Author: Andre Coleman

Before addressing the debate, the historical significance of social theory must be addressed as there is a long history regarding issues of objectivity, and value free research. Prior to World War Two, social research was dominated by the paradigm of positivism. Philosophers such as Comte (1798-1857) strongly affirmed that methods applied to the natural sciences such as physics should be applied to the study of social behaviour (Benton & Craib, 2001). The positivist perspective placed great emphasis on the objectivity of social research, accepting Science as ‘the only general form of knowledge’ that produces ‘reliable social scientific knowledge’ that can be generated into theory applicable to social behaviour within society (Benton & Craib, 2001: 23). Moreover, like the natural sciences it requires both logical and empirical support. Causal relationships can be identified and truths can be falsified thus, positivist sociology ‘assumes that law-like generalisations’ can be derived from social research Pedraza (2002: 75). Postivism was widely accepted throughout the nineteenth centuary as science was assumed to be the highest form of knowledge, thus by applying the methodologies of the natural science to the newborn social sciences allowed for some level of acceptance. As far as ‘objectivity’ is concerned, positivist methodological approaches claim that ‘objectivity’ is an ideal that is attainable, as the social realtiy of society can be observed it without any antecedents. As a result, the aim of the social scientist is to be exogenously detached from the research subject.

Turning to Weber (WEBERREF) changed the direction of social research claiming that although social research should be value free, obtaining completely objective research was impossible. This is simply because researchers are subjective humans. Weber coined the term value free sociology and urged that sociologists need to be unconfined by personal values if it was to make a positive contribution towards society. Weber recognised that personal values would to some extent influence research topics but encouraged objectivity in exploring a topic once chosen. For Weber, value freedom is then a non-judgemental analysis of society ‘in its own terms’. Although Weber advocated this approach to social research, it must be acknowledged that values can enter research in a variety of ways ranging from the choice of research area, formulation of the research question; methodology including data collection, analysis of data; interpretation of data and overall conclusions (Bryman, 2008).

Following from Weber the epistemological position of positivism has been overtly critiqued by various theorists, particularly those who take an ontological, interpretivist stance. For example, Becker (1964: 245) argues that, ‘there is no position from which sociological research can be done that is not biased in one way or another’. Therefore, social research cannot be completely objective as researchers can unknowingly contaminate their exploration of an issue with values developed throughout their own biography. Furthermore, Becker (1964) claims that, sociologists must either ‘write from the position of a superordinate or from that of a subordinate’ (Lawson, 1991: 591). In addressing this claim, Becker (1964) discusses the ‘credibility of hierarchy’ which explores the notion that social groups whom are perceived to be superior within a given society are in a position of power that can define the rules of society. The exclusivity of the natural sciences within society is an example of this. Becker (1964: 242) goes on to surmise that sociologists challenge this rule by refusing to acknowledge the ‘established status order’ in which it is surmised that the ‘truth of knowledge’ is unequally distributed. Therein, Becker suggests that social research should focus on the ‘underdog’ in order to reform knowledge distribution.

This is similar to the view that has been taken up by feminists such has Hartstock (2004: 7) who place emphasis on relativist standpoint theories whereby knowledge is shaped by power relations, that it is ‘socially situated’. Therefore those oppressed can give the best account fo the internal workings of their group. Hartstock (2004) attains that prior to feminist sociology, research disciplines and public policy did not account for women as group with their ‘own knowledge’. For Hartsock (2004), any social research that does not address the unequal distribution of knowledge, is therefore, potentially skewed. Thus drawing upon the Marxist notion of historic materialism standpoint theorists such as Hartstock (2004) and Harding (DATE) chose to address this with the aim of exercising social research from the position or ‘standpoint’ of women. It can be surmised from this perspective that it is therefore it is impossible for a social researcher to extract themselves from power relations in their own situation. Therefore the feminist approach strongly advocates that objectivity should not be the primary aim of a social investigation. Rather, it is important for researchers to adopt a stance and consider how their values will influence their research. In addition, it should be recognised that feminist researchers shape the results of their analyses no less than do those of sexist and androcentric researchers. The “objectivist” stance should be avoided as it attempts to make the researcher’s cultural beliefs and practices invisible, while simultaneously skewering the research objects, beliefs and practices to the display board (Harding, 1987:9).

What are the arguments against this?

GOULDNER

Gouldner is in consensus with Becker that social research cannot be value free yet he openly criticises Becker’s claiming that Becker does not address the reasons why sociologists are more inclined to take the side of the underdog. Furthermore Gouldner asserts that is not always the case,

“the manner which some sociologists conceive the value-free doctrine disposes them to ignore current human problems and to huddle together like old men seeking mutual warmth. ‘This is not our job,’ they say, ‘and if it were we would now know enough to do it.” (Gouldner, 1973: 13)

It is clear that subjectivity poses a severe limitation for the positivist objective approach to social research. For Gouldner, however, the positivist approach posed another extensive problem, it was ‘useful to those young, or not so young, men who live off sociology rather than for it, and who think of sociology as a way of getting ahead in the world by providing them with neutral techniques that may be sold on the open market to any buyer’ (Gouldner, 1973: 12). In others word Gouldner saw self interest as a powerful motivator – the outcome of research being affected by the context in what it is undertaken. Thus the social researcher is not necessarily on the side of the underdog.

In laymen terms Lawson (1991) suggests that the crux of this debate is the question of whether sociologists are allied with the state, accepting the state as the overall authority or should they adapt a more ethical, moral role in addressing social problems of society. Ultimately social researchers are divided by this dilemma that as Gouldner suggests, depends on the social context of the researcher. What Gouldner recognises is that the attempt of sociologists to draw upon the natural sciences to obtain an objective approach does not entirely fit with social studies and that the institutions in which professional sociologists consult such as government, academia and business can have a profound effect on a researchers values.

Parsonian sociologists such as Haak (1994) and Hammersely (2000) are critical on views promoted by Becker and Gouldner arguing that that the politicisation of social research is not only misguided, but inherently dangerous, and that ‘an intelligent and sceptical commitment to the principles of objectivity and value neutrality must remain an essential feature of social research’ (back cover). Hamersley (2000) promotes the idea of value-free, objective social research placing emphasis on academia as the key institution to producing knowledge. Yet the University as a place for producing knowledge itself is under threat. This can be demonstrated by addressing the tragedy of the anticommons.

ANTICOMMONS 300

In response to Harding’s Tragedy of the Commons whereby a resource is exploited by overuse, (HellerRosenburg1998)) address the notion of the ‘anticommons’ where upstream and downstream technologies are compatible for the development of a new product yet the technology is patentable and ownership is fragmented thus the price of the new product becomes high and its consumption ends up being small or there is a ‘gridlock’ in the development of the products

EXAMPLE OF ANTICOMMONS – This is not objective research if the notion is to make profit 250

This situation can be directly perceived by examining changes within university systems. For example, in Japan, national universities that conduct public research have transitioned to ‘University Corporations’ by which there is an emphasis in profiteering from any innovations it may develop (Nishijima, 2004). According to Nishijima (2004) the Japanese ministry of education has advocated universities to acquire patents of innovations and to partake in research activities with private organisations such as corporations.

through establishing Technology License Office for the past few years. The transition of National University to University Corporation implies that results of basic research will suddenly change from public goods to private goods and that the anticommons problem will emerge in the product innovation where basic research and development of new products are complementary.

In the case of National University, there seems no consensus (no argument so far) on how economists should formulate the objective function of national university.10 Even if we assume that national university behaves as if it maximized a particular objective function such as probability of research success subject to budget and other constraints, equilibrium variables of national university will not be far from those arbitrarily given, as long as the particular objective function is not convincing. Therefore we have no choice but to exogenously give particular values to variables

Thus as Oliver (1992) ascribes, social research are sometimes forced to take sides as funding bodies are not willing to take risks and support user-controlled research.

The point that Gouldner (1973) puts across is that sociology should focus on social change therefore it must take sides. Essentially, Marx emphasised the need for social research to contribute to social change,

“The Standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the stand point of the new is human society, or social humanity. The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it. (Eastman, 1935)

like Marx, Gouldner (1973) believed that sociology should count towards human emancipation – thus Gouldner became a strong believer in public sociology.

REFLEXIVITY 300

The notion of reflexivity. Researchers must give an indication of the purpose of their research and how they have come to partake in such research

This illustrates some of the factors that can affect social research. Namely, the need for profit.

PARSONIAN SOCIOLOGY – ARGUES FOR EPISTIMOLICAL RESEARCH – DISCUSS!!
BURAWOY – PUBLIC SOCIOLOGY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE THAT ACT AND THOSE WHO DONT

As Burawoy (2005: 324) asserts ‘the possibility for public sociology comes from sociology’s spontaneous connection to – its reflexive relation with – civil society’. Burawoy clearly recognises that sociology in itself is a reflexive paradigm and suggests that it clearly needs to move from ideological theory to commitment to action. In a sense Burawoy (2005: 325) advocates that social research must take sides claiming like Marx and Gouldner that society should ‘place human society or social humanity at its organising centre’.

