1. The Development of Social

1. The development of social class structure in Canada is not full of middle class values, but rather is a society of inequality, largely because of ethnicity. The historical origins of this, according to John Porter, are in the hierarchy of the "two original colonizing partners.. holding special status." This exists today as with the English dominating, but social mobility is possible. This does not mean there is not social class within Canada, and understanding that social class is important for the better sociological understanding of Canada.

There is evidence that social inequality within class structure existed before colonization within the Native cultures. There were pre- capitalists social divisions of labor, such as groups of slaves within this hunting and trapping society with tribal and family social classes This followed by the arrival of English and French capitalists who encouraged the Canadian economy towards merchant capitalism. Canada developed socially away from the feudal aspects of Europe. This became a society of simple commodity production in which the merchant class became dominant.

Following the merchant classes were finance capitalists with links to European banks, and with importing being important, merchants became a powerful class. In the 19th and 20th centuries multinational corporations emerged creating a new class, the comprador capitalists. This has led to a great deal of wealth being concentrated in an elite few. The classes that have suffered are the elderly, the woman, those in the outlying provinces, and most significantly the ethnic minorities. For example women were excluded from male-dominated labour organizations and ethnic minorities suffer in labour jobs.

The development of social classes had led to a large poor class in Canada and concentration of the wealth in a few hands. Furthermore, Canada has had a history of internal problems that have led to its weaker economic position, which has relied on extracting resources for metropolitan markets. The end result has been that Canada is now economically reliant on the United States which has not improved the relationships between social classes.

While unionism has flourished in Canada through a long lasting labour movement, the working class needs to defend against new challenges from globalization. This has lead often to the "vilifying" of ethnic minorities, who have faced class segregation between labour and capital that has weakened, yet there still are attitudes against the equality of ethnic groups. Legislation has in the past also contributed to this attitude against ethnic minorities. Today in Canada most people participate in the economy in wage labour.

These workers are subject to great ethnic stratification as Anglo-Saxons control the corporate world as different ethnicities are imported to work without high rates of upward mobility. Other views suggest that inequality exists within all groups in Canada creating a diverse range of social classes. Regardless, it is important to note that social class has affected all aspects of Canadian life.

Canada's sociological development of class is rooted in its origins, which were not egalitarian, and thus Canada has developed with cleavages that are based on class, whether it be race, gender, or age. While recent developments have improved the conditions for the discriminated classes, it has not been smooth for Canada.

To understand Canada sociologically one must therefore look at the roots of its problems and sociological development as a place with lots of land, native cultures, imported labour, gender exclusion, English and French mercantilism, and as of late, a large poor class with the great wealth in the hands of a select few. Canada is therefore, and has not historically been a egalitarian society and understanding this is critical to understanding Canada's sociology. 2.

There are two arguments to explain racism within Canada, one being the political economic explanation and the other socio-psychological. The class explanation suggests that cultural differences are not causes of racism, but competition over economic resources leads to ethnic discrimination. Cultural beliefs maintain that there is cultural conflict inherent that causes racism. Within three ethnic groups, these explanations can be seen. The Indian influx into Canada began in the early 20th century as Indians suffered low wages in their homeland and their was a demand for labour in Canada.

Thus the Indo-Canadians migrated to Canada to fill labour needs and thus were pigeon-holed into a political and social position that would not promote social advancement and thus promote racism. This lends itself towards a class explanation, however the Indians suffered immediately upon arrival with disenfranchisement and unfair taxes with hints at a cultural explanation. However Indo-Canadians were also excluded from economic endeavors, meaning a class explanation.

Yet the Indian immigration was curtailed despite the need for labor by extensive taxing which indicates a racist culture attitude which is also indicated by the classification of all Indians as Hindus. Chinese in Canada have also faced racism, from the early days when they were permitted to vote and taxed because of their race. Anti-Chinese societies were established which suggest a cultural source of racism. However labour unions were fearful of Chinese labourers 1875 which led to further racism and action against the Chinese, which is class related.

For example there were societies trying to protect Canadian jobs and tax Chinese working in Victoria. Even Chinese who were Canadian were disenfranchised, meaning that perhaps the racism was based on cultural explanations that the individual is responsible for racism. In recent years, immigration officers have been allowed to exclude poorer immigrants from third world countries like China which suggests that the roots of the racism are class related. The First-Nation people in Canada also suffered racism, although not initially as Natives were important as English military allies, for instance.

Natives, however, were soon restricted under the Crown Lands Protection Act, and when gold was discovered in 1850, Native people were reduced to labourers. This shift in status suggests class relations were the cause for racism. However, Natives were given opportunities if they left their tribes by the Act for the Gradual Civilization of the Indian Tribes, which leads the racism to be cultural as they were excluded based on their tribalism, but allowed to enter Canadian society and receive land and money.

Natives were also given opportunities to become enfranchised through marriage, meaning the cultural barrier could come down. The racism faced by these groups cannot be explained solely by cultural reasons, as there were clearly economic motives for the racist treatment by the Canadian people and Canadian government. That is not to say that cultural reasons for racism did not exist, but rather that "opportunities are rarely denied on the basis of their ethnicity." Economic motives played a large role in racism.

However, it can be argued that independent of political economic motives, racism did exist and these groups did and would be excluded if they did not pose any threat to Anglo- Canadians. The ultimate explanation must certainly be a blend between the two explanations as cultural differences cannot be the only explanation, yet neither can class motivations. As a social class, these groups were excluded, yet even when posing no threat as a class, they still faced racist policies.

