Mapping inequalities: Canada,China,and the United Kingdom

Few concepts in sociology carry as much ideological and emotional baggage as social inequality. For many sociologists, the concept of social inequality captures basic assumptions about the nature of society. Much rhetoric and social policy have been directed against social inequality, yet despite such efforts the unpalatable facts of poverty and exclusion still haunt many societies. Especially in the critical sociology discourse, the human condition has so far been described as a fundamentally unequal one. Thus, the task of critical research is to describe the contours and distribution of inequality (i.e., to discover the direction they will take society) and to explain its persistence despite market or neoliberal values. Moreover, some of the ideas of social and economic inequalities are deeply ingrained in public discussions. Most great social and political conflicts are about inequality. Many opinion surveys suggest that even ordinary people have explicit theories and ideologies about licit and illicit inequalities and the conditions under which they are legitimate. It is for this reason that sociological investigation, looking for both quantitative and qualitative changes, tends to pay great attention to overall welfare across several dimensions of inequality.

Daniel Dorling’s The Population of the United Kingdom offers crucial insights into a pattern of inequality in the UK. The main goal of the book is to provide an educational tool for students in universities. Dorling masterfully uses statistics, maps, and figures to create a better understanding of the intersections among identity, ideology, and inequality. In fact, he is able to paint a powerful picture of deep social cleavages between groups in British society. The book uses quantitative evidence, but it has a moral quality. As Dorling states, ‘this book is not written as an objective account, although the use of quantitative evidence can give that impression’ (p. xi). Indeed, Dorling has no difficulty in responding to the main question of Howard S Becker’s presidential address of 1966 – Whose side we are on? Dorling is a champion of the underdog.

I am always struck by Dorling’s gift for converting quantitative data into a story. The book covers key socioeconomic variables (e.g., education, health, work) that affect everyone’s lives. However, many facts are told in ways that allow us to imagine social careers. It helps us achieve a better understanding of the system of stratification with its ‘reward packages’ of unequal value. Sophisticated techniques of social mapping are employed to illustrate the distribution of a given variable to show the spatial allocation of inequality to those who experience it most. It creates a powerful narrative of the geographies of inequality.

All known societies have been characterized by inequalities of some kind, with a privileged few enjoying a disproportionate share of wealth, power, or prestige. One of the book’s chapters is simply titled ‘Inequality.’ Although this particular chapter may suggest a characterization of the overall level of inequality with some parameters (e.g., income, poverty and wealth), it is not meant to convey the idea of homogeneous groupings across several dimensions of inequality. Nor does this chapter provide any theory of how inequality is obtained. In fact, Dorling tries to attract the reader’s attention to a way of reporting information about inequality and affluence. He points out that ‘the inequalities of modern life in Britain can lead to many people thinking there is no point in fighting back that much, that the poor will be always with us, in large numbers, and that the rich will always be so rich’ (p. 93). This is partly the case because the current patterns of inequalities are similar to patterns noted several hundred years ago. As Dorling concludes, ‘these patterns are long established’ (p. 86). It is no wonder that poverty seems to be a sad but simple fact of human existence for many observers. Demonstrating the contrary, Dorling provides a map of stigmatized spots situated at the very bottom of the hierarchical system of places that make up the broader picture of the poverty in the UK. It is in these stigmatized territories draped in a faint aura, where social problems gather and fester, that the children of poorer people reside for generations. According to Dorling, ‘poverty begets poverty and, it can be argued is, in aggregate over time, largely a product of the greed of the affluent’ (p. 99). His bitter accusation of the affluent stresses the structural weight and effects of territorial stigmatization and the insurmountable political dilemmas posed by the material dispersion and spatial splintering of the poor. Perception contributes powerfully to fabricating reality, but Dorling has no doubt that social inequality is mostly generated by social structures.

