Author: Andre Coleman

Biological determinism is a theory that tries to explain a person’s behaviour and other aspects of life in relation to his or her genetic makeup. This theory was encompasses the work of various prominent scientists such as Mendel, Charles Darwin and Francis Galton. Biological determinism abnegates the idea of the surrounding influencing the characteristics and behavioural aspects of an individual. For decades, this theory has been expounded in order to explain human behaviour comprehensively. Charles Darwin proposed heritable characteristics are determined through natural selection. Darwin was of the opinion that an individual would inherit the optimal characteristics that would ensure his survival or have a reproductive advantage. However, sociologists have strongly criticized the biological determinism theory because it does not take into account the environmental factors that affect behaviour (Banyard and Grayson, 2000). This article aims to discuss the concept of biological determinism and the opinion of sociologists on this concept.

Discussion

Biologists, when referring to different behaviours and roles of individual in the society, agree that a set of predetermined biological process determine these behaviours. Therefore, people think and act in different manner because they have different development in their brains (Velden, 2010). Biological theorists are of the opinion that the chromosomes and hormones in his body control brain cell formation. For example, the male in the society are equipped with both the Y and X chromosomes whereas the women only have the X chromosome. The Y chromosome in men leads to production of testosterone and other male hormones. Therefore, the male brain develops differently from that of a woman due to the difference in genetic material in the sexes. Biologists have gone further to use the differences in male and female brain to explain the difference in behaviours between the sexes (Kronfeldner, 2009).

Biological determinism operates on the assumption that all behaviours have particular causes, which are mainly genetic or related to biological functions and processes. Experiments done by Raine et al (1997) focused in the abnormalities found in the brain of murderers. Raine et al (1997) tried to find determine the common factor in murderers who had put a plea of not guilty by virtue of insanity. In the experiments, Raine et al (1997) looked at the PET scans of murderers and observed their cortical and sub-cortical brains. This experiment aimed to determine whether having brain dysfunction and abnormalities like schizophrenia are linked to the violent behaviours exhibited by the murderers. Raine’s experiment only focused on the innate factors while it ignored the external factors such as the environments that may control the behaviours of an individual.

Biological determinism also focuses on reductionism. Reductionism views individuals as divided into hierarchical groups. Therefore, the biological determinists view the inequalities between sexes, nations, classes as intrinsic rather than extrinsic (Carolan, 2005). Therefore, this theory portrays the picture that if one person is less successful than the other is, it is s not because of the contributing factors in the environment, but because the other person is intrinsically incapable of being successful. Biological determinists therefore believe that men in the society are dominant because they are intrinsically more aggressive and rational than women. According to this theory, biologically inheritable material and not the surrounding environment determine division in the society (Carolan, 2005).

It is the opinion of most sociologist that it is irrational to consider social classification as a genetic factor. This is because human from different divides and social backgrounds have been known to interact and live in similar classes. It is also logical to assume that the environment and the surrounding enforces some traits and leads success or failure of an individual in a society. It is from this mode of thinking that sociologists have formulated their theories on human behaviour and societal interaction. The external environment contributes greatly to the behaviour of a person in the society. In fact, according to sociologist the surrounding environment solely regulates behaviour.

Although biologists believe that only biological processes influence behaviours, there are various flaws in this perspective. Biologists tend to ignore cognitive behaviours exhibited by individuals in their theory of biological determinism. This is where sociologist criticizes the biological determinism theory. Sociologists believe that people exhibit different behaviours depending on the surrounding environment. For decades, the sociologists view on biological determinism has been that of disapproval. Most sociologists are uneasy with the biological determinism theory because it does not fully explain behavioural exhibition in people (Carolan, 2005). Sociologists’ disapproval of determinism is justifiable to a given extend especially when such disapproval is guided by ideologues that seek to validate, and rectify, the status quo of the biological determinism. The argument advanced by sociologist is based on the fact biological determinists have a fear that there is a probability of losing the genic capacity. Therefore, sociologists believe that looking very deep into the realm bio physiology to explain social phenomenon is irrational and rather irresponsible.

Social scientists such Skinner believe that all behavioural aspects of a person are determined by the external stimuli (Boeree, 2006). Skinner in his theory concluded that the concept of free will is just an illusion and a person’s behaviour will usually conform to his surrounding rather than be genetically determined. Skinner’s theory on behaviour was majorly based on operant conditioning. Skinner believed that an organism or a person operated in a specific environment with various stimuli that contributed towards specific behaviours. Therefore, skinner believed that when a person or organism is exposed to certain environment a stimulus known as the reinforcer contributed towards his repeated behavioural exhibition (Boeree, 2006).

From Skinner’s theory, we can deduce that a behaviour followed by a reinforcing stimulus has a higher likelihood of being repeated or not. Skinner used the example of a rat in a cage with a bar or pedal. In case the rat presses the pedal or the bar, it leads to release of food pellet. Assume the rat is bouncing in the cage and accidentally presses the bar then the food pellet is released. Therefore, this rat will tend to repeat this behaviour not because it inherited such traits but because it there is a reinforcing stimulus in the environment (Boeree, 2006).

Watson John supports Skinner’s opinion by also showing that the surrounding environment governs an individual’s behaviour. Watson assumes that behaviour exhibited by an individual can be correlated to other observable occurrences in the environment. In Watson’s opinion, there are usually definite occurrences that precede and follow exhibition of certain behaviours. Watson’s behaviourism theory attempts to explain the relation between stimuli in the environment and an individual’s response (behaviour). Watson like Skinner borrowed his idea on behaviour from Pavlov’s conditioning experiments. Watson believed that individual learned through stimuli substitution and similarly behaviours in individual are exhibited according to change in stimuli rather than genetic predispositions (Winfred, 2010).

Watson became one of the many sociologists to oppose the mentalist concept. He believed that the early neuroscientists were very ignorant on how the nervous system and the brain functioned. At that time, biological determinism was widely accepted as an explanation to behavioural exhibitions. However, Watson changed this opinion by using contiguity to explain how organisms learned. Watson’s theory assumed that emotions were complex expression of classical conditioning and therefore complex behaviours only came about due to combination of recognisable reflexes (Winfred, 2010). Like Skinner, Watson believed that repeated activity strengthened the learning process and the learning process is what creates the difference between human behaviour. Despite the fact that Watson’s position did not explain the concept of human learning, his theory is currently considered as one of the pioneers to learning sciences.

Conclusion

In the society, the most obvious feature is inequality. It is obvious that some individuals have great wealth while others are poor Different groups explain these inequalities according t their preferred theory. Biological determinists believe that inequality in the society is as a result of the intrinsic factors. Sociologists on the other hand believe that social differences are as a result of extrinsic factors. Both these arguments are passionate and provide interesting view into the human behaviour and social organization.Sociologists try explaining the relation between human beings and their surrounding while neglecting the concept of biological determinism. However, socialism alone cannot explain some behavioural patterns neither can biological determinism. It is necessary for both the sociologist and biologists to move towards a relatively dynamic theory, which is open to interrelation of theories from both sides of the divide. No matter how much the sociologist may wish to stick to their theory, they cannot evade the complex nature of biological organisms. As much as the environment influences the behaviour, it is necessary to note that chemical reactions and hormonal changes also influence how organisms and human behave. Currently, it would be absurd to support only one theory due to the evidence available. Social theories provide their arguments, which are as compelling as the arguments provided by the biological determinists. It is therefore irrelevant for sociologist to wage war against biologists since booth theories have weaknesses, which can be augmented if the theories are combined to form a grand theory that explains human behaviour.

Discuss: Work is a big portion of a person’s life.

To say that work is a big portion of a person’s life is a understatement of large proportions. Children are raised with one or both parents who make it a priority. They are raised to make it a priority. They work virtually all their lives. They retire from it. It can be intrusive and ubiquitous and the fact that it is both a noun and a verb does not begin to hint at the complexity of it.

In beginning to consider it, a nature path would be to define its nature. Is it feathered or scaled, or more accurately, is it to be relegated as a science of economics, sociology or something else entirely? Many regard it as a pure function of applied economics (Block, Berg, & Belman 2004, p. 94). It seems right to regard it as such as at its most basic level it is a about an exchange relationship in which two parties trade something the one owns for something the other owns. Whether this exchange is of time, expertise, property, or ideas is irrelevant. The exchange takes place in a form of a market while both discrete and often not-so-discrete forces are at ‘work’ to set the value of the exchange. These forces, laws of supply and demand, invisible hands and the like seek to maximize the utility of the trade to both parties.

As a consequence of the nature of the relationship being able to be characterized by an ‘exchange’, work can also be considered by a legal or contractual basis. By virtue of this, there are certain very explicit rules that govern the conduct of either party with regard to the fulfillment of their respective duties. Such laws, as for example in the United States, often fall under a Department of Labor and generally includes such standards as a forty-hour work week, harassment and discrimination provisions, minimum pay and pay frequency specifications as well as provisions regarding collective bargaining. The goal of such a perspective is to serve as something of a bridge between not only the economic interests of both parties but the social impact of work to the workers.

In modern world, a typical exchange takes place between the individual and the organization. With this type of exchange, there are a number of additional concerns and issues that become relevant. In the first place there is generally an asymmetry of power in which the owners of capital employ individuals in masse to literally make up the corporate body and to wield profit maximizing power on employees. This imbalance is potentially offset by the previously mentioned ability of certain workers to partake in collective bargaining actions such as the formation of unions that ultimately can help to give the individual worker a larger voice. This power is wielded as a consequence of the corporation’s greater resources to enforce the often contractual nature of the exchange. Also, as corporate budgets generally exceed those of individuals the ration of the loss to the total ‘budget’ is greater. In addition, as a corporation does not have emotions, the consequences of a ‘failed agreement’ are often of significant magnitude to the individual. Though the worth of the individual worker is indeed significant to the corporation for, without him, the corporation would ‘die’, the time horizon of the two parties is vastly different. This idea is eloquently expressed by Adam Smith, “In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate” (Smith 1976, p.84).

