How Valuable Is Sociological Knowledge in Contributing to Our Understanding of Contemporary Health Issues?

In the United States, smoking cigarettes is the number one preventable cause of morbidity and death (Bergen, 1999), and accounts for $300 Billion in health care costs and economic productivity loss (Jamal, 2015). While the national smoking rate is 16.8% (CDC, 2016), specific demographics are more susceptible to developing smoking habits: people who live below the poverty line (10.9% higher), disabled or with a limitation (6.2% higher), and males (4.7% higher) (Agaku, 2014).

Having a low income can lead to poor to health, because you won’t have access or opportunities for better health, such as safe homes, nutritious foods and good schools. “Income may not be the strongest risk factor for any particular disease or outcome, but it’s a risk factor for all of them.” (Krisberg, 2017)

Throughout society there are many different sociological approaches to health and ill health. Within society there are many different perspectives towards whom the responsibility for health falls upon and also what defines people as ill? Your health is defined by the general condition of your body and mind. An illness is defined by an impairment of normal physical or mental function. To help explain the different sociological approaches to health and ill health I will be referring to the case study of Aziz and Tamsela. Aziz and Tamsela have four young children; Tamsela’s elderly parents also live with them in their three bedroomed houses in a deprived and depressing area of London. Their house is in desperate need of repair; it is damp and

The sociological approach to health and illness focuses on the social determinants of health and how this affects the health of society. It explores where we are on the socio-economic ladder and how this determines access to healthy food, a healthy lifestyle, education, income, accommodation, healthcare, transportation and good working conditions. This approach considers culture, the behaviour of individuals and the social structures we live in, with a belief that when treating health and illness if all these areas are considered and changes are made in conjunction with modern medicine then the health of society will be improved. “If the major determinants of health are social, so must be the remedies. Treating existing disease is urgent and will always receive high priority but should not be to the exclusion of taking action on the underlying social determinants of health” (Marmot, 2005: 1103).

Education level, employment, income, family and social support, and community safety are all part of the social and environmental determinants in healthcare (Senterfitt JW et al., 2013). Public health has concentrated on improving clean water supplies, healthier housing, sanitation, workplace safety, safe food, and access to medical care to increase life expectancy (Senterfitt JW et al., 2013). Social and economic factors are not only the largest single predictor or driver of health outcomes, but also strongly influence health behaviors, the second greatest contributor to health and longevity(Senterfitt JW et al., 2013). In the lower social and economic population, unhealthy behaviors are more likely to

This study examined the health inequalities among different socio-economic groups from 2004 to 2014 among Australians whose age ranging from 20 to 65 years old. According to the study, the health risk factor behaviour; smoking by sex results indicated that males smoking were higher than females during the study period. The highest rate of smoking were reported among males in 2004. Smoking status by education groups suggested that the highest rate of smoking were accounted in year 12 or below group in all three years, while university degree holders accounted for the least group. The different income groups showed that the poorest people smoking percentage were higher compared to the richest and the percentage had increased when it was moving

Studies show that people living in poverty face adverse living conditions which are associated with various ranges of health problems (Raphael, 2007). This means that people who live in poverty are more likely to suffer from chronic illness such as: coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and various form of cancers. As a result of poverty, individuals are more likely to have a lower life expectancy and higher mortality rate because of those facing numerous chronic illnesses. People living in poverty or in a low income bracket are more likely to be less healthy and have more medical conditions compared to their counterparts. As a result, they are more likely to be in the hospital more frequently with more complicated healthcare needs (Williamson, Stewart, Hayward, Letourneau, Makwarimba, Masuda, Rainee & Reutter, and Rootman & Wilson, 2006).

People have many desires, among then good health, but there is a lack of resources to provide all things to all people. Some people would consider resources when talking about health care economics; could include good health, education and access to financial means to afford health care costs or insurance premiums. In the presence of this scarcity, someone, or some process, must decide what mixture of goods and services to produce, what quantity of each is to be produced, and how to allocate the production to participate in the economy. Access and use of available resources can impact one health. “Individuals can undertake a variety of actions to achieve their desired level of health, which is constrained by physical factors and is subject to various risks. People’s choices about living location, work, and diet, recreation, over the counter medication, recreational drug use and formal health care can all affect their health status. Perhaps, startlingly, studies of factors that determine health in affluent societies indicate that changes in lifestyle choices and status such as environment, income, education, and cigarette consumption outweigh the contribution of changes in health care services.” (Answers.com, retrieved 4/6/09)

Introduction: Nowadays most people would probably vote against gender stereotyping, however it can still affect them from time to time, such as when one is buying a car toy for a boy and a doll for a girl. When there is work to be done outside the house it is called the man's work and cooking the woman's work, man being the economic controller of the household being subservient. These are just examples traditional gender roles, domestic labour and power relationships.

