Author: admin

Feminism has a movement has gained momentum in recent pasts to the extent that there are a number of ‘gender’ gains the world over. The theories of feminism are categorized into five, some of which are distinct and other closely related. These are: Liberal Feminism, Socialist Feminism; Radical Feminism; Post-Modern Feminism; and Multicultural feminism. However, this paper zeroes down on two, namely Liberal and Radical feminism, in an attempt to show the contribution that feminism has made (or continues to make) in the contemporary social analysis.

Liberal Feminism

Some of the proponents of this category of feminism include Mary Wollstonecraft, John Stuart Mill, Betty Friedan and Rebecca Walker.

Liberal feminism is an individualistic form of feminism because it is generally based on women’s ability to assert their equality through their own actions and choices. This is what Eleanor calls ‘faith in rationality” (Eleanor, 1996). Accordingly, the starting point for promoting such equality is based on individual interaction between men and women and that women can change their circumstances. Liberal feminism looks at the personal interactions of men and women as the starting ground from which to transform society into a more gender-equitable place.

The issues important t to liberal feminists include reproductive rights and abortion access, sexual harassment, voting, education, fair compensation for work, affordable childcare, affordable health care, and bringing to light the frequency of sexual and domestic violence against women.

The basic tenet of liberal feminism is that it is anchored on legal and political reform as a means to ensuring equality between men and women. This, according to them, is tailored on looking at the government through lobby groups to bring about legislative changes that promote gender equity. This brings about social and economic equity. Susan Wendell, citing the work of Mackinnon (1987) () says that ‘contemporary feminism is committed to major economic reorganization and considerable redistribution of wealth, since one of the modern political goals most closely associated with liberal feminism is equality of opportunity which would undoubtedly require and lead to both. Liberal feminists argue that all people are equal and that rationality in correcting class differences should be the way to go.

How then does this contribute to social analysis? It does so by seeing the oppression of women as not structural feature of capitalistic economic system. Further, the concept of education as a means to changing women’s status quo has had remarkable gains in recent times. Additionally, the ongoing debate and actions in the world concerning expansion of women participation has fundamentally centered on inclusiveness into the socio-economic as well as the political mainstream,

Radical Feminism

Using Mackinnon, (1987:16), Eleanor observes that that radical feminism is not one form of feminism, but simply feminism ‘unmodified’. Therefore, many others forms of feminism was only a response to ‘male psyche’ modification of feminism as it were. (Eleanor, 1996)

Feminism in its radical sense has it that society is a patriarchy that primarily oppresses women thus radical feminists seek to disband patriarchy. In this, they recognize that women’s oppression is the ‘fundamental oppression’. They further assert profoundly that ‘sexism is at the heart of patriarchy” especially in the family. Willis (1981), for example, in an essay ‘Lust Horizons: Is the women’s movement pro-sex’ argues against making alliances with the political right in opposition to pornographyaˆ¦” In a way they in this sense, echo the Marxist belief that if women wanted to deal with the shackles of patriarchy, then they must deal with the issue of reproduction. (Willis, 1981)

According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, most radical feminists do not universally argue for the criminalization of pornography or objectification of women, but rather that in the absence of patriarchy, the public demand for such materials would drastically decrease as a much smaller percentage of the population would be aroused by viewing women’s oppression and degradation

Conclusively, radical feminism is anchored on total restructuring if society an extreme view which would call for severing relationships with men, that is ending heterosexual relationship with me.

Radical feminists seem to believe that the way to deal with patriarchy and oppression of all kinds is to address the underlying causes of these problems through revolution.

Q2. Cognitive Theory of Social comparison in explaining Crowd behavior at a large (50,000+) sporting events

Introduction

A crowd can be defined in a number of ways but the widely accepted definition of crowd is that of ”large groups of individuals in the same physical environment, sharing a common goal. Usually such individuals act in a different way than when they are alone”. (Reading, 1996):

In a football match scenario, understanding the behavior of the crowd can be grounded on cognitive theory of social comparison. This theory as advanced by Festinger (1952), asserts that people tend to compare their behavior with others that are most like them. Muss and Thulman (1986) using the ideas of Festinger gives a more specific assertion by saying that people, when lacking objective means for appraisal of their opinions and capabilities, compare their opinions and capabilities to those of others that are similar to them. In the process, they attempt to correct any differences found. Basis on this social comparison theory may explain crowd behavior in a football match in the following ways:

Common Stimulus between crowd participants

According to Muss and Thulman (1986), one of the social comparisons theory implications is group formation. This according to them happens to the extent that self evaluation can only be accomplished by means of comparison with other persons. Festinger attributes this to the fact people in a crowd are driven by the desire to belong to the group. In other words, they tend to move to a group which belongs to them and which share their opinion and who have almost similar ability. For instance, it is common to see football fans that support a particular team more interested in being within the physical boundaries of their fellow supporters or those who share in their fantasy.

Imitational behavior

Using Festinger ideas, Muse and Thulman (1986) explains that ”the existence of a discrepancy in a group with respect to opinions or abilities will lead to action on the part of members of that group to reduce the discrepancy”

This should explain some behaviors in a football match setting, including one person starting to sing and the others who support the same team following swiftly. Other examples would include, booing a player, usually started by one person and followed swiftly by others.

A more propounding illustration is such crowd behavior in an event of a stampede. Usually people will tend to run to one direction regardless of if the cause of fear is genuine or not, as long as the one of their own signals them to do so.

Q3. Use sociological theories or concepts to help explain ‘Listening to music on a portable music device”

Introduction

It is common today to see people across all ages and gender alike carrying and listening to music through portable devices publicly. This happens when they are in the office, driving, reading and even walking among others

While there should be a number of theories that can explain this phenomenon, system theory, does that at best in trying to justify the tight schedules that the contemporary society puts on people and the dilemmas therein. In so doing it zeroes on ‘multitasking’ as the issue or as a prime causality to this.

System theory

System theory may be traced back to the ideas of George Hegel (1770-1831), who saw the world as operating within the push of different poles, in the process creating a conflict which negates a ‘solution’ for the functioning of the whole system. Hegel imagined that the world was controlled by two opposing poles pulling towards opposite direction. He called one pole the ‘thesis’ and the opposing side the ‘antithesis’. According to him, these two struggle to create an agreed position he called the ‘synthesis’, which interestingly also come to create the thesis, the antithesis and the cycle goes on and on. In a way, one would argue that this corresponds directly to the conflict theory, but for the purposes of looking at the phenomenon as a response to holistic demands, the perspective is tied to system theory. (Pippin, 1989)

Notably, the person who qualified system theory as we know it today (within a structural functionalism paradigm) is Von Bertalanffy is a book titled ”General system theory: Foundations, Development, Applications” in 1968. He, as a biologist, endeavored to employ organismic knowledge to use the word system to describe those principles which are common to a general system.

In the book, he says that ” …there exist models, principles, and laws that apply to generalized systems or their subclasses, irrespective of their particular kind, the nature of their component elements, and the relationships or “forces” between them. It seems legitimate to ask for a theory, not of systems of a more or less special kind, but of universal principles applying to systems in general”

System theory is based on the belief that for a system (a being, an entity, an organization among others) to work sufficiently, all the parts of that system must be in order, and that there is interrelatedness of the parts.

To qualify this theory in understanding the portable music system public use phenomenon, it is important to relate it to the numerous issues that today’s human responds to, within the confluence of multitasking and not able to respond to other demands of life. Therefore, listening to portable music while responding to other systems, not only works to perpetuate interrelatedness of demands of today but also in satisfying his/her needs.

Death can be defined as the indisputable biological end of life. In order to study and understand this phenomenon, one has to delve into the human perception of it. Woody Allen once said “I don’t mind dying, I just don’t want to be there when it happens”. The experience of such a loss, especially within a group of people as dependent of one another as is the family, is often the cause of grief for the bereaved individuals. The perception of death, nevertheless, seems to differ from culture to culture, as do the rituals encompassing the coping of the family (Kart, and Kinney, 2001).

Zoroastrianism, one of the oldest religions to have ever existed, was characterised by its belief in one God, as well as the need for reservation of the pureness of the elements. Death for the Zoroastrians meant a reuniting of the soul with its guardian and protector, fravashi. The dead were kept in the Tower of Silence, traditionally, to be purified by nature. Life and death were thus not a beginning and an end but parts of a greater hoop of life. East to these Persian grounds survives up-to-day Hinduism, India’s main religion. Hinduism stands for the indestructibility of the soul and hence its cycle from birth to death, before it is reborn. Death again is not regarded as the end, but merely as a stage within a greater loop of meaning. Here, however, cremation is obligatory, minus some exceptions (Garces-Foley, 2005).

Japanese rituals differ in the fact that a bigger part of the community is involved, than the family, mainly due to their collectivistic culture (Kart, and Kinney, 2001). After death, a bedside service is performed where the family is consoled and bathing of the dead body occurs. This is thought to enable the spirit to move on to the next world. The western culture on the contrary, tends to dissociate the living from the dead by allowing as little interaction and exposure to death as possible. A complete stranger is assigned the organising of the funeral, while the hospital cares for the body itself. During the funeral, mourners are to show as little grief as possible in public. Still, the impact of social class is evident here, since the amount of mourning expressed by the family depends on their social and educational background. (Kart, and Kinney, 2001) .

It becomes evident from the above, that a promise to afterlife and the perpetuation of some part of the current existence (soul, body, chemicals, etc) as well as the idea of a “better place”, was and still is intending to help the family proceed with their everyday lives after the bereavement and grief. Apart from religious factors, the difference between cultures might also demonstrate different attempts of people to cope with the grief of death.

Death can be viewed from a multitude of different standpoints, which contribute to the management and expression of mourning from the family and family members. This makes generalisation of behaviours towards grief hard, if not impossible (Bates et al., 1993).

The philosophical approach to death and bereavement suggests the existence of two types of death; good and bad death. For the family, the distinction of these two, very vague notions, depends on the conditions with which the dying person dies. According to Grosz (2003), the dying person must have his/her pain controlled by the treatment, as far as possible. Other conditions for a good death include the ability of the patient to make conscious decisions of his/her own for the treatment, as well as be handled as an individual, bound with experiences from life, and not as an anonymous patient. Moreover, the dying person must have come to terms with his/her disease and manage any unfinished conflicts such as family, busyness or personal affairs. If these conditions are met, then the semblance of a good death could be acquired, thus permitting the surviving members to access their everyday lives faster and healthier, having dealt with the coping of the bereavement faster and more successfully than if a bad death had occurred.

2. Definitions of Bereavement, Grief and Coping

Bereavement is the condition the family and/or individual are involved with, after the death of an important person (Stroebe et al., 2008). This deprivation is only likely to cause grief, the natural response to a loss. Grief can be defined as the internal manifestation of the strong emotions, raised from bereavement (Stroebe et al., 2008). It is often used interchangeably with the term mourning, which is though the external dealing with grief. That is to say, mourning is the exhibition of grief in public, which eventually leads to the addressing and dealing with the latter state (Stroebe et al., 2008). Because the line between grief and mourning is this slim, the two have come to be used as umbrella terms (Grosz, 2003). Coping is the demanding task of adapting oneself psychosocially, to challenging, threatening and/or harmful circumstances (Moshe, 1996). The stress is managed or even eliminated under behavioural and cognitive endeavours (Lazarus, and Folkman, 1984; Moos, and Schaefer, 1993).

Some people though have been observed to have difficulties in reintegrating themselves within their older daily routines or in pertaining to relations with other persons. Maladaptive coping can hinder the recovery rate of the family and/or individuals, giving rise to feelings of loneliness, depression, hallucinations and even health problems related to stress, as is the abdominal pain and breathing difficulties (Parkes, 1972). People who have suffered bereavement very unexpectedly, or experienced it under shocking conditions, like suicide and homicide, are the ones most likely to acquire maladaptive coping (Grosz, 2003).

How individuals cope with bereavement, grief and mourning, depends on a number of factors. Firstly, as it has already been mentioned, spiritual and religious beliefs or practices and culture of the person, tend to affect their way of viewing death, thus promoting a number of different coping methods, which are to be investigated later on. Again, the way death was experienced as well as the bonding the person had with their important one, before death, seems to also affect the coping. The more dependent the person was to the deceased, the harder it is to let go (Grosz, 2003). Finally, the family itself is a factor pivotal to the dealing with the death of the important one, especially when it comes to children and young adults. If the family is open and caring towards each of its members and is ready to share the pain and experiences, then the whole process of dealing with the death of the deceased is greatly facilitated and rapidly overcome (Walsh, and McGoldrick, 2004). All the above factors are, nevertheless, influenced by the very personality of the mourner, which at the end of the day is the most important of all factors.

Stemming from the aforementioned considerations, related to the impact of one’s death on his/her environment, the ultimate aim of this essay is to investigate how people cope with the death of a family member. Further, a number of relevant theoretical points have been introduced for the better understanding of the issue, along with empirical evidence.

3. Stage Theories of Grief

I. The Five Stages of Death (DABDA)

Back in 1969, top thanatologist Kubler-Ross influenced the viewpoint of medical and health psychology, as she sensitised the world public opinion on terminally ill patients and their treatment, in her book On Death and Dying. There, she describes the five stages of grief people undergo while in loss of their important ones. It is of utmost importance as she has underscored many a times herself, to understand that not all people are the same or experience the five stages in the same sequence, for the same amount of time, or even confront some at all. As she supports, it all depends on the individual and their environment. The stages were first thought to only apply to the patients, but later, their application was broadened to any type of loss as is the case of a divorce, loss of occupation, death of a family member.

Denial is considered to be the first of the five stages put forward by Kubler-Ross (1969). She initially correlated this phenomenon to a number of factors influencing the patient, and in our case, the family. She considered the fact that the way one is told of the irreversibility of the terminal disease, along with the pre-existing experiences with the dying person and dependence on him/her, affects somehow the extend to which one is involved with the particular stage. However, though she suggested that everyone did go through this stage at some point, she only noted a very few cases that had kept the denial barrier up until death. Often, the individuals grew more and more confident of the idea of dying.

Anger is the stage thought to follow denial, even if no real pattern can be identified for all individuals as of the sequence of stages, progression and management. Strong emotions as rage and fury, are said to overwhelm the person who displaces this anger to all directions. This, is what makes this stage the most difficult to be dealt with since ire erupts almost at random. To Kubler-Ross (1969), this stage is again something everyone does go through sometime in their grieving period.

Bargaining, although not quite as famous as the rest of the stages, is thought to be of significant importance to the mourning family. At this point, the person would crave for an amendment of the situation or for the time to go back to when ignorance of the event prevailed. Experiencing the death of an important one is often very painful, disrupting the habitual life of the family. This is enough reason for one to be wishing to go back to what they used to consider normal, before the knowledge of death. Bargaining, the asking of a favour in return for another, could be targeting the very self of the person, or even God, the doctors, or chaplain. These favours are often kept confidential, concealing quite often, unexpressed guilt.

After the family has dealt with the new burden of knowledge and emotional awareness of the death and loss of a family member, depression may be often observed. Along with the person, plagued by his/her disease, the family suffers as well. The emotional burden to bear is huge and frequently fights between the members of the family arise. However, this is only a tip of the family’s problems. Funding the treatment of the dying person is quite the times, responsible for the loss of ability to purchase items and needs that were previously thought commonplace. The tension and depression could grow more rapidly from the absence of the dying person, in case the family was dependent on his/her role before the knowledge of the terminal disease. Such could be the case of a money-making husband/wife or mother/father to children.

Acceptance is the last stage to come, according to Kubler-Ross (1969), and unlike the common belief, it is a stage of no happy emotion. As a matter of fact, it is a stage of no emotions whatsoever, but looks more alike a giving up to the inevitability of the situation, weakened and unable to fight it any longer. The family has gone through many hardships and still does, due to their dying important one. However, at a point, the family understands that they cannot affect the situation or death itself, leaving any type of action to the doctors. After acceptance has been reached, re-assimilation to everyday life begins.

Kubler-Ross’ (1969) stage theory has been formulated via many interviews and case studies on terminally ill patients, which were later generalised to the whole of losses. The sampling she used was relatively limited to the USA, and particularly Chicago, Illinois where she first began. Empirical evidence has demonstrated that this stage theory if partially accurate. The study by Maciejewski et al. (2007) studied 233 bereaved people living in the state of Connecticut, USA and for three years. The results added to the psychology of death, elucidating the five stages of grief. People initially demonstrated disbelief, which had been regarded as similar to the stage of Denial, towards the new information. Disbelief diminished gradually, until it disappeared one month post loss. Yearning was the second stage to be identified as it reached a zenith upon the fourth month post loss, and was characterised by the urge of the individual for the bereaved family member. Anger, the ensuing stage, reached a climax of its own five moths post loss and contained the violent emotions of the individual, displaced toward all directions, as the stage theory suggests. Six months post loss were characterised by depression, which was finally followed by acceptance; a process which has escalated from the initial apprehension of bereavement, 24 months post loss. This evidence agrees with Kubler-Ross (1969) and her stage theory, to some extent. The same pattern of organising the mourning of a bereaved in stages is followed, and even some of them are very much alike the stage theory’s ones. Disbelief and anger could be running parallel to denial and anger. Nonetheless, the theory and study class one another, on the basis of grief display. While Kubler-Ross (1969) seems to position Denial as a first illustrator of grief, the results of Maciejewski et al. (2007), propose Yearning to be the main indication of grief from the first month of loss to the twenty-fourth. Moreover, Acceptance is not thought to be an end-stage, but one which develops throughout the mourning period and reaches a peak at the end of it.

The theory of the five stages of death has been overly criticised based on two major areas of clash. Firstly, the theory is said to be solidly based on Kubler-Ross’ personal experiencing of terminal diseases, bereavement and coping. Since 1969, no further evidence other than the interviews has been put forward to fully explain the existence of the five stages of grief as well as their development. While it is a fact that due to the nature of the subject, empirical evidence is hard to obtain, studies as Maciejewski et al.’s (2007) does not portray or confirm any validity or reliability of the theory. Friedman and James (2008) go as far as saying that the stages are more of a misconception of the public and media, who have come to relentlessly utilise the stages of death, than they can be considered a theory. The interviews and case studies Kubler-Ross (1969) puts forward as evidence of the existence of stages, are thought to be too biased from her own assumptions and expectations, to be considered as support to the theory. Nevertheless, it is important to take them into consideration, since they are among the few ways of studying this particular topic of death and dying, without breaking the ethical code. What could be a limitation to her research though would be the small sampling she used, of people in the USA, thus making generalisations only available to similar cases and not for example, people of collectivistic cultures.

Secondly, Kubler-Ross’ (1969) theory has been criticised of being very broad with its description of stages. Due to her saying that not all five stages have to be completed in any particular order, or duration while mourning, the theory has been criticised of being too vague. Stages are supposed to be having a beginning and an end, a duration, and be characteristic to all individuals from at least a group of similar individuals i.e. dying patients and their families. Since the above conditions are not met, they cannot be considered stages. Additionally, the use of the term ‘stages’ is said to cause more harm than good due to the misconception of time. Once one refers to stages, time is involved and people in mourning are likely to stay inactive, waiting for the ‘symptoms’ of the stage to allay. This can of course give rise to more complex psychological traumas and thus harm the individual (Friedman, and James, 2008). When it comes to stages as Depression, the fluidity of the stages of death can be fully seen, due to the free use of the term. That is to say, depression is more of a psychiatric diagnosis of illness rather than ‘sadness’ or any other such emotion. When is the person considered to be sad and when depressed? Subsequently, how to diagnose depression and treat it when it is imposed as a natural stage in the theory of mourning?

Due to the nature of the subject, not much empirical evidence can be gathered for either fully supporting Kubler-Ross’ (1969) theory or proving it inefficient and harmful. All evidence is partially anecdotal and coloured by the researcher’s interpretations, as was Kubler-Ross’ interviews or Friedman and James’ (2008).

II. Alternative Explanation to Grief

An alternative theoretical approach to grief due to the death of a family member, is Bowlby’s theory of grief (1961), where the psychophysiological components are greatly considered. Here, four main stages are to be considered. Numbness to protest is the first of the stages and consists of the confusion and breakdown of the bereavement paired with the psychological and physical dejection, where elevated blood pressure and heart rate might occur. This seems to be the first reaction to the new lifestyle imposed on the family members due to the loss of the important one, and need to get acquainted with the new life. Bowlby has studied the reactions of the body to the stress and strain of bereavement, only to find they match the stages he has put forward. Such indications include abdominal pain, hallucinations, etc.

Alike the indicators put forward from the study of Maciejewski et al. (2007), yearning is identified as the crave to be closer to the deceased, whether that be with the help of inanimate objects, people or even places that trigger memories of the past live with the person. When this second stage is overcome as well, the third of disorganisation and despair arises.

A comparison of Marx and Weber’s theories with respect to their ideas and interpretations on capitalism.

Marx’s view of the industrialist society he lived in was one of inequality and driven by capitalism. His ideas and interpretations of capitalism are based on historical precedent and industrialism. He calls the capitalist ownership class, the bourgeoisie, owning the means of production, whilst describing the working class, the proletariat, who provide the means of production. He viewed this capitalist system as being an unjust and unfair one which exploited the proletariat to provide profit and gains for the bourgeoisie. Marx saw capitalism as merely a progression of previous modes of production, such as slavery and feudalism, becoming a system of production of commodities which exploited the workers for the profitable gain of the capitalist bourgeoisie. In the feudal and slavery systems, however, the medieval lords and slave owners were responsible for the welfare of their workers. Whereas, in the capitalist society he saw the capitalists taking unfair advantage of the workers, with a minority owing and monopolising the ownership of the means of production, whilst gaining big profits at the expense of the workers.

Wage labourers produce commodities, goods which are produced for exchange. The commodities are sold on the market, and the capitalist pays the labourer a wage. The capitalist gives up some of his capital to the wage labourer in the form of wages in return for the use of his/her labour- power. Labour-power is thus itself a commodity; it is bought and sold

A labourer depended on the market value of his skills, or production, to earn a living which the capitalist would sell for maximum profit. However, this profit did not feed back down to the worker, instead it went into the pockets of the already wealthy capitalist. He believed that the workers were exploited for their labour in order to survive.

Marx believed that society had progressed through stages of history with each stage providing its own destruction to allow it to progress to a new stage. He believed that every stage of history only progressed to the next stage through a social revolution of some kind and gave it the term Dialectical Materialism . He believed that the economy and materialism are the driving forces behind historical change. He saw the main difference between men and animals, as man’s ability to produce his own living, in other words, man owns his own mode of production. However, he saw the workers ability becoming diminished in the factories and with manual labour, with the worker being alienated from his means of production by being given solely specific tasks to complete in a production line. Ultimately, he proposed that through the progression of history, capitalism would be overcome by a revolt of the working class in order for them to overcome their oppression by the capitalists, giving way to a fairer and equal society. He argued that economic structure should be planned to suit the people. Unfortunately in some cases, his theories were taken and twisted by others, giving way to an even more oppressive society, for example, communism in the Union of Soviet Republics (Russia) and the Republic of China, where the control of the working classes were still in the hands of the select few. In contrast, Weber believed that Marxist theories were too simple as he thought Marx saw mainly economic grounds being the driving force behind capitalism.

Weber’s ideas and interpretations on capitalism are predominantly derived from his major work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904-05). From most of the readings done for this essay, it would appear at first sight that Weber views religion as the driving force behind capitalism. However, this is too simplistic a view. Weber was not only interested in the role of religion in capitalism; he was also very interested in discovering the values behind the individual’s social behaviour. He saw workers doing what they do because of their commitment to their family, which is why people go to work although the work may not be great and the pay not very substantial. Weber is more interested in the actions of the individual and the affects of society on the individual; therefore, he defines sociology in a different way than Marx, believing that individuals are shaped by their own motives and desires. He liked to use categories and typologies, using three main categories, tradition, charismatic and legal rational authority. Weber had a wide range of interests, class, social stratification, modernity and religion. Being interested in discovering why capitalism was a ‘Western’ phenomenon and developed in certain European countries during the industrial revolution, he undertook a study of these countries. In his work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904-05), Weber makes a connection between protestant beliefs and the emergence of capitalism. Although religion did not bring about capitalism, Weber suggested that religion can cause social change, which in turn could fuel the process of capitalism. He uses Calvinism as an example of how change can be brought about. Calvinists believed that you were already predestined to go to heaven and were either among the “elect” or not, before you were born. Nothing that happened during your life here earth would alter this election. Calvinism was a puritan form of Protestantism, focusing on self denial, hard work and a predetermined selection for entrance into heaven. As Calvinists did not have any way of knowing whether or not they were part of the “elect”, they had to act as if they had been chosen; therefore, they lived good lives here on earth and worked hard. It was this ascetic work ethic that Weber believes drove capitalism as making a lot of money was a sign of hard work and no play. As they denied themselves any comfort and pleasures in life, the money they had over and above their meagre living expenses was ploughed into the business making them different from other money makers, in so much that, they made money for money’s sake which was not spent on the frivolities in life. Weber theorised that this Protestant ethic gave rise, encouraging and promoting modern capitalism. He argues that formal rationalisation (the rationale behind making money) would overtake religion and do away with it altogether. Weber saw capitalism as a process of rationalisation and argues that there are six factors which are necessary for capitalism to succeed :

The appropriation of material means of production;
Market freedom;
Rational technology (principally mechanisation);
Calculable law (forms of adjudication and administration which allow for predictable outcomes);
Formally free labour (persons who voluntarily sell their labour-power but must do so to stave off starvation);
And the commercialisation of economic life.

All these conditions are necessary ingredients in the rise of capitalism in Weber’s view . Weber also saw bureaucracy as playing a major role in capitalism.

Bureaucracy is the form of social organisation in and through which rational-legal authority is exercised and maintained. It is also the form which clearly takes hold with the advent of capitalist economic order. One does not cause the other to arise; they have a h3 affinity

Where Marx felt that alienation of the workers from thier products by division of labour within the capitalist system allowed exploitation of workers for capitalist gains, thereby limiting their true freedom, Weber believed that it was bureacracies and rationalisaton that restricted human freedom. Marx believed that man’s freedom under capitalism was deceptive and not true freedom. He believed that capitalist wage labour restricted the worker and was really a form of forced labour as the worker relied on his wage to live. The worker could only sell his labour for the price the capitalist would pay for this work or production and for Marx, capitalism was predominantly as system of commodity production and an economic driven system.

Weber argued that workers lost control of their work through the forces of rational controlled production and believed that it was inevitable that the bureacracy of the capitalist system would change processes in labour and production order to gain the best profit. “But capitalism is identical with the pursuit of profit, and forever renewed profit, by means of continuous, rational, capitalistic enterprise” . Weber argued that in a capitalist society the individual join the organised structures and orginasations which are put in place to ensure an effecient structure to ensure the best profit. By joining these organisations, the individual loses their individuality and get cut off themselves and lost in the officialdom, and therefore, become alienated.

Weber tends to be seen, or portrayed, as much more pessimistic than Marx. Weber sees society becoming locked in an “Iron Cage” through bureaucracy, rationality and authority.

This order is now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production which today determine the lives of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism, not only those directly concerned with economic acquisition, with irresistible force. Perhaps it will so determine them until the last ton of fossilized coal is burnt. In Baxter’s view the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the “saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment.” But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage

Marx was much more optimistic and saw the possibility of social change through a working class revolution, believing that social democracy is an alternative to capitalism.

Interpretive anthropology or scientific anthropology? This is a question which has been argued by many scholars for many decades. Scholars for many years have tried to come up with a conclusion in determining which discipline cultural anthropology should take account in and whether is should be identified symbolically or scientifically. To this present day this question is left unanswered. Cultural anthropology is referred to as the type of anthropology which deals with a variety of different human cultures, and states their differences symbolically. The subject of anthropology generally has two comparable perspectives which are often argued by numerous anthropologists. Anthropology is often regarded as being a scientific discipline while the opposing perspective argues that it is an interpretive discipline because of the way in which individuals and events are defined symbolically. Although each group consists of its own individual groups, the majority of anthropologists have taken a more diverse approach and combined the two disciplines with one another. Anthropologist Eric Wolf concluded a remark which states that anthropology is both the most scientific of the humanities and the most humanistic of the sciences. Wolf argues that the interpretive and scientific perspectives are significantly different from one another and thus this illustrates that cultural anthropology has had difficulty trying to incorporate the two disciplines with one another into one symbolic discipline.

To conclude this comparison; interpretive anthropologists employ intuitive insight and creative imagination in the attempt to evoke and interpret cultural variability. However, the opposing side; scientific anthropologists create logical analysis and empirical investigation in the effort to describe and explain cultural occurrences. The goal of interpretive analysis is to produce relative interpretations which are informative, while the goal of scientific analysis is to produce causal explanations which are analytical. In this paper I would like to examine and observe the comparison between scientific and interpretive anthropology and state the symbolic differences between the two and thus examine Clifford Geertz’s perspective which states that interpretive anthropology is a science in terms of the history of the philosophy of science and scientific practices.

To begin with the comparison of the two contrasting disciplines one needs to define science and the effects which it has amongst anthropology. Science may be well-defined as an objective and systematic method for acquiring accurate knowledge. Scientific ideas have the ability to come from various sources. Scientists have many demands regarding the scientific knowledge and procedures. Scientists often require that the procedures which are employed in the collection of evidence be replicable by independent observers, as this confirms that the claim to knowledge is openly provable. In many cases scientists demand that the claim needs to be falsifiable in order to ensure that the entitlement of knowledge is testable. The test of falsifiability, which is most closely associated with the philosopher of science Karl Popper, is the single most important rule of science. It is the one standard which assures that all scientific statements are testable, and it is the outstanding feature which distinguishes science from other ways of knowing.

The scientific method consists of a sequence of five steps known as: stating the problem, reviewing the literature, formulating the hypothesis, collecting the data, and stating the conclusion. For every step scientists restrict themselves to openly verifiable procedures replicable by independent observers. To summarize, science is an objective method for acquiring fake propositional knowledge based on the regular application of logic and observation. The essential defining element of science is the requirement that all claims to scientific knowledge be falsifiable. Science does not claim to be a faultless approach to factual knowledge or to be permitted of subjective bias, error, or fraud. As an alternative, science claims to be a greater approach to factual knowledge which is then better able to perceive and correct subjective bias, error, and fraud than any other approach which has been developed. Anthropologists are capable of understanding the individual they study because not all human behaviour and awareness is culturally determined, nor are all cultures so dissimilar as to be incomprehensible to unknowns. The validity of different ethnographic descriptions and theories of culture can be critically evaluated based upon the degree to which such explanations correspond to an observable, knowable reality. However, this is not stating that scientific anthropologists are not concerned with the ideological setting in which a certain research is carried on and on which particular ideas and concepts arose (Kaplan & Manners 1972). They recognize that theories and ethnographic descriptions are influenced by how the researcher perceives the experimental phenomena under observation.

The question of whether anthropology is a science or not, and how it interconnects with science is relevant, because, to the degree that scientific practises can examine issues beyond ideologies, power structures or interpretation, scientific socio-cultural anthropology can offer understanding and ways of solving problems which are exclusive, captivating and beneficial due to the variety of practices and procedures.

The theoretical approach of anthropology is frequently undergoing transformation as new theories develop, change, and are inevitably re-constructed because the conditions under which those theories were originated to change. Culture, which is referred to as the component of human behaviour is often subjected to illustrate the possibility of becoming an non-existent concept. Culture itself and the study of culture have to experience certain changes and face becoming obsolete. It has been suggested that culture, instead of following a model of physical science has to be treated as a psychological phenomenon (McGee & Warms 2000:467). Thus, interpretive anthropology is defined as the theory which illustrates that culture does not exist beyond the individual; rather it lies in the interpretation of events around that specific individual. Influenced by the works of linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf, whose analysis of language as symbols served into the theory which states that culture too is based on the interpretation of symbols (Foley1997:15). This would suggest that culture and language are inseparable by nature if one were to take into account the notion which illustrates the meanings of a word and demonstrates the structured aspects around cultural practice and are therefore constrained to that culture (Foley 1997:16).

During the 1960’s anthropologists Mary Douglas, Victor Turner and Clifford Geertz began to step back from the traditional structuralist views of anthropology as a physical science in order to explore the more psychological and analytical aspects of cultural significance. They had the advantage to define culture symbolically, each giving their own specific interpretation of a given culture. However, the views of symbolic anthropology have been criticized by other anthropologists due to its lack of explanation of the practices used to interpret the meanings of cultural symbols. Therefore symbolic anthropology released the field of cultural interpretation to further theoretical development. (McGee & Warms 2000:468-469) Clifford Geertz in particular has become one of the more recognizable scholars associated with symbolic anthropology. As a result of viewing culture as a “system of public meaning encoded in symbols and articulated through behaviour” (Foley 1997:16) Geertz was concerned with both how symbols transmit meaning and how the individual interprets that same symbols. In his work Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight Geertz attempts to draw lines between the symbolic act of Balinese cockfighting and deeper social structures. (McGee & Warms 2000:497) By suggesting that cockfighting implies deeper social and psychological implications than simple recreational activity Geertz compares it to the importance of baseball to an American audience. “As much of America surfaces in a ball park, on a golf links, at a race, or around a poker table, much of Bali surfaces in a cock ring. For it is only apparent that cocks are fighting there. Actually, it is men” (McGee & Warms 2000:499). While it is usually glared upon to make comparisons between cultures, Geertz validates that by establishing a common idea between American and Balinese cultures might in turn provide his audience with a more clear understanding of his theoretical implications.

Like many other anthropologists, Geertz began to draw upon on Boasian anthropology in order to guide his particular research methods and to be able to illustrate his translation of signifying culture as a significant text. Victor Turner alternatively took a slightly different approach to symbolic anthropology. In contrast with Geertz, Turner was interested in the way symbols were used to perform various social functions, and simply not how they affect the way individuals think. He was concerned with how exactly symbols were able to operate in the overall interest in conserving a society (McGee and Warms 2000:467).

In his article Symbols in Ndembu Ritual, Turner attempts to distinguish his analysis of symbols with more psychologically founded approaches. During his opening paragraphs Turner defines a symbol as “the smallest unit of ritual which still retains specific properties of ritual behaviour” (McGee and Warms 2000:478). According to Turner it is also important to keep interpretative and observational materials separate when examining them. By suggesting that each ritual has is designed with its own meaning he also suggests that certain dominant symbols are able to maintain a constant identity. For example, he mentions the use of fruit bearing trees and female fertility used in ritual context to illustrate the significance of ritual interpretation. Had the fruit bearing trees not been used in conjunction with female fertility, the entire interpretive outcome of the ritual might have been different. Here Turner mentions the limitations of anthropological analysis of such symbols (McGee and Warms 2000:486-487). The interpretation of symbols however, is not limited exclusively to the study of ritual practices, or socially constructed events.

Mary Douglas, another anthropologist known for symbolic anthropology challenges the generalization which suggests that most symbolic anthropologists fail to describe culture as universal (McGee and Warms 2000:468). Like Turner, her work bears the influence of British structural-functionalism yet her work focused largely on the symbolic interpretation of the body and its functions. In External Boundaries, Douglas uses hygiene and pollution as symbolic directors which influence everything from social status to eating practices. According to Douglas “body symbolism is part of the common stock of symbols” and “rituals draw on those commons stock of symbols selectively” (McGee and Warms 2000:472-473). Thus, by Douglas’s theoretical approach rational categories such as the act of various bodily secretions would provide individuals with a psychological ordering of the world (Miller 2002:90). For example, Douglas uses the Indian caste system to illustrate this point. In such a caste system even the division of labour is effected by what the body does and does not come in contact with. The holiest member of such a system comes into contact with nothing that might “pollute” them, where individuals prescribed the job of cleaning away excrement such as blood or feces are considered to be the lowest on the social ladder (McGee and Warms 2000:474-475).

While symbolic anthropology opens numerous of new abstract approaches towards the understanding of culture on a more personal level, one can’t help but feel that some of initial approaches provided by Turner, Geertz and Douglas harbour minor flaws. The largest among these however is their approach to interpretive anthropology as a whole because it leans towards being far too generalized (McGee and Warms 2000:468). According to the works of Douglas, she suggests that social categories are artificial because it is society which imposes them (Hicks 2002:48). Conversely, social categories are constructed by society and have in the process become part of the cultural construction of that society. This is not to say that these different categories cannot be altered, but they cannot merely be dismissed as imagined social constructs either.

The greatest fault to the symbolic approach of anthropological interpretation is that the interpretation of symbols is certain to the individual interpreting them. One researcher may not view the same act in the same way; therefore, the specific interpretation of a particular ritual is inconsistent. Although the solidity of symbolic anthropology has been questioned by scholars critical of its methods, symbolic anthropology is still used as a method of research by cultural anthropologists within the present day. Its approach to studying culture in the terms of symbols is found in research of all kinds. Mary Douglas, or any other symbolic ritual acted out by historical or psychological practice. Each is an equally important component to the complex nature culture. Therefore, by identifying these symbols through observation and interpretation one can only hope to obtain a clearer understanding of the cultural practices around them in their natural context.

Clifford Geertz was mainly recognized for his interpretations of symbolic anthropology. Symbolic anthropology is regarded as a basis to which gives a significant amount of attention to the various roles of different symbols which create public meanings. Taking into account the work of Geertz entitled The Interpretation of Cultures Geertz defines culture as “a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which people communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life” (Geertz :89). This suggests that Geertz understood that the role of anthropologists was to try to signify the importance of symbols from specific cultures. Geertz work known as the Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight characterizes the importance of thick description. Thick description is an anthropological practice which explains in significant amount of detail the reasons behind every human action and behaviour. Geertz argument suggests that anthropology is a process of interpretation, which involves examining layers of meaning defined as fiction. Geertz specifies that anthropology is a form of science because it involves what he states as thick description which is the process of a human behaviour, one which explains not just the behaviour, but its context as well, such that the behaviour becomes meaningful to an outsider.

Geertz argument suggest that interpretive anthropology is a science. One would agree with Geertz perspective and argue that the study interactive, human phenomena can provide the basis for understanding and problem solving and that anthropology’s role as a science is in development. Geertz uses German sociologist Max Weber as a reference in order to develop an argument which illustrates that interpretive anthropology is concluded as a science. Geertz also demonstrates that for individuals who want to understand what science really is, they have to look in the first instance and not at its theories or its findings. Geertz next argues that anthropology is a process of second and third order interpretations, of writing fiction, in the original sense of the word fictio “of something made,” (Geertz, p. 17) which is also science. He argues that it is important not to “bleach human behaviour of the very properties that interest us” (Geertz, p. 17), in order to argue that the “the line between mode of representation and substantive content is as undrawable in cultural analysis as it is in painting” (Geertz, p. 17) but in so doing he doesn’t take into consideration the relevance this lack of bleaching has to his assumptions such as the one based on Weber’s web of significance. Obviously, one’s choice of premise influences one’s argument: a potential theory based on an evolutionary epistemology, or any one of many other premises, might shape a different theory of the way sociocultural anthropology relates to science. He concludes that the role of theory in anthropology is problematic and that there isn’t such a thing as a general theory in anthropology, seeming not to examine in depth the implications because science usually employs processes of induction his has for it as a science.

In conclusion, the pattern of interpretive anthropology has been established upon two premises. The first premise suggests that evocation and interpretation, rather than description and explanation are sufficient and appropriate goals for anthropology. The second premise suggests that scientific descriptions and explanations of human matters are unachievable. This paper identifies the logical errors of postmodernism and suggests the understanding between scientific and interpretive approaches in anthropology. Although Geertz is a leading supporter of the interpretative approach to the social sciences, providing a rationale as well as a concrete model of what the results of such an approach would entail, his account has serious limitations. In addition, on Geertz’s view social science is subjectively limited to providing interpretations such as thick descriptions and no other tasks are permissible.

Those who visualize a conflict between science and humanism fail to understand the true nature of either. Central to the philosophy of humanism is the conviction that human beings are uniquely responsible for discerning and defining the meaning of human life and that they should do so through the exercise of skeptical reason while respecting the freedom and moral equality of all individuals. As such, science is absolutely essential to humanism, for the certain reason that normative conclusions are always founded upon existential premises.

The reason anthropology should not be considered a science is because it doesn’t even try to use the scientific method which is the sole basis of all sciences. It is also why philosophy is not a science. Everything from their literature research to their fieldwork is entirely conjectured. The only method widely accepted in anthropology is participant-observation, which means that the scientist participates in the study. In all other, true scientific fields, this would invalidate the importance of any data because the scientist had manipulated the data. Anthropology is in-depth research into the history of small populations and their religions.

Sources:

McGee, R. John and Richard L Warms. 2000 Anthropological Theory; An Introductory History. 2nd edition.

Harrison, Faye V. 1997 Decolonizing Anthropology: Moving Further Toward an Anthropology for

Liberation. 3rd edition. Arlington: American Anthropological Association

William A. Foley. 1997. Anthropological Linguistics: an introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Geertz, C., Shweder, R. A., & Good, B. 2005. Clifford Geertz by his colleagues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ed. J. Platt 1966. The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concept of Mind. In New Views of the Nature of Man. Pp. 93-118. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Geertz, C. 1973. Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Pp 3-30. New York: Basic Books.

Kaplan D and RA Manners 1972. Culture Theory. Waveland Press Inc., Prospect Heights, IL

Discuss the similarities and differences between any TWO societies. In your answer, make reference to the role of cultures, norms, values and inequality in social organisation.

The twentieth century is packed full of History. The revolution that hit Russia in 1917 is arguably one of the most economic interpretations of History in the twentieth century. This led to one of the first and definitely the biggest Communist state the world has ever seen. Spanning over Seventy years the Russian revolution had a huge impact on world affairs. This essay will look in to the similarities and differences in the norms, values and inequalities of social stratification, between Communist Russia and modern day Capitalist Britain.

Everyone in Communist Russia was required to have jobs. Children, retired and disabled were the only exceptions. If you did not have a job in Communist Russia you would then be considered a parasite on the proletariat (Jary,D.Jary,J.1995) and could end up in jail for such an offence. Income was not the same: However, your salary was determined by the nomenklatura government. If you were a factory worker you would be able to achieve a bonus, this was only if you did not question and were a great worker. With your salary you were unable to buy land. The land was and maybe still is owned by the state. (Oxley,P.2001)

In modern day Capitalist Britain we have cultural diversity, and perceive things in an ethnocentric way. Not everyone in modern day Capitalist Britain is required to work. We have a very beneficial welfare state (Jary,D.Jary,D.1995) which looks after every member of society not just the people who cannot work. Also if Britons wanted to buy land they could do such a thing. Saunders (1990) sees the old class divisions based on work becoming less and less relevant. For Saunders, what you do with your money is more significant than how you get it. (Saunders, P.1990 cited in Moore, S.2001)

In Modern day Capitalist Britain over the past few years, people from all types of heritage have had greater access to higher education through a meritocratic society. Because of this, wealth distribution is altering and social mobility is occurring. The British class system is still very much in tact although in a more subconscious way. The British believe the playing field has levelled, but British still pigeon hole people dependent on class. (www.kwintessential.co.uk).

In Communist Russia, despite Marxist-Leninist notions of a classless society, there were a Capitalist ruling class, the nomenklatura, which consisted of party officials and key personnel in the government and other important sectors such as heavy industry. This class enjoyed privileges such as roomy apartments, country dachas, and access to special stores, schools, medical facilities, and recreational sites. The social status of members of the nomenklatura increased as they were promoted to higher positions in the party. (http://www.country-data.com )

Many people in modern day Capitalist Britain believe in the idea of equal educational opportunity. They believe that everybody within the society should attain an equal chance and their educational qualifications should be based on merit, on their ability and effort. If a person is “clever” and works hard they should do well no matter what his/her social class or background may be. (Haralambos,M.1996)

People knew little about the educational system in Communist Russia. After the coup that brought down the Soviet Empire, Russia released many of its secrets including those involving its education. Communist Russia did not let non-Communist teachers teach. They had a huge mission to ensure Communism was drilled in to them at a very early age. (Corin,C.2002 and Fiehn,T.2002)

After 1917, Russia based its entire school system on the teachings of German philosopher Karl Marx (1818 – 1883). Marxism states that “one should achieve freedom through giving up the self to benefit the state”. This Marxist theory created an unpopular form of government from a democratic point of view; however, it made Communism an efficient educator. (http://www.milford.k12.il.us)

Marxists argue that the working class rarely challenge Capitalism. This is because the people who have the control on economy also control the family, education, media and religion – in fact all the cultural institutions that are responsible for socialising individuals. Neo Marxist Althusser (1971) argued that the function of those cultural institutions is to maintain and legitimate class inequality. (Althusser,L.1971 cited in Moore,S etal 2001). This is very similar to modern day Capitalist Britain

The social structure of Communist Russia was characterized by self-perpetuation and limited mobility.

“Access to higher education, a prerequisite to social advancement, was steadily constrained in the post-war decades. Moreover, the sluggish economy of that period reduced opportunities for social mobility, thus accentuating differences among social groups and further widening the gap between the nomenklatura and the rest of society”. (http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-11420.html 20/10/2010)

In modern day Capitalist Britain Social class is an ‘umbrella’ category. Being of a different class may involve differences in culture, economic circumstances, educational status, dietary preferences, housing conditions, property

Ownership and power. There will always be ‘fuzzy edges’ with people who could be counted in more than one category and people who have encountered social mobility. (http://www.ucel.ac.uk)

There are many differences in norms, values and the social structure in Communist Russia and modern day Capitalist Britain. Looking at the impact the nomenklatura government has had on Russia and how that stopped any sort of meritocracy, and in turn they had a sort of ascribed status. If the people of Communist Russia did not work they could have faced a prison sentence. Also it looks at how Karl Marx had a huge impact on Communist Russia. How much affect did it have, as there was no room for non – Communist teachers? This was there secondary socialisation and it moulded how the youth of Communist Russia were to think. However it can be seen that social mobility is occurring in modern day Capitalist Britain. The British believe that there is a level playing field however; subconsciously, Britons are still classed individuals. Modern day Britons also believe everyone has a right to equal education opportunities. Evidently, social mobility in modern day Capitalist Britain is occurring. Posing the question, ultimately is there a difference between Communism and Capitalism?

Self injury and body modification are closely related to or considered the same thing to some people. The intent one has behind doing these things separate whether it is self injury or simply self expression.

Self injury, self harm, and self mutilation are described as deliberate harm to oneself. The injury usually causes noticeable damage such as: cutting, burning, hair pulling, and even in the worst case scenario, limb amputation. This is not to be confused with an attempt at suicide (Thompson, 2010). This is usually due to a long history of sexual abuse, physical abuse, broken homes, alcoholic homes, and absent parents. Most people attempt self injury because they lack the proper coping skills (Thompson, 2010).

Many people that self-injure try to keep it a secret due to the fact that they are ashamed, feel guilty, or are embarrassed. The fact is that people who self injure are sound and reasonable people that probably were never taught the correct ways to cope with immense emotional pain. People who self harm are in fear that if they tell or ask someone for help that they will be committed or considered psychotic (Thompson, 2010). Sadly enough this is true, people tend to make assumptions about things they don’t understand.

The first step in identifying self harm vs. body modification is to identify the directness, lethality, and repetition. Directness refers to how intentional the act is when done. If the act is done with complete awareness and consciousness of its dangerous effects, and an aware intent to produce those effects it’s considered direct (Martinson, 2002).

There are different stages of self injury. The most extreme form is major self mutilation. Where this form results in serious disfigurement such as: castration, and limb amputation (Thompson, 2010). Then there is the stereotypic self injury which is when one will head bang against a wall, eyeball gouge, and bite. The last type of self injury is the most common form, superficial self mutilation which involves cutting, hair pulling, burning, bones breaking, and interference with wound healing (Thompson, 2010).

One of the main questions people ponder is why would one want to self injure themselves? Self injury helps with intense feelings like anger, sadness, frustration, loneliness, shame, and guilt. People who self injure tend to do so to try and release feelings they can’t deal with. Self injurers also feel that maybe if they cut themselves seeing their own blood will make them feel something as opposed to the numbness they are used to (Thompson, 2010). Another reason people self injure and continue to self injure is because endorphins are released when you self injure. Giving you that calm and relaxed feeling, almost like a high from a drug. Endorphins are protein chains that are released by the Hypothalamus area in the brain. They act in the same way as morphine except that endorphins are 18-50 times stronger (Thompson, 2010). Your body uses endorphins for several purposes. Firstly, to boost energy when you need it; secondly to reduce pain from injury; and thirdly, to signal that you are doing something worthwhile or enjoyable and to encourage you to do more of the same.

Others feel that dealing with physical pain is easier to deal with and easier to understand then what the real under lying issue is. Self injury is also used to “punish” oneself. If they were physically, mentally, or sexually abused. They may feel it was their fault which makes them feel the need to punish themselves for doing nothing to stop it (Thompson, 2010). The Act of self injury usually leaves a feeling of calmness and peace, almost like a high from a drug (Thompson, 2010). Since this feeling is temporary it usually leads the person to do it again. Or this may continue until the real underlying problem is solved or they find a better way to cope (Thompson, 2010). It all comes down to lacking the proper coping skills. The definition of self injury is deliberate harm to one’s own body. The injury is done to oneself, without another person, and the injury is severe enough for tissue damage, such as scarring to result. Acts that are committed with conscious suicidal intent or are associated with sexual arousal are excluded (Martinson, 2002).

14% of self-injurers were diagnosed with major depression, as opposed to 56% of the suicide-attempters. Alcohol dependence was diagnosed in 16% of the self injury group, but in 26% of the suicide attempters group. Only 2% of the Self Injury group was considered schizophrenic; 9% of the suicidal attempters group was. The self injury group was 12% vs. 7% or to be diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood 24% vs. 6 %( Martinson, 2002). The reason for some cases of self-mutilation is borderline personality disorder. These people have problems with self-image, mood and instability in their relationships. They may have other issues including depression, anxiety, conduct problems, antisocial behavior and eating disorders particularly bulimia. Almost one-half of adult self-mutilators are reported to be depressed (self mutilation, 2011). Adolescent self-mutilators report an increased use of substances including alcohol. This may be related to impulsivity as a response pattern to stress or other situations. Alcohol abuse or family violence can also play a role in self mutilation and a history of violent and deprived family situations can lead to self mutilation(Self mutilation,2011).

One of the main issues separating self-injurious acts from tattoos and piercings is that of pride. Most people who go to get tattooed or pierced are proud, and enjoy their new art expressed on their body. They want to show others their ink, their studs, their plugs. They enjoy telling their story of the pain, the fear, the experience. In contrast, people who self injure usually don’t tell anyone about it nor do they want anyone to know. Self-injurers go to great lengths to cover and hide their wounds and scars. Self-injurers do not want to show off their scars. Self mutilation is a distinct behavior, in definition, method and purpose, from tattooing and piercing (Alderman, 2009).

The history of tattooing is very extensive. Something which is now pretty acceptable and common in society. Tattoos have been around for more than 5000 years (Tattoogallery, 2007). Tattoos are used today as a form of expression. People get tattoos to commemorate lost family members, show off things they have interest in, and perhaps just a design they enjoy.

Tattooing had many very important purposes in the beginning of time for many different reasons, and many different cultures. In Egypt before 2000 B.C, only priestesses were allowed to be tattooed for ritualistic purposes. In Thailand men were the only people allowed to have tattoos. Thai people believed that tattoos place magical protection on the skin. Women were considered strong enough to live without the need of protection (Tattoogallery, 2007).

The original purpose of tattoos was to be centered around being involved and in tune with nature. Tattoos were believed to possess magical abilities, blessings and to ward off demons (TattooGallery, 2007). Around the time tattoos were beginning, the bible was being written and certain religious leaders spoke out against the art of tattooing your body, because they believed that your body is your temple and created with no flaws. To them marking your body with symbols is basically telling the gods or god that they made a mistake when creating you (TattooGallery, 2007).

As time continued tattoos became more of a symbol of status and less of a magical purpose. With certain tribes like the Celts and Native American tribes, markings were tattooed on the skin to tell stories, events, and their ranking in the tribe hierarchy. On the other hand, In Greece and Rome slaves were tattooed, criminals so that no one would mistake them if they tried to flee (Tattoo Galllery, 2007).

As long as there has been man there has been tattooing. Tattooing has been used in almost every culture, and for almost every purpose. One of the main arguments with tattooing is that some cultures and religions are not acceptable to tattooing. In the Jewish religion there are some Jewish customs that prohibit a burial if the person has a tattoo (Self mutilation). Body art has basically evolved with mankind evolving.

The intent one has behind getting a tattoo or piercing is the distinguishing factor between self mutilation and just an everyday tattoo. There are many factors that play a role in this, such as: self esteem. People do things for many different reasons. Some get tattoos because they really like an art piece, they enjoy the way it makes them look, or perhaps a way it makes them feel. For some tattooing is a self esteem booster, they feel they are more unique more special than others, it makes them feel pretty. It is not always the case that people walk into a tattoo shop to get a tattoo specifically for the pain. The experience you have while getting a tattoo also plays a role in if you continue to want tattoos. There are many people that get a tattoo and don’t get another one due to the experience they had, they are not happy with the results, or they did it on a whim and regret it. It is not always about a pain inducing want.

The era that one grows up in also has an effect on liking or disliking tattoos, agreeing with or disagreeing with tattoos. You cannot expect everyone to be on the same page if their whole lives they grew up in a household when tattoos weren’t common and were extremely frowned upon. These people may not see the purpose, a point to tattoos, or just plain think they are ridiculous.

Self injury is harm to one’s self, by one’s self, not with the intent to kill oneself. In the cases of tattooing and piercing the harm is definitely done to oneself, but not with the intent of killing yourself or with the sole purpose of pain in mind. Receiving a tattoo or piercing is a poor and ineffective way to try getting relief for a self injurer. One of the main reasons people self injure is because they are in control and can do the act themselves, and in turn have the control to hide it. So the idea that either of these behaviors would be done as a suicide attempt or a self injury attempt does not seem to be the case. Most people don’t tattoo or pierce themselves; instead they find the assistance of a professional. Occasionally someone may tattoo themselves, particularly in settings such as detention facilities, inpatient programs and other residential environments (8). Self-piercing is more common as it is fairly easy to do. This is what distinguishes the “true” self-injury from tattoos and piercings is the idea that self-injury is performed by one’s own hand, and is usually the main purpose of self injury.

In conclusion, self injury and body modification are closely related to or considered the same thing to some people. The intent one has behind doing these things separate whether it is self injury or simply self expression.

Some differences between self injury and body modification are, Making a statement vs. making self feel better, uniqueness vs. coping, set apart from mainstream vs. shame, and proud vs. secret, conscious choice vs. unable to control urge. These are some things that can distinguish self injury from tattoos and piercings. Many people that self-injure try to keep it a secret due to the fact that they are ashamed, feel guilty, or are embarrassed. The fact is that people who self injure are sound and reasonable people that probably were never taught the correct ways to cope with immense emotional pain. People who self harm are in fear that if they tell or ask someone for help that they will be committed or considered psychotic (Thompson, 2010). Sadly enough this is true, people tend to make assumptions about things they don’t understand.

One of the main issues separating self-injurious acts from tattoos and piercings is that of pride. Most people who go to get tattooed or pierced are proud, and enjoy their new art expressed on their body. They want to show others their ink, their studs, their plugs. They enjoy telling their story of the pain, the fear, the experience. In contrast, people who self injure usually don’t tell anyone about it nor do they want anyone to know. Self-injurers go to great lengths to cover and hide their wounds and scars. Self-injurers do not want to show off their scars. Self mutilation is a distinct behavior, in definition, method and purpose, from tattooing and piercing (Alderman, 2009).

If anything, the history of tattooing gives an indication of the evolution of the mindset of humankind through the ages, depending on their era. Looking back, that the nature of tattoos is now more cosmetic than ritualistic, as the widespread belief in magic has been replaced by the importance of looks and individuality, and the use of the body as a canvas for art(Tattoo Gallery,2007).

References

Thompson, C. (2010, July 30). Self Injury. Retrieved February 30, 2011, from www.mirror-mirror.org/selfinj.htm

Rubin, L. (2009, July 2). popular culture meets psychology. Retrieved February 27, 2011, from www.psychologytoday.com

Stirn, A. A. (2008). Tattoos, body piercing and self harm are there link? Retrieved February 27, 2011, from www.bps-research-digest.com

Martinson, D. A. (2002, December 18). Tattoos, body piercing and self harm are there link? Retrieved February 29, 2011, from www.palace.net/llama/psych/what.html

Self Mutilation. (2011). Retrieved February 29, 2011, from www.massgeneral.org

The history of tattoos. (2007). Retrieved February 29, 2011, from www.tattoo-gallery.org/history-of-tattoos.html

The history of tattoos. (2007). Retrieved February 29, 2011, from www.hubpages.com

Alderman, T. (2009, December 10). The scarred soul. Retrieved February 29, 2011, from www.psycholgoytoday.com/blog/the-scarred-soul/200912/tattoos-andpiercings-selfinjury

Making a statement vs. making self feel better

Uniqueness vs. coping

Set apart from mainstream vs. shame

Proudly show Vs. secret

Conscious choice vs. unable to control urge

Compare and contrast structural consensus and structural conflict theories of social action with interpretivist perspectives that emphasize human agency

In Sociology, one of the main concepts that have influenced social theory is structure and social action. Functionalism and Marxism fit into the structure view that emphasises the macro perspective; examining society as a whole and how it shapes human behaviour and ideas, therefore, in order to understand human behaviour, the social structures are in need of investigation (Brym & Lie, 2009) . On the other hand, social action theories are voluntaristic. They focus on human interactions upon a micro level. It argues that individuals have free will and are not ‘puppets’; therefore, the actions and meanings of individuals create and shape the society. This suggests actions are not determined by structure. In this essay, these theories will be addressed in order to gain a better understanding of how they are relevant in today’s society. It is important to compare and contrast these theories through use of evidence and critical thinking as they often contradict each other but nonetheless create a wider understanding of human agency.

In the first half of this essay, structural conflict is illustrated as an assumption that society is becoming more individualistic, though as a counter argument functionalism uses the idea of social solidarity, which leads to their further analysis showing their agreements and disagreements. A contrary debate is provided in the second section of the essay that focuses further on the humanist individualistic approach. However, Weber believes both structural and social action should be taken in to consideration in order to understand human’s actions efficiently.

Functionalism falls into structural consensus theory that came into sociology in the middle of twentieth century, although, some of its ideas were present in the founders of sociology in the ninetieth century. It has been argued that the model that functionalism has created of society has led to other perspectives re-emerging in response to those ideas (O’Byrne, 2010). Thus the theory has made such impact on sociological thinking to this day. Functionalists such as Emile Durkheim (1858- 1917) whom is arguably one of the founding fathers of sociology firstly stressed consensus notion in social structure; stating that any human thinking is inherited rather than invented. This takes place in socialisation process that teaches humans to conform to norms and values or in other words- cultural behaviour considerably accepted in certain settings (Jones, 2003). He deemed this term ‘collective consciousness’; Durkheim described this as beliefs and ideas of a common human being in the same society (Punch et al, 2013).

Furthermore, Durkheim explored society as a system and its function within the society. In order to explain this, use of organic analogy takes place as a way of describing how each social factor or institutions are interdependent for the society’s needs. For instance, if one body organ stops functioning, then the rest of the body cannot survive, this can be explained within social institutions too, without the nuclear family the society wouldn’t be able to form social cohesion and solidarity (Jones, 2001). On the other hand, other functionalists such as Talcott Parsons had similar ideas, though ‘for Talcott Parsons one of the central tasks of sociology is to analyse society as a system of functionally interrelated variables’ (Cohen, 1968, p.45). Although Parsons does links his ideas to Durkheim, that is, in the society the personal beings and their views need to be treated as variables as stated by Cohen (1968).

In contrast to structural consensus theories mentioned above, Marxism is known as a structural conflict theory that has been influenced and introduced by Karl Marx (1818- 1883). Economics was highly influential for him as well how the working class sell labour power, which determines how we relate to one another (Duffy, 2009). The theory examines the conflict between bourgeoisies and proletarians, unlike functionalism, he focused on class conflict and how it can be settled. Though since his death, there have been many interpretations of his thesis, some that stick to structural explanations of capitalism, and others that emphasize human agency as a humanist approach (Fawbert, 2014). Louis Althusser (1918-1990) interpreted Marx’s work on a structural capitalist sense; however instead of solely focusing on economic determinism, he alternatively concentrated on politics and ideologies. He claims that these levels are objective. This is because he believes humans are not active agents in social change, as we do not shape our society. For Althusser, to understand why the capitalism hasn’t collapsed, the states and its exercise of power need to be examined. He has discovered the repressive state apparatus, which consists of institutions such as the legal system or the police. In addition to the political apparatus that is- ideological state apparatus that includes media, family, education etc. that shape human’s process of thinking. As a result, our structure can be interconnected, just like how certain structures of dominance changed in history (Jones et al., 2011). To summarise, in his view, human agency plays no part in social change but the structures, and the only way of capitalism being taken over is through its internal contradictions.

Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), on the other hand was more of a humanist Marxist whom was famous for originating the notion of hegemony – idea that there are constant ideologies to alter a person’s perspectives on the world. (Salamini, 1974) ‘For Gramsci, like Althusser, culture is relatively autonomous. However, unlike Althusser, social change is caused by cultural struggles as much as changes in economic forces.’ (Fawbert, 2011, pp.3). As this theory focuses on human agency and social action, it can be argued that it shifts towards the micro perspective due to the ideas moving away from the structural capitalism. This may suggest that the theory is more applicable to contemporary society as human beings have become more complex to understand as a result of constant social change.

According to Punch (2013) Marxism and Functionalism have a few things in common, they both investigated the society from a macro perspective view instead of how individuals affect structure, and they were also both concerned about the society moving towards modernity and the ninetieth century industrialization as well as its effects on quality of life. This also included the introduction of theories of how modernity came about and its components. However, Marxists did focus more on the capitalism rather than the industrial society. Marx highly believed in political revolution of the working class that would involve rebellion, although his predictions have been criticised due to Eastern Europe Soviet Union destruction and rise of nationalism. However, it has been argued that in Marx’s eyes, these communists’ movements weren’t what he was hoping for. Durkheim, however, rejected the politics of revolution but did construct ideas about socialism. He focused greatly on norms and values and social solidarity; therefore, a revolution would disturb these socially. Moreover, although Marxism is stated as highly deterministic, it can be argued that he does look at solidarity within social class. For instance, he believes that the proletarian does have to collectively rise up to the Bourgeoisie’s, sensing the idea of togetherness within the lower class.

Though they had different motives, they both however, used analogy to explain the social structure. In this case Durkheim used organic analogy as explained above, whereas Marx used a building analogy – the base and the superstructure. The superstructure involves social institutions such as family and education, which supports class interests along with maintaining and legitimating the base through ideologies and culture. Economic base alternatively shapes the superstructure as it consists of means and relations of production that is owned by the bourgeoisie’s. This suggests that Marxists believed there are only two classes in which it is very difficult to move from one to another. Whereas functionalists disagreed with this and instead believed in meritocracy, the idea that if you work hard enough you can achieve through merit, essentially, gain success of what you deserve. This implies that if you put in enough effort, you can move from lower to upper class (Collins, 2000). Moreover, both theories have been criticised for ignoring individual differences and their motives. This is because they strongly believe that the society shapes the individual instead of individual’s meanings and actions influencing the society, therefore the theories aren’t as applicable in contemporary society as it needs to examine human’s meanings to the world.

Now we turn away from looking at macro perspectives to micro and their differences and similarities within. The ideas of interpritvist view of action and structure are displayed as contrary. Unlike structural theories, social action discusses the interactions between individuals in small groups and their motives; in result of this it is called social pragmatist theory. Human beings aren’t seen a puppets whereas the structure debate talks about individuals as predictable human beings. This then raises question on how the structure influence person’s actions and, in opposition, how does one’s actions alter the social structure (Morselli, 2014).

There is a disagreement amongst the theories within social action when the discussion of the connection between society and action comes in. This is because theories such as ethnomethodology disagree with the concepts of wider structures but sees us as rational human beings and how we make sense of our everyday world (Bilton et al., 2002). While others such as G.H. Mead (1863-1931) who is symbolic interactionist stresses the socialisation as much as structural theories, in spite of this, he underlines the idea of reacting self and the behaviour expected. Mead has a base of three premises that tries to explain human agency. The first is that depending on what the thing is, humans will act certainly towards it, such as institutions, for instance, an individual would act differently in a school environment compared to a governmental institution. The second premise enhances the meaning of these things that it derived from- in most cases social interaction. Interpretive process then takes places in order to administer and modify such things (Blumer, 1986). Hence, Bilton (2002) suggests that although they are all micro theorist they interpret the terms of action and meaning inversely. Following on Meads work, these 3 premises challenged other sociological thinking, especially functionalism, to the view that solely the society determined human action and thinking. Evidence to back his theory was shown in Erving Goffman’s (1992-1982) work of whom was vastly influenced by Mead’s ideas of symbolic interactionism. His study tried to examine how social identity was defined by adaptation of certain roles, in this case, the mental asylum tried to reduce each inmate’s individuality through uniforms, haircuts, use of number instead of names, leading to each one of them changing his or her identity and self-image for the institutions interests (Calvert, 1992).

Finally, Max Weber (1864-1920) took on an approach that combines social structure as well as agency theory emphasising motivational action. This differed to previous theories as functionalism greatly focused on institutions maintaining cohesion of wider structures, whereas Marx’s ideas were concerned on social class conflict as well as the origins of industrial capitalism. Though Weber rejected Marx’s view of economic determinism, he didn’t come across as falsifying them; he argued that Marx provided an unpolished portrayal of human motivation, therefore, lack of causal analysis of historical circumstances (Hughes et al., 1995). He also rejected the idea of universalism- that all societies go through same stages, due to meaningless infinity of complexity affecting each society differently (Chernilo, 2013). He therefore, tries to look at motivated social action as well as discuss large structures, such as cultural ideas. Weber’s vision was that we have moved away from traditional action to rational or in other words, goal-orientated. Individuals in our contemporary society start to think in a way to gain the benefits of the final goal and outweigh its consequences. Social structure becomes the outcome of this as our lifestyle is the product of our motives.

As a consequence, Weber argued that modern capitalist societies are in a triumph of rationality. To explain this he used religion, specifically puritan protestant movement, which criticised the ‘catholic’ way of thinking. An example of this is his book The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (1997). He found that Calvinism created the work ethic and asceticism that contributed to the rise of industrial capitalism; this maintained capitalism due to this religion accumulating constant wealth as a result of belief of predestination. The book moreover, states that the human actions can create consequences of rational thinking on a structural basis. Due to such disenchanted world, all superstition and values become pushed out cultural thinking. This is a crisis for Weber as then this leads to no meaning to the world in the way that religion has created previously (Jones et al., 2011)

To summarise, the human agency has been evaluated variably depending on the theories. Durkheim mainly focuses on social solidarity influencing the decision making, although Marx agrees that society is responsible for shaping one’s opinion he’s more economical determinant. To balance this out, Weber brings in human’s motives and how these drives decision making upon an individual, as well as taking structural causes into consideration. Therefore, it can be argued that these sociology fathers have defined human agency but due their differences it is difficult to fully comprehend the affect the society has on human agency.

References

Bilton, T., Bonnet, K., Jones, P., Lawson, T., Skinner, D., Stanworth, M., Webster, A. (2002) Introductory Sociology, 4^th edn., Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillian.

Blumer, H. (1992) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, California: University of California Press.

Brym, R. & Lie, J. (2009) Sociology: Your Compass for a New World, Brief Edition: Enhanced Edition 2edn., Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co Inc

Calvert, S&P. (1992) Sociology Today, Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Chernilo, D. (2013) The Natural Law Foundations of Modern Social Theory: A Quest for Universalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, P. (1968) Modern Social Theory, London: Heinemann Education Books Ltd.

Collins (2000) Internet-linked dictionary of Sociology, Glasgow: HarperCollins.

Duffy, F. (2009) Marx, Social Change and Revolution’, Research Starters Sociology [Online] Research Starters, EBSCOhost (Accessed: 17 November 2014).

Fawbert, J. (2014) Lecture 6: Structural and cultural Marxism: Althusser, Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, Understanding society, [Online] Available at: https://breo.beds.ac.uk (Accessed: 22 November 2014).

Hughes, A.J., Martin, J.P., Sharrock, W.W. Understanding Classical Sociology: Marx, Weber, Durkheim, London: SAGE.

Jones, P. (2003) Introducing Social theory, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Jones, P., Bradbury, L., Boutillier, S., (2011) Introducing Social Theory 2edn., Cambridge: Polity Press.

Jones, S. (2001) Durkheim Reconsidered, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Morselli, A. (2014) Contemporary Capitalism between Human Action and Social Structure, Economics & Sociology, 7 (2) pp. 11-19 EBSCOhost [Online] Available at: http://0-eds.b.ebscohost.com.brum.beds.ac.uk (Accessed: 17 November 2014).

O’Byrne, D. (2010) Introducing Sociological Theory , Dawsonera [Online] Available at: https://www.dawsonera.com (Accessed: 15 November 2014).

Punch, S., Marsh, I., Keating, M., Harden, J. (2013) Sociology, Making sense of Society, 5^th edn., Edinburgh: Pearson.

Salamini, L (1974) Gramsci and Marxist Sociology of Knowledge: an Analysis of Hegemony—Ideology—Knowledge, Sociological Quarterly, 15 (3) pp. 359-380 Wiley Online Library [Online] Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com (Accessed: 05 December 2014).

Weber, M (1905)The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism,London: Routledge.

1

CLASS AND STRATIFICATION

‘Marx believed that our society was in a state of continual conflict between the working class and upper class; evaluate the Marxist theory of social class using Functionalism and Postmodernism theories of class’.

Compare and contrast Marxist and functionalist explanations of class and inequality.

There are several sociological perspectives and they all have different ideas and theories about class and inequality, including Marxist (Karl Marx a conflict theory) and Functionalist (Emile Durkheim, Robert Merton a structural consensus theory). In this essay I will show the different theories of social class from these two perspectives. I will then conclude by evaluating the Postmodernist view of social class.

Marxism was introduced by Karl Marx (1818-1883). Karl Marx believed that society was divided into two classes, the Bourgeoisie (ruling class) and the Proletariats (lower/working class) (Burton, 2013). He believed that that the bourgeoisie exploited and oppressed the proletariat. Marx followed the structural conflict perspective and believed that institutions such as education, the media and the law are used by the bourgeoisie as a way to define and influence social class (Marx, 1818 cited in Blunden, 2013). Marx also believed that Capitalism would lead to polarisation of the two classes with the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer. This polarisation makes it harder for the poorer classes to achieve in life as well as achieving social mobility. He believed that as the capitalist society advanced the small business owners would be absorbed by the bourgeoisie and multinational companies. Marx wanted the proletariat to overthrow the capitalist society of the bourgeoisie and hoped for a classless society where wealth and profit was divided equally (Anon, n.da).

There has been much criticism on Marx’s theory of social class the first being that this theory is much too simplistic in that society cannot be based on only two different classes. In a modern society class is not as simple as Marx claimed it was and the communist society that Marx wished for has been tried and failed, Russia is a prime example of this. In addition there are many other divisions within societies that Marx did not consider, such as age, race, gender etc. Another major criticism is that Marx’s idea if monopolization has not come to fruition as although there are many large national companies there are also many small businesses as well despite the process of polarisation still occurring in some areas (Anon, n.da). The Marxist theory of class, although it does hold some valid theories, is flawed in that in a modern society there are many processes in place to ensure that workers are not exploited, such as unions and fair wages laws. Also in a modern society conflict within the workplace is rare as those who are unhappy do have the option to improve and move up or down positions, so this would suggest social mobility is possible (Anon, n.da).

Functionalism was introduced by Emile Durkheim (1858-1917). The main principle of functionalism is that each part of a society is interdependent and contributes towards making society work as a whole. Each of these parts has to be working correctly but if something does go wrong then society has mechanisms to deal with them, such as the police and the legal system. Functionalists also believe that every social institution has many important functions to perform (Durkheim, 1858 cited in Burton, 2013). Therefore stratification is necessary for every society as it helps to maintain social order and stability if every part knows its role (Davis & Moore, 1945 cited in Anon, n.d). Durkheim introduced the theory ‘anomie’, or ‘lack of social norms’, that could cause instability or chaos. This concept bought to light many instances that could affect a society in a negative way and especially the behaviour of individuals towards one another (Emile Durkheim org, 2013). Another concept put forward by Durkheim “the sum of all of its parts is larger than the whole”, defined at the introduction of the structural/functionalist theory, is as relevant today as it was when first introduced (Gamble, 2008).

There has been much criticism on the functionalist explanation of class, the first being that many of the vital jobs in modern society are not necessarily rewarded with high status or income, this is in total contrast to the functionalist belief that those vital jobs should be rewarded as so. Another big criticism of this approach is that it does not take into account individual differences, in that individuals can make an impact within an institution rather than the institution impacting the individual (Anon, n.da). This theory, much like the Marxist theory, is simplistic in the idea that all of society accept class inequality and that this inequality is inevitable for society. Postmodernists claim that society has moved on since the modern period and this has been caused by globalisation, the reduction of the power of the nation state, economic changes, fragmented social classes, and relativism, a way of looking at the world that includes every theory as valid. As societies change on a daily basis there are more and more claims that social class is becoming less significant and no longer a useful tool to measure societies by and some suggest that it is only deficient culture that keeps people in what would be called the lower classes (Burton, 2013). Postmodernist theories suggest that an individual’s choice of goods, such as supermarket choices, and lifestyle activities is now a much more important indicator of an individual’s identity. This identity is then what creates a person’s politics, sexuality and family structure etc. (Education Forum, n.d). This would then suggest that a postmodern society is defined by diversity and choice rather than social class.

Within the postmodernist theory there is the emphasis on the extent to which family diversity is changing, the decline in the ‘normal’ two parent two children families, the growth of single parent families, cohabitation, gay marriage and increasing ethnic diversity. They say there is no longer a fixed family norm that people can refer to (Education Forum, n.d). As society is much more diverse than it was many years ago class is no longer relevant. This perspective believes that there cannot be a single theoretical explanation of society, whether by individual parts or as a whole, as society only exists as a reassuring entity. They argue that in a modern society the mass media plays a huge influential role in creating the image of what a society should be. Postmodernists Lyotard and Baudrillard believe that theories such as Marxism and Functionalism are ‘meta-narratives’ or ‘grand-narratives,’ meaning they both elaborate that society is under control, and it can be seen in some places that this is not the case (lyotard & Baudrillard, n.d cited in Anon, n.db).

References

Anon. (n.d) Structure for all Essays [online]. Available from: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CFwQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edubuzz.org%2Fplhs-humanities%2Fwp-content%2Fblogs.dir%2F1925%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F11%2FEssay-structure-template-SS.doc&ei=nIVRU8T7OsaqPJmugFA&usg=AFQjCNGz_J3fJ7oqdNq7u0ai_tVV9Fte9w&sig2=XIiq_tawT4LKaqZ3TzGJjg&bvm=bv.65058239,d.ZWU&cad=rja [Accessed on: 13^th April 2014].

Anon. (n.db) Evaluate Post-Modernist Views on Inequality and Difference. Essay [online]. Available from: http://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/Evaluate-Post-Modernist-Views-On-Inequality-And-486042.html [Accessed on: 3^rd April 2014].

Blundon, A. (2013) Marxism [online]. Available from: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/marxism.htm [Accessed on: 2^nd April 2014].

Burton, J. (2013a) Class and Stratification [Class Hand-out]. Access to Social Science: Class and Stratification, Northampton College. 1^st April 2014.

Burton, J. (2013b) Sociological Perspectives [PowerPoint Presentation]. Access to Social Science: Introduction to Sociological Theory [online via internal VLE], Northampton College. Available from: http://moodle.northamptoncollege.ac.uk/file.php/22/Week_2_to_5_Perspectives.pptx [Accessed: 1^st April 2014].

Education Forum (n.d) Evaluate the postmodernist contribution to our understanding of society today [online]. Available from: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.educationforum.co.uk%2Fsociology_2%2Fpomoessay.ppt&ei=bDxRU-blM4SMO8StgOgG&usg=AFQjCNH5iXZK07FStrxrLlCR_WeGGDAITQ&sig2=ICRvr6RJxR4bkdA7ARhIzw&bvm=bv.65058239,d.ZWU&cad=rja [Accessed on: 3^rd April 2014].

Emile Durkheim Org. (2013) Emile Durkheim: Father of Sociology [Online]. Available from: http://www.emiledurkheim.org/ [Accessed on: 13^th April 2014].

Gamble, L. (2008) How Emile Durkheim’s Principles of Sociology Have Impacted Society [Online]. Available from: http://voices.yahoo.com/how-emile-durkheims-principles-sociology-impacted-1521203.html [Accessed on: 14^th April 2014].

Grossman, A. (2013) Robert Merton [Online]. Available from: http://sociology.about.com/od/Profiles/p/Robert-Merton.htm [Accessed on: 14^th April 2014].

Jain, H. (n.d) What are the Differences between Functionalism & Marxism? [online]. Available from: http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_8118568_differences-between-functionalism-marxism.html [Accessed on: 2^nd April 2014].

Shu-Yee, C. (2012) AS LEVEL: Functionalist VS Marxist [online]. Available from: http://sociologywithcandee.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/as-level-functionalist-vs-marxist.html [Accessed on: 2^nd April 2014].

Trueman, C. (n.d) Sociological Theories [online]. Available from: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/sociological_theories.htm [Accessed on: 2^nd April 2014].

Bibliography

Anon. (n.d) A simple guide to Post Modernism [online]. Available from: http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/barrycomp/bhs/duffers_pdf/A simple guide to Post Modernism.pdf [Accessed on: 1^st April 2014].

Anon. (n.d) Compare and Contrast Functionalist and Marxist Theories of Stratification [online]. Available from: http://www.omdix.com/pdf/docs/book_essay_termpaper_1071119348.pdf [Accessed on: 2^nd April 2014].

Anon. (2012) Assess the Functionalist and Marxist view of society [online]. Available from: http://potmd.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/assess-the-functionalist-and-marxist-view-of-society/ [Accessed on: 2^nd April 2014].

Anon. (n.d) Topic 3: Social Class and Cultural Identity [online]. Available from: http://realsociology.edublogs.org/files/2010/12/CI-WS3-09-2e72mee.pdf [Accessed on: 3^rd April 2014].

Ask.Com. (n.d) What is Postmodernism in Sociology? [online]. Available from: http://uk.ask.com/question/what-is-postmodernism-in-sociology [Accessed on: 1^st April 2014].

Devine, F. (1997) Social Class in America and Britain [online]. Edinburgh: University Press. Available from: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CYEUhTYvaAkC&dq=evaluate+post+modernist+views+on+social+class&source=gbs_navlinks_s [Accessed on: 2^nd April 2014].

Heilbroner, R. (n.d) The Worldly Philosophers Summary and Analysis Chapter 6 – The Inexorable System of Karl Marx [online]. Available from: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/w/the-worldly-philosophers/summary-and-analysis/chapter-6 [Accessed on: 3^rd April 2014].

History Learning Site. (n.d) Marxist Concepts [online]. Available from: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/marxist_concepts.htm [Accessed on: 3^rd April 2014].

Horky, A. (n.d) Differences & Similarities in Functionalism & Marxism [online]. Available from: http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_8647778_differences-similarities-functionalism-marxism.html [Accessed on: 2^nd April 2014].

Klages, M. (2012) Postmodernism [online]. Available from: http://www.bdavetian.com/Postmodernism.html [Accessed on: 1^st April 2014].

McGraw. (n.d) Structuralism, Post structuralism, and the Emergence of Postmodern Social Theory [online]. Available from: http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072817186/student_view0/chapter17/chapter_summary.html [Accessed on: 1^st April 2014].

S-cool. (n.d) Post-Modernism [online]. Available from: http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/sociology/theoretical-standpoints/revise-it/post-modernism [Accessed on: 1^st April 2014].

Simple Wikipedia. (2014) Postmodernism [online]. Available from: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism [Accessed on: 1^st April 2014].

Sociology Twynham. (2008) Differences between Functionalist and Marxist perspectives on education are: [online]. Available from: http://www.slideshare.net/sociologytwynham/marxist-functionalist-differences-presentation [Accessed on: 2^nd April 2014].

Sociology Twynham. (2008) What is the difference between Functionalists, Marxists and Feminists? (AS level answer) [online]. Available from: http://sociologytwynham.com/2008/06/27/what-is-the-difference-between-functionalists-marxists-and-feminists-as-level-answer/ [Accessed on: 2^nd April 2014].

The Student Room. (n.d) What is the ‘postmodernism’ perspective in sociology? [online]. Available from: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2365056 [Accessed on: 1^st April 2014].

Trainer, T. (n.d) Marxist Theory; A brief Introduction [online]. Available from: https://socialsciences.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/Marx.html [Accessed on: 2^nd April 2014].

Wikipedia. (2014) Postmodernism [online]. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism [Accessed on: 1^st April 2014].

Xlauren61x1. (2012) Functionalism and Marxism: Sociological Perspectives [online]. Available from: http://www.studymode.com/essays/Functionalism-And-Marxism-Sociological-Perspectives-1171672.html [Accessed on: 2^nd April 2014].

Ehnomethododolgy and interactionism have been two of the most emerging social theorys to come up from the 20th century. Interactionism was the one that initially started it with the emergence of Meade in the 1920s who emerged with a style of being pragmatism as its main core argument as well as analysis how we socially act with teaches other. Herbet blumer worked on Meade theory and he created symbolic interactionism through it. With their main aim of it being what is behind the subjective theory of humans, the social process and being pragmatic, this theory has then led to several divisions created throughout they include Phenomenology, Social Action, and Ethnomethodology. The view of ethno has created the biggest difference and has been viewed as analysis people everyday life and how people act which defines there social order and therefore it will be used to document to how the world works and operate unlike many other theory’s not interested in putting people in separate reality of using extreme types of cases. In addition the Ethnomethodology can be viewed as “members of society must have some shared methods that they use to mutually construct the meaningful orderliness of social situations” and that it differs from normal sociology as viewed what is important is the procedures over which social society is created

One of the things that interactionist sociologists are different to macro sociologist such as functionalist and Marxist conflict theories. This can be viewed as the way they look at how the individuals act in situations instead of just analysing how they react to a social stimulant. In addition they tend to look at how different social actors understand the behaviour of theirs is significant as a way of understanding in the way social world constructed.

One of these differences can be shown in the difference where etnomethodologist tend to be highly indifferent to subjective methods of research as not really thinking that they correctly define human behaviour in the manner they like.

In terms of contrast to the normal style of sociology the ethno view doesn’t attempt to make an theory or methodological appeal In addition does not view its subjective states as an individual or group of individual as well will refuse to use concept view such as “value states, “sentiments” , ” goal-orientations” as a way of referring to any types of actor or other actors. Therefore for an ethnomethodologists’s the way in which you can fully realise social scenes is when the actual location would be under inspection. Therefore the role is to describe the personality of these activities not just accounting as just a person in a particular location but instead look at what happens , how it happens and why these moment tends be different .

A difference between the two would be the use of symbols whereby interactionist tend to assume that the truth of symbols are then interpreted by various actor in social while ethno deliberately avoids these assumption to describe social scene and do not think symbol are necessarily used as constants in social scenes.

One of the things that make ethnomethodology unique is the method behind its research is different as it tends to look at practical reasons and how that is different compared to the domain of talking interaction or other constituent activity system which believe are very limited and only get a small amounts of research through it . In addition they look in methodological research and how tends be viewed through either ethno-graphic or quasi-experiment which are different to the usual analysis of conversation and look at audio and video recording of on-going interaction. They believe methods of interviews are fake and don’t really give the most fairest way of analysis human behaviour as also think can be based on false assumption such as camaridie in the interview which be viewed differently by the parties but it could lead to giving less accurate results.

In addition one of the most important thing for the Interactions is how they analyse peoples social life , instead of the functional objective macro-organised structure of the social system where everyone has a place and just a certain role. This is important as it fits in with the interactionist philosophy of their theoretical perspective on the image of humans instead of just analysing society and viewing how that defines. Instead human are pragmatic actors who must continually change their behaviour to be able to respond to other actor and that the only way they we can adjust is because we have the power to interpret them either through symbolic ways or could be linguistic methods through those abilities able to adjust to respond accordingly. This is then enhanced by the way we can imaginatively rehearse other ways of action before to attempt to act. This is then aided by the ability to think and then react to our actions even viewing are selves at times as the symbolic objects. Therefore the interactionist theorist would view human as active, creative participants, who define and make the social world not just conformist passive players in this social world.

One of the major differences would be how they both tend to view the difference in role taking It tends to be a key role in the method of interaction whereby it allows take other people views and how their actions lead us to interact in a certain way. Furthermore in other times interactions tend to look at improvisational use of rules where the social situation isn’t working well which means then human change their role to try and improve the experience. However a ethno view is that they would prefer to go analyse their research through looking at different ways that people express themselves in conversation and the way that these methods are managed.

In addition the way interactionist seem to learn is through participant observation whereby instead of just looking at survey and interview instead they will view that what makes it important is looking how they act in there day to day life and how being immersed in the live is the best way of being able to understand why people commit their action and how the process of the situation is communicated through the interaction. Therefor while they will be very close in terms of contact as a consequence they are explicit over how what they learned from the person can alter their views and thinking but will be objective when it comes to conducting the research

One of the criticisms ethnomethodologists’s have over the interactionist approach is that they believed that there tends to be an over reliance on the cognitive system approach . There logic is that normal people tend to grasp just normal situations and that is all they process, however when there is a specific event with horrific sequence they start thinking about their pre-conscious state which leads them to disrupt there normal pattern of social interaction in addition the ethno group believe that this only a temporary problem and very quickly will be to allowed to enable normal social interaction again with just a bit of work

However in certain methods there tends to be certain similar aspects if you look at how they tend to be linked to a certain degree over the interactionist concern with the role of abnormality within the studies of social group and social relationships. Usually interactionist tend to look at the method of organization which stresses how positions in place work tend to be defined by its inherent informal structure. Therefore this had led to a view created by (Hughes, 1956) ” that beside every task division of labor rests a moral hierarchy of positions which dictate how per-sons are to relate”. Therefore when usually this a study into the social organisations the interactionist will tend to look at how the social organization start with a formal structure and how that progress through a variety of different views and ideas which then as a consequence redefine those initial structures . These view on the structure complement the ethnomethodologists’s which also emphasis that a formal structure can’t be ignored and they are vital fundamental for social relationships. Furthermore ethnomethodologists’s major view in this regard in this topic is that the “productions of sociologist are similar to those in everyday life.” They get to there point through a couple of ways, one of those tends to be tend that sociologists main concern is the affairs of the general people in the social order . Therefore when they start with their initial test they create a certain boundaries and certain rules which will define their method however during these test they will find throughout it anomaly’s or that the statistical test is not accurate or that what they observe does not actually fit in with their initial hypothesis or central concept . So therefore when they try to make there concept work with their hypothesis they will tend to rely on the documentary style of analysis whereby they look at there earlier view of daily interaction and look at how to help them reach a hypothesis

The two views can also have fault lines in what they necessarily try to find as an interactionist are far more concerned with normal common sense question about how we live our lives , while the ethnomethodologists’s tries to analysis on the meaning of the social and look at what behind what we all do .

One of the major differences can be viewed between how language is differently viewed between the two ideologies as for the interactions language can be viewed as submitting signs of the person that represent the central aspect of the social life; while for the ethnomethodologists’s it can be pointed to the person as a way of being the standard reality and how it is explained

A criticism that has been used towards interactionism from the ehthno has come towards the Blumer approach and their assessment over how they failed to accurate describe how the social process in the vein that there was a total gloss on the usual human social interaction especially demanding that there should be a place for the minute description of behaviour especially language behaviour instead of the constant reference to ” mind ” or “self” , ” society” which where conceptual goals coming from which then used the prepared account of the social life in the method of Blumer.

Therefore it while there are similarities between interactionist and the ethnomethodologists especially as ethnomethodology would not be able to exist without interactionism as that is what started this brand of sociology which went against the functional sociologist style of before such as structuralism , functionalism , Marxism it started then as a new breed of sociology and ethnomethodology became a branch of it like Phenomenology did as well . Therefore whatever the difference will be there central point will always be very similar to each other .

We undertake comparative study because, notwithstanding the difficulties of this exercise, there are clear benefits’ Discuss using examples to illustrate your arguments.

Comparative study is an area where risks and benefits are very frequently mentioned. Today, Comparative study has grown into a very major field that could be applied to most of the subjects, and especially so, for Sociology and other Social Sciences. The field of Social Policy had been immensely benefited by the comparative study, as this has facilitated to compare the social policies and ways of working with those of other countries. There is a long tradition of fascination of comparing one thing with another of similar position. Social research has a long and healthy background. Through systematic study, Montesquieu wished to see how, in ways previously unsuspected, society forms people as ‘social creatures’. At the same time, he did not view society in terms of progressive development, but one of advances and set-backs in the path to liberty and all that was ‘good’, says Tim May, (1996, p. 15).

Benefits belong to the fact that only a comparative study could hope to identify the factors that are specific to national health care systems, as distinct from being common to all such systems. A comparative perspective can extend national ideas about what is possible and at the same time provide the understanding that must precede prescription.

Comparative study is an important part of diverse branches of Social Studies. For years now, empirical and comparative studies, have formed integral part of any ongoing research of Sociology. Comparative study as a tool of research in most of the subjects has come to be accepted over the years. It can bring out elements that could offer an overpowering study.

Before analysing the negative and positive points of the comparative study, focus should be on the preliminary questions that have to be answered.

Defining the level of comparison is the best way of starting a research on comparative basis. A researcher might offer many levels or might target the minimum levels needed for the comparison. Levels of comparison may be internal, like comparisons with one local governments and another, or intra-organisational comparisons, taking two or three organisations for this purpose. Or comparisons could be between different systems like international comparisons, private and public sector comparisons. Studies have to be concerned with similarity or dissimilarity. The targets of study should be directly or indirectly comparable. If comparability could not be established, it is difficult to conduct even an unclear and incoherent comparative study. Target groups should be clearly defined and the researcher should have complete knowledge of his research topics. The path in which his research is heading should be crystal clear to the researcher. Validity of comparison should be an accepted one. This would help the scholar, as the acceptance of his theory through the study would be very important to him. Comparative evaluation, which perhaps might be the last goal of the researcher, should be clearly defined and the study should be conducted with this

Difficulties had been plaguing Comparative Study from the beginning. The units of the comparison of organisational systems or even the sub systems cannot be the same and this had been the grouse of many social scientists. Risk also lies in the temptation of social scientists to seek perfect solutions to national problems in the experience of other countries. This is not a clever way of conducting research, because the distinct peculiarity of such a situation could not be emulated for the purpose of studies. Each country’s experience will be unique and diverse under the peculiarity of given circumstances and such a ‘strangeness’ could not compared with another one, with perhaps a uniqueness of its own. This social, political and economic eccentricity could be the product of that particular country and culture and cannot be universal.

According to some of the researchers, theory plays very little part in the comparative study. No doubt it is there, but it figures as a very small part of it. But theory does not make as big a contribution as it should make. This had been a stumbling block ever since the comparative research has become popular. Another problem that surfaces very often is that comparative study has become too common. Starting from ordinary market surveys, public opinions or any smallest thing possible, has come under comparative study and hence, this has become a very common way of research. There is no novelty left in it, and it has become stale. The methodology has been used too many times with too little gratification. This had been the argument of many social scientists.

There is another argument that a universal social science is emerging due to over use of the comparative study. In a historical study of development of comparative social research Scheuch shows how the commercial institutes for market and opinion research went into cross-national comparisons as early as in the thirtees, (Oyen, p.6). This would erase the peculiarities and distinctions of various societies leading to a uniform kind of society without any differentiation and that would be the ultimate human tragedy.

Another disadvantage lies in the sampling and sometimes the impossibility of it. Sampling might suffer due to lack of variety. And then dimensions might differ. Especially in studies of ethnicities, this could be a problem. The uniqueness, peculiarities, strangeness of one country might not be identified in another country. It is not possible to trace the counties who have the similar cultural peculiarities. People too would have their own distinctive features and this makes the study more difficult and less clear.

Indirectness of the observations is not appreciated by many social scientists. They feel that study becomes rather impersonal and lack lustre. They argue that studies conducted on Sociology should be more personal and connected to humanity, instead of raking up a cluster of figures.

Comparative study has emerged as one of the biggest and much used tools of sociological research. While conducting either an evaluation or study, it is much easier and clearer to have another standard to compare it with. If there is no way of measuring it, the study does not become clear. As it is, Sociology is such a branch of study that faces criticism, as everything in it is lucid and a kind of myth making. These studies provide a firm basis against which the other details could be checked and they provide a checking point.

Study by comparison has its own drawbacks. Circumstances may not be similar. Objects may not be similar. End product could be different. Atmosphere could be different. Circumstances could be altered every now and then. It is not possible to keep the same kind of circumstances endlessly as these studies could go on for years at times. Social atmosphere had been mercurial and it is too much to expect that they would remain static to oblige the social scientists. The standard set may be a difficult one. It might vary later or many more changes and alterations could be demanded. There might not be much similarity between the circumstances. Comparative ethnic studies is one of those areas where it is impossible to find a similarity between the communities and yet, a researcher is forced to find some similarities at least. But it is an accepted fact that ethnic societies could never have similar customs or background. Tensions, ancestry could never be the same, even though the future societies might be heading towards a depressing similarity.

There is no study in sociology, which is not at least remotely compared with something else. It has become a regular practice of most of the evaluative studies. There are negative points. All the time, it is not easy to find exact or even passable comparisons. But social policy has made comparative study a necessity, as the Social Policies of other countries are compared with it either to its advantage or disadvantage all the time. It is impossible to find exact similarities so that the comparisons could be apt. As a result, the results cannot be accurate. Results would be more of speculative or hypothetical nature, than concrete one. Different types could be compared at the same time and time would be saved. All need not be given explanatory details. If one is given and the rest of them are just shown in the symbolic way, it should be enough. And this advantage makes the rest of them to be compared with one point and that way it is less confusing and more genuine.

There are several ways of gaining an entry into the comparative method but none of them are simple and instantaneously gratifying. Mainly it started with cross-national studies. Some of these sources are located outside the arena of sociological research. There are many internal and external forces at work in a comparative study. The recent internationalization has led to many kinds of social, political, cultural and economical interaction beyond the boundaries of nations and countries. Intense mobility has taken over and people are not committed to one land any more. Internationalism could be seen in every field. In the same way, problems that used to be internal have got globalized. Very few internal problems have remained today and most of the problems are internationalized and sensationalised.

Some people who are initiating the surveys may be having interest in more than one country and perhaps they would like to see if they could get a cross-country comparative study, which would be positively helpful in their own work. Politicians call for such studies to sum up their achievements. Comparing their achievement with another country might make them feel smug, if the other country’s achievements are comparatively insignificant. Politicians would definitely feel that their status internally and externally grows with that kind of comparison. Comparison study is also based on the theory of pluralism and not on totalitarianism.

Another area that is coming under comparative study very often nowadays is the international eco system. After the conservation and concern for eco system have become a world concern, comparative study on this science has become imperative. Even though we do not have other worlds to compare the eco system with, comparison with various parts of the world and their eco systems have become a fruitful study that gives opportunity not only to improve the errors, but also to study the results of conversation activities. Still more precise comparative studies in this area are needed. This has become a major area of research based on comparative evaluation in recent years and this would go on improving. Even the reliability of these studies is improving fast.

The national and international surveys and studies have filled up the databanks in every subject. New Techniques and methodologies have been employed recently. Social scientists have become more and more adept in their studies and Sociology, from more or less an abstract subject, is fast becoming a precise area. That is one more advantage of comparative study. It is capable of giving preciseness into any vague subject. New software of recent technologies could be used for the comparative study more easily. Technical issues involved in cross-national studies could be researched and evaluated without complication.

Cross-national research has adopted various patterns and relationships. Comparative study has brought subjects like Sociology from the theoretical mode.

Throughout the period during which we have been struggling with comparative research, one lesson learned is that whatever we do in the way of cross-national comparisons must be theoretically justified – and cutting into countries theoretically is a complex process of the beginning of which we have only caught a glimpse, says Oyen, (1990, p. 3).

Hence, comparative study does not reduce Sociology totally to a subject of statistics and figures, but keeps the theoretical part of it equally important. Looking from that point of view, it could be stated that comparative study furthers the subject without harming its traditional fabric. It is an additional asset and definitely not an usurper. Cross national research employing comparative study as a tool is mainly done to reduce variance that had been remained hitherto unexplained. Sociologists too are showing more and more preference towards conventional ways of research. Even though new methods are adapted, they are against abandoning the traditional ways of research. Macro sociological analysis and micro sociological methods combine both theory and practice.

Normal behaviour and norms cannot be studied without acknowledging deviations from the normal. Actually, no social phenomenon can be isolated and studied without comparing it to other social phenomena, according to Oyen (p. 4).

International social science has come a long way, mainly due to comparative study. After the advent of globalisation, social science has not remained curtailed to particular countries any more. It has become part of the world social science. Now Comparative studies have emerged victorious bringing the world societies together. This has brought up another advantage. Any kind of knowledge anywhere in the world is becoming the common property of the world in no time, and based on that, further knowledge gets built up continuously. The knowledge of the present generation, compared to the earlier generations is growing very fast.

CASE STUDIES:

1. The case of abolishing child poverty: Child poverty is a depressing phenomenon, which is plaguing all the countries in the world in some way or other. Child poverty is connected with the parental poverty and so, the standard of living has to be improved to undermine the child poverty. At the same time, there are orphans, deprived children and it is not practical to connect all of it to the parental poverty. Child poverty is very different from country to country depending on the standard of living, resources, government care and many other social, economic and political causes. Still a comparative study of various countries would yield useful results for the ongoing struggle against child poverty. There is strong evidence that unemployment, even if not accompanied by poverty, has serious secondary effects. A recent Danish study shows that it doubles the chances of family break-ups, and much later, of unemployment among the children, (Esping-Anderson, 2002, p. 54).

2. Gender inequality: To a certain extent gender inequality exists in all societies Western or Eastern. In Western societies, it is found less virulent, whereas in traditional societies, it assumes threatening stature. A comparative cross-nation study, on the face of it, might look absolutely unnecessary and ambitious. But it does help. Taking other factors into consideration, combining the backgrounds and politico-social elements of each society, a cross national study would help the scholar to form a balanced view of the gender inequality of the entire world and that would give a proper perspective to his own research.

3. Social Policy: Over the years, social policy, especially in Western societies, has become an obsession and necessity. Other that countries like America and Canada, most of the Western countries are small in size with less population. Concentrating on this population’s welfare, combined with the wealth these countries possess, it had not been impossible for them to concentrate and evolve an effective Social Policy. This does not mean that it is without flaws and drawbacks. But for the erstwhile colonies, it is still an uphill task to feed their enormous population, educate and clothe them while struggling continuously to improve the standard of living. So, they are totally dissimilar to each other. Still, through comparative research, it is noticed that there are many fields where the experience of one country could be used very effectively by another country to enormous advantage. Comparative studies on social policy comparing the Western countries to each other, comparing them collectively with other developing countries, comparing the European social policy system with that of Canada or USA had been a continuous, thriving branch of the study for social studies. These studies should not be dismissed lightly. They form the basis of further improvement in social polities of all countries. They combine many factors available in all countries and even the so-called highly advanced countries could derive plenty of benefits from the practical knowledge of other lesser-known countries. There are different medical systems, hitherto not really popular. Bringing them to the forefront and conducting further research on them could be highly beneficial to other systems. They could be complimentary to other systems and effectively fill the knowledge gaps. There is no such thing called perfect and ultimate knowledge and there is always something to learn even from the most ancient societies. Comparative studies have unfailingly pointed out this wisdom.

We are in an era in which rival forces, once again, promote their blueprints for a Good Society. Indeed, much suggests that we are heading towards yet another historical regime shift, according to Esping-Andersen, (2002, p.2).

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Esping-Andersen, Gosta, (2002), Why we need a New Welfare State, Oxford University Press.

2. Elienne du plessis, (2004), Compulsion and Restitution, Stair Society, Edinburg.

3. Hensel, Howard, (2004), ed. Soverignity and the Global Community, Aldershot, