Housing in Indigenous Communities
Housing in Indigenous Communities
Housing is a fundamental issue for Canada’s indigenous population. Many indigenous communities are located in northern and isolated places, where winters are more challenging, and construction supplies are harder to obtain and more costly. 324,900 of the 1,673,785 individuals who reported an indigenous identity on the 2020 Census of Population lived in a home that required repair. 44.2 percent of the 744,855 indigenous populace with registered or treaty Indian status resided on reserve, while 55.8 percent resided off-reserve. There was a substantial difference in living conditions among those who resided on reserve and those who did not. Furthermore, indigenous population growth has outpaced that of the rest of Canada. As a result, indigenous peoples’ housing conditions will affect an increasing population percentage. While progress is being made in social situations, discrepancies in the social and economic conditions of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada remain.
Social Structure and Power
In different societies, the factors that determine stratification vary slightly. Disparities in power and status could be used to describe it. These four components join to create a complex amalgam that describes a person’s social position within a power structure. Regarding the indigenous population, there is disagreement about the relative significance of different criteria for categorizing economic status within the discipline. It is questionable whether the Marxist emphasis on owning property is more essential than the Weberian focus on occupational gradients. In any case, the notion of class implies a common standard of living focused on social factors such as wealth, income, education, and occupation. These factors significantly affect a person’s form of authority and prestige. More money, in most situations, means power or more possibilities.
Sociological perspectives
Housing amongst indigenous populations can be explained through sociological perspectives. Foremost, in regards to symbolic interactionism, symbolic interactionists also observe that person’s physical appearance reflects their presumed social status. Housing, clothing, and mode of transportation all indicate social standing, as do hairdos, accessory preferences, and sense of style. Cultural capital implies that cultural “assets” such as education and taste are acquired and passed on to future generations in the same way financial capital or wealth is. Second, in regards to functionalism, according to the theory, social stratification represents the inherently unequal significance of various tasks. Certain societal positions are more beneficial than others. Third, in regards to conflict theory, conflict theorists are harsh critics of social stratification, stating that it profits only a subset of the community rather than the overall indigenous populace. Critical sociologists promote awareness of disparities, such as how a prosperous society can have many poor indigenous people. Nonetheless, expanding existing inequalities is neither unavoidable nor vital. The indigenous population is becoming proletarianized, which implies that in terms of property and overall life chances, the indigenous population is becoming increasingly indiscernible from the general population.
Barriers and paths to social change
One of the critical barriers and paths to social change is conflict. Conflicts among various parties, perhaps the most obvious to perceive and diagnose, can thwart and sidetrack the process of change. Conflicts based on changes in philosophy, culture, and belief could be one of the most challenging barriers to overcome, not only for animosity between the agent of change but also because of conflict between population factions on opposing sides of the proposed change. The second barrier involves group introspection. It is easy to lose sight of a circumstance in any group setting when nothing appears wrong or requires alteration. Being on the inside of such a group can result in a lack of perceived notion when acknowledging the need for change. The third barrier to change involves rejecting outsiders. Outsiders are frequently dismissed in the Canadian community. This barrier is created by the belief that no outsider could comprehend what they do regularly. Thus any transformation brought about by an outsider has little to no value in enhancing the community’s development.
Plan for social reform
To deal with group retrospection, the change agent must actively involve both insiders and outsiders in initiating community changes. Outsiders will contribute new ideas and perspectives to the change initiative, while insiders will help to persuade other insiders that the transformation is valuable and necessary. Insiders help awaken the collective group to the actuality that a transition may be required and that the rewards exceed the drawbacks. Secondly, it would involve engaging the community. People must be directly involved in decision-making if a society functions properly. Everybody plays a different role: respondents participate, volunteers help out, and sponsors give money. Nonprofits can inspire individuals to engage with and engage with other civil society groups, but they cannot develop social agitators out of thin air. Social activists should habitually test the functionality of the state and the support of volunteer groups to determine whether they can develop a genuine social movement.