially skipping from feudalism straight to communism
in Russia (Grosvenor, Graves, & Shape, 1993, insert
within 4-53). Is Lenin correct in hypothesizing Marx's theory to be
wrong?
III. Case Selection
The best research site for
testing the fallibility of Karl Marx's theory is Russia. Russia is particularly
appropriate as it is an
example of a society which was forced to skip from feudalism straight
to communism under the rule of the powerful Lenin. The
communist Soviet Union's dissolution in 1989 should also prove to be
quite helpful in researching this hypothesis. Why did the
Soviet Union split apart? Was the split due to the fallibility of Marx,
or was the split due to the fallibility of Lenin? Moreover,
Russia is the most desirable research site as it has already been the
grounds for the testing of different theoretical research.
Lenin's reign serves as such a test. To discover answers, one needs
only to look back into Russia's history, and. its
history-in-the-making.
IV. Methods
As previously mentioned,
the methods necessary for conducting research to produce findings which
would either confirm
or disconfirm the hypothesis will rely on the historical past of Russia.
How did it come to be that the society of Russia went from
a system of feudalism directly into a system of communism? In 1861,
Czar Nicholas II set free the serfs, in an attempt at the
hints of capitalism, yet chaos resulted from. his actions (Campbell,
Holt, & Walker, 1993, p. 152). The Duma, was a legislatural
hint at democracy, also a counterpart of capitalism (Campbell et al.,
1993, p.154). After the deaths of Czar Nicholas II and his
successor Alexander II, Vladimir Lenin decided to take control (Campbell
et al., 1993, p.158). Removing all glimpses of
capitalism out of Russia, Lenin immediately began to institute a communist
state (Campbell et al., 1993, p.175). Russia was
making a move towards capitalism, and Lenin thrust it into a state
of communism.
Though a follower of Marx,
Lenin disagreed with Marx in at least two respects: 1) Lenin believed the
people could not do
things on their own - they needed someone to lead them - while Marx
thought the people were smart enough to lead
themselves, and 2) according to Lenin, the system of society need not
follow Marx's orderly outline step-by-step. Was Lenin's
hypothesis correct? Did Lenin's communist Russia work? In order to
research this question, one may look to exactly what was
going on in the communist state of Russia. What was the production
of goods like? What was the state of the environment?
What was the economy like? How were the living conditions of the people?
Were there revolts against the communist state?
By asking and testing such
questions, one may begin to uncover the answer to the question, was Lenin's
hypothesis
correct? To test the production of goods, the researcher might look
at the rates of production in communist Russia. Did Russia
have high rates of production or low rates of production, and where
did it stand in comparison to the rates of production in
other countries? High rates of production would be characteristic of
a successful communist state. Historically, Soviet Russia
had such a high rate of production, but sacrificed things in other
areas to achieve this high rate. Perhaps part of the problem was
communist Russia's sacrifice of quality for quantity in its production
efforts.
The researcher could also
probe into the condition of the environment. One could research the level
of air pollution, water
pollution, and land pollution which existed in communist Russia. A
high amount of pollution would clearly be a negative
component of communist Russia. One National Geographic photograph caption,
describing a plant in Russia, captures this
negative component, reading, "Icon of a system that controlled many
aspects of daily life but let air, water, and land pollution run
unchecked, a steel plant in Novokuznetsk belches thick smoke into the
Siberian sky" (Edwards, 1993, p. 9). This neglect of the
environment is a clear example of how communism sacrificed the quality
of life for the quantity of goods - a costly sacrifice that
Russia must pay for still to this day and certainly in the future.
The researcher might also
test Russia's economic state. In what kind of shape was the economy? Perhaps
one could look
at Russia's poverty level. If the poverty level was high, then the
economy was obviously poor. Another question to pursue might
be whether people had access to essential goods. The lower the amount
of accessibility to much-needed goods, the worse off
the economy.
Certainly a poor economy
with people in poor living situations lends itself to protests and uprisings.