Social inequalities do not spring from differences between individuals in terms of physical appearance, ability, or intelligence, although all these have been used at various times in many societies to justify or rationalize social inequality. Nonetheless, social inequality has come to be identified with selected identities. As Dorling writes, the labeling of people and places can both illuminate and stereotype. In his words, ‘as long as we realize the damage they can do, the arbitrariness of their imposition and their intangibility and ephemerality, then we should use them. We have little choice’ (p. 66). Labels such as ‘social class,’ ‘gender,’ and ‘minority ethnic group’ have all brought important advances in knowledge and in the capacity of institutions to fulfill their public missions. Yet, they have also brought ambiguity about just what these labels mean. They are never precise enough and too often they mask deeper divisions of the population. Moreover, resentful feeling are usually attached to a label, whereas the goal of reducing structured inequalities in the wider society and economy goes unaddressed.

Social inequality is always seen as subject to contestation and reexamination. Most recently, the US public discourse on issues of income and social inequality has been dominated by a parody of ‘one-percenters’ (the essence of this parody is caught by two popular entertainers, Letterman and McCall in their best-selling book This Land is for You and Me [But Mostly Me]). The Population of the United Kingdom provides strong empirical evidence that the social landscape of the UK has drifted into rich enclaves and desert wastelands of poverty. Dorling’s final warning is that ‘where the British behave worse is, perhaps, in tolerating levels of inequality far higher than are found acceptable in almost all other affluent nations’ (p. 188). Surely we all learn the lesson that social inequality is so unfair, and initially ride the bandwagon of political correctness and identity politics. Nonetheless, social and economic inequalities are rapidly rising almost everywhere around the world. The picture that emerges from social research shows there is little mobility out of the lowest rung of the social ladder. Dorling’s The Population of the United Kingdom scores a bull’s-eye in its examination of the problem. Thus, this very readable book is recommended to all students and anyone who works in the field of social inequality.

Nowhere are the language, assumptions, and passions for inequality more entrenched than in racial and ethnic relations, and nowhere is the fear that attends the prospect of a multiethnic society more apparent. Therefore, the relationship between ethnicity and social mobility is under systematic investigation in many countries, and the patterns of considerable inequality have been vividly described. Yet many societies in human history have embraced inequality as the foundation of their social organization. It does not mean that the validity of equality is entirely denied by them; instead, they created standards that were supposed to be neutral but effectively prevented ethnic or social groups from exercising their rights. Nevertheless, those standards were used to argue that even where inherent inequalities existed, equality must play a role, even if that role is almost wholly theoretical. At some level, there is a strong belief that equality is one of the core values of public life. The notion that it is hypothetically possible for everyone to be equal in public life is considered a practical part of a working mythology. Good myths turn on simple pairs – majority and minority – and depend on balance between them.

The central aspects of majority–minority relations we are most familiar with concerns the ability or claimed right of the majority to rule. According to the widely held view, the majority can use its position to exploit and disadvantage minorities. As examples, many racial and ethnic minorities have shared a long history of being prevented from entering certain residential, occupational, and educational areas of the majority’s privileged life. For this reason, every society that has some kind of majority rule must be careful that the power of the majority is not used to subjugate minorities. Still, minorities are doomed to their fate at the hands of the majority. There is, however, a substantial difference among possible forms of discrimination. The difference is the coercive power of the state. The state has the power to legitimize the system of laws with which minorities are forced to comply. In many cases, if ethnic and racial violence is not condoned by law, it is regarded as a matter of individual preferences. However, such individual preferences can commonly refer to the majority’s cultural standards, which by their existence inconvenience some minorities. By the same token, the expression of minority cultural preferences can sometimes exclude the majority. Attempts to use this simple pair of binary oppositions – majority/minority – are therefore highly emotional and, as a result, make it difficult to discuss the subject dispassionately. Moreover, in some instances, language makes it difficult to anticipate new social trends. The reason is that analytical perspective is lost in broad categories of ethnicity. The terms ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ conjure up images of ethnic/racial inequalities, but they seem to say nothing about the major intersections of such inequalities.

One may say that nothing offends someone’s sense of justice more than the unequal treatment of equals. This principle of equality allows many people to believe that they live in a reasonably fair society that bears some relationship to its founding ideals, such as ‘all men are created equal.’ Even a highly diluted sense of equality flourishes under different political and social conditions. Many people can accept many kinds of inequalities as long as they can imagine different outcomes such as when there are no obvious external barriers preventing a minority member from attending a university. Everyone has the hypothetical equality of occupational opportunities. However, the relationship between the educational and occupational levels of majority/minority members is usually seen as a litmus test for the majority’s rule.