As the nature of work is at least partly economic, to ignore the basic issues of business management would be unpardonable. From Taylor’s beginning of scientific management to the “high performance work systems” of today, the nature of managing the individual worker presents a range of methods devised in order to maximize the economic return of work. While Taylor’s command-and-control methods largely regarded the average laborer as incapable of being able to self-manage, they did nonetheless create vast increases in efficiency and paved the way for the development of very large organizations. Interestingly enough, these techniques, or at least, the implementation, of them has been supplanted by the like’s of Stanford’s Pfeffer is able to rigorously document the superlativity of a complete system of seven key human resource practices that, when fully integrated into an organization produce superior financial returns to the organization. In place of timed work, close supervision and continuous thrusts for greater efficiency through centralized decision-making, consider the characteristics of the ‘modern’ high performance organization (Taylor 1917; Pfeffer 1998, pp. 64-65):

Employment security
Selective hiring
Decentralized decision-making
Comparatively high compensation
Extensive training
Egalitarian work place
Extensive information sharing.

Despite the fundamental economic nature of work, there is another side that, were it go unmentioned, the discussion would utterly fail to consider the other perspective on work: that of the individual employee. Even as an economic premise entirely, the goal of which is to increase the profit and well-being of the individual, the sociological aspects of work merit full consideration (Stiglitz 2002, p. 1).

In consideration of the individual, it is reasonable that one might consider the very contractual nature of work to be akin to that of a “social exchange” process through which individuals and groups of individuals engage in transactions (Dreher & Dougherty 2002, p. 41). These exchanges are clearly governed first by applicable laws and regulations, perhaps secondly by organizational policies and procedures and thirdly and perhaps most notably, they are regulated by the very nature of individuals to ascribe to something that might resemble a common values system. In this system is the seemingly natural component of a sense of “fairness”. This guides innumerable behaviors as the individual inevitably seeks a form of “reciprocal altruism” in which, in addition to following self-serving fulfillment of their own needs, individuals appear to operate on the assumption that there is a bigger picture of morals and the “right thing” involved (Frederick & Wasieleski 2002, pp.284).

An additional consideration of the social nature of work and ensuing issues is the idea that, for many, work is the process by which “identity” is established. Consider the typical introduction at a party or other function… first, one gives their name and then, almost inevitably either their occupation or work relation status to the host (i.e., “I work with Ted”, “I am a client”, etc.). This phenomenon, Social Identity Theory, is quite relevant to the workplace in that it forces one to consider the psychological implications of doing business (Ashforth & Mael 1989, pp. 20-21; Stiglitz 2002, p. 1). Bridging this concept with the representation that work is fundamentally an exchange relationship is the idea of the psychological contract. Just as there are explicit rules governing work expectations, so too are there implicit rules. The rules are communicated by the culture of the firm, the seemingly accepted behaviors of others in a similar position and other verbal and non-verbal queues. The conditions of the contract are primarily mediated by the individual’s manager, the immediate representation of the organization in the mind of the individual (Rousseau 2000, February). Thus, it is through the social processes of work that an individual gains an understand of who they are but also gain particular knowledge of the mutual obligations of the economic exchange.

In summary, work is. It is: what, why, how, when. It is the noun and the verb, the result as well as the process. A discussion of which cannot omit the fundamental economic nature of it yet one cannot ignore the precepts of sociology and psychology woven into every single ‘unit of production’, the individual worker. Any discussion of work which does not give full deliberation the simultaneous dichotomy is to only give half the argument and less than that for the appreciation of what work represents, to the organization, the individual and to society.

Works Consulted

Ashforth, B. & F. Mael. (1989). “Social Identity Theory and the Organization”. Academy of Management Review (14), 1, pp. 20-39.

Block, R., Berg, P. and Belman, D. (2004). “The Economic Dimension of the Employment Relationship”, in Coyle –Shepard, J. Shore, L. Taylor, M. and Tetrick, L., (eds.). The Employment Relationship: Examining Psychological and Contextual Perspectives. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

Dreher, G. and Dougherty, T. (2002). Human Resource Strategy: A Behavioral Perspective for the General Manager. McGraw-Hill Irwin: Boston, Massachusetts.

Frederick, W. and Wasieleski, D. (2002). “Evolutionary Social Contracts”. Business and Society Review, (107), 3, pp. 283-308.

Pfeffer, J. (1998). The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Rosseau, D. (2000, February). Psychological Contract Inventory Technical Report. Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA .

Smith, A. (1976). An Inquiry into the Nature and the Causes of the Wealth of Nation., R.H. Campbell and A.S. Skinner, eds. Clarendon Press:. Oxford, UK

Stitlitz, J. (2002). “Employment, Social Justice and Societal Well-Being”. International Labour Review, (141), 1-2, pp. 9-29.

Taylor, F. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper: New York, New York.

Sociology and the family

Introduction

This essay will focus on two sociology theories, which are the family life cycle and the functionalist approach. It will give a brief overview of each theory. The essay will go on to apply theory to practice, as this essay will make reference to a service user with a “sudo name” known as “Sean”, to up hold confidentiality. While applying the family life cycle to the particular service user, this essay will critique the theories strengths and limitations.

In applying the functionalist approach, this essay will highlight how the family is seen as an institution in its self and how other institutions inter play in the service user’s life. The theories used in this essay will highlight areas which apply to the service user and areas in which the theory lacks understanding of the complex situations. Conclusion will be drawn.

Overview of each theory

According to Falicov (1988, p. 9) the family life cycle has been applied widely to social science, he explains that the ‘life course of families evolves through predictable stages which appear universal in spite of one’s culture or subculture’. Family transits to different stages as form of continuity and changes over the life cycle. Falicov identifies two main aspects to the family life cycle, which are cohesion and adaptability (Falicov1988, p. 9).

The cohesion relates to the interdependence parts of one’s life and adaptability refers to the flexibility of the family to change, in this the family cycle essentially focuses on a child’s transition into adulthood within a family setting (Falicov, C. 1988, p. 9). As family goes through its continuity phase and changes, there’s a need for the role of each member in the family to be recognised. Claveirole, A & Gaughan, M. (2011) defines the family life cycle as a developmental way of looking at families; it provided a framework for an individual’s development of family members and the cycle itself is influenced by socio – cultures developments outside the family.

Falicov, C. (1988, p. 13) says the family life cycle is a subject to mirror timing and coping strategies. Carter, E.A & McGoldrick, M. (1999) supports this concept as they stated the family cycle is really one’s individual life cycle, which changes and moves in a framework within the structure of a family. This theory takes into account that one’s framework is structured by the families past, present and future hopes for an individual introduced into the family life cycle. The family life cycle highlights the fact that one’s experiences within the family life cycle impacts on our sense of self, for example the values we produce and the development of our personalities. This applies to each individual despite the structure, qualities of relationships or genetics of one’s family. The family has a responsibility to provide what’s known as a natural baseline for an individual to grow physically, mentally, socially and emotionally, it also holds responsibility for the social institutions in which will affect the growth of the individual i.e. schools and church they may attend. The family life cycle it-self is broken into six parts, which are: Independence (second order changes), coupling (with or without marriage and synergy), parenting young children (participating in reproduction), parenting adolescents, launching adult children and retirement (facing senior years). Each stage contains mastering certain skills or milestones and once this is achieved it allows for the next stage to be developed.

There are many ways to study the family which creates many different perspectives. One of these ways is through the functionalist approach. The functionalist approach focuses on the relationship between the family and society. When looking at the family the functionalist approach studies the function in which the family severs to society, such as reproduction and stabilization. Shaws 2002 explains the development of the functionalist approach stating that the perspective emerged as a leading theoretical model, mainly in the area of sociology as three well known sociologists influenced the model. Wallace and Wolf (1995, p.76) defines functionalism, as a whole theoretical perspective, which takes into account four main areas, which are ‘Functional Independence in maintaining social structure, Collective norms to maintain social order/ stability, Societal equilibrium in areas of conformity, adjustments and consensus, along with social constituents and finally Social Pathology and deviance which have resulted from maladjustments of social units’.

The functionalist perspective studies society on two levels called Macro and Micro. Macro focuses on society as a whole, polices, services and the community in general. Micro focuses on the individual, the family and reproduction system. The functionalist approach realizes society is broken into institutions. Institutions are defined by Giddens (1984, p.24) ‘as the more enduring social features in life’. The main institution in society is the family, O’Sullivan (2012, p.1) define the family as a natural, primary and fundamental unit group in society a ‘moral institution that possesses inalienable and imprescriptibly rights’. It is the nuclear family (a couple with a depended child or children) that’s a core unit in all types of society. The usefulness of a family in society is limitless in many ways, for example socialization and social order and so by seen the family as a whole in society, it provided changes in society as the needs of family changed, but creating change depends on how societies are governed/run. In support of this is Fletcher (1973) who states the role of the family in terms of socialization and social order falls into two categories which are satisfying human needs and purposes and providing a functional interconnection with the wider social networks of society (school, church).

Overview of the client & family circumstances

Sean is a male aged 27 years. He has an intellectual disability and has attended services for those who have an intellectual disability all his life. World Health Organisation (2014) define intellectual disability as extensively reduction on one’s capability to be aware of information and to learn and apply new skills, in this, individuals are affected to cope independently as the disability have affected their development. Sean is now in a service that promotes independence for those who have an intellectual disability. Sean lives in rural Dublin, a partly disadvantaged area. He lacks motivation and self confidence. He has the capacity to physically work in certain areas and has work for a short period of time. He had the capacity to write and read, but has never been assisted appropriately in the area and is now restricted to learn. He has a great knowledge about current affairs and enjoys talking about this with people he knows. He has a passion for music and one of his hobbies is listening to music. He grew up in a family of three boys who are younger than him, his mother and father. One of Sean brothers pasted away due to tragic accident. The family members are very supportive and its clear Sean has a strong attachment to them.