The researcher could
look to historical records numbering the amount of protests and uprisings
which took place against the communist state. Also,
where were these protests and what were the people protesting? Much
of this research has already been tested through Russian
history. As Marx says, 'Theology in the same way explains the origin
of evil by the fall of man: that is, it assumes as a fact, in
historical form, what has to be explained" (Marx, "Estranged Labour,"
p. 37). For example, history shows that communist
Russia's economy was poor in that people under communist Russia were
forced to stand in long lines to get the basic necessities
for living. History also shows a poor economy in that Russia's peasants
were pushed off their land and forced to work for the
good of the state. Protests rose out of such poor treatment. People
protested the government's insufficiency. In the end, the
biggest protest of all led to the dissolution of Russia as a communist
state, as in 1989, communist Russia fell. At present, the
former republics of the Soviet Union are now living under a system
of democratic capitalism. Do these results make Lenin's
thoughts false and Marx's theory true? Not necessarily, but these results
are a step in that direction.
In order to confirm. Marx's
theory that the systems of society must go through a certain order of stages
in order to
successfully reach communism, and disconfirm Lenin's hypothesis, the
researcher must turn to Russia.'s history, and Russia's
history-in-the-making. The capitalistic stage was jumped over in an
attempt to get Russia ahead to the purer communist state. It
would seem by Russia's most recent historical events that leaping to
the next system can leave a country in disarray, forcing a
country to eventually correct itself by going back to the proper order
and path. At this point in time, it seems as if Marx's theory
is correct, as Russia is going back to capitalism in an attempt to
follow Marx's step-by-step theory of class struggle and societal
systems.
V. References
Campbell, M., Holt, I., Walker, W. 1993. AP European History. Piscataway,
New Jersey Research and Education
Association.
Edwards, M. 1993. "A Broken Empire." National Geographic, Vol. 183, March, pp. 4-53.
Grosvenor, G., Graves, W., Shupe, J. 1993. "The Economic Evolution of
the Former Soviet Union: Communism to
Capitalism." National Geographic, Vol. 183, March, insert within pp.
4-53.
Marx, K. & Engels, F. [1848] 1993. "Class Struggle " (an excerpt
from Manifesto of the Communist Party). In C. Lemert,
ed., Social Theory The Multicultural & Classic Readings. Boulder,
Colorado: Westview Press, Inc., pp. 43-48.
Marx K. 1932. "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts." In E. Fromm,
ed., Marx's Concept of Man. New York, New
York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., pp 85-196.
Marx, K. [1857-1867] 1977. "The 'Economics." In D. McLellan, ed., Karl
Marx Selected Writings. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press, pp.343-528)
Marx, K. [1844] 1993. "Estranged Labour " (an excerpt from Economic
and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844). In C. Lemert,
ed., Social Theory The Multicultural & Classic Readings. Boulder,
Colorado: Westview Press, Inc., pp. 36-42.
Marx, K. & Engels, F. [1848] 1955. "Manifesto of the Communist Party."
In Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected
Works, Volume I. Moscow, Russia: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
pp. 21-65.
Marx, K. [1847] 1967. "The Poverty of Philosophy." In D. Caute, ed.,
Essential Writings of Karl Marx. New York, New
York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., p. 92.
Grade: 10/10. Nicely done! Remember that the bourgeoisie and proletariat
are only called that within capitalism.
Sample Hypothesis-Testing Paper #2: Does the Institution of Parenting Exercise Modem Forms of Power?
Tatiana Margitic
I. Summary
In Discipline and Punish,
Michel Foucault talks about the new characteristics of power and discipline
in the modem
world. Among other attributes, he asserts that this new power is invisible,
methodical and continuous, and objectifies the
individual. Foucault hypothesizes that this new form of power and discipline
could permeate every aspect of society. To test this
hypothesis, it would be useful to look at the social institution of
parenting. Foucault mentions it himself; it is the place where
humans first experience power relations; and there is already an abundance
of research on it. I think that, from the research, one
would find Foucault's hypothesis to be disconfirmed. It is impossible
for parents, under normal living conditions, to be invisible
to their children; parents can never be continuously supervising their
children; and most caring parents would never treat their
child as an object.
II. Theory
Michel Foucault, in Discipline
and Punish, theorizes about the characteristics of modem institutions of
power versus
those of pre-modern times. He brings to light a series of important
changes that have taken place in the exercise of power and
discipline since the classical age. First of all, according to Foucault,
power in the modem world has become invisible:
"disciplinary power ... is exercised through its invisibility" (Foucault
187). By this he means that the person exercising power,
enforcing the discipline, is no longer seen by the person being disciplined
(this is illustrated even further in his chapter on Jeremy
Bentharn's Panopticon [Foucault 195- 228]). This power is made even
more powerful by being permanent, which brings us to
the next modern characteristic of power and discipline.