Gender roles is a problem that takes place in both the workplace, domestic conditions, and society. Often signified through the age-old stereotype. That men are required of the more "challenging" or more "advanced" jobs, while women restrict themselves to the less grueling and less beneficial positions. Terms such as "that 's a man 's job" is a leading cause of inequality in the workplace. Not to mention, gender roles and standards are set in the homes of many families everywhere. The so-called "picture perfect family" situation; the husband goes to work while the wife stays home to tend to the children. While romanticized as ideal, this concept is the very essence of a patriarchal society. Meanwhile, the brutally vicious society we live in often berates women 's self-esteems in more way than one. Stereotypes of beauty, or who are skinny, pretty, white, and wealthy, are unfortunately the ideal standard of women and

The process of gender socialization reveals much about how gender identities are formed, but gender is not just a matter of identity: Gender is embedded in social institutions. This means that institutions are patterned by gender, resulting in different experiences and opportunities for men and women. The concept of the term “gendered institutions” means that entire institutions are patterned by gender. In a gendered institution, men and women are channeled into different, and often differently valued, social spaces or activities and their choices have different and often unequal consequences. Gendered institutions are the total pattern of gender relations, which includes the following (Acker 1992): stereotypical expectations, interpersonal relationships, and the division of labor along lines of gender. As well as, the images and symbols that support these divisions and the different placement of men and women in social, economic, and political hierarchies of institutions.

Therefore, feminist sociology is not effective in leading women towards change or an end to dominant heterosexual assumptions that put patriarchy at power. Thus, it is difficult for women to breakthrough the oppression merely on theories and lacking practical action or reforms. When sociologists, such as Smith uses categories to analyze the relationship between women and her male counterpart, she draws on this notion that there is this believed or assumed natural heterogender relationship in society. As Smith proposed, men are able to work in the public materialist world and contribute to the everyday capitalist world is due to the existence of a female figure working within the private sphere to support the workings within the household, and in turn, make a patriarchal and capitalist society possible. Therefore, there is the assumed husband and wife, nuclear family in the household, with each playing their part and indicating that every individual is required to situate themselves as actors in this

8). The traditional views of gender roles are indeed quite different from the modern views. The men in society are the bread-winners where as the women take care of the children and home. There are basic and common work roles, however in terms of behaviour and involvement there are gender role distinctions. The sex roles generally play out in modern society as well, some sex roles and stereotypes for girls are that they are “nonaggressive, nonathletic, emotionally expressive, tender, domestic, and nurturing. Boys on the other hand are “aggressive, value achievement, attain goals through conflict, and work towards monetary success” (Whicker and Kronenfeld, 1986; pp. 8). The males in the society are “emotionally anesthetised, aggressive, physically tough and daring, unwilling or unable to give nurturance to a child” (Lewis and Sussman, 1986; pp. 1). These traits are carried out by this particular gender mostly outside the society to demonstrate their strength. Those individuals who ignore to carry out these personality traits are seen as weak and unmanly. The women on the other hand are given the responsibility of looking after the family and are supposed to have the opposite personality traits. For instance a woman can show emotions but not outside of the family because of the shame that would bring to the

The economics of intimate partner relationships play a role in patriarchy and the reinforcement of women abuse. Martin (1981) states that meritocracy is a discourse that everyone has equal opportunity in the workforce. It fails to recognize the barriers that prevent people from having the same opportunities as others. For instance, women face many social pressures that prevent them from working in the public sphere such as discrimination, sexism, being pushed down to apply for certain jobs because it dominated by males and may not have the physical requirement like body mass. Martin (1981) argues that capitalism supports patriarchal families and the idea that a woman's place is considered to be in the private sphere, the home, while a man is to be in the public sphere. Martin (1981) states that capitalism is about competition and succeeds when barring disadvantage or vulnerable populations including women from advancing to the top of the hierarchy so that people, predominantly white males, would remain in power. One strategy to prevent women from advancing in their career is to receive minimum wage and less income than men which therefore makes them easily replaceable in the work force. This defines women as temporary workers (p. 41). This leaves women economically dependent on men and gives a reason

The main social problem is the higher prevalence of heart disease among the poor than the non-poor. This social problem has lead me to the following research question: in the United States, how is poverty associated with the prevalence of heart disease? To answer this question I will define heart disease, why it is an issue needing our attention, and whom it specifically affects. I will then delve into the many social mechanisms that facilitate this trend and show how they all work together to create an environment in which the poor are more likely to deal with heart disease than the non-poor. The mechanisms involved are individual and institutional, meaning that they operate and would have to be addressed at either the individual or institutional level. The individual focused mechanisms include smoking, physical inactivity, obesity, factors from early in life, and mental factors. The institution focused ones include quality of healthcare and lack of access to