Critique of strengths & limitations of each theory in relation to the particular client & family

Limitations of the family life cycle

The family life cycle does not take into account the fact that an individual can “skip” or progress to another step without fulfilling each step as a sequence. For example in Sean’s case he hasn’t fully transitioned out of the independence stage but has committed to a new social system which is attending his work on a daily basis. He has also started at the independence stage and may skip past the coupling, parenting and launching children stages and still reach his senior years. The family life cycle can be studied and understood from two perspectives; a limitation to this is that in general it focused more on the family perspective. For example in Sean case he has an intellectual disability, but up until Sean started attending the service which promotes independence his perspective wasn’t accounted for. The independence stage highlights one gaining their identity within the family and outside the family unfortunately for Sean this transition has become difficult and is still a working progress, because in the area of gaining roles and learning the rules within the family Sean gain a role of depended, even in areas he had the capacity to be independent for example making a sandwich or buying himself new clothes. The rules underlining this depend behavior was never challenged and from a family perspective is understood as they wanted to care for Sean in the best way they taught. Caring for Sean in this way would have also become a norm for the family, as he is depended on the family for other things such as transport.

The family life cycle was limited as the understanding of the stages wasn’t promoted or applied specifically to Sean case (a person with an intellectual disability). In general the family life cycle is implemented as best practice, when really it should be implemented generally and globally for families as a clear outline of one’s transitions. In Sean’s case if the family understood when he was born that he needed to transition though these stages (for a positive/ practical future) to the best of his capacity even with an intellectual disability then he could have reached his full potential for example reading, writing living more independently which would benefit him and his family, as the family will reach their retirement and senior years and Sean would have learnt the basic life skills which he needs at a more practical time and he would have become less depended on the family and became more confident and motivated in his everyday life.

Strengths of the family life cycle

The family life cycle strength is that it highlights one’s life cycle in general. In Sean’s case he will reach his senior year, in this the life cycle insures that one builds on each stage to the best of their capacity so they reach their full potential as individuals. Working with Sean gives him the opportunity to develop as a person and live his life in the way in which he chooses. For example he acknowledges now that he want to become more independent and aspire to how his younger brothers are living and by applying the family life cycle to best practice and the family it gives him the opportunity to so accordingly.

The independence stage is defined by My Health Albert (2014) as the most critical stage of the family life cycle. It is a stage where one begins separate emotionally from the family and in Sean’s case he is doing by speaking out on how he feels and by participating in such activities as buying himself everything’s like food and treating himself to DVD’s. However, the family life cycle begins when a child is born; therefore the life cycle gave Sean the chance to be able to work on the stages even at a later stage in life. For example Sean is 27 years of age and its now he’s working intensely towards the other stages of the family life cycle and even though some stages may not apply to him its only a benefit for him to be able to work towards the ones he is capable of reaching with support from services and his family.

Limitations of the functionalist approach

A limitation to the functionalist approach is the ideal or overly harmonious image of the family, one in which is well integrated, holding social order and socialization. It doesn’t provide a practical image of the stresses and difficulties in which the traditional family go through. For example Sean was the first child born into the family and he had an intellectual disability. This could have distorted the ideal image/norm/traditional of what the couple had expected with the birth of their first child. The functionalist approach does not consider the alternatives ways for the couple to provide the basic care for a child with an intellectual disability. For example in Sean case, the functionalist approach doesn’t highlighted the importance of services provided for a couple with a child who has an intellectual disability, as the couple may need to depend earlier on services such as the health services to guide them in providing the best care for Sean.

The services would have to be integrated in Sean case at a earlier level which this approach does not highlight, for example they could provide information in the area of intellectual disabilities, enrolling him in appreciate school, integrating him into society. In the area of developing institutions functionalist says it’s developed out of satisfying the human needs through fulfilling and organizing various human social needs, in Sean case he hasn’t been fulfilled academically, such as reading and writing and his social needs also lack as the hasn’t intergraded or participated in areas of his choice. The various ways in which the functionalist approach organizes and institutionalizes the human needs is ultimately creating social structure in society, although it does create order it’s not the best approach to practice as it creates stigma around such areas as intellectual disability for example Sean had the capacity to attend mainstream school but due to the fact he had an intellectual disability he attended a special needs school. The stigma from institutionalizing those who have an intellectual disability promoted the idea they didn’t have the capacity to make decisions for themselves (social norm) or to participate in activities including intimate relationships, for example Sean has the capacity to make a decision for himself but due to the influence/ norms of the family and society he wasn’t given the opportunity.

Strengths of the functionalist approach

The strength of the functionalist approach is the fact it highlights the importance of services for families caring for children. In Sean case he was able to attend services in which provided the best care for those who have an intellectual disability at the time. It highlights the importance of family and even with the services interacting with the family; the family fundamentally provide the basic fundamental care. The family provide the values and norms for the individual and they take responsibility to intergraded their children into the community, for example Sean attend the service regularly as the family provide the transport for him, Sean father encourages Sean to go to the movies and participate in music as he has a passion for music. Sean own value shine through as he completes such things as spending money, a value in which relates to his home environment and where he was brought up. As society grows, the social needs become greater, which in turn gives minority groups a voice. The functionalist approach appreciates and highlights these changes. Once highlight the changes can be implemented into lawmaking systems, it can develop the political system and education system.

In the case of Sean he can voice his opinion and make decisions for himself, due to the rights provided by policies which have been amended. An example of this would be the work done around the issues of sexuality and relationships for those who have an intellectual disability. The Irish Sex Education Network has the primary aim to promote a high professional standard in the area of sex education for those who have an intellectual disability (Allen and Seery 2002, p.3)

Conclusion

In conclusion to this essay has given a brief over view of two sociological perspectives, which are the family life cycle and the functionalist approach. In reference to these theories it has applied a practice based example, in which it gives an in depth review of the strengths and limitations of the each theory.

In reference to the family life cycle, it highlights the different stages in which Sean has progressed through and ones he could work towards with support. The family life cycle helps predict stages in which the service user will not be able to transition into due to lack of support from family and the services provided and in general because their capacity won’t allow.

In applying the functionalist perspective, it highlights the interaction of the family and the services available for those who have an intellectual disability. It highlights how this interaction is of up most important to better the quality of life for service users.

Bibliography

Allen, M. & Seery, D. (2002) The Current Status of Sex Education Practice For People with an Intellectual Disability In Ireland, [Online] Dublin: Irish Sex Education Network. Available at:http://www.sexualhealthcentre.com/PUBLICATIONS/SHC%20Disability%20Report2.pdf [Accessed 27 January 2014]

American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (2013) Intellectual Disability [Online] Available at: http://aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition#.Ux9ntT9_sR8 [Accessed 1 February 2014]

Carter, E.A & McGoldrick, M (1999) The expanded family life cycle: individual, family, and social perspectives, Boston : Allyn and Bacon

Claveirole, A and Gaughan, M. (2011) Understanding Children and Young People’s Mental Health: United Kingdom:John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Falicov, C.J (1988) Family Transitions: Continuity and Change over the Life Cycle, New York: The Guilford Press

Fletcher, R (1978) The Family and Marriage in Britian: An analysis and moral assessment,Virgina: Penguin

Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, United States of America: The University of California Press

O’Sullivan, D. (2012) A Critical Analysis of the protection of families under the Irish Constitution of 1937 [Online] Dublin: Colr .Available at: http://corkonlinelawreview.com/editions/2012/ACriticalAnalysisOfTheProtectionOfFamiliesUnderTheIrishConstitutionOf1937.DonnachaOSullivan.pdf [Accessed 29 January 2014]

My Health Albert (2014) Family life cycle: Independence Stage [Online] available at https://myhealth.alberta.ca/health/pages/conditions.aspx?hwid=ty6171&#ty6174 Accessed 5 January 2014

Shaw V.N, (2002) Substance Use and Abuse: Sociological Perspectives United States of America: Greenwood Publishing Group Inc

Wallace, R. A and Wolf, A. (1995) Contemporary Sociological Theory: Continuing the Classical Tradition, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

World Health Organisation (2014) Intellectual Disability, [Online] Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/noncommunicable-diseases/mental-health/news/news/2010/15/childrens-right-to-family-life/definition-intellectual-disability [Accessed on 5th March 2014]

Describe, compare, contrast, and critically evaluate the effectiveness of both positivist and phenomenological methodology adopted when studying society.

Sociology is the study of human society, including both social action and organisation. Sociologists use scientific research methods and theories, and study social life in a wide variety of settings, this offers not only information but also a distinctive way of looking at the world and the position humans play in it. Whereas most people try to explain events by analyzing the motives of those involved, sociologists encourage a look beyond individual psychology to many recurring attitudes, actions and how these patterns vary across time, cultures and social groups. To look at the different ways people act and behave in society, it has to be seen from a sociological perspective. Within sociology there is no single method, but many. As stated by Haralambos and Holborn (1995) Science appeared to be capable of producing objective knowledge that could be used to solve human problems and increase human productive capacity in an unprecedented way. This assignment will look at the two main methodologies, used by sociologists, past and present, and compare the effectiveness of the two.

When the task of comparing and contrasting the two methodologies of positivism and phenomenology, adopted within the study of society, there are many things that leap to mind: Firstly, there is the factor of time or circa and secondly is the influence of certain acclaimed sociologists within the two different approaches. Methodology within sociology is the study of methods and deals with the philosophical assumptions underlying the research process, using scientific quantitative data collection under those philosophical assumptions. The broad methodology positions, positivism and phenomenology differ hugely. Positivism contains the underlying philosophical assumptions of research in the most pure and applied sciences, physics, chemistry and biology, based on ideas of the objective reality of the physical world, scientific method and empiricism. Just as positivism arose out of rejecting speculation an alternative view has arisen out of rejecting the view that scientific empiricism can be applied to the social world. There is no one philosophical basis, but phenomenology, which can be seen as the basis for what is the assumption that society can only really be understood through personal actions such as language, feelings and emotions. As stated by Kirby, Kidd, Koubel, Barter, Hope, Kirton, Madry, Manning and Triggs, (2000), that although not perfect the link between the methodologies is that the structuralist-minded sociologists tended to adopt a positivist approach and social action based sociologists tend to adopt a phenomenological approach.

