Tags: capitalism, commodification, corporations, economic sociology, globalization, inequality, marx/marxism, organizations/occupations/work, capital flight, feminization of poverty, maquiladoras, world-systems theory, 00 to 05 mins Year: 2006; 2012 Length: 4:04; 2:58 Access: clip 1 on YouTube; clip 2 at the New York Times Summary: These two clips examine the role of low wage work in the global economy. The first clip looks at maquiladoras (multinationally-owned factories operating in tax-free zones in low wage countries) from the documentary Maquilapolis (city of factories). It presents the stories of two female maquiladora workers. Carmen works the graveyard shift at a factory that produces television parts. She was attracted to the maquiladoras because it paid better wages than the rest of Mexico. However, she ultimately suffers from kidney damage and lead poisoning from her years of exposure to toxic chemicals and her employers that do not allow workers to drink water or go to the bathroom during their shift. In a global economy, corporations are attracted to places like Mexico because of their tax-free zones that offer tax breaks and cheap labor that is easily exploitable. Employers expect labor, which is mostly female, to have "agile hands and would be cheap and docile". Ultimately, Carmen's employer moved from Mexico to Indonesia to find cheaper labor and earn higher profits. The clip discusses female labor as a "cheap commodity" that is easily discarded if they become less productive or defend their labor rights. The second clip documents workers at a Chinese Foxconn factory that employs 120,000 workers with low pay and dangerous working conditions. The clips offer a good illustration of world-systems theory, and viewers can be encouraged to think about the role of maquiladoras in the global economy. How does value flow through the global economy? How is work, gender, and inequality linked to maquiladoras and the mobility of transnational corporations around the world? Do maquiladoras reproduce poverty or can they help nations rise in global value chains? Submitted By: Paul Dean
2 Comments
Duneier's research on NYC book vendors is presented in film.
Tags: class, community, crime/law/deviance, inequality, intersectionality, methodology/statistics, organizations/occupations/work, prejudice/discrimination, race/ethnicity, rural/urban, ethnography, homelessness, urban poverty, visual sociology, 21 to 60 mins Year: 2010 Length: 60:00 (film) Access: Film (part 1; part 2; part 3) Discussion (part 4; part 5; part 6; part 7; part 8) Summary: This documentary, directed by Barry Alexander Brown, is based on the ethnographic fieldwork that sociologist Mitchell Duneier conducted for his seminal book, Sidewalk (1999). Framed in the film's introduction as an "epilogue" to the book, Brown offers a plot summary: "SIDEWALK chronicles the lives of primarily black homeless book vendors and magazine scavengers who ply their trade along 6th Avenue between 8th Street and Washington Place in New York City. By briefly comparing those book vendors with the history of book vending along the Seine in Paris, the film speaks to the efforts of North American and European societies to rid public space of the outcasts they have had a hand in producing. The film takes us into the social world of the people subsisting on the streets of New York by focusing on their work as street side booksellers, magazine vendors, junk dealers, panhandlers, and table watchers. The sidewalk becomes a site for the unfolding of these people living on the edge of society in order to give us a deeper understanding of how these individual's are able to survive. It also becomes a site for conflicts and solidarities that encompass the vendors and local residents. We followed half dozen vendors for most of this past decade. By the end of shooting the film, their lives had taken a myriad of routes..." Like other urban ethnographic films (e.g., here), Sidewalk would be excellent to show in an urban sociology course, as well as an introductory sociology class, as it engages core sociological concerns around race, poverty, homelessness, underground economies, interactions with police, and community support networks, among others. Ethnography professors might also find the film useful—the film opens with several screens of written text, describing the film as a "set of fieldnotes." There is also discussion of the film available online. One of these discussions entails Duneier's introductory lecture on ethnographic methods, in which two sidewalk vendors visit his class. Here Duneier presents his approach to doing ethnography, particularly within the context and medium of film. The other is a panel discussion about the film with Cornel West and Kim Hopper at the American Sociological Association's annual meeting. Submitted By: Valerie Chepp Tags: capitalism, class, inequality, marx/marxism, organizations/occupations/work, political economy, social mvmts/social change/resistance, theory, astroturf organizations, false consciousness, ideology, labor, unions, 00 to 05 mins Year: 2012 Length: 0:31 Access: YouTube Summary: This commercial, which aired during half time of the 2012 Super Bowl, represents a direct attack against unions and is an excellent demonstration of the use of ideology to promote false consciousness. The supposed union workers in the ad complain about unions taking such high union dues and state that they did not vote for the union (suggesting that they don't want the union and that it does not represent their interests). The commercial's narrator explains "only 10% of people in unions today actually voted to join the union" and encourages people to support the Employee Rights Act, a bill that wouldmake it much harder for workers to join unions, and easier to de-certify existing unions. The commercial was created by the anti-union Center for Union Facts, an astroturf organization founded by DC lobbyist Richard Berman and supported by big business interests (astroturf organizations are advocacy groups promoting a political or corporate agenda but designed to make it appear like a grassroots movement). Its statistics may be accurate, but they are misleading in the sense that federal law requires that at least 50% of a company’s workforce vote in favor of the formation of a union, and that most current union members have joined unions formed years before. Furthermore, according to independent analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, laws like the Employee Rights Act hurt workers by leading to lower pensions; workers in unions actually have higher wages and health benefits because they can use their collective bargaining power to improve their working conditions (note that one of the union "actors" in the video is also played by Berman himself). This demonstrates the use of ideology, or the dominant ideas that help to perpetuate the oppressive class system. Marx argued that “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas … The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production.” In this case, we see that the advertisement (which cost about $3.5 million to air during the Super Bowl) produced by large corporate-funded organizations is meant to shape workers' perception of unions in a negative light. With greater wealth ("the means of production") and access to media ("the means of mental production"), they seek to discourage workers from joining unions in hopes of making them easier to control. When workers accept such ideas as truth, it promotes false consciousness. False consciousness occurs when a class does not have an accurate assessment of capitalism and their role within it, but instead adopts the ideology of the ruling class, and acts against their own class interests. Submitted By: Paul Dean Changes in global production effect jobs in the U.S. _Tags: economic sociology, globalization, inequality, marx/marxism, organizations/occupations/work, global value chains, jobs, mobility, outsourcing, supply chains, 00 to 05 mins Year: 2012 Length: 4:36 Access: New York Times Summary: This animated NYT video examines the shifting nature of global production and its effect on the distribution of jobs in the US economy. It begins by showing how the components of the iPhone are produced around the world (social scientists refer to this as a global value chain). As most viewers know, this means that low-skilled jobs are then outsourced and sent overseas. But as time passes, it creates a "vacuum" that pulls other higher skilled/higher pay jobs overseas. The video introduces the idea of a "job multiplier" where one job actually creates a higher number of total jobs because of related services that accompany it and tend to be physically located nearby. However, some jobs (e.g. auto manufacturing) have higher multipliers than others (e.g. hospital services). Over time, the US economy has lost jobs that demand higher skills and have higher job multipliers, and these have been replaced by jobs with lower job multipliers and lower skills (and therefore, lower incomes). Jobs at the top and bottom of the hierarchy (e.g. software engineers and service jobs) have grown, but jobs in the middle of the hierarchy (e.g. office assistants, manufacturers) have declined. The video concludes by noting that this is why our economic problems are so hard to solve, arguing that "we've become a nation with fewer chances for people to climb into the middle class." Possible discussion questions for this video are: How has the structure of the American economy changed over time? How does economic globalization alter job structures and mobility opportunities in the US? What impact does this have on economic inequality? Thank you to Michael Miller for suggesting this clip! Submitted By: Paul Dean Tags: gender, inequality, marriage/family, organizations/occupations/work, housework, subtitles/CC, 00 to 05 mins Year: 2008 Length: 0:40 Access: no online access (transcript and still shots here) Summary: This short scene from The Office (season 5, episode 9; 12:39-13:19) is an excellent illustration of Francine Deutsch's work on strategies men use to resist doing housework. Drawing upon observations and interviews with 150 dual-earner couples (for a total of 300 interviews), Deutsch outlines five strategies men deploy--either knowingly or not--to avoid equally participating in household chores; they are: (1) passive resistance, (2) incompetence, (3) praise, (4) different standards, and (5) denial. In this episode, Pam is grossed out by the filthy microwave in the office kitchen. She leaves an anonymous note, requesting people to clean up their mess. Some office colleagues interpret her note as obnoxious and elitist. Later in the day, her co-worker Ryan confides in her that he is "totally on [her] side with the whole microwave situation," yet he not-so-subtly hints that she should be the one to ultimately clean the mess. A transcript of their interaction illustrates how Ryan resists Pam's suggestion that he, the office temp, would be the most appropriate one to clean the microwave. Ryan demonstrates Deutsch's concept of incompetence, suggesting that he "would just make it worse" and he is "hopeless at that stuff." In addition to incompetence, students can be encouraged to come up with alternative responses Ryan might have said that would have illustrated other strategies Deutsch identifies men use to resist doing housework. Submitted By: Valerie Chepp Carole Morrison explains modern chicken farming practices Tags: capitalism, food/agriculture, marx/marxism, organizations/occupations/work, theory, weber, alienation, assembly line, fordism, labor process, mass production, rationalization, subtitles/CC, 00 to 05 mins Year: 2008 Length: 4:47 Access: YouTube Summary: This clip is from Food Inc., a documentary illustrating how giant food corporations have taken control over the entire food production system "from seed to supermarket." The video shows how this rationalized system leads to the alienation and impoverishment of its workers, such as Carole Morrison (a Perdue chicken farmer). It illustrates all four dimensions of Marx's concept of alienation. First, Morrison is alienated from the production process because Perdue dictates how the chickens must be raised. Perdue requires that chicken farmers enter contracts with them, which require the farmers to upgrade their farms to dark, windowless facilities in order to raise the chickens faster and make them less resistant. Working for Perdue, Morrison is also alienated from her species-being because her creativity is being stifled, meaning she cannot raise the chicken in a natural environment. She may prefer allowing the chickens to see light or she may have a different method of ventilating the room than Perdue mandates. Perdue's practices also alienate Morrison from her product. When she's done raising the chickens, Perdue comes and takes them all away. Mrs. Morrison's labor only serves to benefit Perdue and she does not get to keep or benefit from the products she raises (i.e. produces). Finally, Morrison is alienated from her fellow workers. Even though there are many different farmers contracted by Perdue, they have no connection to each other and only care about following Perdue's commands. Morrison says that farmers are afraid to speak against Perdue because they might lose their contracts. If one farmer were to lose her contract with Perdue, it would be safe to say that the other farmers would either be indifferent or might not even know. This clip also illustrates Weber's notion of rationalization in that Perdue seeks to make the production of chickens increasingly efficient, calculable, predictable, and controllable (e.g. they make chicken coups dark because it makes the chickens more docile and easier to catch). However, there are many "irrationalities of rationality," including diseases, mistreatment of animals, and abuses against workers. Finally, the video notes that many workers that come to take the chickens are undocumented workers,and Perdue knows that they "aren't going to complain" about being subjected to diseases or unfair treatment. The worker's undocumented status makes them easier to control. Note that because of Morrison's participation in the documentary, her contract with Perdue was terminated. Submitted By: Reza Rahvarian and Alex Hong Steven Johnson explains the source of good ideas Tags: community, durkheim, knowledge, organizations/occupations/work, science/technology, theory, creativity, innovation, liquid networks, sociological perspective, steven johnson, 00 to 05 mins Year: 2010 Length: 4:07 Access: YouTube Summary: What is sociology? In broad terms, sociology is the study of society. However, this answer is often unclear or unsatisfying to an incoming class of Sociology 101 students. This clip illustrates Steven Johnson's theory of where good ideas come from, and can help explicate to students what makes the sociological perspective so unique. Instructors can begin by saying that, while most anything can be studied from a sociological perspective, some sociologists have strategically selected sites of inquiry that, at first glance, appear thoroughly individualistic in nature. This strategy is an effort to illuminate how social forces shape even the most seemingly personal of phenomena. Here, instructors can point to Émile Durkheim's study of suicide as a particularly famous disciplinary example of this (which will likely be covered later in the semester). Using a similar strategy, instructors can use the example of creativity and "good ideas" to show how social forces have a profound impact on innovation, a phenomenon that, like suicide, is often characterized as a quintessentially individual act, largely informed by psychological forces. Although some people approach creativity from a psychological viewpoint (e.g., see here), the sociological perspective can be brought into focus for students by comparing such individualistic accounts to Johnson's concept of liquid networks and his use of historical evidence to show the importance of social connectivity and collaboration for innovation. Johnson stresses the need for interconnected social spaces, organizations, and systems for the cultivation of good ideas. Johnson presents a slightly elaborated version of this argument in his TEDTalk. For other clips on The Sociological Cinema that use illustration techniques to convey theoretical arguments, click here and here. I would like to thank Open Culture and Brain Pickings for suggesting these clips. Submitted By: Valerie Chepp Tags: gender, inequality, organizations/occupations/work, prejudice/discrimination, dual labor market, occupational sex segregation, sexism, sexual harassment, 00 to 05 mins Year: 2008 Length: 1:20 Access: YouTube Summary: This video is an advertisement for Mad Men, a television show about ad executives in 1960s New York. True to the time, women in the show are either housewives, or generally relegated to low-paying, low-skilled jobs. This clip satirically illustrates gender inequality in the workplace by offering three rules for success: dress for success, be attentive, and watch your figure. These pieces of advice clearly objectify women, suggesting that a woman’s place at work is to stay out of the way and serve men. Later in the video the announcer says, “because women are unable to engage with men on an intellectual level, it’s extremely important that they stay in shape to hold a man’s attention.” Again, it is the physical appearance that matters because women are not useful for any purpose other than being desired by men. The video can be used to discuss the role of power in gender discrimination and how occupational sex segregation reinforces gender inequality. Explore similar issues of gender inequality and discrimination in the workplace in another Mad Men clip or this 1980s film, and challenge students to think about how gender socialization has or has not changed using these videos. Submitted By: Abby Kaye-Phillips and Meredith Hills Tags: organizations/occupations/work, theory, weber, george ritzer, iron cage, irrationality of rationality, mcdonaldization, rationalization, subtitles/CC, 00 to 05 mins Year: 2010 Length: 1:45 Access: YouTube Summary: This is a clip from an episode of “I Love Lucy,” where Lucy and her friend Ethel are working in a candy factory and are tasked with wrapping bite-sized pieces of chocolate as they move along a conveyer belt. They begin fine, however, the belt speeds up and the candies start coming too quickly, leaving Lucy and Ethel desperate to keep up. Instructors can use this clip as a humorous way of beginning a discussion about Ritzer's turn of phrase, "the irrationality of rationality" (which is tied to Max Weber's notion of the "iron cage"). In his popular book, The McDonaldization of Society, Ritzer explains: "Most specifically, irrationality means that rational systems are unreasonable systems. By that I mean that they deny the basic humanity, the human reason, of the people who work within or are served by them." In the clip, the worker's need for the conveyer belt to move at a "human" pace is subordinate to the demands of a rationalized production process, which seeks to employ the smallest number of workers possible to wrap a lot of chocolates. Students can be encouraged to consider other examples, such as the way rationalized food preparation practices have resulted in less nutritious food. This irrational outcome from a rationalized food preparation system is contributing to large scale health problems. Submitted By: Elizabeth Majchrzak Tags: gender, organizations/occupations/work, prejudice/discrimination, comedy, dominance, dual labor market, occupational sex segregation, sexism, sexual harassment, subordination, 00 to 05 mins Year: 1980 Length: 3:25 Access: YouTube Summary: The 1980s movie 9 to 5 follows the story of three (female) secretaries who wish to pay their (male) boss back for treating them badly in the workplace. In light of cultural images of women as the weaker sex that needed to be “put in their place,” this clip shows one woman’s (Dolly Parton's) fantasies about murdering her boss, and making him suffer the way he made her suffer. She embarrasses him, degrades him, and treats him like an object just as he did to her days before. The clip shows that he is visibly uncomfortable with her advances, but that he has no choice considering he wants to keep his job. Viewers may find that the more common workplace discrimination (men discriminating against women) is offensive, but that this clip is humorous. Students may be encouraged to think about why they find this humorous, and what this seemingly humorous role reversal tells us about gender relations and gendered ideologies. It is a good way to introduce sexual discrimination in the workplace, and the role of power in such gender discrimination. Finally, given that lower-level occupations (e.g. secretaries) are more likely female-dominated occupations, while upper-level occupations (e.g. managers) are more likely male-dominated, students can further consider the role of occupational sex segregation as reinforcing gendered inequality and discrimination. Submitted By: Lia Karvounis |
Tags
All
.
Got any videos?
Are you finding useful videos for your classes? Do you have good videos you use in your own classes? Please consider submitting your videos here and helping us build our database!
|