marginalisation - ReviseSociology

The causes of Fundamentalism

Steve Bruce argues that the main causes of Fundamentalism are modernisation and secularisation, but we also need to consider the nature of the religions themselves and a range of ‘external factors’ to fully explain the growth of fundamentalist movements.

Modernisation has undermined religion in at least three ways:

Social life has become separated from religious life (linked to the process of differentiation)
Rationalisation means that people are more likely to seek scientific explanations for behaviour rather than religious explanations
Bruce argues that in certain societies ‘religious traditionalist’ feel as if their way of life is under threat, and so they take steps to defend their traditions against the erosive influence of modernisation.

However, Bruce also argues that the existence of a group of traditionalists who feel threatened is not sufficient to explain the rise of Fundamentalism, a number of other factors are also important:

Other factors which explain the rise of religious fundamentalism:

Bruce argues that the following factors make it more likely that Fundamentalism will emerge:

Where there is ‘ideological cohesion’ – around a single God and/ or sacred text for example. Fundamentalism seems to be stronger in Christianity and Islam, not so strong in Hinduism and Buddhism.

When there is a common enemy to unite against – Bruce notes that Islamic Fundamentalism is often united against the USA.
Lack of centralised control (ironically) – It might be that Catholicism has not developed fundamentalist strains because the Pope and the Vatican tightly control dissenters. However in Protestant Christianity and Islam, there is more freedom for individuals on the fringes to claim to have found a ‘more authentic’ and fundamentalist interpretation of those religions.
The existence of marginalised individuals facing oppression – Fundamentalism needs recruits, and if a Fundamentalist group emerges with claims that it can provide a better life for people if they just adhere to the faith, it is more likely to grow

Bruce further argues that the nature of Fundamentalism is shaped by how the political institutions deal with Fundamentalist movements: where they are blocked access to political representation, movements are more likely to turn to violence.

Further Analysis

Bruce argues that both the external factors above and religious beliefs themselves are important in explaining the rise of Fundamentalism.

He also points out that the specific histories of Christianity and Islam have affected the way the see politics. Christianity spent much of its early life as an obscure sect, on the political fringes, so is more concerned with ‘day to day’ (non-political) life, whereas Islam quickly came to dominate states in its early history – thus Islam is more concerned with politics than Christianity.

Bruce also argues that the nature of religion affects the way Fundamentalism is expressed – Christianity tends to emphasise the importance of belief, while Islam emphasises the importance of actions, thus Islam is more likely to develop violent forms of fundamentalism compared to Christianity.

Finally, Bruce argues that Fundamentalism has no chance of succeeding in the West, but it might in the less developed regions of the world.

Sources

Haralamabos and Holborn: Sociology Themes and Perspectives edition 8.

Radical Feminism Applied to Globalisation, Gender and Development

Radical Feminists point out that Globalisation may actually be leading to new forms of exploitation of women, and that, despite globalisation generally improving the lives of women, there are still significant areas for improvement. Two examples of this include the emergence of the global sex-industry and the persistence of violence against women despite globalisation.

Globalisation and Modern Slavery

The most obvious example of globalisation opening up new forms of female exploitation is the rise of modern slavery, and especially the global sex industry.

The International Labour Organization estimates that there are 2.5 million trafficking victims who are living in exploitive conditions and another 1.2 million people who are trafficked across and within borders. These numbers include men, women, and children who are trafficked into forced labour or sexual exploitation, and appear to be on the rise worldwide. Women account for more than 50% percent of all trafficking victims. Globalization has provided for an easier means of exploiting those living in poverty who are seeking better lives, it also has provided for dramatic improvements in transportation and communications with which to facilitate the physical processing of persons.

Women are generally lured into slavery through promises of employment as shopkeepers, maids, nannies, or waitresses in developed countries. Upon arriving, these women are then told they have been purchased by someone and must work as a prostitute to repay the enormous debt they suddenly owe. To ensure that these women do not flee, their “owners” often subject them to beatings, take their documents upon arrival, and keep them under conditions of slavery. These women then either physically cannot go to the authorities or are fearful of being deported, especially if they do not have their documents or the documents were fraudulently obtained through their trafficker.

One of the main contributing factors to this increase in trafficking has been the widespread subjugation of women. Often ethnic minorities or lower class groups are more vulnerable to trafficking, because these women and girls have a very low social status that puts them at risk. Another contributor to the increase in trafficking is political and economic crisis in conflict or post-conflict areas. The breakdown of society and the rule of law have made these displaced populations vulnerable to the lure of a better future or an exit from their current countries.

Trafficking flourishes because it is a lucrative practice, generating from 7 to 12 billion dollars a year. In addition, the highly clandestine nature of the crime of human trafficking ensures that the great majority of human trafficking cases go unreported and culprits remain at large. There are reports that many human traffickers are associated with international criminal organizations and are, therefore, highly mobile and difficult to prosecute. Further complicating matters, sometimes members of the local law enforcement agencies are involved in trafficking. Prosecution is made difficult because victims of trafficking do not testify against traffickers out of fear for their and their family members’ lives.

South-East Asia and South Asia are considered to be home to the largest number of internationally trafficked persons, with estimates of 225,000 and 150,000 victims respectively.

Future for Women is a useful source for exploring this topic in more depth.

The Continuing prevalence of Violence Against Women

Radical Feminists also point out that physical and sexual violence against women also poses a significant threat to women’s health and safety.