200 words

Whilst this debate continues, a few conclusions can be drawn from this essay. Firstly, it is near impossible for social researchers to complete value free research. There are several factors that account for this. Namely as Gouldner asserts, the social context in which research is conducted. Secondly, It would seem that social research is clearly divided by professional and public sociology. Thus it is not a case of whether or not to take sides but more a case of which side our values empower us to choose. Those inclined towards professional sociology may attain that objectivity is not compromised whereas those inclined towards public sociology may recognise that it can be and even more so, that it is necessary to evoke humanitarian changes.

There are many social issues facing New Zealanders today, couple these with low economics and low employment and these factors start turning these issues into health problems such as obesity. This essay will outline a social issue of obesity. It will then give a brief explanation of sociological theories, upon doing so the essay will then relate the social issue back to the three sociology theories. Lastly this essay will explore how obesity is affecting MA?ori.

Obesity in New Zealand has become a major health and social issue facing people of all ages. Recent statistics on this issue have highlighted just how much of a problem obesity has become.in the years 2008/09 27.8% of all adults (aged 15+) are obese that’s 1 in 4 and childhood obesity is no better with 1 in 12 children (aged 2 – 15) being obese that’s 8.3% (Ministry of health, 2011). This breaks down to males being 27.7% and females being 28.7%, compare these to 1997 where the statistics were vastly different. Only 17% of males were obese and 20.6% females were obese (Ministry of health, 2011). Children’s statistics are similar but there is a definite trend for children as only some in the total population are affected. All factors have been addressed while these statistics have been complied such as food intake, food types and psychical activities. The health issues that have steamed from social issue include type 2 diabetes, and heart disease among others in adults, However in children the problems are far more serious . Obese children face a lifetime of health problems such as high blood pressure and asthma. For obese children there is a greater risk of bullying, body dissatisfaction as well as psychological problems (Ministry of health, 2011). There has been research to suggest that obesity in children may lead to strokes, common cancers, reproductive problems and musculoskeletal problems (Ministry of health, 2011). Obese children often lead to obese adults; this is now not just a health problem but a social issue as the repercussions that stem from this are far reaching. Our children will have to face this head on as it will be down to their generation who ultimately have to deal with this issue.

Conflict theory, structural functionalism and symbolic interactionism are all theories used in sociology. They provide perspectives on how we see the world, something to grab a hold of so to understand the information we receive. Each of these theories provides a unique way of looking at situations for example a conflict theorist would say that all relationships are centred on power and someone holding more power than the other (Brent, Thompson, & Vale, 2000) . A conflict theorist believes that social economics are determined by the wealthy and therefore they hold the power over the majority of the people (Brent, Thompson, & Vale, 2000). With this happening it clearly breaks society into two groups rich and poor, the boss and the workers or as Karl Marx put it the bourgeoisie and the proletariats ( M.E. Sharpe, 2005), this division between the masses proves to be beneficial for the richer of society (Mooney, Knox, & Schacht, 2000). When dealing with social problems the conflict theory can be broken into two areas Non-Marxist conflict theory and Marxist conflict theory. Marxists focus on conflicts in our society that develop from differences in financial status (Ellison, 1987). Non-Marxists focus on conflicts in our society that arise from differing and oppositional ethics amongst different groups (Ellison, 1987).

A structural functionalist has a different view on the world as they believe that our society is a group of interrelated individuals that coexist in a manner that creates symmetry for all (Mooney, Knox, & Schacht, 2000). With this belief comes the realisation that corporations and families are equal in society, families reproduce, nurture and educate children who in turn provide workers with the skills and knowledge base for the corporations to continue (Mooney, Knox, & Schacht, 2000). Structural functionalism highlights how a society works together and how one part of society influences another part of society (Mooney, Knox, & Schacht, 2000).

Symbolic interactionism is largely based on work by George H Mead and Max Webber. Symbolic interactionism looks at the whole picture while analysing the micro level, as theorist who follows this perspective believe that by analysing the macro level the social problem could be broken down to see what level has been affected (Mooney, Knox, & Schacht, 2000). This perspective is occupied with the inner workings of a small group to see how human behaviour is influenced while interacting within the small group vs. a larger group (Mooney, Knox, & Schacht, 2000). This perspective also advocates that a person’s self is shaped and influenced by interaction with others in a social situation (Mooney, Knox, & Schacht, 2000).

Looking at obesity from a structural functionalist point of view you would have to say that not one person is to blame as it is a collective problem, that a collective has to come to terms with. With this understanding it then becomes hard to correct the problem as if one part of society is influencing to the wrong degree then that will impact on another part of society and then a domino effect is created (Nestle, 2006). Marketing advertisements in modern media that depict high fat and high in sugar foods utilising graphical images that portray healthy people, make the average consumer believe that eating this style of foods will have no effect on them (Witkowski, 2007). This is just one example of the major corporations influencing society to buy items which is propelling the obesity problem. This is one part of society influencing another part of society.

A conflict theorist would look at this social issue and would simply ask who is benefiting from this. Companies who promote unhealthy eating like fast food establishments who make unhealthy food readily available at a low cost point are the only ones who make a gain (Beck, 2007). By making appetizing food which tastes good with no nutritional value in bulk the fast food companies are able to keep costs down and in doing so they hold power over the consumer as they are able to purchase a cheap filling meal at no great cost to them (Young & Nestle, 2007). There is research that links the proliferation of fast food outlets to the growing challenge of obesity this factor linked with low exercise rates due to motorized transport and jobs that no longer require manual labour has led to a sequence of events in our society where obesity is one of the outcomes (Freund & Martin, 2008) . This has become the typical power struggle in our today’s society.

A symbolic interaction theorist would look at how people are being influenced by those they surround themselves with, how a person/people receives and interprets the information being beamed through all media outlets and peer’s a like (Kumanyika, 2008). By bringing the person down to the macro level a theorist would look to see how these influences are being processed, how media influences peoples buying patterns and challenges our ability to see right from wrong and good from bad. The use of modern media practice gives visuals of healthy people consuming high fat unhealthy food (Nestle, 2006). The image contradicts the act and therefore legitimises this in their mind, consequently making it ok to eat unhealthy. This is how obesity has become a social issue.

This is an essay in which I will attempt to evaluate the premise of whether a nuclear family is bad for its members using differences between the Functionalist perspectives of the family against the contrasting view of the Marxist and Feminist approach. I will outline the main approaches from all three and draw a conclusion.

Sexual – The family legitimises sex for the adult members. This closed unit allows the male to fulfil his natural function and alleviates the need to find a mate. He has one at the core of his family.

Reproductive – This allows the adults to propagate the species in a safe and stable environment. Once reproduction has been achieved the family legitimises the individual by giving it a family name and label with which it may enter society

Economic – The family provides the workers for society to function. It provides the environment in which its members spend their wages and so maintain a functioning economy.

Educational – In order for a society to maintain balance and function the family educates its members to accept the norms and values of society through primary and secondary socialisation. The adults begin primary socialisation in the family before sending the children to school and nursery where they enter the secondary stage.

Emile Durkheim was the founding father of the functionalist perspectives but he was joined by other sociologists who added to his founding idea. Talcott Parsons was one such individual who expanding on Durkheim’s theories by arguing that the family loses some of its functions to society by evolving into more complex units. It still however kept the fundamental distinction of being natural, whilst maintaining its position in a consensual society of values. Further more Parsons argued that this evolutionary process created a refuge from the rigours of a fast moving modern society. It allowed the members to return to the bosom of the family allowing them to relax and recharge the batteries. The term “warm bath” was used to describe the cloak of security and soothing nature of the close family unit.

The view that the family is not a natural creation, but an artificial creation to serve societies powerbase is an example of the Marxist perspective.

The backbone of the Marxist approach is the divide between the ruling class and the working class. Family was created by society in order to supply a constant supply of a labour force, so that the ruling class could maintain their advantageous position of gatherers of wealth and power. The roles of the family unit were defined solely for the purpose of maintaining a stable economy. The male (breadwinner) went out to work producing goods and was paid for his services. The female member, the carer, was “employed” by the proletariat through their husbands. Their main purpose was to maintain the breadwinner was looked after so that he was available for work.

The family was a breeding pot in which the next generation of workers was produced and socialised so they could take their place on the proletariat conveyor belt. They could replace the main breadwinner if he fell sick and unable to work without interruption. The phrase “two workers for the price of one” is apt because the ruling classes knew they had the obedience of the whole family due this need for money and so their subservience. This approach is in stark contrast to the functionalist approach of consensus.