Foucault asserts that the
modem exercise of discipline and power has become continuous and methodical.
He gives
several examples of the rigidly-structured timetables for students
and prisoners in these "new" institutions of power (Foucault
6-7, 124), all of which further enforce the "uninterrupted, constant
coercion" (Foucault 137). Even the observation of the
disciplinees is unceasing (Foucault 201). In addition to this strict
regulation of time, the modem era also brought to institutions of
power the "meticulous observation of details" (Foucault 141). These
changes are directly related to another attribute of
Foucault's modern power, the objectification of the person being disciplined.
For Foucault, the "meticulousness
of the regulations, the fussiness of the inspections" (Foucault 140) leads
to a new goal
for the exercise of discipline - it is "no longer simply an art of
distributing bodies, ... but of composing forces to obtain an
efficient machine" (Foucault, 164). Furthermore, "[modern] discipline
regards individuals both as objects and as instr'unients of
its exercise" (Foucault 170). Thus, in the modem world, discipline
exists for its own sake, which may be seen as getting a
particular job done efficiently (i.e. putting prisoners to work, teaching
students so they can pass the AP exam), but the focus is
still on the discipline and exercise of power itself not on its effects
for the prisoners, students, etc. The individuals are seen only
as objects upon which discipline must act "to increase [their] possible
utility" (Foucault 210).
III. Hypothesis
Foucault asserts that modern
power has become, among other things, invisible, meticulous, and constant,
and has turned
individuals into objects for its own purposes. He mainly talks about
prisons, schools and hospitals as being drastically changed
in these ways, but he goes on to assert that these new attributes of
power and discipline can be "most easily spread from one
[institution] to another" (Foucault 139). He maintains that these modern
"disciplinary procedures ... [are] disseminated
throughout society" (Foucault 212), and even suggests that they could
spread to the family (Foucault 211). Thus Foucault
hypothesizes that the modern characteristics of power and discipline
could extend to all social institutions.
IV. Case Selection
To test this hypothesis,
one place to go would be the institution of the family - namely, of parenting.
This would be
particularly appropriate for several reasons. Most obviously, the institution
of parenting would be pertinent to test Foucault's
hypothesis because Foucault even mentions it himself (211). Furthermore,
this social institution is where power conditioning
begins - this is where children are first exposed to power and discipline,
and it's where they grow accustomed to its exercise. If
Foucault is indeed correct, then should the foundation of the exercise
of power not also be permeated by these modern
characteristics? The family would also be appropriate as a research
site because there is already so much existing research
about it - whether it be child psychology or disciplining strategies,
there is an abundance of material about this important social
institution. Finally, the family would be a relevant place to test
Foucault's hypothesis because it could lead to some very
interesting answers - what would it say about human nature if, at home,
not under the direct influence of society, power was
carried out much differently - in other words, perhaps this new form
of power has been forced upon us, and humans do not
need the strict regulations and observations that are carried out on
them in schools, hospitals, and other institutions.
V. Methods
To test this hypothesis there
would have to be several areas of research. First, one would have to research
the paperwork
(ironically, by doing computer searches) - any studies, surveys, etc.
that dealt with how parents discipline their children would
be appropriate. What kinds of punishment do most parents use, how regular
are they in their discipline, and how do parents
view their children (as part of themselves, or as something they must
take care of)?
One could also do one's
own interviews, although it would have to be a major project - one would
have to interview
hundreds, thousands of families, categorizing them according to economic
situation, ethnic background, and other factors that
could affect how parents discipline their children. It would be useful
to interview both the parents and the children, to see how
each views the other. Does the child feet the threat of punishment
constantly? Do they feel the punishment is good for them in
the long run? Do the parents see punishment as being for the child's
sake or for their own sanity? It would also be helpful to
interview children from ages four to eighteen, for discipline becomes
especially apparent to (and sometimes even more despised
by) the child during adolescence.
Perhaps this would be a
violation of the right to privacy, but if the family approved of it, it
would be incredibly useful to
have videotapes in the home (this again would be a massive undertaking
- hours and hours of tape to watch)- With this, one
could see first-hand what kinds of power parents hold over their children.
I think that the findings
from all this research would, for the most part, disconfirm Foucault's
hypothesis that the
characteristics of modern power and discipline have permeated, or even
could permeate, all social institutions. First of all, it is
physically impossible (in a normal family situation - kids living at
home with parents) for the person exercising the power (the
parent) to be invisible. Most children see their parents every day
- they are the children's providers of food, of transportation, of
shelter, etc. The parent will never (at least it is very unlikely)
just disappear and discipline from some unseen place. Also, I
imagine one would find from the research that parents play a very large
role in their children's lives, and vice versa - the two are
always aware of each other.
Secondly, it likewise seems
impossible for parental discipline to be constant and meticulous. while
parents and children do
spend lots of time together, especially at early ages, once the child
goes to school, camp, or even to a friend's house, continual
parental discipline becomes unfeasible. There will always be free or
semi-free spaces for the children, increasingly so as they get
older. One would probably find from the research that both children
and parents are very aware of these spaces children yearn
for them, and parents are scared of them.
Finally, most loving parents
would never view their child as an object from which they must extract
the most utility
possible, through disciplining. One would find in the research that
most parents feel that their children are a part of themselves -
this may be the natural human instinct, as well as the physical fact
[and our dominant social conception of parenting].
Thus, Foucault is potentially
(one would have to do research to say certainly) incorrect in saying these
characteristics of
modem power and discipline (invisibility of power, constant and meticulous
supervision, and the objectification of the individual)
spread to all social institutions, for they would probably not be found
in the institution of parenting, which itself is the foundation
of discipline and power for the individual. If the first place that
children encounter discipline is in fact not a model of modern
power, than how have all these other institutions (schools, hospitals,
prisons) come to be so? That would take a whole other
massive research project to answer decisively, if one could even do
more than speculate
References
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish, translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.
Grade: 10/10. Good insight, solid design. Don't exaggerate the work
involved in such a study, though!
Sample Hypothesis-Testing Paper #3: The Feminine Mystique: Was It
a Universal Phenomenon?
Anonymous
I. Summary
Throughout the history of
feminist theory, the role of women has been changed. Views of women have
been shaped and
reshaped by changing societal influences. Feminist theory has focused
on these changes and how those same changes affect
women. Equally, feminist theory attempts to understand and interpret
how society plays a role in attaching labels to women.
One of the most renowned feminists of this century is Betty Friedan.
Friedan focuses on the fact that the woman's role was
limited to that which involved the home. More importantly, Friedan's
theory is unique because she claims that women desired
this "homemaker" role. Friedan denotes this idea as the "feminine mystique."
Although there is a lot of truth to her theory, she
assumes that it is an all-encompassing idea. The "feminine mystique"
is too exclusive in that it narrows feminism to a largely
white, middle-class movement. Friedan groups together all women and
assumes that one idea is representative of the interests of
all women and has been historically. In order to test Betty Friedan's
theory of the "feminine mystique," the following essay will
examine the lives of black women with a low socioeconomic status and
the lives of white, middle-class women following the
Second World War. Following the war, women as whole were not all experiencing
the same lifestyle. Moreover, the interests of
women were widespread and one cannot assume that every woman fit into
what Friedan calls the "feminine mystique."
II. Theory
The gender paradigm has been
a crucial element in sociological research. As a result, feminist theory
has grown out of that
paradigm. Because it is socially constructed, gender has become a phenomenon
that sociologists and feminists both aim to
comprehend. One of these feminists, Betty Friedan, has become increasingly
popular as well as controversial among other
feminist theorists. Her theory looks at what she calls the "feminine
mystique." Friedan explains that the "feminine mystique" was a
phenomenon that grew increasingly during the years following the Second
World War. She asserts that "millions of women lived
their lives in the image of those pretty pictures of the American suburban
housewife, kissing their husbands goodbye in front of
the picture window, depositing their stationwagonsfull of children
at school, and smiling as they ran the new electric waxer over
the spotless kitchen floor" (Friedan, p. 18) Women during the fifties
aimed to achieve this lifestyle. Equally, women desired this
"Martha Stewart" image. Friedan implies that women during this time
were celebrating their femininity In Friedan's eyes, it was a
universal phenomenon that all women were experiencing. She claims that
"in the fifteen years after World War II, this mystique
of feminine fulfillment became the cherished and self-perpetuating
core of contemporary American culture" (Friedan 18).
Domesticity was taken to another level in the sense that women were
content with their role. These women worked extremely
hard to be successful at the tasks required of them within the home
which included caring for their children and husband.
Friedan further claims that
women were content with their role. They never felt inferior to their husbands
or men as a
whole. They were simply celebrating what it was they were expected
to do and be as women. Friedan asserts that "nobody
argued whether women were inferior of superior to men; they were simply
different" (Friedan, p. 19). In a sense, if men
accepted their role as the breadwinner," then women should equally
accept their role as the "homemaker." She takes her
argument further by saying that "the words women used when they talked
to each other, while their husbands sat on the other
side of the room and talked shop or politics or septic tanks, were
about problems with their children, or how to keep their
husbands happy, or improve their children's school, or cook chicken
or make slipcovers" (Friedan, pp. 18-19). Each gender
was content in its role and one did not feel either superior or inferior
to the other. It simply was the way it was.
Because it was just the
way things were, it was seen as a "problem" when women did not feel content
playing their
feminine role. Friedan explains that "if a woman had a problem in the
1950's and 1960's, she knew that something must be
wrong with her marriage, or with herself" (Friedan, p. 19). Increasingly,
when women felt dissatisfied, they felt guilty or
unfeminine. Women claimed to be ashamed or hopelessly neurotic (Friedan,
p. 19). Friedan describes this as "the problem that
has no name." Friedan blames women's realization and dissatisfaction
with their role partly on education. She explains that
"more and more women had education, which naturally made them unhappy
in their role as housewives" (Friedan, p. 22).
Women were seeing the world out there and seeing what was out there
for them. Once they saw their options they did not want
to go back to their "old" lifestyle. Friedan blames the "problem" partly
on the media where she claims that "the actual
unhappiness of the American housewife was suddenly being reported"
(Friedan, p. 22). Whichever merits most of the blame is
irrelevant. Most importantly, "the problem that has no name" continued
to plague society and households during the years
following the Second World War.
Betty Friedan's theory is
crucial in understanding the role of the white, middle-class women. When
she describes the
"feminine mystique" her classification merely fits that particular
group. It is not an all-encompassing feminist theory because it
does not include other women who were not experiencing this middle-class
lifestyle. When one looks at what the majority of
women were experiencing, the viewpoint is much different.
III. Case-Selection
Following the Second World
War, women faced many different dilemmas and experienced various situations.
Many
women were faced with how to deal with a returning husband who was
now a veteran of the war. However, many women were
dealing with problems of another level. African-American women during
this time were confronted with problems that far
surpassed "the problem that has no name." African-American women faced
discrimination and many were poverty-stricken
during the years following the Second World War. Historically and even
today, "women of Color are [were] the lowest paid
wage earners in America" (Lorde, p. 120). Obviously, the problems that
African-American women confronted were ones that
dealt with who they were and their race and had little to do with their
role as "homemakers."
African-American women were
confronted with additional problems that encompassed their entire lives
such as justifying
who they were and defending that being. One particular feminist argues
that African-Americans fought against "antipoor
legislation, gay shootings, the burning of synagogues, street harassment,
anacks against women, and resurgent violence against
Black people" (Lorde, p. 139). African-American women also had interests
that extended far past that of the ideal of the
"feminine mystique." African-American women had a commitment to their
families and their communities. Basically, "black
women's actions in the struggle for group survival suggest a vision
of community" (Collins, p. 616). The community was
important to them because "Afrocentric models of community stress connections,
caring, and personal accountability" (Collins,
p. 616). During the time following the Second World War, African- American
women were trying to save their children, their
families, and their race as a whole that they could not look at achieving
the "homemaker" role that Friedan claims was the "core
of contemporary American culture" (Friedan, p. 18). Friedan simply
makes an overgeneralization about all women but neglects
to interpret the experiences of African-American women at this time.
IV. Methods
My basic hypothesis was that
African-American women during the years following the Second World War
did not fit into
Friedan's idea of the "feminine mystique." The method that I would
use to study my hypothesis would be to interview white,
middle-class women and African-American women who had a lower standard
of living than their white counterparts and lived
during the period following the Second World War.