In 2013, the WHO sponsored the first widespread study of global data on violence against women, and found that it constitutes a ‘global health problem of epidemic proportions.’ Intimate partner violence is the most common form of violence against women, and 38 percent of all women who have been murdered were murdered by an intimate partner. Women who experience physical and/or sexual partner violence are also 1.5 times more likely to acquire a sexually-transmitted infection.

Some traditional cultural practices impose threats to the health of women, and may be more difficult to change through educational and preventative policies than unhealthy practices that are unrelated to culture, such as nutrition. The UN Human Rights Commission identifies the practices most threatening to women as:

Female circumcision, known as female genital mutilation to its opponents, which involves the excision of a woman’s external sexual organs

Other forms of mutilation, such as facial scarring
Traditional practices associated with childbirth
The problem of dowries in some parts of the world

Honour killings
The consequences of preference for male babies, such as parental neglect and infanticide of female babies.

Female genital mutilation is a special focus of many efforts to end violence against women, although the movement to view it as a violation of human rights meets some resistance to what some consider a violation of family and community sanctity. Amnesty International says,

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the cornerstone of the human rights system, asserts that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. It protects the right to security of person and the right not to be subjected to cruel inhuman or degrading treatment — rights which are of direct relevance to the practice of female genital mutilation. The traditional interpretation of these rights has generally failed to encompass forms of violence against women such as domestic violence or female genital mutilation.

To explore this topic in more depth see this page from UN women.

Modernisation Theory Applied to Gender and Development

Dependency Theory Applied to Gender and Development

Radical Feminism Applied to Gender and Development

SignPostin

Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com

Left Realist Explanations for Ethnic Differences in Crime

Left realists Lea and Young argue that marginalization, relative deprivation, and subcultures are key causes of crime, particularly for ethnic minorities who face higher levels of deprivation and marginalization. Official statistics show that black and Asian people are more likely to suffer from social exclusion and deprivation, leading to higher rates of crime involvement and victimization. This supports Left Realism, but other factors must also be considered.

Left Realists, Lea and Young argue that the three main causes of crime are marginalisation, relative deprivation and subcultures.

It could be that the higher rates of recorded crime are because ethnic minorities are more likely to be marginalised and suffer from higher rates of relative deprivation compared to white people. Possibly ethnic minorities will be more likely to form subcultures too.

There is some truth in the fact that that ethnic minorities are disadvantaged in comparison with other groups in society, and this is especially true for young black males who have much higher levels of unemployment. In comparison with their peers from other ethnic groups, they are much less likely to be successful in the labour market and so suffer lower wages and thus higher levels of relative deprivation.

Young ethnic minority males are also more likely to experience marginalisation because they are under-represented at the highest levels of society, in government, political parties and trades unions for example.

Lea and young argue it would be surprising if there were not higher crime levels among those groups which experienced higher levels of deprivation and marginalisation.

Relative Deprivation, Ethnicity and Crime

In 2018 50% of Bangladeshi and 46% of Pakistanis were in the most deprived 20% of the population, compared to only 20% of white people.

In 2020 nearly half of Black/ African/ Caribbean and Black British people were in poverty compared to just 19% of the white population

Institute of Race Relations: BME statistics on poverty and deprivation, accessed September 2024.

This recent report seems to offer broad support for Left Realism, but also suggests there are other factors which need to be taken into account in order to explain variations in patterns of offending by ethnicity…

Marginalization, ethnicity and crime

Marginalisation means living on the edges of society. It is where people are excluded from fully participating in society.

There are several ways of measuring social exclusion, including living in poor neighbourhoods, poor access to housing, and even exclusion from school.

According to Official Government Statistics on ethnicity and deprivation Black and Asian people are much more likely to suffer from social exclusion and thus marginalization.

Black people are much more likely to live in deprived neighbourhoods.

Black people are 3 times more likely to live in areas with barriers to housing and social services compared to white people. Asian people are almost twice as likely to live in such areas compared to white people.

In 2019 more than 30% of black people lived in the top 10% most deprived neighbourhoods, compared to only 8% of white people.

Black and Asian people are also more likely to live in areas with high crime rates. This means it is more likely people will be drawn into crime, and be victims of crime.

Black pupils have historically been more likely to be permanently excluded from school compared to white pupils. Back in 2008 they were two times as likely to be permanently excluded. However by 2021 exclusion rates for black and white pupils are very similar.

School Exclusions

image showing changing rates of permanent exclusions from school, comparing black and white pupils.

Historical trends may explain why there are higher rates of imprisonment for black people in their 20s and 30s today. However over time we would expect the difference to decrease, which it has done.

Evaluations of Left Realist Explanations for differences in ethnicity and crime figures

There is a broad correlation between the differences in rates of relative deprivation and marginalisation/ social exclusion for black and white people and differences in the imprisonment rates by ethnicity. However this doesn’t explain ALL of the difference.

What Left Realism cannot explain is why Asian people suffer higher rates of marginalisation and relative deprivation but are not as over-represented in the criminal justice system compared to black people who suffer similar levels of marginalisation and relative deprivation.

A further criticism is that these statistical differences don’t rule out other underlying causes. It could be that structural racism explains BOTH higher levels of relative deprivation and marginalisation and the higher imprisonment rates, for example.

Finally, it’s very difficult to analyse the role of subcultures in explaining rates of crime as there are no statistics on subcultures which are readily available.

In conclusion it seems like Left Realism can certainly explain some of the differences in official crime statistics by ethnicity, but we need to go deeper for a fuller understanding!