Gentrification

    Max Weber explains in his work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism the mutual impact of the economic order of capitalism and the religious order of Protestantism, mentioning Calvinism in particular. He explains in his study that within a society different ways of thinking in different areas do not stand alone, but have influence in each others' development; in this particular case Weber is examining the history of industrialization, and the way religious beliefs facilitated the forming of a capitalistic economic system in the Western world that -at the time- had adopted Calvinist values and ideas throughout its social structure. In this context, he insists that processes like the arising of conflicts or the determining of symbols in a society are interwoven steps that do not stand alone, but are interdependent.

    The key concept of max Weber's theory is the idea of 'rationality', by which he defines a top down organized structure that regulates discipline and limits social behavior, similar to an imposed norm. The 'rationalism' in his work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is the Protestant belief system, of which he names the Calvinist model as the one that created the most favorable predispositions for the development of a capitalist system. Calvinism was characterized by a strict form of asceticism, coined by the denial of pleasures and luxury, promoting simple living and the glorification of God through good conduct. Calvinists believed that individuals were predetermined in their fate concerning the afterlife, and relied on being part of the people chosen to enter paradise, if they were able to achieve wealth; this was considered a gift, blessing and affirmation of their goodness and righteousness in this life. They believed that wealth and the ability to produce profit was a virtuous gift, granted to them to live a life for the purpose of demonstrating of the glory of God, to display the fact that -if able to achieve a materially profitable life - they belonged to the people chosen by God for paradise. Their ideal was that of a person that would not depend on others and live as a self-made man. As the ongoing generating of profit became a morally positive value, it became moral to use benefits for further profitable investments, rather than investing in the development and equality of society. It was ethically more appropriate to gain more money or to keep it for further use than to spend on common welfare, as the money making person was believed to be the one likely to go to heaven, while a laborer was already most likely predetermined to go to hell, because he was lacking the sign of the chosen, the ability to generate profit.

    However, a person cannot accumulate wealth without a society as a support system that serves as a value-creating body, be it through its interactions of trade, as a workforce, and as a power of inventions and innovations. This fact strongly questions the social justice of this system, where the generation of wealth cannot be accomplished without a functioning society, while those who most profit from this functionality are tying up the monetary flow in an eternal cycle of re-investment without much consideration for the state of the rest of the society and their living conditions. Without giving back to the community, their only goal is to generate ongoing profit. Ultimately, this kind of behavior leads to an increasing separation into groups and classes, rising social disintegration and reduced sense of social responsibility.


    Max Weber explains that in its beginnings capitalism adopted the part of Calvinism that was most profitable and morally enabling, and later purified these beliefs into an economic principle, leading to the industrial revolution and later to its widely use in today's world. Its moral foundation makes it ethically acceptable to chose the more profitable option over the more socially just option; for example it grants the justification of choosing a workforce that, because of their special life conditions and situation cannot ask for a regular pay, rather choosing to capitalize on their condition instead of creating a sustainable set of workers with the expense of a regular salary. These attitudes and their acceptance lead to completely free market capitalism, where the self-made man capitalizes on the expense of the society that is robbed of all chances of equal opportunities and the redistribution of wealth. While the aspect of equal opportunities could be discussed under the perspective that people are differently gifted and meant through their predetermination to fill different roles in society -by their will or by their overall capacity- the redistribution of wealth is a factor that is substantially pivotal for the development and maintenance of a functional and healthy social structure. If money is prevented from circulating within all levels of society, the inequalities in the distribution of wealth will ultimately lead to a growing gap between rich and poor, and split the society over time and over the perceived inequalities in a way that might reach a point beyond repair. The more one unit of a society accumulates in wealth, the more financial means turn out of reach for the less fortunate, especially in a system where money also has a prize in form of interest payments.

    While Marx was a historical materialist, who believed that the ultimate power in a society went back to the owners of the means of production, and that change could only occur through a redistribution of these means, Max Weber considered ideas as a source of change; change which is then employed through institutions and structures originating from these ideas. Max Weber combines different perspectives in his analysis and does not limit himself to conflict theory or structural functionalism only.