Reza Hasmath’s A Comparative Study of Minority Development in China and Canada focuses on urban ethnic differences and ethnic development in two cities – Beijing and Toronto. The author argues that the management of ethic differences in both cities could be seen as models for other urban centers in Canada and China. Nonetheless, I find the title of the book to be a bit misleading in that it suggests that the book covers all aspects of minority development issues in the two countries. Canadian friends of mine (they are not Quebecois) would say that (although Toronto is certainly an ethnically and racially diverse city), it is not the hub of the minority universe in Canada. The idea of comparing ethnic minority development in Beijing and Toronto, however, is stimulating.

Canada is promoted internationally as a prominent leader of multiculturalism. Canadian ethnic and racial minorities are imagined as groups that need to be integrated and transformed into full citizens to balance diversity with a formal equality of membership. On the other hand, in spite of Chinese tradition and the country’s experiences with ethnic minority groups, China is generally seen through the lens of the dominant discourse of the Communist Party, which principally focuses on class struggle. Thus, it is no surprise that the subject of ethnic minorities has been neglected. In Western societies, the (false) image of Chinese ethnic uniformity is usually taken for granted (with the one exception of the Tibetans). Hasmath’s book will play a critical role in changing the perception of China. His efforts will also advance the field of ethnic studies. Although the book offers fascinating insights into minority life in Beijing and Toronto, the comparative perspective given by the author seems sometimes to be on shaky ground. In trying to compare the minority situation in the cities, Hasmath hits a set of methodological problems (e.g., definitions of ethnic boundaries in both cities, control of background conditions, comparison of official statistics sources). At least he argues that ethnic minorities are at a disadvantage when it comes to ascending the social structure in both cities. However, one might ask: What are the prevailing obstacles for ethnic minorities in Beijing and Toronto?

Because of the author’s interest in the notion of an ‘ethnic penalty,’ a core issue in the book is the degree to which the position of an ethnic minority determines educational, occupational, and economic opportunities in Beijing and Toronto. Hasmath defines the ‘ethnic penalty as the disadvantages ethnic minorities experience in the labor market compared to the dominant group of the same human capital’ (p. 4). In addition, he argues that at the municipal level education and occupation remain powerful indicators of the degree of ethnic minority development. The quantitative part of his investigation relates educational levels to occupational and income outcomes, whereas his field research offers further explanations for his statistical findings. The author wants to provide a more comprehensive picture of ethnic urban development. The qualitative analysis, based on interviews and observations, is the brightest site of the book. Hasmath is able to collect many interesting narratives about ethnic minority status in both cities. On the other hand, his statistical analysis appears to underscore the importance of using detailed quantitative data in such research, showing that patterns differ for males and females, citizenship status, and language fluency.

Indeed, there is a lack of available published data on Beijing. Moreover, recent scholarship on stratification in China has focused largely on emerging social classes. By comparison, there has been little research on ethnic minorities. Hasmath, therefore, sets foot on virgin soil. In the Canadian case, however, there is considerable debate about the extent of upward social mobility in Canadian society. The multicultural nature of Canada has meant that ethnicity would have some influence upon social mobility. John Porter’s ghost no longer haunts sociological debates on ethnic stratification in Canada (his influential book the Vertical Mosaic [1965] had dominated such debates for years). There is a large body of academic literature on ethnicity and social mobility in Canada, and ethnic inequality in Canada tends to be well documented. Moreover, there is constant pressure in Canada to adopt affirmative action policies – ones that require or encourage the employment of members of ethnic minorities. The mechanisms to deal with ethnic or racial inequalities have taken many forms and required valuable information to be gathered. Thus, there is easy access to nationwide statistical data and previous research, and a more sophisticated quantitative analysis of ethnic minority development in Toronto would have been helpful. Hasmath is not able to assess the impact of social, legal, and gender intersections. Within each ethnic group, there are mobility traps, located within the educational and occupational structure, that limit upward mobility. For instance, ethnicity is a strong predictor of ethnic women’s social standing.