Even Native people were given money to leave their tribes, which is a racist act, but not one motivated solely from the class perspective. 3. In Canada, labour is separated by gender. Women have less opportunity and predetermined jobs within society. They also have lower income as women are employed in predominantly four occupational categories. Family values have helped to enforce this economic exploitation of women, which has not improved and possibly even worsened.

The family values have influenced the economic exploitation of women since World War II, when women returned to the home and traditional places of occupation when the men returned from war. In recent years, as women have become increasingly employed, there have been attempts to sub-contract women to work in their home which will reduce their wages and benefits.

While conditions may or may not improve, the family hinders women's economic participation, as women earn "on average 72% of men's wages." The rate of participation of married women in the work force has risen historical, but in order to do so women had to overcome ideologies of repression and patriarchy. In all aspects of life, women were considered the weaker sex and this has contributed to the workforce. The roots of this belief are in the family, as women are supposed to rear their children once they are born.

Patriarchy, which means male-dominate because of "the logic of biological reproduction and the patriarchal relations within the family" has forced women to have to break from the family notions to make any progress in the economic job market. This family ideology has had an effect on women in all aspects of economic exploitation. Not only are they paid less, but they have fewer job opportunities and work less than men.

When it comes to welfare, women need to receive services which the government has cut and women will suffer in having to "perform traditional government work at reduced rate". Free trade also has contributed to the economic exploitation of women, as the textile industry for example, which is predominantly women has seen jobs lost and wages cut. Women are often forced to be teachers or work in day- care centres, but not on equal footing with men.

Women are victims as are ethnic minorities, and they are forced into hourly jobs with low salaries, high unemployment, and little unionization or official organization. Furthermore, women are dependent on household duties, and through mechanical technological improvements in household work, women have been able to work more. This means that women are in fact tied to the family, and that the family dictates that women's economic needs are of secondary concern.

As the household labourer, traditional duties are a priority, and this notion of women contributing to the workforce as secondary to household duties has contributed to women being treated as secondary within the workforce. Women are integral economic parts of the Canadian workforce, as families depend on two incomes. However, the family that women work to support has led to economic exploitation.

Women's value has not translated into economic improvement, and although more women have entered the workforce, they are entering in the same occupation fields without as much opportunity as men. They are paid less, given fewer benefits all because they are seen as the child bearers and child raisers and not as equal partners in the economic job market. Women are looked down upon as secondary in the home to men, as economic exploitation of women has been reinforced by the family ideology.

These conditions, known as "for the sake of the family," mean that women are first family members before becoming contributors to the workforce. This ideology has carried over to contribute to the economic exploitation of all women. 4. Social change is the transformation of cultural and social institutions overtime and has taken place in Canada over the past hundreds of years. From a society of Native people, to a modern nation, Canada has undergone incredible social change touching on all aspects on Canadian life.

This change has become known as modernization, and there are numerous theories as to why society has modernized, the most fitting being Karl Marx's theory of capitalism. Canada's earliest change, and its most drastic lie within capitalist endeavors. According to Marx's theory, the industrial revolution brought about capitalism which weakened traditional norms as capitalism would "sow the seeds" that would lead to revolutionary change. Capitalism did impact such change, not only in Europe, but in Canada.

Stepping outside of the socialist aspects of Marx's theory, one can see that the drive for capital has changed Canada from its earliest days of traditional Native existence. French and English desire for commerce, immigrants seeking better lives, financial investments, and free trade are all part of the capitalist quest to expand and acquire more capital. The market has influenced Canada's economy, which has influenced its society without becoming socialist.

Thus not only has Marxist's theory influenced the world through his inception of socialism, but also through his praise of the inevitable step of capitalism which has accounted for drastic changes in Canadian society. Other explanations for change in Canada and throughout the world are not as fitting as Marx's. Ferdinand Tonnies' theories on modernization which have held up well over time, accounts for the fact that industrialization in Europe and North America has led to impersonal interaction which has transformed traditional society.

However, I do not see it as fitting as Marx's theory as the roots of the modernization as impersonal social interaction did not cause change, but rather the desire to accumulate money in the open market led to activities that were impersonal. Ultimately, this means that impersonal activities did not cause the change, but are a result of capitalism, which points towards Marxist theory.

Canada was a vast land, and still is, but the social change in the land was not because of the breakdowns of traditional life, but rather the need to expand markets led to Canada's change. Canada was a source of raw materials for Europe, and people were exploited to gather such resources. This is capitalist motivation behind the activities that ultimately changed Canadian society. Likewise, Durkeheim's work that modern society will become too egotistical has proved not to be the case, at least not yet.

The values of modern society have not degenerated so significantly, and change in society is not the result of changing values, but rather the result of the drive for capital. A critic of modern society, Weber does not believe the changes brought through the breakdown of traditional society are necessarily positive, but rather too rational and will ruin people's lives. However, history has not shown this to be the case as modernization has led to social change that is positive.

For example, racism in Canada and throughout the Western world has gone from incredibly blatant to much more subdued in only the last one hundred years, and that is certainly a positive change. Marx's theory is thus the most accurate, and although he overemphasizes the dehumanizing aspects of capitalism, as perhaps capitalism is not as doomed he maintained, it is incredibly influential. Capitalist desires have led to great change that has broken traditional society and led to modernization.

Impersonal interaction, for example, is a product of capitalism and not vise versa.