The positivist versus the phenomenological approach to the study of man and society is considered in terms of one of the major debates in social science research. Many of the founding fathers of sociology such as Marx (1818-1883), Comte (1798-1857) and Durkheim (1858-1917) believed that it would be possible to create a science of society based on the same principles and procedures as natural sciences. Positivist theorists believed that this approach would reveal that the evolution of society followed invariable laws and that it would show that the behaviour of man was governed by principles of cause and effect which are just as invariable as the subject of natural sciences. Kirby et al, (2000) states that positivists believe that only by adopting a position of total objectivity towards the subject matter or phenomena can unbiased knowledge or theories be produced.

Comte believed in the hierarchy of science and that each study of science is dependent upon another. His theory ranged from the simplest to the more complex forms of science and that sciences above rely on sciences below stating that sociology was more abstract and difficult than other sciences. Originating from his hierarchy of science, as stated in Haralambos and Holborn, (2004), Comte widely believed that industrialization and the growth of scientific knowledge would lead to secularization, therefore devising his contribution to the study of social dynamics in that, the rule of societies passing through three stages defined by their social relationships. Theological law was a belief in superhuman or divine powers, Metaphysical, a belief in the powers of the individual human mind and the positive law was based on truth produced by collaborative, quantitative and scientific work. An appeal of the positivist approach is that scientific knowledge does not contradict or surprise the experience of the everyday world. It argues that factors, which are not directly observable, such as meanings feelings and purposes, are not particularly important and can be misleading, they therefore, form, reliable quantitative data.

Phenomenological theorists such as Simmel (1858-1918) and Weber (1864-1920) propose that the consciousness is the proper area of study, for its study will reveal meaning. They seek to sense reality and describe in words rather than numbers, trying to produce convincing descriptions of what they experience rather than explanations and causes. Weber disagreed with Comte’s theory, he believed there could be as many sciences as needed, Quantitative and empirical studies cannot tell people what to do, and it is important to go beyond simply recording events and to explain the reasons behind them. When referring to Weber’s idea of ‘puritanism’, a case study in the empirical construction of the protestant ethic, Weber, as cited by Ghosh (2003), clearly states that empirical sources are not tablets of stone, eternally available to the truth seeking historian; rather they have a history of their own. Weber believed that values play a crucial role before during and after research and that social action is governed by the dynamic of individual needs. Weber was committed to the study of causality, the probability that an event would be followed by another event not necessarily of a similar nature. In addition to this Weber also analysed the levels to which rationality was becoming institutionally embedded in modern industrialised societies. Marx’s view of bureaucracy was according to Weber a form of organisation superior to all others, Weber wrote in one of his many books, that without this form of social technology the industrialised countries could not have reached the wealth and extravagance that they currently enjoy, (Weber, 1928) as cited in Haralambos and Holborn, (2004). He believed that this capacity for social order would lead to the evolution of the iron cage, and as a result, a society that was technically ordered, rigid and dehumanized. As stated by Giddens (1997) Weber sought to understand social change. He was influenced by Marx but was also strongly critical of some of Marx’s major views, rejected the materialistic conception of history and saw class conflict as less significant than Marx. From a positivist stance, Marx believed that ideas were expressions of public interest and that they served as weapons in the struggle between classes and political parties. Class for Marx, is defined as a social relationship rather than a position or rank in society. Class struggle and owners of production determined economic order. In Marx’s view, classes are defined and structured by work, labour, possessions, production, and the class structures of capitalism consisted of class struggle, political power and the development of a classless society. Marx’s theory of society consisted of two categories of class and that economic order was determined by the two; Bourgeoisie, the capitalist class, the hierarchy, the wealthy, the employers and the Proletariat, who are the workers or the lower class. His view was that as the bourgeoisie employed the proletariat, who has to fulfill his basic needs, the capitalist class could not exist without them. As cited by Haralambos and Holborn (1995), Marxism has sometimes been regarded as a positivist approach since it can be argued that it sees human behaviour as a reaction to the stimulus of the economic infrastructure. Although Weber agreed with Marx in part, that as methods of the organisation increased efficiency and effectiveness of production, Marx’s theory threatened to dehumanise society. Weber’s theories, stratification and views on economic behaviour were rooted from Marx’s view on the economics of a society.

Another positivist view came from Emile Durkheim, whose impression of society was of structures that function apart from human purpose and will. While he considered society to be composed of individuals, his theory was that it is not individuals behaviours, thoughts and actions that construct society, but that society has a structure and existence of its own. His thought was, that society was to have developed from traditional to modern society, through the expansion and development of the division of labour, of course, it is individuals who act, but they do not act on a purely individual basis, they have obligations and duties and are strongly influenced by structure, tradition and the roles of our forefathers. Durkheim considered himself with the issue of social order and how modern society holds together, given that society is composed of many individuals each acting in an individual and autonomous manner. Durkheim’s classic study of suicide, (1970, first published in 1897), as cited in Haralambos and Holborn, (2004) is often seen as a model of positivist research and it does indeed follow many of the methodological procedures of positivism. Although supporting the two different methodologies of sociology, Durkheim was heavily influenced by Weber, who defined sociology as the study of social action between individuals. In contrast to Durkheim’s impression of society and view that society has an existence of its own apart from the individuals in it and so proceeds a proper object of study. As argued by Haralambos and Holborn (1995) where Marx was pessimistic about the division of labour in society, Durkheim was cautiously optimistic. Marx saw the specialised divisions of labour trapping workers in their occupational role, Durkheim saw problems arising from specialisation in industrial society, but believed the promise of the division of labour far outweighed the problems.

While Simmel is generally not regarded as being as influential in sociology as were Marx, Weber and Durkheim, Simmel’s theories, had some similarities to Durkheim’s theory of problems of individuality and society, Weber’s dynamic of individual interests and Marx’s theory of class structure. Simmel considered society to be an association of free individuals and that society could not be studied in the same way as the physical world for example, sociology is more than the discovery of natural laws that govern human interaction. His theory was that society is made up of the interactions between and among individuals and that, sociologists should study the patterns and forms of these associations rather that look for social laws. By defining sociology in this way, Simmel avoids the conflict about the nature of science – whether it should be concerned with timeless, universal laws, instead, there are always multiple ways in which we can look at things. He argued that society was made up of “social facts”, and these social facts coerce and shape the actions of individuals. He argued that in traditional societies, ‘solidarity’ binds together individuals in order to allow society to operate. Social facts only come into being in an interaction, and do not exist within an individual consciousness. Durkheim (1970) as cited in Haralambos and Holborn (2004), stated that the determining cause of a social fact should be sought among the social facts preceding it and not among the states of individual consciousness, the causes of variations in suicide rates were to be found in social facts and in society rather than the individual. Therefore, social groups represent. He argued that societies that functioned well were societies that held a consensus sway over individuals; society, therefore, was something outside and inside individuals.

As stated by Haralambos and Holborn (1995) to phenomenology, it is impossible to measure objectively any aspect of human behaviour, through language humans distinguish between different types of events, actions, objects and people. The process of categorisation is subjective; it depends upon the opinions of the observer. Statistics are simply the product of the opinions of those who produce them. The distinction between positivist and phenomenological approaches is not as clear-cut as this assignment implies. There is a considerable debate over whether or not a particular theory should be labelled positivist or phenomenological. Often many of the theorists lie somewhere in between, some taking views from either side. Haralambos and Holborn (1995) argue that in terms of sociology, the positivist approach makes the following assumptions; the behaviour of humans, like the behaviour of matter, can be objectively measured, just as the behaviour of matter can be quantified by measures such as weight, temperature and pressure. Methods of objective measurement can be devised for human behaviour, such measurement is essential to explain behaviour. Early Positivists such as Comte, and Durkheim argued that objectivity was attainable by adopting a scientific methodology. Marx also believed that his sociology was objective and scientific, although he saw society very differently. Weber did not think complete value freedom was possible, but he did believe that once a topic for research had been chosen, the researcher could be objective. He argued that sociologists should not make value judgments, that is, they should not state what aspects of society they found desirable or undesirable.

“It is plainly nonsensical to throw into one big pot labelled “sociology” all those researches which could have been satisfactorily conducted by national economy, history of civilisation, philosophy, political science, statistics, demography and ethics. That gives us a new name, but no new knowledge”. Simmel, G (1858), cited in American Journal of Sociology [online]) (1898)

Reference List
Ghosh, P, (2003), Max Weber’s Idea of ‘Puritanism’: A Case Study In The Empirical Construction Of The Protestant Ethic, History of European Ideas, [online], 29;2, 183-221, Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9C-48D2RD7-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=10803212fe05d9a06d9a7ce5cfaec919 [Accessed November 21, 2008]
Giddens, A, (1997) Sociology, 3rd Edition, Polity Press, Cambridge
Haralambos, M, Holborn, M, (1995), Sociology, Themes and Perspectives, 4th Edition, Collins Educational, London
Haralambos, M, Holborn, M, (2004), Sociology, Themes and Perspectives, 6th Edition, Collins Educational, London
Kirby, M, Kidd, W, Koubel, F, Barter, J, Hope, T, Kirton, A, Madry, N, Manning, P, Triggs, K, (2000), Sociology in Perspective, Heinemann Educational, Oxford
Simmel, G (1898) The Persistence of Social Groups, American Journal of Sociology, [online], 5; 3, 662-663. Available at: http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Simmel/Simmel_1897a.html [Accessed November 11th 2008]

Even tough sociologists don’t have a true definition of religion, they all generally believe that it is a belief in some sort of supernatural.

Sociologists such as Functionalists, Marxists & Feminists believe that religion is a conservative force, meaning that it inhibits changes within society and maintains the status quo. However, where Functionalists see this as a ‘good’ thing, Marxists look at it from a more negative aspect.