The author’s definitions of ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ do not help either. He defines the dominant population in Beijing as Han Chinese and the dominant population in Toronto as people of European ancestry (p. 3). In the Canadian case, such a definition of the dominant population is based on a visible/nonvisible dimension. Although it is crucial to understand that some ethnic groups are more easily recognized than others and therefore discrimination based on racial visibility must be considered an important factor influencing the placement of particular ethnic groups, it must also be understood that broad categories based on apparent physical differences among members of a society can also result in cognitive biases. In many instances, members of visible minorities belong to different ethnic groups. Once again, within each ethnic group, there may be different cultural and institutional barriers that need to be overcome. In addition to the dominant European ancestries, it is worth noting that the dominant European groups have had varying rates of success in adapting to Canada’s social structure. Strictly speaking, I am not convinced that all groups of European origin are successful enough in rising in the structure to be labeled an elite, and therefore should be the subject of considerable debate. Moreover, although some social trends can be observed in aggregate at the national level, ethnic differences appear to be stronger at the regional level. These differences remain unchanged even when education, official language fluency, and gender are considered.

Furthermore, whatever measure of ethnic differences is used, some crucial questions remain. Which social differences are important indicators of educational and occupational chances in the two cities? Is ethnicity more important than race? Is ethnicity or race more important than social class? US-oriented sociology has traditionally paid considerable attention to ethnicity/race as a key factor in shaping social inequalities. The limits of such thinking are shown in fascinating studies conducted by Annette Lareau (2003, 2011). She picked black and white children from various social settings. Lareau found that there were two parenting philosophies, which were divided along class rather than racial lines. Those parenting philosophies had a tremendous impact on children’s attitudes and skills and created either enormous social advantages or disadvantages. In contrast, despite the Chinese discourse on social equality, a large body of literature focuses on class differences, especially on the emerging Chinese middle class. A few works, such as The Corpse Walker: Real Life Stories, China from the Bottom Up (2009) by Liao Yiwu, give a voice to Chinese people of the lowest socioeconomic strata. While Jean-Louis Rocca, for instance, in his Une sociologie de la Chine (2010) shows the mechanisms of symbolic reproduction of Chinese elites. In fact, the Chinese state consists of a complex set of institutions and cultural practices that function to maintain a vertical class society. There is also another factor that is worth taking into consideration: the one-child policy. The Chinese gambled that they would have fewer children and eventually they would become sufficiently well off enough not to be dependent on a number of children in old age and would climb among the ranks of developed countries. The costs of raising a child in China are high. By limiting urban families to one child, the role of parental investment in education increases. However, there are a limited number of white-collar jobs that college graduates can find because of the labor-intensive Chinese model. The scarcity of occupational opportunities produces a high level of uncertainty, which can be reduced by social network mechanisms. Ethnic minorities are allowed multiple children. As proponents of the policy had contended, policing family planning helped the Han Chinese dramatically raise living standards. The one-child policy, therefore, created a mindset that motivated many urban middle-class families to be involved actively in their child’s educational and occupational success: from early childhood classes to tutoring to get their toddler into a good school. Unfortunately, Hasmath’s quantitative analyses pay scant attention to class issues and the importance of social standards in determining social mobility. One might ask: Are there factors other than majority/minority status – such as the one-child policy in China – that could explain social standing, especially in terms of how the number of children affects parental investment strategies?

The author appears to think of education in terms of the rational-choice logic that is central to human capital theory. The concept of human capital is narrowly applied to individual and societal investments in education, which yields economic returns for those individuals and groups. Although the concept of human capital can be useful up to a point, it raises questions of integration in the workplace, underemployment, and the effect of credential attainment. Moreover, the logics of efficiency, which are fundamental to human capital theory, do not necessarily describe the general university education. Some education is clearly not the result of rational calculation. Nor is education primarily intended to develop vocational skills. At least, in the Canadian case, the focus is on the promotion of the education of citizens, who will constitute an intelligent electorate. Besides, the concept of human capital works well in explaining outcomes for applied degrees, which are focused on the concrete skills sought by employers. Such vocational and professional programs are far more expensive and exclusive than liberal arts programs. It is pity that drawing on Hasmath’s statistics we do not find any information on academic streams. Instead, there is the vague suggestion that university graduates will have a lower unemployment rate and higher salaries than the overall population. Young people are confronting a world in which they cannot make the kind of economic strides that their parents did. For many ethnic youths, it is even more difficult, because their families may not have the social and cultural capital to deal with this harsh situation.

However, Hasmath recognizes the significance of social networks in his field research. The network theory of labor allocation is strongly supported in the interviews. Contrary to human capital theory, which would claim that either discrimination or nepotism is unprofitable because it robs the employer of the best possible person for the job, strong social connections play a major role in the job search and hiring process. Narratives link interviewees to relatives and intimate friends whose socioeconomic niche is like their own. Of course, the network concept of labor allocation is not enough to justify or rationalize social inequalities. Narratives suggest that some employers use racist criteria when hiring employees. To the extent that employers do this, it is possible that they are evaluating the ability of an individual to fit into a working culture. As Hasmath notes, the working culture of an organization ‘includes the patterns of informal social behavior such as communication, decision making and interpersonal relationships, which is often dictated by [the] dominating group’s values, assumptions and norms’ (p. 129). Thus, language fluency, graduation from a university in the city, and citizenship usually create cultural lenses through which an ethnic minority member is seen. The more homogeneous a culture is, the more significant the cultural boundaries. The author observes that in many cases, ‘the working culture is partially shaped by an ethnic dimension rooted in “the potential friend” principle’ (p. 130). In practice, perhaps this is even more critical – the sense of in-group belonging in which people have been taught to behave in friendly ways that are acceptable to their society. There is a key assumption that if they connect with me, they can connect with our customers and other co-workers. Moreover, Hasmath concludes that ‘dominant and ethnic minority groups often perceive the same working environment differently’ (p. 131). Such cognitive biases would also differ among age cohorts, social classes, and gender.

Given these disadvantages, an ethnic minority group can be in an unenviable position with regard to many aspects of social recognition. By the same token, the expression of an ethnic minority employer’s working culture preferences may exclude people other than his or her ethnic compatriots. As Hasmath shows, ethnic entrepreneurs share a desire to maintain a working culture by rejecting the majority. This is particularly true of ethnic groups that typically have a strict internal cultural hierarchy, which causes employers to discriminate new from long-standing employees. The presence of cultural standards usually creates an invisible barrier for those who do not meet the standards of cultural fitness to hold a job position. Although employers seem to understand that discrimination has a price, they also have a strong sense of belonging to one working culture. The circumstances of everyday life routinely support this belief. As one ethnic entrepreneur in Toronto explains, ‘the [working] culture here is a result of knowing each other . . . our expectations at work are mostly similar, creating less confusion and more focus on accomplishing our objectivities’ (p. 130).

Nevertheless, virtually all interviewers believe that equality of opportunity is one of the core values of life in Beijing or Toronto, and that its premises extend to everyone. Even the first generation of immigrants in Toronto, who have conflicting emotions about equality of opportunity, firmly believe that their children will fulfill the dreams of their parents for a more prosperous life. Therefore, immigrant parents try to invest in the education of their children to offer them the opportunity of equal chances. This attitude is echoed in many interviews. In the Chinese case, some interviewers link its economic success to the transformative potential of the new socioeconomic order in China, even though they mention the negative effects of social connectedness. Hasmath concludes that equity and access for all have been successfully achieved in both cities when examining educational attainments. However, there is no equity in the labor market (p. 141).

As noted above, the human capital scheme, however, does not seem to be fully appropriate for precise measurement of occupational differences. Moreover, the use of a simple classification masks some ethnic group differences within broad categories of majority/minority status in the attainment of more precisely defined occupations by different ethnic groups. In sum, it can be difficult to estimate the extent to which inequality in occupations is a function of ethnicity. At least this can bring us to the obvious conclusion that minorities in both cities seem doomed to shabby treatment at the hands of the majority. The author is able to collect a set of micro-sociological mechanisms that epitomize the form of bonding social capital in the labor market. In many ways, it does not rely on tightly homogeneous ‘either/or’ majority/minority categories into which social networks can be divided, but on social dimensions along which one can see different forms of social capital. Thus, his field research presents a somewhat different view of the social factors that trigger ethnic inequalities, and shows alternatives to his claims about human capital. Nevertheless, his study serves the important purpose of managing urban ethnic differences to denote certain tendencies, thereby facilitating further research.