In order to see if white,
middle-class women experienced the "feminine mystique," it is crucial to
actually interview these
women who lived in the years following the Second World War. Did you
work outside the home following the Second World
War? Those women that did work outside the home go against Friedan's
idea of the "feminine mystique." If you did not work
outside the home, were you content with your "homemaker" role? Those
that were in fact content with their role may have been
adjusting to other influences such as the status quo. Therefore, a
"yes" answer is not enough to decide whether or not the
women were celebrating their femininity or accepting the role that
had been defined for them.
Equally important is understanding
the role of African-American women who were not experiencing the life that
Friedan
denotes as the "feminine mystique." Interviewing these women would
get at the core of their ideals about the "homemaker" role.
Did you work outside the home during the years following the Second
World War? What was your lifestyle like? Did you want
to have the "homemaker" lifestyle? Did h seem desirable to you? African-American
women during this time had no time to focus
on achieving the "leave it to Beaver" lifestyle. One would find in
these interviews that African-American women were more
oriented towards building a community that would support each individual
and the family within it. Providing for their family for
an African-American woman was extremely different than for a white,
middle-class woman. More than likely the answers
received by the African-American woman would be extremely different
from the white woman.
It is apparent that from
the study of both African-American and white women of different socioeconomic
statuses that their
experiences were different during the years following the Second World
War. By performing the above one would see this
hypothesis to be true.
References
Collins, Patricia Hill. "Black Feminist Thought in the Matrix of Domination."
In Social Theory, edited by Charles Lemert.
Boulder: Westview Press, 1993, pp. 615-626.
Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1963.
Lorde, Audre. Sister Outside: Essays and Speeches. New York: The Crossing Press, 1984.
Grade: 10/10. Good job! It would also be interesting to see if women
whose lives did not match the suburban housewife myth
nonetheless aspired to that life. And what does the rise of Martha
Stewart, who you mention, suggest about the resurgence of
1950s-style "family values" in the 1990s?
Sample Hypothesis-Testing Paper #4: Simplicity: An Escape from the
Iron Cage?
Lorrie Bradley
I. Introduction
Sociologist Max Weber, in
his book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, describes
a "spirit" or ethos of
capitalism that developed from the Protestant ethic of asceticism and
moral perfection. The "Protestant work ethic" remains a
powerful force in American society, although it has since shed much
of its religious significance. Weber argues that the spirit of
capitalism is no longer a choice for modern people, and economic forces
set in motion by the ideas of the Reformation now
determine the lives of people, trapping them in an "iron cage." Are
our lives in the present time constrained by this iron cage of
capitalism? To test Weber's theory, a study of people who describe
themselves as voluntarily opting out of the modern
American economy is proposed. The degree to which these people
continue to feel pressure to conform to the spirit of
capitalism will tell us how powerful this idea is in contemporary American
society.
II. Theory
Max Weber's famous work,
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, links the worldly asceticism
of Protestant
theology to the rise of rationalized capitalism in Western Europe.
Calvinism, a doctrine cited by Weber as a prime example of
Protestant asceticism, taught that one's eternal salvation or damnation
was predestined, and offered no emotional or spiritual
comfort by which the believer could be assured of his or her state
of grace (Weber, 103-6). The only way to be certain of
one's salvation was to glorify God at all times with one's actions,
renouncing the things of the world and following a strict,
rationalized code of conduct. These standards are similar to the vows
taken by Catholic nuns or monks, but applied instead to
the entire community of believers, not just a select few (Weber 114-21).
Since one's work offers the
believer the only possible assurance of salvation, then work naturally
became the most
important aspect of Protestant believer's life. One's occupation
was seen as a divine calling, and to fail to do one's work well
was seen as contrary to the will of God. Any waste of time and any
enjoyment of the material fruits of one's labor was
considered a missed opportunity to glorify God through one's labor,
and therefore a sin (Weber 156-8). So the Protestant
believer naturally became a frugal and diligent worker. Steady
work, honest business dealings, and continually investing and
saving, rather than spending the profits of one's labor, brought prosperity
to Protestant households. While this prosperity was
seen as evidence of God's favor and one's moral virtue, Protestant
evangelists noted that when believers started to grow rich,
moral conduct continued to be an important part of their lives, but
the spirit of religion lost its significance (Weber 174-5).
Weber noted this chain of
events with religious devotion leading to asceticism, followed by prosperity
and eventual
religious indifference. He wrote, "the peak of the purely religious
enthusiasm .commenced gradually to pass over into sober
economic virtue; the religious roots died out slowly, giving way to
utilitarian worldliness" (Weber, 176). While the Protestant
ethic started capitalistic tendencies in motion, once the machinery
of capitalism gained speed, religious ideas were gradually
abandoned. The Protestant ethic gave way to a secularized "spirit
of capitalism." Weber believed that the proverbs of
Benjamin Franklin were a good example of this. Franklin equated
shrewd financial management with moral worth, but while his
proverbs echo those of the Calvinists, Franklin's are without any religious
basis.
This spirit of capitalism
socially sanctioned economic powers, which, according to Weber, have become
powerful forces
in the modern world. He notes, "When asceticism was carried.into
everyday life, and began to dominate worldly morality, it did
its part in building the tremendous cosmos of the modern economic order.
This order is now bound to the technical and
economic conditions of machine production which today determine the
lives of all the individuals who are born into this
mechanism.with irresistible force" (181).
Now that the spirit of capitalism
is rooted in the material realm, it has the power to determine people's
economic behavior.
While the Protestant reformers sought to reduce people's dependence
on material goods, the spirit of capitalism has,
paradoxically, allowed "material goods [to] gain an increasing and
finally an inexorable power over the lives of men" (181). This
power of material goods has trapped modern people in what Weber calls
an "iron cage" (181).
I propose that the United
States, described by Weber as being the most advanced capitalistic society
at the time of his
writing, would therefore be the most likely society to be imprisoned
in the "iron cage." However the recent trend of "voluntary
simplicity" or "voluntary downsizing" appears to contradict this. The
fact that people are able to shed work responsibilities may
seem to contradict Weber's argument. However, it could also be hypothesized
that the increasing power of the spirit of
capitalism has forced people to take drastic measures to retain some
sense of personal autonomy. It is believed that a study of
people who have joined this "voluntary simplicity movement" will report
having done so because of increasing pressure to
conform to the values of the spirit of capitalism, and that since adopting
a different lifestyle they continue to feel pressure from
mainstream American culture.
III. Case Selection
To conduct this research,
I propose to interview people who have moved out of the mainstream American
economy and
have adopted a more simplified lifestyle. While people in this
group may be spread around the country, this attitude is more
prevalent in the West, particularly in the Seattle, Washington, area.
This trend involves mainly high-achieving, upper middle and
middle class employees of large corporations who either quit their
job, choose to accept a demotion, or lower their commitment
to work in order to achieve a non-economic goal, such as spending more
time with one's family or improving one's quality of
life. Locating individuals or families from this group could
be accomplished by using a mailing list, since many advocates of the
simple lifestyle publish and distribute their own newsletters, some
which circulate around the entire nation (Marks, 86-96).
IV. Methods
Once interview subjects are
located, interviews are a good way to determine whether or not the subjects
continue to feel
pressure after leaving the mainstream economy. A good introductory
question would be to ask the subject to tell how he or she
came to adopt this particular lifestyle, paying close attention to
the subject's motivations. The hypothesis is that the subject has
adopted a simplified lifestyle in response to pressure from the "iron
cage" of the modern economy. Some responses that would
corroborate this hypothesis would include the subject's feeling that
work is not satisfying in itself, or that work should not be the
focus of life, the subject's feeling that they were unable to enjoy
the fruits of their labor, or the subject's desire to escape from
continual pressure to earn more and more money. Responses such
as these, which are contradictory to the spirit of capitalism,
would indicate that the subject had adopted a new lifestyle in order
to escape this pressure. The hypothesis also states that
because of the continual presence of the spirit of capitalism, subjects
would experience conflict between their new lifestyle and
mainstream society. A good way to test this would be to ask subjects
to report reactions from their peers, neighbors, or family
members in mainstream society to their lifestyle change. If subject
reported mainly negative reactions, and especially negative
reactions that questioned the subject's moral values, then this would
indicate that the subjects continue to experience tension
between their new lifestyle and the iron cage of capitalism from which
they have tried to escape.
References
Marks, John. "Time Out," U.S. News and World Report. v. 119, n. 23, December 11, 1995, pp. 84-96.
Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Second
Edition. Talcott Parsons, trans. Los Angeles:
Roxbury Publishing, 1998.
Grade: 10/10. Nicely done!