Culture, Race, Ethnicity, Heritage

    When looking at diversity from a sociological point of view, one considers culture, ethnicity, heritage and race. Culture is in the widest sense what we are trying to identify about people, for example the main ideas people are centered around. Cultures can be dominant or exist in a sub-cultural form. A main culture is often hegemonic by nature, while sub-cultures are always defined in relation to the dominant culture. The main culture creates the strategic framework of the culture, while tactics are used by individuals or groups to circumvent these strategies or raise alternative ways of action to the determined ones. Subcultures have a certain power in their interaction of cultures, and can sometimes partially or entirely replace the main culture over time. Ethnicity is linked to culturally and geographically determined attitudes relevant to a certain time and place, while heritage refers to the history of an ethnic culture and the over time resulting rites, customs and habits. Race is based on physiological characteristics only and therefore a rather doubtful factor of consideration. What makes it problematic is that often within a race the differentiation spectrum among the individuals surpasses the one between the identified races; 'race' is therefore more of a social fiction used to point to 'the other' as the 'different one' and often related to stigma. This is especially true considering the American history of slavery and the continuation of inequalities that after the freeing of the slaves continued to exist and continued to discriminate against people of color until today. An African-American still cannot buy car insurance or a home for the same prize a white Caucasian is able to, and if he answers to credit card offers and gets accepted, his interest payments will most likely be several points higher than the one of his white counterpart. He will until today most likely live in a neighborhood of his color, often related to low income or lower social class and his children -just like him- are less likely to get a higher education than the white family's kids several blocks away, whose home equity is surprisingly higher than the one in the black neighborhood. One of the most obvious inequalities in the US is certainly on the housing market related to the value of land and housing in black neighborhoods. But there is another factor that comes into play that is generally less known to the public. Traditionally, African-American neighborhoods are often run down neighborhoods that somehow over time got established in the outmoded formerly white neighborhoods. Over time those old and rundown buildings turn into so called 'historical' buildings because of certain specifications in style and decor. This is usually recognized and marketed by a group of people interested into turning these cheap paces into an upscale, hip neighborhood, benefiting from the fast developing home values, once the speculation has succeeded. Basically, the African-American community is cheated once more out of the profit of this business that is all about their homes, because they will be the ones selling cheap to an investor, who then will put some restoration work into the old building, wait for the prizes in the area to increase due to other investors efforts, and make a good profit through the turnover rate of the properties he succeeded to purchase. This process of gentrification leaves the African-Americans often in a worse economical state than before the sale of their properties, for the sell-out disfranchises and dissipates their communities, and almost always creates or feeds impoverished neighborhood elsewhere, again in isolation from the rest of the society.

    Even though slavery and discrimination have been abolished years ago by the American government, the economic realities for the African-American society have are far from having achieved equality. The cultural and economic practices continue to maintain a general culture of inequality with education as the only 'way out', which is often only partially and incompletely substituting for other social injustices. In this context, I was comparing the approach of the American society in their efforts to abolish these inequalities with the practices that happened about 1500 years ago in my own culture. At the advent of Islam, there was a prevalent habit of having slaves in the Arabian Peninsula, mainly as prisoners of war. In order to abolish this inhumane condition, Islam did not right away forbid having slaves, but first changed the social status and ethical perception of slaves through requiring that they are treated like members of the family, giving them the right to eat the same food and wear the same cloth, which their owners had to provide for them, as well as clearly declearing that any kind of abuse, from abusive language to exploitation trough hard labor or physical punishment were forbidden practices. Through this treatment, they were elevated to a status of brothers in faith and humanity in the eyes of the society. In the next step, in an effort to avoid an outbreak of mass poverty, Islam encouraged the gradual freeing of slaves at every possible occasion, until over the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad this practice had disappeared from the Arabian Peninsula, and the former slaves were not recognizable as such within the society. Thinking about the history of the slaves and the way they gained their freedom in the US, paints a largely different picture and might be at the source of many of their problems today. They never went through an active and unified effort of humanization to demonstrate to society that they are equal in human value, and it was never clearly determined that it is morally wrong to exploit them economically even after they received their freedom.  There was never a social effort to morally bring the two groups to par, and if there were attempts to do so, it was soon undermined by the fact that the cutting loose of a mass of slaves at one point of time created many economic problems that lead the African-American communities to occupy the lower ranks of society, while their white counterparts continued to prosper from the assets of their heritage and economical power.

    The Slaughterhouse essay is a plausible example how segregation by race can work in favor of a ruling class.: The segregation by race into different groups of workforce, linked to different pay and different work task, is creating an antagonism between the groups. This pattern of segregation serves the interest of the management in delivering a predictable labor force, with a high turnover, but always cheap, as it involves an endless stream of available immigrant labor forces. These immigrants are limited to these kinds of jobs because they lack other opportunities, and are therefore accepting willingly the bad working conditions and the subpar pay. Unions, formerly responsible for enforcing regulations and minimum pay for the laborers are pushed out of the factories, leaving these immigrants and other workers in a state of slavery, at the mercy of ruthless profiteers. The antagonism between the groups, created by this kind of working environments, are ultimately hurting the different groups of workers, but are favorable conditions for the management, as the resulting solidarity within the group in the 'us-against them' atmosphere makes for a more productive and conforming work force.

    Instant Karma deals with the question what right do people have to appropriate other cultures' artifacts, symbols or rites as superficially used fashion signs without engaging into the holistic approach towards a culture. It poses the question on what should be considered sacred and who is in charge to decide about the sacredness of symbols and customs. In a sociological approach it is important to consider the context in which these questions are asked.  By transferring a culture and its symbols into other places and times, the approach of constant contestation of culture has to be applied. This becomes even more important if the cultural symbols are assessed in a hybrid group like a second generation immigration youth, which in their lifetime has been exposed to two cultures and their values, each individual possibly on a different level and in a different context. Consequently, sociology busies itself with the effects of these behaviors and is less interested in the morality or ethical correctness of behaviors. In the context of this article, the focus was on how the different groups perceive each other before and after being exposed to the cultural symbols, rites and customs of one of the groups involved in the study.