Other sociologists like Neo-Marxists, Marx Weber, and McGuire & .. believe religion to be a source of change….

The functionalist Emile Durkheim (1912) believed that religion is central to the reproduction & maintenance of social order in societies.

He argued that the main function of religion is to socialize societies’ members into a value consensus, by setting shared beliefs, rituals and sacred objects apart.

He did an investigation on the role of religion, in a small tribal community in Australia; The Aborigines. He found that the members of this community worshipped sacred objects; objects that are things that are set apart & forbidden, which evoke feelings of awe, respect & deference, holy things. These objects, called Totems, were a symbol, -usually a plant or animal-, by which the tribes distinguished themselves from one another. In worshiping these sacred objects, individuals would obtain an identity and social membership (or collective consciousness), because they shared the same beliefs, values, traditions & norms, that make social life possible. Durkheim stated that in worshipping a society’s symbols, its members are unconsciously worshipping their society of which they are a part.

According to Durkheim, these unifying practices and beliefs bind people closely together because it forms a balanced and solid moral community, which is a means of protecting individuals from anomie, alienation and other threats. This solidarity also gives individuals the confidence & continuing motivation to face up life and ask for social support from other members whenever needed. This strengthens social solidarity, or collective consciousness in society- the sense of belonging somewhere.

This is why Durkheim sees religion as conservative and inhibiting social change, which is desirable because its ‘functional’ and people don’t want to change anything about their ways of life.

Durkheim was praised a lot for the ways he had done his research because he managed to keep an objective distance of a sociologist, and therefore made it his task to understand the functions of religion, and not to pass his judgements. Also, his argument that the ‘sacred’ is a symbol of group values has been recognized by many, as in history, people have rallied to flags, crucifixes and holy scriptures.

However, his research might be said to be somewhat out of date, as he took his analysis from pre modern societies, and it has to be asked how relevant his theory is in today’s western societies.

Also, because Durkheim never visited the aboriginal society himself, his methodology was said to be flawed. Some say that he misunderstood Totemism, ad generalized about other societies based on one small Aboriginal society.

Durkheim’s theory on religion was ground breaking and very influential, inspiring much further research.

The functionalist Bronislav Malinowski (1954) agreed with Durkheim on all the points he made about the role of religion. However, he focussed on the specific areas of social life with which religion is concerned, and managed to point out that another function of religion is to provide support for society’s members in situations of social stress, like birth, death, marriage, divorce etc., where religion serves to reduce anxiety & tension resulting, which threaten to disrupt social life. In this sense, religion keeps society stable at times of individual and societal confusion and disorder and makes sure that people don’t reject the shared norms, values and traditions due to times of hardship.

An example would be after the 2004 Great Indian Ocean Tsunami, where most of the world’s religions sent support teams to the disaster area & helped to rebuild the place. They wanted to rebuild schools as fast as possible in particular, to maintain the important link between society, education & religion.

Unlike Durkheim, Malinowski actually went and lived in the society where his work was based on, gaining primary data. This is seen as a very positive thing, because no accusations of his work being ‘flawed’ could be made.

Also, his idea about how religion helps in time of crisis & uncertainty can be seen in today’s society e.g. the funeral of Princess Diana, where people gathered together & expressed their grievance.

However, like Durkheim, he makes broad generalizations based on his study of just one small scaled society, which obviously does not represent life in modern western society.

The functionalist sociologist Talcott Parson (1965) believed that religion was a conservative force, because it’s the primary source of meaning for members of society.

It provides answers to eternal questions dealing with death, the evil, suffering and justice. Often these questions appear to be unjustified, and therefore they might threaten to undermine people’s faith. However, religion provides answers; e.g. for the question ‘why do evil people prosper’ religion might give the answer that these evil people will get punished for their deeds in the afterlife etc.

By providing these answers, religion helps to make sense of all experiences, which keeps society in order and stable, therefore inhibiting changes.

So, religion promotes social stability rather than change, by relieving tension & frustration that could disrupt social order.

However, Marxists would strongly disagree with this idea, as they believe that by focussing on the afterlife, people passively accept exploitation.

Marxism is a conflict theory. Like functionalist, they believe that religion is a conservative force, but they don’t see it from a positive view. According to these sociologists, religion is an institution of domination & oppression, and a means of social control, inhibiting changes in the social class inequalities in society. They argue that religion legitimizes social inequality, keeping the working classes in a state of false consciousness, not being aware of the true nature of their exploitation & passively accepting their lower status.

This is because, according to Marx, religion acts as the ‘opium’ of the people -it works as a pacifying drug-, as it doesn’t solve any problems that people may have, but only dulls the pain, as people inactively put up with their sufferings, believing its ‘God’s will’ and so unchangeable, remaining in a state of false consciousness, thinking they will be rewarded in heaven.

Marxists on the whole believe religion creates passive individuals, who do not attempt to change the world for the better, but simply accept spiritual alternatives.

The fact that Marxists believe that ‘man makes religion, religion does not make men’ sums up their ideas. In other words, if an individual is alienated & exploited, he or she is likely to turn to religion and find the answers there.

This is the reason why most religions originate in the oppressed classes (the working classes), as they have a need in religion, to gain a sense of renewed strength and confidence to move on with life.

According to Marxists, the ruling classes are using religion as a ‘tool’ to maintain ideological control, making it less likely that the members of the working class will recognize the fact that they are being exploited & therefore revolt in this way, religion is seen as a conservative force.

Marxist have gained theoretical support from feminists because they agree with Marxists about the fact that religion causes conflict, passing on negative norms and values to members of society, although they believe these deal with gender inequality rather than class inequality.

However, a negative aspect of the Marxist view is that they ignore secularization, as the ideological power of religion has been undermined by the fact that people in society tend to be less religious today than in the past.

Also, they are too deterministic in saying that religion is a conservative force for social class inequalities. Religion can be a force for social change, and it has done so in the past, improving the lives of millions of oppressed working class people. E.g. the Civil Rights Movement (USA) where South African churches played a major role in changing white supremacist society. Also, the levellers in the English Civil War wanted a communistic society, basing their ideas on Christianity & the Bible.

Like Marxists, Feminists believe that religion is a means of social control, oppressing women and keeping men in power. They argue that religious beliefs are merely a patriarchal ideology, restricting social change and justifying social inequality.

Feminist believe that through secondary socialization, religion teaches & preaches the norms & values of the men, helping to legitimize the suppression of women.

Much evidence is given to support their view. Feminists argue that religion is seen from a male point of view; holy texts are all written & interpreted by men, reference to male characters is a lot more than women in these texts, and Gods tend to be men in almost all major world religions. This gives men the feeling of being ‘holier’ and gives a justification to see women as ‘second hand citizens’ & therefore, as I said, legitimizes gender inequality.

Also, where there is reference to female characters in holy texts, a passive and nurturing gender role is attached to them.. ADAM & EVE..

Gender role ideas are also reinforced in religious texts. Men are portrayed as being strong and insuperable

Women on the other hand, are portrayed to be passive,

unintelligent

They argue that religion is a conservative force, as it reproduces, maintains & legitimizes gender inequality.

However, there are also sociologists who believe religion to be a source for social change.

Firstly, Neo-Marxist,

However, not all Marxists agree that religion is purely ‘the opium of the people’.

Neo-Marxists, who are writers that have tried to update the writings of Karl Marx to suit new developments in society, have rejected the view that religion is merely a conservative force. They believe that religion can be a force for social change, being used by the working class’ to bring about social change.

Antonio Gramsci (1971), who wrote his ideas about religion around the 1920s, was aware of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church had shaped the minds of its followers over centuries, supporting ruling class interest, by making the poor & oppressed focus on the afterlife rather than this life.

However, he believed that the working class could revolt to the class inequalities, by producing their own intellectuals, who represent working class experience & therefore help to shape working class consciousness. Gramsci argued that religious beliefs and practices could develop that would support & guide challenges to the ruling class because the church was not directly under their control.

Otto Madurdo argued that social liberation could occur, (freedom through religion) but he believed this could only happen If the oppressed masses were not to produce their own intellectuals, but if they were go to their religious leader, taking their discontent to the churches and let them decide a plan of action bringing about changes as happened in Poland, South Africa and South America. This is called the liberation theology- freedom through religion.

Father Camillo

Marx Weber was another sociologist who believed that religion could be a source for change

Strengths of his theory were that

What is Sociology and its meaning. Well Sociology is the study of the development, structure, and functioning of human society. The term was first defined by French philosopher Auguste Comte in 1838 who is known to most people as the “Father of Sociology”. Sociology however extends far more back in time before Comte. People such as Plato, Confucius, and Ma Tuan-Lin during the B.C and before the 1500 conducted studies of the human society taking the first step into Sociology. Because humans are always advancing everyday so is Sociology. With the ability to now travel and reach far ends of the earth Sociologist can expand their knowledge and studies while at the same time increase the advancement of human knowledge.

Enlightenment Thinkers are known to be the first people to have started Sociology. They were the first to try and provided reasons and general information about the human interaction. Without the uses of logic that already in place most Sociologist would try and find their own answer to the world we live in today. With the ability to detach themselves from the outside world knowledge and principle in place a non-biases study can be made which can lay down some foundation and explains social life. The study of society however did not begin right away instead Sociologist actually started to study how society would be in the future the “idea society”. Sooner no later in the 1800’s Sociologist started to study how society works and with this knowledge they felt that they were better armed against society problems with the ability to explain social changes that were happening each passing day.