Out of the Marxism grew the feminist movement. The Feminist Perspectives share commonalities to both Functionalist and Marxist approaches but are markedly different. The feminist perspective attacks and outlines 4 key themes which challenge the traditional notions of the family.

Firstly feminists challenge the idea of the family being “natural”. They argue the family demographic is not based on the biology of the individuals but echoes the Marxist view of exploitation and conflict. That women are the “takers of shit” (Fran Ansley). They are there to absorb the frustrations of men and give them emotional support. Secondly feminists challenge the view that family is based on social organisation. It is argued that because of cultural expectations and assumptions, woman do the domestic chores not because they are biologically suited to be the carer but because of the exploitation of men. The male can equally be the carer and by virtue the female can be the breadwinner. She is just denied this role by being socialised to accept her role and later on denied the opportunities due to inequality.

Feminists also believe that woman and men are fundamentally different and so their expectations of what they want from society are different. This in turn creates conflict not consensus, which is the prime directive of the functionalist approach. Lastly feminist challenge the notion that the family should be a “private sphere”. These common beliefs allows them to be exploited which denies them freedom and opportunity.

The main feminist perspectives are divided into four sub divisions of thought. They can be grouped as follows. Liberal, Marxist, Radical and Socialist.

Liberal – Liberal feminists are concerned with the discrimination of woman and fight in favour of legal reforms to overcome it

Marxist – Marxists feminists argue that the major reason for the oppression of woman is for the exclusion of woman from public production in society. The emancipation is an integral part in the overthrowing of capitalism.

Radical – Radical feminists see male control as the main problem in society. Women themselves must fight to free themselves from the bonds of male slavery.

Socialist – These feminists argue that the oppression of women is the product of capitalism and male control. The end of capitalism will not lead to the emancipation of woman but it requires a fight to free them form patriarchal control.

In conclusion, the functionalist approach to the family is based on a social contract that everything is consensual. The family unit have all been socialised to accept the same values and ideology. The feminist in contrast shares the values to some extent of the Marxist view of conflict. It highlights the oppression of the powerless in society, and focuses on women in particular. It advocates this conflict to allow woman to “break her bonds” and gain freedom. Feminists argue in the segregation, in some part, of woman. Functionalists advocate togetherness. From a feminist point of view the functionalist approach teaches passivity in woman and ensures children are socialised to accept their place in the hierarchy of the family, perpetuating the cycle. The functionalist approach assumes a woman’s role in family and society are extensions of her natural abilities and so her functional practicalities in an ordered society.

The nuclear family has evolved to the extent that in modern society it rarely exists. The feminist movement through the ages has empowered woman to challenge inequality and society has changed to suit. Many women do not need to seek the sanctity of marriage to empower them. They have become increasingly independent. Many families are now single parent families and laws have been changed to reflect the growing trends. A nuclear family serves its members differently, is good for some and detrimental for others depending through which perspective you look at it.

The definition of the nuclear family within our society is that we have a family comprising of a wife/mother, husband/father, and their children. The question that we are addressing in this piece of text is whether a nuclear family gives greater stability than other forms of family?

The debate over the universality and necessity of the nuclear family began in the early twentieth century. Pioneer anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski (1913) stated that the family had to be universal because it filled a biological need-caring and protecting infants and young children. No culture could survive, he asserted unless the birth of children was linked to both the mother and father in legally based parenthood.

Anthropologist George P. Murdock (1949) elaborated on the idea that the nuclear family is both universal and essential : “Whether as the role prevailing form on the family……..or as the basic unit from more complex families form, (the nuclear family) exists as a distinct and strongly functional group in every known society” (p.2.)

Looking at another form of a family unit within our society and evaluating whether a homosexual partnership can give a child/children more stability within a family unit, than a nuclear family. Firstly according to Dr. Laura A. Haynes Psychologist, Tustin California, October 5 2008 she states some say it does not matter who is loving the children as long as they are loved, the need for stability is there. She read a review written by a male homosexual couple seeking a birthmother to give her baby to them to adopt. The heading was “Your Child Will Have Two Loving Dads.” An unspoken consequence was “Your Child Will Be Motherless.” It is hard to imagine the experience of a child who never has a mother or never has a father. Some Psychotherapists who treat children of same sex couples are reporting that the children do long for the gendered parent they do not have.

The argument then adheres too, that a heterosexual couples hold the stronger and more acceptable view within our society to bringing up children in general, and a homosexual couple haven’t the biological gender reform to give a child a stable and coherent upbringing. Children therefore long for the nurturing at a young from their biological mother and would therefore be deprived of their natural growth progression.

A grave concern for the children is the instability of same sex relationships across cultures. In one large study in America and Canada (Jay and Young, 1997) 38 percent of male homosexuals said that the longest relationship they have ever had was less than one year. The average length of longest relationship and the most frequent response for the men was 2 years. The longest relationship for lesbians was on average thirty-eight months. (Jay and Young, 1979, pp. 340, 302).

It seems there folds a great argument within society and societies policies to whether stability can then be held within a homosexual relationship, boarding on the senses for discriminations against the sexes. A nuclear family is acceptable within our society, and holds the confidences towards building a functional acceptance within society as a homosexual couple hold to many discrepancies from the biological family in general.

Women in the past were of fewer rights than these days. Women were treated inferior to men in the workplace, and no one tried to seek change. Nowadays, women are represented by organizations and they have shown great roles in coordination with male roles. Women are not only workers that ignore their household roles but also great caregivers. Women can balance and manage to deserve what they get now.

Not Just Housewives

Women are basically the primary caregivers. They are beings that are made not only to spread love and care; they also have major characteristics that make them great mothers and wives. That’s mainly the only role women had decades ago where women were not allowed to go to schools, to work, and sometimes obliged to stay home. A lot has changed ever since women recognized that a world with working women is possible. Nowadays, women are incorporated heavily in funded work fields. Women are progressively colonizing the entire working power fifty years ago and almost around 60% of women aged of 16 and above work, not to mention that the number of working wives whether they have kids or not, has tripled since 1960 (Ogunrin, 2003 in Ogunrin et.al. 2008). There is a question worth being asked if it is answered, no room for mystery will be allowed and the question is: Are women truly worthy of being equal to men? And can women manage between taking care and sharing love with families and being successful and brilliant at workplaces?

An important yet not enough credited fact is that a major change has been noticed where women now are able to enter the workplace that was owned by men and attain greater ranks (Black et.al., 1998). After being incorporated to the workplace women have come to an understanding that their rights should no longer be oppressed, due to such fact, women have come to find ways to defend their rights and seek change. Organizations developed by women have come into existence to help and guide women to the right path and to keep them involved in the society in several ways, ways they have been banned from being part of. For instance, women founded health organizations like the Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID) which was founded to help women adapt easily to the new social norms and enhance gender equality worldwide. Other organizations founded by women seek not only gender equality but also help women know their rights and push them toward their goals.

Since the worldwide organizations stood for women’s rights, and after that women made massive treads toward receiving equal educations, they succeeded to tear out this right which was totally forbidden for women. Education contributed in the movement of the revolution that women had. It was considered a pathway to women’s equality with men. Not only that, it also ameliorated the role of women in every society by refuting the fact that says that men are smarter than women by having university degrees. Given that the higher the education the more the empowerment of women nowadays, women decided to attend universities in order to have authorities, high work positions, and high ranks in the society. In addition to that, education has entered the radical countries and raised awareness among the people, especially men, in order to give women the priority to choose, to improve, and to get accepted in the society. It worked in some countries and failed in some. To illustrate, in Saudi Arabia, women are determined and when they are, they always find a way to become better and advanced (you can have it all, 2008). Education played a major part in diminishing the gap among genders. In 1995, the Unicef states that challenging the sex differentiation, universities succeed to ameliorate many women. These differences are noticed in 20 to 30 women for every 100 men who take part in 3rd rand education (Unicef, 1995, in Orgunin et.al. 2008).

But no wonder some women still suffer from gender discrimination. This fact is proved in the workplace. Women were never treated fairly when it comes to having good jobs. Sung (2007) mentioned in his article that women in Asia who have graduated from college are finding it difficult to get jobs than man do. And it’s no lie that in countries where men and women have equal access to education, women remain jobless while men always find jobs. We now notice that women, almost all over the world, are everywhere in any work field. Business majors, engineering, and journalism are not only restricted to men, they also include women. Even when it comes to being paid, women and men earn equally and get raises based on their work, achievement and skills and not on their gender. As UN declares in the year 2005, almost equal numbers of men and women seek university studies, and another point worth mentioning is that since 1990, women have held employments that are not in the agricultural field (sung, 2007). But when statistics are gathered and facts are investigated, women do not step into all types of jobs out there. A study done by American Elites proves that even though women share positions in the workplace with men, there is no doubt that men dominated women in religious and business field ( Black et.al, 1998).