Our father of Sociology Auguste Comte was first and engineering student before secretly becoming a pupil to Claude Henri de Rouvroy Comte de Saint Simon, a French social philosopher who was born in 1760 and died on 1825. Claude was an advocate, a person who supports social reforms and scientific reasoning. He believed by applying scientific principle to society that it would be easier to learn how society is organized. Claude also found that with this knowledge it would allow him to find the best possible solution against society problems such as change and how to take control of the problem. Auguste Comte during his time started to learn more about the world and what governs it such as the law of physics by Sir Isaac Newton who had develop the law of gravity as well as the discovery of the subject of natural science such as biology

Comte had the idea that if it was possible to define the world with sciences then why not use science with sociology to study the world even further. A world based on scientific facts which Comte believed that would create a better, understanding society in which social change will bring a crucial role to sociologist everywhere. Soon no later after Comte, Karl Marx came into the scene of philosophy which is quite a branch of sociology. Karl who was born in Prussia which is now part of the country of Germany studied law until his interest started to change towards philosophy. Karl wrote a long document in 1841 in which he was only 23 years old hoping to gain an academic spot light but because of his non-biases view of politics he could not obtain such a position. Turning to journalism Karl wrote about social issues and comments about the government of Prussian but was soon banned. Later because of this Karl started to become more deeply involved in socialism.

Karl moved to Paris where he met one of his closest friends Friedrich Engels. Friedrich Engels who is the son of a wealthy German industrialist collaborated with Karl to create a book called The Holy Family where the book focus on the importance of massive social changed. Engels providing the funds to Karl allowed him to release many of his works throughout his lifetime. Karl writing however started to attract the wrong type of attention in which he didn’t intend too and because of this Paris government officials asked Karl to leave Paris in 1845. After leaving Paris Karl left to Belgium where in a turn of events he became the president of the Brussels chapter of the International Communist League a rebellion group. Soon no later Karl is expelled from Belgium because of this. Fast forwarding upon Karl life and due to journalism, Karl became a true Sociologist. He had gathered a mass lot of information of society during his time but because of that he had gotten kick out of the country or states more than over 3 times. Not only did Karl have stroke of bad lucks but he also had money problems forcing him to pawn his own possession.

After Karl a new revolution came to the world by the name of Max Weber. Max Weber who was a German Sociologist is the oldest in his family. In Weber household politics and academics were a frequent houseguest. Weber being an enthusiastic reader when he was young became interested in a wide variety of areas especially history, religion, economics, and philosophy. Shares Comte’s belief shares the ideas and concerns of other Sociologist. Weber time during the Industrialist Revolution gave him a strong point in the eyes of being a sociologist. The Industrialist Revolution was the time when many factory workers who were poor attacked the inequalities in this term the rich and powerful. This brought upon a major shift in society and balance creating a time of chaos. In Germany Weber started to become active in politics since he was attending Freiburg but then left to Heidelberg. Due to Weber health deteriorating he had never held a permanent academic position.

Emile Durkheim is one of the most successful Sociologist founding father. Like Comte, Durkheim created history within Sociology. Durkheim was a French academic Sociologist and one of the founding father of the “Discipline” He also established an elite university system in France, but with enough method and content that it could be built upon on. Durkheim however became more interested in Catholicism and wanted to be a rabbi himself. No later Durkheim incorporated religion within his sociological work allowing a far more span view of what religion is. Durkheim’s major work, The Elementary forms of Religious Life is still of importance in sociology of religion. His devotion to succeeded academically pushes him to establish sociology as an academic discipline to hold the first full professorship in social science in France.

By devoting his career to creating a scientific sociological system, the moral direction of society would start to go either way. Durkheim had traveled to Germany, where he was amazed by the scientific research. Soon no later Durkheim in 1889 became an editor of the scholarly sociology journal to emphasizing the importance of methodological research. So convinced that the journal itself could go even further, Durkheim produced three more of his famous work to the public further expanding sociology as we see it today.

Herbert Spencer was an English philosopher, biologist, sociologist, and prominent classical liberal during the Victoria era. Spencer wanted to develop a concept of evolution as the development of the physical world. These would include organisms, Human mind, human culture and societies. Spencer was hyped about evolution before Darwin book had been release. Spencer had contributed a lot on the subject which includes religion, economics, anthropology, and philosophy. During his time Spencer had achieve a lot more than most Sociologists and had achieved a large amount of authority because the only other person who would had achieved something like that was Bertrand Russell in the 20th century. Around after 1900’s Spencer influences started to decline sharply so was his fame. His evolutionary stance lead to most of his famous idea such as “Social Darwinism” Social Darwinism was an influence on economist like Thorstein Veblen as well as member of the American apologist school like William Graham Sumner.

Georg Simmel who was born in Germany, Berlin became one of the most successful Sociologists. His father who passed away owned a very successful chocolate business shop in which Simmel holds a substantial amount too. Simmel studied philosophy and history at the University of Berlin where in 1881 he received his doctorate for his thesis on Kant philosophy of matters and a part of which was publish as ” The nature of matter according to Kant’s Physical monadology. He became a Privatdozent at the University of Berlin in 1885, clearly lecturing in aesthetics but additionally in ethics, logic, pessimism, art, attitude and sociology. His lectures were not alone accepted central the university, but admiring the bookish aristocratic of Berlin as well. Although his applications for abandoned chairs at German universities were accurate by Max Weber, Simmel remained an bookish outsider. Alone in 1901 was he animated to the rank of amazing assistant (full assistant but afterwards a chair; see the German area at Professor). At that time he was able-bodied accepted throughout Europe and America and was apparent as a man of abundant eminence. He was able-bodied accepted for his abounding accessories that appeared in magazines and newspapers.

Simmel had a adamantine time accepting in the bookish association admitting the abutment of able-bodied accepted associates, such as Max Weber, Rainer Maria Rilke, Stefan George and Edmund Husserl. Partly he was apparent as a Jew during an era of anti-Semitism, but additionally artlessly because his accessories were accounting for a accepted admirers rather than bookish sociologists. This led to dismissive judgments from added professionals. Simmel about connected his bookish and bookish work, demography allotment in aesthetic circles as able-bodied as actuality a cofounder of the German Association for Sociology, calm with Ferdinand Tonnies and Max Weber. This activity at the affair point of university and society, arts and aesthetics was accessible because he had been the beneficiary to a affluence from his appointed guardian. In 1914, Simmel accustomed an accustomed captain with chair, at the again German University of Strassburg, but did not feel at home there. Because of the beginning of World War I, all bookish activities and lectures were apoplectic as address halls were adapted to aggressive hospitals. In 1915 he activated afterwards success for a armchair at the University of Heidelberg.

The growth of sociology as an educational self-discipline in the U. s. Declares coincided with the organization and improving of many institutions and universities that were along with a new focus on graduate student divisions and curricula on “modern subjects.” In 1876, Yale University’s Bill Graham Sumner trained the first course determined as “sociology” in the U. s. Declares. The School of Chi town recognized the first graduate student division of sociology in the U. s. Declares in 1892 and by 1910, most institutions were offering sociology programs. Three decades later, most of these educational institutions had recognized sociology divisions. Sociology was first trained in high educational institutions in 1911.Sociology was also growing in Malaysia and Italy during this period. However, in European countries, the self-discipline experienced great difficulties due to Globe Conflicts I and II. Many sociologists were murdered or left Malaysia and Italy between 1933 and the end of Globe War II. After Globe War II, sociologists came back to Malaysia affected by their studies in America. The outcome was that United States sociologists became the globe management theoretically and analysis for many decades.

Sociology has expanded into a different and powerful self-discipline, suffering from a growth of specialized places. The United States Sociological Organization (ASA) was established in 1905 with 115 associates. By the end of 2004, it had expanded to almost 14,000 associates and more than 40 “sections” protecting specific places of attention. Many other nations also have large national sociology companies. The Worldwide Sociological Organization (ISA) featured more than 3,300 associates in 2004 from 91 different nations. The ISA provided analysis committees protecting more than 50 different places of attention, protecting subjects as different as children, aging, family members, law, feelings, sex, religious beliefs, mental health, serenity and war, and work.

In Conclusion Sociology is ever growing and will expand no matter what. People will always be curious and once a question has been made an answer must be found. Sociology is used to help the society with their lives but also explain why it does happen and how. As the years go by so will Sociology and its growth.

Sources

“History Of Sociology.” About.com Sociology. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 May 2013.

“History of Sociology.” History of Sociology. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 May 2013.

“HISTORY AND SOCIOLOGY.” Franz Oppenheimer: History and Sociology. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 May 2013.

“Georg Simmel: English Texts.” Georg Simmel: English Texts. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 May 2013.

“Max Weber.” Max Weber. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 May 2013.

The Sociology Manual 1303

1

Using examples critically assess one sociological theory of religion

In most traditional societies, religion is an important form of social ‘togetherness’. It augments a feeling of ‘community’ and promotes a set of shared values and beliefs in some form of god. Religion also plays a central role in cultural life; people often synthesize religious symbols and rituals into the material and artistic culture of the society: literature, storytelling, painting, music, and dance.[1] It is the focus of the ‘society’ that is of interest to religious sociologists, in particular theories concerning the way religious behaviour differs between and within societies. Beckford notes that theories’ revolving around ‘how social interaction benefits or holds back societies’, has made sociology a renowned area of study.[2]

In order to establish a fundamental starting point in this thesis, the foundations of sociology and the sociology of religion will be described in context. Furthermore, it will discuss, in some detail, the sociological theoretical approach of functionalism by sociologists; a critical analysis will aim to show the differences in their approaches to functionalism and will include supporting and critical statements from preceding and subsequent sociological theorists. Sociologists generally define religion as a ‘codified set of moral beliefs concerning sacred things and rules governing the behaviour of believers who form a spiritual community’[3]. Auguste Comte (1798 – 1857) describes sociology as the study of human societies.[4] A classical view is that, ‘it is a social science’ that, ‘uses varied methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis’,[5] and is often used to develop theory about human social activity. The sociology of religion therefore takes into account the aforementioned and also includes the practices, historical backgrounds, developments, universal themes and roles of religion in society.[6] Jones (2003) describes Comte as the first to proclaim the virtues of an empirically based social science,[7] a type of sociology that would have enormous implications for someone like Comte, who had been born during the aftermath of the French Revolution. Bilton et al (1996) explain this further:

Positive social knowledge could offer the means for peaceful reconstruction of social order by the elite of enlightened scientists and intellectuals…Social change need not depend upon revolutionary violence and the manipulation of the mob’[8]

Comte was able to make use of the new science for the progression of society and the re-establishment of order as well as being able to apply the positive method to social theory[9]. Comte and his fellow Frenchman Durkheim are said to be the forerunners in creating the discipline of sociology. Thompson (1982) describes Comte as ‘giving the subject its name and an ambitious prospectus,’ whilst Durkheim gave it, ‘academic credibility and influence.’[10]

Functionalist sociologists focus their attention on the ‘nature of institutional relationships in society’.[11] To understand this further, one can use Talcott Parsons’ functionalist ideas as an example. Parsons, [who supported functionalism in the United States] used the functionalist perspective to group institutions in society into four related functional sub-systems; economic, political, kinship, and cultural. This theory stressed the importance of interdependence among all behaviour patterns and institutions within a social system to its long-term survival. [12] In a similar way Durkheim In trying to explain the value of social and cultural character, illuminated them in terms of their contribution to the operation of an ‘overall’ system. Furthermore, Malinowski, who promoted functionalism in England, endorsed the idea that cultural practices had psychological and physiological functions, such as the reduction of fear and anxiety, and the satisfaction of desires.[13] Another Englishman Radcliffe-Brown contended that, ‘all instituted practices ultimately contribute to the maintenance, and hence the survival, of the entire social system, determining the character of inter-group relations.’[14] It is Parsons ‘sub-system’ of culture that encompasses religion that we now turn to.

A functional definition of religion is fundamentally based on the ‘social structure’ and ‘drawing together’ of people, it pays particular attention to how religion guides and influences the lives of people who are actively involved, and through this promotes ‘unity and social cohesiveness’.[15] Durkheim believed and argued that, religion was a socially constructed institution, serving the needs of society by socialising members into the same norms, values and beliefs, therefore reinforcing the collective conscience upon which the stability of society rests.[16] He looked in depth at the origins, meaning, and function of religion in society. His belief was that religion was not so much about God, but more about the consolidation of society and the sense of identity that this creates within a particular society.[17] He fully believed that individuals who accepted their role within their own society develop a form of ‘social conscience’ as part of that role, which Durkheim labels as the ‘Conscience collective,’[18] which in simpler terms could be labelled as, ‘ a common understanding’.[19]

Published in 1921 and penned by Durkheim,’ The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life’, is renowned as the best-known study on the sociology of religion.[20] Using secondary data, Durkheim studied native totemism in primitive Australian tribes, in effect the totem is a symbol that is an integral part of the group, and during ceremonies will be the magnet that draws everyone together to form a collective whole. Therefore, totemism in this instance is explained not in terms of what it is, [what the content of its doctrines and beliefs are] – but what it does, that is, the function it performs for the social system.[21] Durkheim claims that, ‘the totem, the sacred object is a representation, by which society symbolises itself,’[22] which according to Fulcher and Scott, he believed to be the ‘real basis of social solidarity.’[23] From his observations Durkheim developed his theory of the sacred and profane, believing that all things in society can be separated into these distinct categories, as a fundamental dichotomy the sacred and profane are seen as two separate domains or worlds. For Durkheim the sacred meant the unity of the group embodied in symbols, as in his example of totems, the profane was more about the mundane or the individual, and less concerned with the ‘group’. However the British anthropologist Evans-Pritchard (1937) observed that sacred things may be profane at certain times, an example he gives is the case of the Azande[24], who, when their shrines were not in ritual use, were used as props to rest their spears.[25] This analysis of the sacred and the profane was extended to all religions by Durkheim and his followers, making a focus on what is similar about what they each do, and about the integrative functions all these religions perform on their social systems.[26] He therefore viewed religion within the context of the entire society and acknowledged its place in influencing the thinking and behaviour of the members of society.[27] Furthermore he believed that order flowed from consensus, from the existence of shared norms and values,[28] for him the key cause of social upheaval stems from anomie, the lack of ‘regulating’ norms. ‘Without norms constraining behaviour’, explains Durkheim, ‘humans develop insatiable appetites, limitless desires and general feelings of irritation and dissatisfaction.’[29]

Radcliffe-Brown continued Durkheim’s sociological perspective of society; he particularly focused on the institutions of kinship and descent and suggested that, at least in tribal societies, they determined the character of family organization, politics, economy, and inter-group relations.[30] Thus, in structural-functionalist thought, individuals are not significant in and of themselves but only in terms of their social status: their position in patterns of social relations. When regarding religious ceremonies Radcliffe-Brown contends that ceremonies, for example, in the form of communal dancing, promoted unity and harmony and functioned to enhance social solidarity and the survival of the society, in this he agreed with another renowned anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski.

Malinowski’s functionalism was highly influential in the 1920s and 1930s, a British anthropologist, he conducted one of the first major studies of religion from an ethnocentric perspective, on the people of the Trobriand Islands.[31] The first anthropologist to undertake a long-term piece of field research, Malinowski lived among the Trobriand islanders for four years.[32] In studying the functions of religion in a small scale, he agreed with Durkheim that ‘religion reinforced social norms, values and promoted social solidarity.’[33] Malinowski also believed that religion could relieve social anxiety and could provide a sense of security especially when people are faced with situations in which they have no control, an example Malinowski gives is based on his observation of the Trobriand islanders fishing in a calm lagoon, no religious practice was attached, however when faced with the perils of fishing in the open ocean, religious rituals were always performed. In this way Malinowski believed humans could exert a perceived control over a world in which they held no significant, individual power.[34] This individual, perceived control can be seen to be used by people facing a personal crisis. Often in a situation where they have no control over the outcome, people will turn to religion looking for guidance and sanctuary; thereby giving them a sense of power.

For Malinowski then, religion also helped to conciliate periods of life crises and events such as death, marriage and birth, these rituals, known as ‘rites of passage’ are marked by ceremonies, that by their very nature, are a form of ‘social togetherness’ that help to create social order and contentment. These ‘rites’ however can be seen to be controlled in that to a certain extent one is prepared for new life, death and marriage, these events form part the ‘circle of life’ and therefore come with some prior knowledge. Ceremonies that relate to these life events could be seen as a ‘predictable’ common bond that will help to reinforce social solidarity. Malinowski argues that religion minimizes the disruption, in particular, of death. He believes that the assertion of immortality gives rise to feelings of comfort for the bereaved, whilst the act of a funeral ceremony binds the survivors together.[35] Coser (1977) explains further:

Religion can counter a sense of loss, which, as in the case of death, may be experienced on both the individual and the collective level therefore religion as a social institution serves to give meaning to man’s existential predicaments by tying the individual to that supra-individual sphere of transcendent values which is ultimately rooted in his society.[36]

So far we have seen that collective or communal gatherings are generally aimed at promoting social solidarity and cohesion, this is backed by the empirical evidence offered by Malinowski in his study of the Trobriand Islands. Hamilton (1995) offers that these gatherings can also be interpreted as involving the ‘recognition of divisions, conflict and disharmonies inherent in the society and rituals may be seen as a means of coping with and defusing them’.[37]

Concerning Malinowski’s empirical evidence, a contrasting point is noted by Casanova (1995) who questions functionalism on empirical grounds, he argues that religion does not provide consensus and unity, instead he says that most conflicts [an example he gives is the Iran/Iraq war] in society have religious foundations.[38] Marxist sociologists also criticise functionalists on a theoretical level. Marx claims that religion does not create societal consensus, instead it creates conflict between those that have wealth in the ruling class and those that do not in the working class.[39] Therefore according to Marx, the only norms and values that are conserved by religion are those of the ruling class. Functionalist theory could therefore be said to neglect the areas in which religion has been dysfunctional for society, whereby religious divisions have caused disruption and conflict rather than promoting social order. History provides numerous examples of this including the aforementioned Iran/Iraq dispute, Northern Ireland and Bosnia.

An “Extreme functionalist assessment of religion,” declares William Stevens, is put forward by American sociologist Robert Bellah. Bellah fuses Parsons’ argument that America derives its values from Protestantism, with Durkheim’s belief that the worship of god is the disguised worship of society. From this Bellah develops a new kind of religious concept, that of a ‘civil’ religion.[40] Therefore despite the individual belief systems of American citizens, it is the overarching faith in America that unites Americans. Wallis (1983:44) cited in Jones, explains that Bellah finds evidence of civil religion in Presidential inaugurations and ceremonials such as Thanksgiving Day and Memorial Day are similarly held to integrate families into the civil religion, or to unify the community around its values.[41] A further point to be made here is that generally civil religion does not hold to a belief in the supernatural. Bellah disagrees and says examples of confirmation in the supernatural can be seen or heard on a daily basis, phrases such as “God Bless America” and the words ‘In God we trust’ on the national currency, he believes are prime examples of this. However Stevens asserts that this is not the god of any particular creed, but a god of America. For Bellah then civil religion creates a social cohesiveness by gathering people together to collectively partake in some form of ceremonial event. Therefore flag waving at a sporting event or lining the street to celebrate a royal marriage or death can bring about a united outpouring of joy or grief that in itself generates order. A contemporary example is the untimely death of Princess Diana. Her funeral witnessed a monumental combining of people, faiths and nations in a symbolic act of grief.

Functionalist sociologists tend to emphasize what maintains society, not what changes it and are criticized for being unable to account for social change because it focuses so intently on social order and equilibrium in society. Functionalists have to take into account that change does happen in societies and that change is a good thing, and can represent progress. Jones says that the functionalist way around this is to use an organic analogy – social progress occurs as it does with organisms – as an evolutionary change.[42] Bilton et al explain that this takes shape in the form of structural differentiation…’differentiation is a type of splitting or separation of a previously undivided unit, the new units differ in that they are more specialised in the functions they perform’.[43] Talcott Parsons, in his approach to social change, emphasises differentiation. According to Parsons, ‘Institutions change, if the need of the system changes.’[44] An example of a system change stems from The Industrial Revolution, which was facilitated by capitalism, was increasingly demanding technological advances to increase profit. In order to make this possible there was a need for more educated workforces. As a result the industrial economy needed a new form of family to perform these specialist functions. Thus, as one aspect of society changed – the economy and production – it required a comparable change in the educational system, bringing social life back into equilibrium.

This new modernization of society, explains Marske, ‘is associated with the increasing indifference of the individual from the traditional social bonds of an intimate network of diffuse social relationships.’ [45] Due to a greater demand in the workforce people from all walks of life came together causing an increase in the cultural diversity within a particular society. As a result individuality became a more prominent feature; religion it seems was becoming less social and more personal. Durkheim would disagree with this statement as he believed it was possible to be an individual as well as social institution, he explains,

In reality, the religion of the individual is a social institution like all known religions. It is society which assigns us this ideal as the sole common end which is today capable of providing a focus for men’s wills.[46]

Dillon (2003) explains that social scientists and Western intellectuals have been promising the end of Religion for centuries,

Comte announced that, as a result of modernization, human society was outgrowing the ‘theological stage’ of social evolution and a new age was dawning which the science of sociology would replace religion as the basis or moral judgements.[47]

Durkheim predicted the gradual decrease in formal world religions; in post-enlightenment society he felt that there would be a greater emphasis on the ‘individual’. This he believed would lead to a ‘weakening of ties’ in the modern world. In addition he envisaged that ‘social solidarity’ and the ‘collective conscience’ would be taken up by other institutions that would evolve into new forms of religious experience.[48] Furthermore a maturing modernity would see scientific thinking replace religious thinking. As a consequence, Durkheim considered the ‘concept of “God” to be on the verge of extinction.

In its place he envisioned society as promoting civil religion, in which, for example, civic celebrations, parades, and patriotism take the place of church services. If traditional religion were to continue, he believed it would do so only as a means to preserve social cohesion and order. Parsons disagrees with this synopsis, ‘with modern life will come structural frameworks that are more competitive and specialised, however they would still persist because religion is an adaptable structural framework for the explanation of inexplicable social phenomena.’[49]

A criticism applied to the functionalist’s perspective stems from Durkheim’s analogy that societies and social institutions have personalities.[50] To imagine that a ‘society’ is a living, breathing organism is a difficult concept when in fact it is seen as an inorganic object. This creates what can said to be a philosophical problem and an ontological argument that society does not have needs as a human being does; and even if society does have needs they need not be met. The view here is that society is alive in the sense that it is made up of living individuals. What is not taken into account is that each individual is a different entity, with their own wants and needs. As part of the unit they can function and integrate within the group as a viable member. However individual life choices may not always create a positive function for the society as a whole. Functionalists in general tend to have a too positive view by believing that everything that exists in society does so because it has some kind of functional purpose. Robert Merton believed that it was entirely plausible for society to have dysfunctional elements.[51] Durkheim also recognised that some forms of social life could be seen in the same way, however he did not use the term dysfunctional. In his work on crime, he noted that crime was functional to society, this seems to be a contradiction in that he also said, ‘too high a level of crime’ might not be functional, because it could create a state of confusion regarding what constitutes the ‘norms’ that applied to peoples lives. As a society dysfunctional actions, in particular criminal actions are frowned upon, and as a society we can become ‘mob-handed’ in the way people come together to condemn an act of crime. Durkheim has a point to make here in that, ‘people combine together, forming a collective cohesion in defining themselves against what they are not.’[52] Picturing society like a vast machine, Merton argues that a society should best be considered as a cross between the cultural “goals” of a society-what it holds its members should strive for-and the “means” that are believed, legally or morally, to be legitimate ways that individuals should attain these goals. In an ideally organized society, the means will be available to deliver all of its members to their goals.[53]

One must take into account when analysing such theories that at the time of writing the world was a very different place to the one we live in today. Social anthropology has come under criticism for looking into primitive societies as a representation of unchanged societies – criticism in particular stems from the lack of historical records that could confirm or deny any findings. Radcliffe-Brown considered this type of work a mistake…his belief was that the religious and ritual systems ‘had to be understood in the context of the existing society and their role in that society.[54]

One could linger on Durkheim’s prediction that religion would decrease with modernity, religion here being in reference to the act of attending a social gathering in the worship of some form, whether it be totemic or divine. However an important point to note is that at the time when the ‘Sociology of Religion’ was in its infancy, religious practice was more of a regular occurrence than one would perhaps find in today’s society. However individuals are still irrevocably influenced by the role of religion in their own lives. Their beliefs and values allow them to feel supported in their everyday life; religion sets aside certain values and infuses them with special significance. Culture plays an important part here, as values, customs and beliefs combine to become a moral code by which societies adhere to and live by and pass on to future generations. Religion encourages collective worship be it in a church, mosque, temple, home or some other specified gathering place. Through the act of collective worship the individual is encouraged to feel part of a wider community.

Today, societies are classed as more secular in their nature, yet if one consider the earlier statement about religion being an important form of social ‘togetherness’ it would be easy to make analogies with the different groups that make up the society we inhabit. For example schools hold assemblies, awards evenings and performances all which can be seen as an example of community spirit and social cohesion. People as individuals, have interests outside of their immediate social groupings, this does not make them an outcast or outsider, and instead it promotes a sense of identity, individualism and the ‘self’. The writings of sociologists such as Durkheim, Comte, Radcliffe-Brown and Parsons are still important today, especially in comparing the way society sees religion. However, in contemporary society sociologists have a different set of problems to contend with as belief in ‘modern society’ and ‘materialism’ for many becomes a more vital ‘moral value’ than partaking in a religious practice.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beckford, James A. (2003) Social Theory and Religion, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

Bilton et al, Introductory sociology 3rd Edn (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998).

Casanova, Jose, Public Religions in the Modern World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995)

Christiano, Kevin J., William Swatos Jr & Peter Kivisto, Sociology of Religion: Contemporary Developments Lanham, 2nd edition (MD: Rowman & Littlefield publishers, 2008).

Comte, Auguste, A Dictionary of Sociology (3rd Ed), John Scott & Gordon Marshall (eds), (Oxford: OUP, 2005).

Coser, Lewis A. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context, 2nd Ed., (Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1977), pp. 136-139,

Coser, Lewis A. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context, 2nd Ed., Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1977: 136-139,

Dewar, Greg, Religious studies, Philosophy and Ethics, (London: Oxford University Press, 2002).

Dillon, Michele, Handbook of the sociology of religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

Durkheim, Emile, The Division of Labor in Society. Translated by, George Simpson. (New York: Free Press, 1893/1964).

Durkheim, Emile, and Coser, Lewis A., The Division of Labor in Society. (Free Press, 1997)

Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study in Religious Sociology. Translated by, Joseph Ward Swain. (New York: Macmillan, 1915).

E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Theories of primitive religion, (Oxford: Clarendon press, 1965).

Emile Durkheim, Sociology and philosophy (New York: free press, 1974).

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. Social Anthropology and Other Essays. ( London,1950).Contains a critique of Radcliffe-Brown’s functionalism from the perspective of historicism.

Fulcher, J. & Scott, J. Sociology, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

Giddens, Anthony, Durkheim, (London: Harper Collins, 1996).

Goldschmidt Walter, Functionalism In Encyclopaedia of Cultural Anthropology, Vol 2. David Levinson and Melvin Ember, (eds) (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1996), p. 510.

Hamilton, M, The sociology of religion, 2nd edition (Oxon: Routledge, 2001).

Hunt, S. Religion in Western Society, (Hampshire: Palgrave, 2002).

Jones, Pip, Introducing Social Theory, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003).

Jones, Robert Alun., Rules of the sociological method 1895, in Emile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four Major Works. (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1986), pp. 60-81.

Macionis, J. & Plummer, K. Sociology: A Global Introduction (Essex: Pearson, 2005).

Merton, Robert, Social Theory and Social Structure, (USA: Macmillan, 1968), chapter 3.

Orenstein, Ashley D. DM, Sociological theory: Classical statements 6th edition (Boston: Pearson Education, 2005), pp.3-5: 32-36.

Sociology Quarter, Durkheim as a functionalist, vol 16 no 3 (Summer, 1975), pp 36 -379.

Thompson, Kenneth, (1982) Emile Durkheim, (Sussex: Ellis Horwood Limited, 1982).

Winthrop, Robert H. 1991. Functionalism In ‘Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology’ (New York: Greenwood Press, 1991), p. 130.

WEBLIOGRAPHY

‘Functionalism, in Anthropology and Sociology’ The Columbia Electronic Encyclopaedia. 2000-2007 Pearson Education, publishing as Infoplease. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0819881.html (Accessed: 18.01.10).

‘Functions OF religion’ learningat.ke7.org.uk/socialsciences/soc-sci/soc/a2/R. Accessed 14.1.10.

CliffsNotes.com. Introduction to Religion. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/topicArticleId-26957,articleId-26927.html. Accessed 10.1.10

Chris Livesey, Functionalist perspectives on Durkheim, www.sociology.org.uk

Marjolin, Robert French sociology-Comte and Durkheim, University of Chicago press American journal of sociology, vol. 42, no 5 (Mar., 1937), pp693 -704. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2767763

(Accessed: 12.1.10.).

Mark Glazer, Functionalism http://www.utpa.edu/faculty/mglazer/theory/functionalism.htm (Accessed: 13.12.09).

Marske, Charles E, (1987) Durkheim’s “Cult of the Individual” and the Moral Reconstitution of Society, Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No. 1, (American Sociological Association, 1987), pp. 1-14. http://www.jstor.org/stable/201987. Accessed: 17.01.10.

The Azande, http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/EthnoAtlas/Hmar/Cult_dir/Culture.7829 (Accessed: 15/1/10).

William J. Stevens, Religion: A Functionalist Assessment, http://www.helium.com/items841304-religion-a-functionalist-assessment. (Acces