Another point worth mentioning is that women have problems with being paid. They not only are paid little money for their hard work in some countries, they are paid lesser than men. In Nigeria for instance, for two decades, women’s salaries have been augmented but still to a lesser wage than men earn. That is why, women, especially Nigerian women, feel undertreated and ignored. For several years, women have suffered from gender discrimination. While women worked hard to earn a living, they never were capable of getting exactly what they deserve. Nowadays, thanks to women’s determination and will to be treated equally, they earn exactly the same as men do regardless of their gender.

What prevented women of reaching high working posts or even to enter the world of politics is the lack of education and the belief that says women are governed by their hearts and cannot make good judgments based on intellect. From the time when women took the right of education and had organizations to defend their needs, conquering the political fields became possible. In Monrovia, Liberia for instance, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf is the first African and Liberian woman elected to be president. She’s an example of a successful 21st century woman. She earned a masters in Harvard and is know as the iron-woman for her mental and intellectual strength and power. Nowadays we have ladies who are vice presidents, leaders and also queens. For centuries, a queen and princesses are not just a symbol of feminism, they also symbolize power and determination. Queen Elisabeth, Princess Diana and Queen Rania are just examples of faces known by everyone and acknowledged by all except no one. Ever since women have earned the right to learn, to earn a college degree, to work and to live freely, women had all the rights to become active in their society and not just bystanders. An article entitled “You Can Have it All” (2008) introduced a very important yet right idea which indicated that those who believe that women cannot have everything, should get acquainted with Middle eastern women of the 21st century who are strong willed and eager to work , achieve and excel.

Another issue worth discussing is that women have not only struggled to have every right to share men’s rights to work, rise, and be politically involved, they have also been facing impediments and judgments that state that women, the natural caregivers, cannot enter work place, since they cannot in any way balance their lives. How can a working woman be able to juggle two jobs a day? Can a modern working woman find time to take care of her house, children and husband and still manage to have an exterior job? The answer is yes, why will it be any different? If women can manage their time and energy and direct their efforts to making it possible, then there’s nothing to keep them from being successful at home and at work. As Tilly and Scott’s study mentioned by Forrest(1988), the results show that women who take part in the workplace do not lose or ignore their primary and leading role at home with the family. When it comes to women in this century, the 21st century, working wives or mothers is not something weird, unusual or unacceptable, it’s every woman’s right to have a life of her own outside the perimeter of the home. There’s a very big misunderstanding Forrest(1988) suggests. He says that work and family are believed to be two separate things, whereas in reality, the limits between the two are not that solid, mostly when it comes to women. An important point comes to mind which is that women who work not only seek self-satisfaction or freedom, they do work to have a better chance in being successful and in helping out the husband or partner in economical needs and in fulfilling and satisfying the family and personal needs such as food, clothing and daily activities.

This life is not a mere path we have to follow. Every single person has a role in this life. Nothing comes into being without an aim. When the word woman is said, the first thing that comes to mind is a wife, a mother and a caregiver. This is not but entirely true. Women are emotional, caring and have instincts that make them such great beings, but this doesn’t mean that the only thing they know how to do is care and love. Women have been the proof that everything is possible and that when there’s a will there’s a way. They have been struggling to prove to others that they exist and do belong in every aspect of life. They can be doctors just as good and even in times better than men. Don’t forget that a doctor has to be not only smart and witty but also affectionate, what better doctor would patients have than caring ones? A woman’s fights for freedom, rights and needs in my opinion have ended in their benefit. Yes women not only deserve but must be treated equally to men if not in every aspect at least in the ones they have a say in, since women can be good at what they do. And as long as women can find a way to be great workers and ideal mothers and wives, why not give them the credit when they do make it work?

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, published in 2001 by Barbara Ehrenreich, is a book in which the author goes “undercover” and investigates the lives of the working poor by living and working in similar conditions. The book demonstrates fairly well two social paradigms, namely conflict theory (inspired by Marx and Weber) and structural-functionalism (inspired by Talcott Parsons). Conflict theory is clearly demonstrated throughout the book-social order based on inequality, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. There is also evidence of structural-functionalism, though it is not the best fit. Structural-functionalism is defined as a society in which there are groups of people organized into levels that enable individuals in this society to find stability, order and meaning (Kimmel, Aronson, and Dennis 2011). Ehrenreich shows that there are certainly levels within society, however, because of the inequalities that are present, the individuals in the working poor are unable to find stability or order because they are running a never-ending race so to speak. These inequalities have many effects on society at large (both wealthy and those in poverty), as well as the families within the working poor.

The economic inequality in our culture has many probable causes, but they all affect society as a whole, regardless of your class or status. These effects include things such as trust/social cohesion, crime/deviance, and population health (especially that of the working poor). There is a correlation between income inequality in a society and general mistrust, demonstrated by a U.S. General Survey (Uslaner and Brown 2002). One economist, a Joseph Stiglitz (2012), argues that this inequality has also led to distrust of businesses and the government. Crime is also a correlated factor in societies with a bigger economic gap. Several studies have been done that show a significant increase in homicides, both in the U.S. and worldwide, in societies that have a large margin between the rich and the poor (Martin, Wilson, and Vasdev 2001). Homicides are generally the most common measure of violent crime due to the fact that statistics are reported worldwide. There are also numerous consequences for population health in societies with a larger economic inequality. Researchers have found that these societies have a slightly lower life expectancy, and a higher incidence of social and health problems like incarceration rates, teenage births, mental illness, obesity, education and others (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009). It has also been shown that this inequality and social stratification can be linked to to anxiety, depression, drug abuse, and other stress-related disorders (Booth 2010).

It is because of this constantly present inequality that I believe Ehrenreich’s book most accurately represents conflict theory. At one point in the book, Ehrenreich remarks, “Maybe, it occurs to me, that I’m getting a tiny glimpse of what it would be like to be black (p. 100).” This is a slightly good point because, while we as a society view class as an achieved status, oftentimes it is fixed and ascribed much like race. Of the consequences brought about by this societal inequality and conflict, the working poor themselves experience the majority. Throughout Nickel and Dimed we are shown that there are many “hidden costs” to being poor, and oftentimes those in poverty are stuck in a rut with no way out because of them. The working poor have to live day-to-day in hotels accumulating costs, where is would normally be cheaper to rent an apartment if they could simply afford the security deposit and starting utilities. Without a semi-permanent shelter and rising debt, the working poor are usually forced to buy less healthy, more expensive meals because they don’t have the luxury of the appliances needed to cook and store food. Being poor is often a self-fulfilling prophecy, and those who believe they are stuck in poverty for the rest of their days are often likely to do just that.

In another part of the book, Ehrenreich and other maids are watching a training video on how to clean rooms and vacuum. The video itself is slightly demeaning, almost as if made to be watched by young children. In one part of the video, the man giving instructions says “See, I am the vacuum cleaner (p. 74).” This sort of paints a picture in the readers head as to how the company views and treats its employees: like they are mindless robots whose only purpose is to serve the business. To the rich, that is basically what they are. The rich view the working poor as a group in society that is made to be taken advantage of, very similar to Karl Marx’ view of the proletariat. In their eyes it fulfills the structural-functionalism paradigm of society-as many say, “someone has to do it”. Unfortunately this is not the case, because the theory calls for all individuals in society to have stability and order in their lives. As evidenced by Ehrenreich’s investigation into the working poor, the last thing the working poor have is stability, therefore this theory is not an entirely accurate representation of our culture. Instead there is the ever-present conflict between the rich and working class.

It is shown by both Ehrenreich’s book and in the real world that the working poor are blocked from advancing in society by many different obstacles. These obstacles are things like housing, transportation, and other basic necessities (Ehrenreich 2001). For instance, the working poor often do not have a permanent residence or family to stay with while they save money, and cannot afford a large deposit for an apartment. This means they have to settle with weekly hotel rooms, which end up being more expensive, yet are the only affordable option because they don’t require large down payments. Transportation is another common factor; if one is a member of the working poor they likely do not have their own car and have to rely on public transportation. Depending on the location it is do-able, but public transportation in our society is still not widely-available in every city. One study shows that single mothers who were able to work out a carpool or something similar with their peers were much less likely to require government aid (Eden and Lein 1997).

Food and clothing are also problems; without savings it is much harder to buy uniforms and such for jobs. The working poor also have to deal with odd work schedules, often working all times of the day and never having consistent hours. Not only does this mean it is harder to save up money, but being able to spend so little time at home also puts the working poor in a position where it is difficult to find the time to cook for themselves, and are often left with the choice of unhealthy fast food. Working odd hours also leaves parents helpless when it comes to childcare; while there are many options for childcare including free programs and social networking with peers, working at all hours of the night means you might not always have a babysitter lined up. Obviously this has negative consequences for both the children and the parents.

Ehrenreich’s book shows quite well how the conflict theory can apply to our society and the ever-growing gap between the rich and the working poor. In recent years people seem to be taking more notice of the working poor, but the gap is still as large as ever. In her evaluation at the end of the book, Ehrenreich states,

The “working poor,” as they are approvingly termed, are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor…

I agree with the author in the sense that the working poor are definitely “taking one for the team” so to say. They carry out the menial labor that is required in our society, but not everyone wants to do. Unfortunately because we don’t live in a utopia, they suffer for it. They make great sacrifice by doing jobs they often know don’t lead to advancement in society, because they know that it has to be done by someone. The conflict theory applies to both Ehrenreich’s book and our society in the real world-there are numerous inequalities in the workforce, and the allocation of resources for individuals in our society is distributed unfairly.

Explain and assess the role of New Right ideology in the ‘unsettling’ and reconstruction of the welfare state during the late 1970s/early 1980s.

Following World War II, the party in power at the time; Labour, saw a need for a welfare system that would systematically ‘look after’ the socially poor at the time. Labour ideology at the time included, the idea of tackling poverty, promoting equality, making sure social rights where maintained and making sure that the socially poor (working class) could ensure a better life and try and lift them out of relative poverty. The idea for the welfare state was not just for the benefit of the working class. The idea was of universalism, welfare for all in times of need ‘social welfare for everyone, not just the poor’. The earliest example of universal welfare would be the introduction of the National Health Service in 1947 and a National insurance taxation, a form of income for people to fall back on if one was struck with unemployment, illness retirement and other negative factors that stopped someone from working. The state uses the idea that it is required to help and support the economic markets and the family and provide help is areas in the markets and the family failed or couldn’t meet needs. The state initially believed that the welfare state should not be the main source of support for the individual rather a helping hand alongside with the working wage of a full time employed male, and that wage the mothers/wives can support the family whilst the male was at work. The idea of the welfare state was seen to be a ‘social insurance’ to the nuclear family ‘set up’ and that by keeping up with continued employment and providing a contribution (National Insurance Tax) that one would have acquired a welfare record to be eligible to claim if was deemed necessary. (Cochrane & Clarke, 1993, p.23)

These newly formed institutions of welfare were brought about by the Beveridge report of 1942 and saw that a stable Keynesian style economy (this was the idea the governments should and could intervene within its own economy. It should be able to manage employment levels and the demand for goods and products by the government setting up new taxations such as national insurance and new spending policies i.e. new benefits) would deliver full time employment for males. (Cochrane & Clarke, 1993, p.25) His report established key principles of a welfare system, by trying to support the three main cause of relative poverty; old age, sickness and unemployment. The report put forward a plan to have social security, provided by contributions as a right with no forms of ‘means testing. (Hughes & Lewis, 1998, p.23) The report concluded that employees and employers should contribute to a national insurance so if anyone fell into these three categories through no fault of their own, they could draw from the state until the person came to better fortune and was back in full-time employment. The idea of the welfare state was that it should not be a ‘way of life’, meaning that welfare was kept to a minimum and that ‘voluntary unemployment’ would be penalised (Cochrane & Clarke, 1993, p.25). The welfare state was not put in place to help discourage people looking at getting employment. The welfare state was built upon the assumption that there would be full employment for all (males) making sure that an individual would provide contributions and this in turn would make sure the welfare state wasn’t costing. However, people who were not in full-time employment who were drawing on the welfare state may not have made enough or any contribution to the welfare state causing it to become tested. The key to political settlement that Beveridge put forward for the structure for the welfare state was that was there to provide financial and social welfare (universally), be able to provide a political voice including ideology of social democracy. The report also outlined the fact that there should be an a acceptance that the state needed to manage and sustain the economy which included that there has to be a high level of male employment with the eventuality of bigger economic growth. The report also suggested that there should be a social normative within the nuclear white family, e.g. male works full-time providing a sustainable wage and sustaining a social wage, whilst the mother/wife stays at home as an employed housewife. The welfare state from the ideas and recommendations for Beveridge showed that “the relationship of the state to the people ideologically represented as one of unity”. (Hughes & Lewis, 1998, p.35).

Since 1945 to the mid 1970s the Beveridgean welfare model alongside with the Keynesian economic model created a system that helped support those most in need and for a time which worked well in strong economic growth in Britain. For many in politics at the time (social democratics) it was a necessary move to allow the government to intervene in the free market. They believed the market was run by a few powerful individuals and wanted to give back political freedom and that the market gave ‘non deserving’ rewards and that they weren’t governed by moral principles (www.s-cool.co.uk/alevelsociology, p.1, 2010) by redistributing income from the wealthy to the relative poor, helping the working class by providing new opportunities and trying to restrain small powerful government that only really benefited the rich.

However from the mid to late 1970s, the main ideological features that Beveridge suggested were starting to become questioned and the thought of change was being brought forward. This was partly due with the economic situation that Britain now found itself involved in; recession, in which recession undermined the ideas that underpinned Beveridge’s reforms. The reforms needed a good and stable economic grounding and by which from the mid 1970s was not there anymore. With questions over the state in which welfare was being provisioned and the state of the economy at the time, was concluded a attack on the welfare state and system for the provision of welfare for many reforms and changes.

By the mid 1970s Britain was being ‘choked’ by recession. Britain’s welfare outgoings were far greater than it incomings due to mass unemployment making individuals dependant on social welfare from the state, that by now could not afford to keep up with welfare needs. Criticisms of the welfare state led to the ‘unsettling’ of the welfare state. The idea that Beveridge put forward as one of the main ideas of the welfare state of being universal, for everyone, in reality, the welfare state saw that many social groups were actually being missed out by the welfare system, for example disability, the fact that a disabled person could not engage in full-time employment, racial exclusions; by the 1970s Britain was a different society with more immigration, the welfare system had not been updated to include different races, only white males where included in the old welfare model, and women and the movement of feminism. Back in 1942, Beveridge built his welfare model on the idea that white males would be in full-time work and providing contributions to the welfare state in the form of national insurance and other contributions such as pensions. The fact that women did not contribute into the welfare state or a pension meant that women were still relying on the men to provide. With social changes such as the rise in single parent families, women could not benefit from social welfare in the way in which Beveridge conceptualised. With the election of the ‘New Right Conservatives’ in 1979, brought about changes in the social welfare and the welfare state (Hughes & Lewis, 1998).

they set about cutting social expenditure. They did this because they believed that to do so would regenerate private profitability, but also because they believed that reducing public reliance on state provision was a matter of principle.

The new ideology of the New Right sought to ‘liberate’ Britain. The idea that Britain had a huge tax burden from the old Labour ideologies from mid 1940s. M. Friedman quotes “the state should not be used to bring about any social objectives, no matter how laudably such objectives may be” (Glennerster, 1995, p71) Many New Right commentators suggested and argued that the capitalist economic system is capable and would ensure the provision of wealth and happiness for everyone, the market would make sure that there would be an ‘equilibrium’ between wages and prices so that wages would be able to meet the supply and demand economic model of the time. Another thought of the New Right was that governments shouldn’t intervene within the free market through taxation as it would cause many restraints on private business. And most of all, the welfare state at the time was too expensive to keep up, with the example of a loan granted to the Labour government by the IMF in 1976 to keep up with welfare needs.

The Conservatives sought to ‘reconceptualise’ the welfare state by changing the relationships between the state, the individual, social welfare and the markets. The new right sought to change and redefine social terminology such as a person who claimed social welfare was to be called ‘a welfare citizen’, compared to what the new right ideology thought, the individual should now be coined ‘a welfare consumer’ in relationship with the state. The new right believed that the state should change from being the provider of social welfare and in turn that the state should only enable social welfare, i.e. the state should be one of many providers of social welfare, not the only provider, leading to the idea that the markets should have a lending hand in providing a source of welfare which led to the idea that social welfare should be prioritised by the market, not the state.

How far is that human feelings and behaviors are inborn and how far are they all learned? This has been a very controversial issue over century and it is now come across as the nature versus nurture debate. “By birth the same, by custom different” is a quotation by Confucius which means that all human being are naturally alike, it is the habits that make each of every human being far apart and different from each other. Evolutional perspective which emphasizes on human kinship and cultural perspective which focuses on human diversity are the two main ideas that dominating the thinking of human similarities and differences in societies nowadays. Some scientists held the opinion that people behave as they do because of their genetic makeup. This is what we known as the “nature” of human behavior or attitude. While on the other hand, some scientist suppose that people think and act according to the way they are being taught and this is then known as the “nurture” of human behavior. A lot of research have been done and proved that both sides are partly right. Nature bequeaths us with innate traits and talent and nurture uses the environment factors to mold and shape these genetic tendencies. In my opinion, I think that human behaviors are largely shaped by the environment, in other word “nurture”‘ play a bigger part in designing our personality and behavior.

Evolutional psychology acknowledges that nature and nurture interact to form our behavior and personality. Our biological traits are not fixed blueprints, their expression rely on the environment factors. One of the classical examples is the experiment done by an American psychologist John Watson with a young orphan name Albert. The result shows that phobia could be explained by classical conditioning, an environmental learning. The little Albert started crying every time he see a furry object because he has learned that the furry object will always accompanying by a loud “Bang” sound that going to scare him. Other psychologist like B.F. Skinner, the father of behavioral science has also done experiments which produced dancing pigeons and proved that human behavior could be conditioned in similar way to the animal. Besides, a study published in “New Scientist” propose that sense of humor is not genetically inborn but a learned trait that induce by people and cultural. Obviously, environment definitely plays a role in shaping human’s behavior and traits. If this is not the case, the identical twins should be exactly the same theoretically even they have been brought up in different place. But studies reveal that they are never exactly the same even though they are very much alike in most aspects.

Cultural diversity is one of the dominant factors that cause differences among people. There are millions of different culture exist across the world, cultural diversity even exist within nation. Malaysia is a very good example for cultural diversity within nation, despite the different of the physical look among Chinese, Indian and Malay, we are all living under the same environment and taking the same food and yet what make us so distinct from each other? Each of us practices different culture and tradition base on our race and religion, so base on different believe that we held, our behavior and thinking will never be the same even though we are all basically living under the same roof. On the other hand, the cultural diversity is even more obvious when people are from different part of the world. The language, customs, culture, and expressive behaviors that vary from one country to another country make people different from each other. And due to the factors above, people from different part of the world could hold different opinion about the same issue. Some societies do not wear shoes in house while other societies practicing it; some societies consider looking into people’s eyes while talking is a show of politeness while some other societies consider such action as disrespectful. In addition to that, vary in parenting style in collectivist culture and individualistic culture provides a very clear example of cultural diversity between different societies. Parenting style is greatly influenced by the cultural context of a particular society because the cultural context is going to have impact on parents’ moral values, believe, and socialization goals. So, what is consider normal in one culture maybe labeled as abnormal at another culture. Studies have shown that individualism and collectivism societies often hold different attitudes and value when teaching their child. The parenting style in collectivism societies emphasize on obedience, self-discipline and the importance to do well in school. Moreover, the children are expected to live with their parents until they get marry. While on the other side of the token, the parents in the individualism societies treat their children totally in an opposite way. They encourage their children to voice out their opinion and fight back whenever the children think they are correct. The parents in individualism societies, normally the westerners give much more freedom to their children compare to the parents in collectivism societies. Furthermore, the children of the westerners are expected to live with their own when they reach the age of 18 because they are considered as adult and must be able to stand on their own feet. Thus, we can imagine that how huge the different is it when people are being brought up with different culture.

Sometime, all the people behave in the same manner under certain situation; this has nothing to do with our biological trait but is due to the social norm. Social norms are also one of the factors that guide human behaviors and attitudes. Norms is the standards for accepted and expected behavior which society prescribe as “proper” behavior. Most of our behaviors are largely shape by the society and people seldom go against what the society expect us to do as we scared that we will be rejected by the society. For instance, stop when the traffic light turn red, open the door for an old lady, and keep quiet in the library. Try to imagine you speak loudly while everybody is silently studying in the library, what will happen? Definitely everybody will look at you one kind. Furthermore, there are also norms that we share across different culture. No matter what country are we in and what culture are we practicing, we respect our friend’s privacy and do not divulge things said in confidence. This is known as universal friendship norms. Other than that, there are also universal status norms where people will talk in a more respectful way when talking to a higher-status people, for example lecturer and talk in a more casual way when the person is same level as you, for example friends. Lastly, the best known universal norms would be the taboo against incest. Sexual activity is prohibited among family member, neither parents with children, nor siblings with each other. Thus, people will govern their behavior regardless their genetic makeup in order to avoid rejection from the public.

Undoubtedly, genetic makeup makes a huge different between male and female. Male and female are born to be physically different, female is born to be has 70% more fat, 40% less muscle, 5 inches shorter and 40 pounds lighter than male. But biological traits only make different in sexes not gender. Gender is the characteristics people assign to male and female. Again, it is the society that assign specific gender role for men and women so that the society can function well with each of the gender carry out their assigned role and responsibility properly. Many people think that men are born to be more dominant and unemotional and women are born to be more emotional and soft which I do not think is true. Due to the gender role allocate to male and female, they are being brought up in a different way since they were young. Men are thought to be more independent, protective, and unemotional because since centuries ago men have been the head of the house, they are responsible to feed and protect the family; whereas women are thought to be more emotional, soft, and obedience because they are the one who going to give birth to baby, take care and teach of the child. They do not need to be strong because their job is stay and take care of everything in the house. Thus, it is the “nurture” that causes the two sexes behave in certain way and I think that men will stand out to be more dominant is due to the gender role that has been assign to them. Men are always given priority in the work place as their wages are always higher compared to the women who have same position as them and they are typical of those in higher-status positions. So, it is unassailable that men have higher status than women in the society and hence they are more dominant. On the other hand women are more emotional attached and express empathy more often is because they are being brought up and train in that way. Hence, the emotional trait inside women is not innate but learns through the families and environment.

In a nut shell, nature and nurture interact in forming our attitudes and behaviors. But just as I indicate the points above that in fact “nurture plays a bigger part than “nature” in determining human attitude and behaviors. If human behavior can be determine with merely biological traits, there will not have so many unsolved question and doubt about human thinking and behavior, nor the exits of psychology, sociology, anthropology to study the existence, culture, and behavior of human being. The environment and culture play a major role in the “nurture” part of molding our personality and behavior. If without the existence of cultural diversity, I believe that all of the people around the world will be much likely behave in the same manner as each and every one of us shares the same culture and the biological traits only play a minor role in determining our behavior traits and its major role is to differentiate us in term of our sexes. It is the same that apply to environment differences, as we are being raise up in distinct circumstance; therefore we act and behave differently. Because of the environment is changing over time, behavior and attitude of human are also constantly changing. Each and every one of us is unique due to environment and cultural that we are living in, so this is why that a same situation given but all of us react differently. In addition to that, people often choose and create their own situation base on their personal preference and believe. Thus, studying of human attitude and behavior is an ongoing process that will never end as long as human beings continue to survive in the earth.

Nation-building refers to the process of constructing or structuring a national identity using the power of the state. This process aims at the unification of the people within the state so that it remains politically stable and viable in the long run. Nation-building can involve the use of propaganda or major infrastructure development to foster social harmony and economic growth. Originally, nation-building referred to the efforts of newly-independent nations, notably the nations of Africa, Post-Soviet states, to reshape colonial territories that had been carved out by colonial powers without regard to ethnic or other boundaries. These reformed states would then become viable and coherent national entities. Nation-building included the creation of national paraphernalia such as flags, anthems, national days, national stadiums, national airlines, national languages, and national myths. At a deeper level, national identity needed to be deliberately constructed by molding different groups into a nation, especially since colonialism had used divide and rule tactics to maintain its domination. [1]

National identity derives from a unique blend of human will and material circumstance. To understand how people or states identify themselves, and therefore what interests and visions motivate them. So some questions of national identity are not simple. National identity exists

alongside many other meanings of identity. It does not always override them all, or not in every

circumstance. Consider personal identity both philosophically and psychologically. Three questions can be asked: How do each of you perceive yourself, how do you want to be perceived by others, and how do others actually perceive you? These three questions are obviously related,

but do not always give the same answer at all times and in all circumstances. Of course, this term was investigated and examined before. For instance, I chose Anthony D. Smith’s explanation for it, and I must say that I agree with him. So, he says that, whatever else it may be, what we mean by ‘national’ identity involves some sense of political community, however tenuous. A political community in turn implies at least some common institutions and a single code of rights and duties for all the members of the community. It also suggests a definite social space, a fairly well demarcated and bounded territory, with which the members identify and to which they feel they belong. [2] This was very much what the philosophers had in mind when they defined a nation as a community of people obeying the same laws and institutions within a given territory. This is, of course, a peculiarly Western conception of the nation. But then the Western experience has exerted a powerful, indeed the leading, influence on our conception of the unit we call the ‘nation’. A new kind of policy – the rational state – and a new kind of community – the territorial nation – first emerged in the West, in close conjunction with each other. They left their imprint on subsequent non-Western conceptions, even when the latter diverged from their norms. But it is worth definition of nation. According to this view, nations must possess compact, well-defined territories. People and territory must, as it were, belong to each other, in the way that the early Dutch, for example, saw themselves as formed by the high seas and as forging (literally) the earth they possessed and made their own. [3] But the earth in question cannot be just anywhere; it is not any stretch of land. It is, and must be, the ‘historic’ land, the ‘homeland’. A ‘historic land’ is one where terrain and people have exerted mutual, and beneficial, influence over several generations. The homeland becomes a repository of historic memories and associations, the place where ‘our’ sages, saints and heroes lived, worked, prayed and fought. All this makes the homeland unique. Another thing, by which the national identity can be defined, is the idea of patria, a community of laws and institutions with a single political will. It explains as least some common regulating institutions that will give expression to common political sentiments and purposes. So, concurrent with the growth of sense of legal and political community we may trace a sense of legal equality among the members of that community. It also implies a common code of laws over and above local laws, together with agencies for their enforcement, courts of final appeal and the like. As important is the acceptance that, in principle, all members of the nation are legally equal and that the rich and powerful are bound by the laws of the patria. Finally, the legal equality of members of a political community in its demarcated homeland was felt to presuppose a measure of common values and traditions among the population, or at any rate its ‘core’ community. In other words, nations must have a measure of common culture and a civic ideology, a set of common understandings and aspirations, sentiments and ideas that bind the population together in their homeland.

The existence of these common assumptions allows us to list the fundamental features of national identity as follows:

1. an historic territory, or homeland

2. common myths and historical memories

3. a common, mass public culture

4. common legal rights and duties for all members

5. a common economy with territorial mobility for members. [4]

By moving to another term, nation, I can make a result of the ‘nation’. Nation can be defined as a named population sharing an historic territory, common myths and historical memories, a mass, public culture, a common economy and common legal rights and duties for all members. [5]

Such a working definition invented the complex and abstract nature of national identity. The nation, in fact, draws on elements of other kinds of collective identity, describes not only for the way in which national identity can be combined with these other types of identity-class, religious or ethnic-but also for the different rearrangements of nationalism, the ideology, with other ideologies like liberalism, fascism and communism.

Such a definition of national identity also sets it clearly apart from any understanding of the state. The latter refers exclusively to public institutions, differentiated from, and autonomous of, other social institutions and exercising a monopoly of coercion and extraction within a given territory. The nation, on the other hand, signifies a cultural and political bond, uniting in a single political community all who share an historic culture and homeland.

This lack of congruence between the state and the nation is exemplified in the many ‘plural’ states today. Indeed, Walker Connor’s estimate in the early 1970s showed that only about 10 per cent of states could claim to be true ‘nation-states’, in the sense that the state’s boundaries coincide with the nation’s and that the total population of the state share a single ethnic culture. While most states aspire to become nation-states in this sense, they tend to limit their claims to legitimacy to an aspiration for political unity and popular sovereignty that, even in old-established Western states, risks being challenged by ethnic communities within their borders.

These cases, and there are many of them, illustrate the profound gulf between the concepts of the state and the nation, a gulf that the historical material to be discussed shortly underlines. [6]

To gain a fuller understanding of what nationhood involves, it may be helpful to clear away two common misunderstandings that bedevil this question. [7] The first is the confusion of ‘nation’ and

‘state’. In ordinary speech ‘nation’ is sometimes used as a synonym for state: when someone refers to ‘the newly emerging nations of the Third World’, it is very likely that they are really talking about newly created states. This usage is not likely to be helpful if we are trying to clarify the principle of nationality, since one of the main issues we have to consider is precisely the relationship between nations and states, and in particular the question whether each nation has a right to its own state. When this question is posed, ‘nation’ must refer to a community of people with an aspiration to be politically self determining, and ‘state’ must refer to the set of political institutions that they may aspire to possess for themselves. Let us say, following Weber, that a state is a body that successfully claims a monopoly of legitimate force in a particular territory. [8] We count states by seeing how many such bodies there are. Some of these states will be multinational, in the sense that they exercise their rule over several discrete nations. The Soviet Union was such a state; rather unusually, it openly conceded that the peoples it governed were of different nationalities. (More than one hundred were recognized.) Rather less common is the case where a single nation is for historical reasons divided between two states. This was the case for the Germans before the reunification of 1990, and is still the case for the Chinese and Koreans today. A third case occurs where people of a single nationality are scattered as minorities in a number of states-the position today of the Kurds and the Palestinians. None of this would make sense if we did not understand ‘nation’ and ‘state’ in such a way as to make it an empirical question whether those who compose a nation are all united politically within a single state.

If we look to history, nations emerge over time as a result of numerous historical processes. As a consequence, it is a pointless undertaking to attempt to locate a precise moment when any particular nation came into existence, as if it were a manufactured product designed by an engineer. Let us examine why this is so. All nations have historical antecedents, whether tribe, city-state, or kingdom. These historically earlier societies are important components in the formation of nations. For example, the English nation emerged out of the historically earlier societies of the Saxons, Angles, and Normans. However, these historical antecedents are never merely just facts, because key to the existence of the nation are memories that are shared among each of those many individuals who are members of the nation about the past of their nation, including about those earlier societies. Every nation has its own understanding of its distinctive past that is conveyed through stories, myths, and history. Whether historically accurate or not, these memories contribute to the understanding of the present that distinguishes one nation from another. This component of time – when an understanding of the past forms part of the present – is characteristic of the nation and is called ‘temporal depth’.

As the mind of the individual develops within various contexts, such as the family or different educational institutions, it seeks out those various and fluctuating traditions that are ‘at hand’.

The child learns, for example, to speak the language of his or her nation and what it means to be a member of that nation as expressed through its customs and laws. These traditions become

incorporated into the individual’s understanding of the self. When those traditions that make up part of one’s self-conception are shared by other individuals as part of their self-conception, one is then both related to those other individuals, and aware of the relation. The relation itself, for example living in the same geographical area or speaking a common language, is what is meant

by the term ‘collective consciousness’. This term in no way implies the existence of a group mind or a combination of biological instincts, as if humans were a colony of ants. Rather, it refers to a social relation of each of a number of individuals as a consequence of those individuals participating in the same evolving tradition. When those individuals not only participate in the same tradition but also understand themselves as being different from those who do not, then there exists a self-designating shared belief, which is called a ‘collective self-consciousness’, that is, a distinctive culture. [9]

Also, there is a very short and well defined explanation of ‘nation’ by Ernest Renan. He says, that, a nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things constitute this soul: the past and the present. The past refers to the possession in common of a rich legacy of remembrances; the present is the actual consent, the desire to live together, the will to continue as a nation. To have accomplished great things together in the past, and to wish to do so again, that is the essential condition for being a nation. A nation is a grand solidarity constituted by the sentiment of sacrifices. A great aggregation of men, with a healthy spirit and warmth of heart, creates a moral conscience which is called a nation. This explanation fully concludes the definition of nation for better understanding.

So, if we talk about nationality

Introduction

Early approaches to health in the UK generally saw it as the responsibility of the individual to seek and pay for health services. However, we can see the emergence of government involvement as early as the late 1700s as Britain was emerging as an industrialised nation. This new age of wealth brought about medical advances but symptomatic of the laissez-faire (leave alone) attitudes of the time, nothing much was done about public health until the Cholera outbreak of 1831 which made government intervention essential. It took the deaths of over 100,000 people in four cholera epidemics between 1831 and 1866 to get the British government to take action to improve public health in the cities.

Social reformers began to survey the living conditions of the poor and 1842 Edwin Chadwick published his Report on the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Population of Great Britain which concluded that the life expectancy of people living in the cities was about half of that living in the countryside. This was due to various forms of epidemic and endemic as a result of mainly overcrowding and the lack of drainage, ventilation and proper cleansing. Change was slow as the report offended many influential groups including water companies, corporations and public figures and the government disassociated itself from the report.

Initial public health acts failed, however, after the second outbreak of Cholera in 1848 the first Public Health Act was passed which allowed Councils to set up a local board of Health if 10% of the rate payers agreed.

Further public health acts were passed in 1872 and 1875, the latter completely changing public health as it forced councils to take action which included providing clean drinking water and proper sanitation. This was when we saw a concerted effort by the government to intervene in public health. Early hospitals were part voluntary, where the standards varied, and there were Local Authority Hospitals, which were developed from the workhouses. There were also Teaching hospitals, which were the best, but these charged fees. Most of the population paid for care they needed, although some were covered by national insurance. The services did not include dental care, ophthalmic services or hearing aids, specialised treatments and did not cover non insured family members.

In 1942 the British economist William Beveridge produced his Report on Social Insurance and Allied Service, later known as the Beveridge report.

It listed five basic problems in public health: idleness, ignorance, disease, squalor and want and proposed a scheme to look after people from ‘the cradle to the grave’.

Later in 1948 we saw the beginning of full government responsibility in the form of the National Health Service Act when the people of Britain were provided with free diagnosis and treatment of illness, as well as dental and ophthalmic services.

Formation of the modern NHS

In 1980 the DHSS published the Black report which concluded that although overall health had improved since the introduction of the welfare state, there were widespread health inequalities. It also found that the main cause of these inequalities was poverty and it stated that the death rate for men in social class V was twice that for men in social class I and that gap between the two was increasing. This report led to an assessment by the World Health Organization of health inequalities in 13 countries.

The situation did not improve and in 1992 the government published the Health of a Nation, which listed numerous targets to improve public health.

Approaches under the Conservative and New Labour governments saw an attempt to shift responsibility away from the state back towards the individual. Margaret Thatcher was unsure how to tackle the NHS in the 1980s, as it was so popular with the public, but eventually decided to follow her principles that she had followed on other policies, that of internal competition. The NHS was in real crisis at the time and it was felt by many that it had created aculture of dependency. The government wanted to transfer the emphasis from ‘dependence’ to ‘independence’, by ending the “benefit culture”. The government believed that the NHS should be for the poorest and they actively encouraged the public to make their own provision with regards to their own health and insurance, either through company or private cover. These right wing ‘think tank’ policies continue with the new Labour government in 1997 and this set about to fragment the NHS with autonomous foundation trusts.

Tony Blair did not want to dissolve Conservative reforms and was attracted to use incentives to kick start the modernisation of the HNS. He was determined to boost spending to the EU average and opposed to traditional socialist values, he believed that reform needed to be in partnership with the private or voluntary sector. Waiting times were not falling and he wanted the patient to have a choice of which hospital or which doctor to treat them under patient controlled care. He states ‘I need to know how to increase the role of the private sector in health’ (Seldon: p44). Against much hostility within the Labour Party on 19 November 2003, the bill was passed for the formation of self funding Foundation Hospitals. These hospitals are independent legal entities which can opt out of government guidelines. Critics argue that the top hospitals are attracting investment and more money, therefore creating a two tier system.

Structure of the NHS in England

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:QzBfNynbBC8w8M:http://www.hygicare.co.uk/images/hygi/clients/nhs_logos200x200.gif

The NHS is divided into two separate sections. The first is primary care which is initially the first point of contact for most patients. The services are delivered by a large range of independent health care professionals such as GPs, dentists, pharmacist’s optometrists and podiatrists.

Secondary care can be either elective care or emergency care. Elective care is generally specialist medical care or surgery, typically following a referral from a primary health care professional such as a GP. There are also tertiary care services which offer specialist care, such as hospitals for sick children.

The Department of Health is responsible for running the NHS, public health and social care in England. This organisation provides organised direction, secures resources as well as setting national minimum service standards.

The NHS Executive is part of the Department of Health with offices in Leeds and London and eight regions across the country. It supports Ministers and provides leadership and a range of management functions to the NHS, while the regional offices make sure national policy is developed in their own areas.

In October 2002, 28 Strategic Health Authorities were created to manage the NHS at local level and act as a link back to the Department of Health. The role of the SHA is to support the local health service in improving performance, integrating national priorities into local health plans as well as resolving any conflicts between local NHS organisations. SHAs also monitor the performance of Primary Care Trusts and ensure that they meet their specific targets. The number of SHA was reduced in 2006 to 10 in order to provide a better service.

There are 147 Primary Care Trusts in England, each charged with planning, securing and improving primary and community health services in their local area. They work strongly with patients, the public, GP practices to deliver these healthcare services. PCTs are allocated 75% of the NHS budget to fund services and are accountable to their local SHA.

Primary Care Groups are there to improve the health of the population and they bring together GPs, community nurses, managers, social services, local communities, Health Authorities in partnership to improve services and the health of their community.

NHS Trusts employ the majority of the workforce in the health service. Most of their income is generated from Primary Care Trusts and are mainly self governing, but accountable to SHA. They have to deliver results and if they don’t their agreements can be withdrawn. The main types of trust are as follows.

1. Acute Trusts

There are 168 acute trusts and they manage hospitals to make sure there is quality health care. They employ the vast majority of the NHS workforce.

2. Care Trusts

These Trusts are organisations that work in both health and social care. They are set up between local authorities to enable close integration and benefit the local community. They usually concentrate on specialist mental health and older people’s services

3. Mental Health Trusts

There are 60 Mental Health Trusts in England which provide specialist mental health services in hospitals and the local community.

4. Ambulance Trusts

There are 12 Ambulance Trusts in England providing patients with emergency access to health care.

5. Children’s Trusts

These are run by the local government and offer an integrated service for children.

6. Foundation Trusts

There are currently 122 Foundation Trusts which are non-profit making organisation owned by members of the local community. These Trusts remain within the NHS and its performance inspection system.

One significant change was in 2003 when The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) was set up. This is an independent body which collects information from the public so that they can be involved in health care. It represents public views on healthcare matters and provides advice and support to patients wanting to make a complaint about NHS Services.

Private Health Care

In an affluent society like Britain with an individualist culture, there has been increasing private health care in the UK since the 1980s when the conservative government introduced ‘market orientation’ in which there was compulsory tendering for ancillary services such as catering and laundry. By 1985 private contractors undertook 40% of all ancillary services. Private health care has been actively encouraged by the government to ease the burden of the NHS and although there has been substantial expansion, it only accounted for 18% of the total spending on health care in 2005. Around three quarters of those using private health care pay for it by health insurance, usually by their employers. The amount of people with private insurance has increase from 2.1 million in 1971 to 7 million by 2003. Some sorts of treatments like cosmetic surgery are only available through private medicine and there is also a tendency for people to make one off visits for minor operations to avoid long waiting times with the NHS. Patients generally get better treatment for private health care and competition between companies improves the all round service. One of the major downsides is that more affluent areas attract better hospitals and services and it the lower social groups that require more health care. People that do not have the expertise about health sometimes may be persuaded under private health care to undergo operation they do not necessarily need.

The private sector is made up of different types of company, the largest ones being PLCs, companies like BUPA which carry out approximately 850,000 operations each year. Another sector is smaller private limited companies and organisations such as Podiatrists and Physiotherapists.

Voluntary, alternative and complementary medicine

There has been a growing popularity of alternative therapies to challenge medical pre-eminence and is estimated that a fifth of the population has used some form of alternative medicine. These include professionally organised therapies such as acupuncture and chiropractic, complementary therapies such as aromatherapy and hypnotherapy and alternative disciplines such as kinesiology and radionics. Voluntary services are those which are considered not profit making and are registered charities i.e Age Concern and Mencap. They do not cover all localities and only a few are involved in the direct provision of health care.

Relationship between the different types of health care

Private health care often fails to care for those who need it the most, the poor and the elderly and private health care systems which are in competition with each other tend to be less efficient than the NHS. In 2002 the new labour government continued to use the private sector in conjunction with the NHS services to expand capacity, increase access and promote diversity in the provision and choice of health services (Department of Health, 2002). The NHS has pay beds which are rented out to the private sector, although these often cost more to service than the money they raise.

While most patients seek conventional medicine and receive treatment from the NHS, some alternative medicine has been recognised by the medical profession. These services have been incorporated into medical practices and treatments such as osteopathy and acupuncture are now available to NHS patients. Voluntary groups contribute to care in the community and can make improvements to people’s lives, yet the ‘mixed economy’ of health care and the boundaries of responsibility are not always clear.

Conclusion

Originally the HNS was set up to be free at the point of entry and it has stayed largely unchanged for over 30 years. Since the 1980s ‘internal market’, changes have taken place and new labours reforms set up Foundation Hospitals and actively encouraged the private sector. In the future there will be undoubtedly further expansion of primary and preventative health care and more commercial involvement and expansion of the private sector.

References:

Childs, D. (2006) Britain since 1945, 5th Edn, Routledge: Oxford.

Giddens, A. (2006) Sociology, 5th Edn, Polity Press: Cambridge.

History and Policy, (2009), [Online], Available at: http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-14.html (Accessed 19 Nov 2009).

Marrie Barrie, A., and Yuill, C. (2008) Understanding the Sociology of Health, an introduction, 2nd Edn, Sage: London

Nettleton, S. (2008) The Sociology of Health and Illness, 2nd Edn, Polity Press: Cambridge.

NHS (2009) [Online] Available at: http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/aboutnhs/Pages/Authoritiesandtrusts.aspx (Accessed 22 Nov 2009).

Science Museum. (2009), [Online], Available at: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/publichealth.aspx. (Accessed 17 Nov 2009).

Seldon, A. (2007) Blair Unbound, Simon and Schuster: London.

Skyminds. (2009), [Online], Available at: http://www.skyminds.net/politics/inequalities-in-great-britain-in-the-19th-and-20th-centuries/the-thatcher-years-the-individual-and-society/ (Accessed 17 Nov 2009).

Taylor, T., and Field, F. (2003) Sociology of Health and Health Care, 4th Edn, Blackwell Publishing: Oxford.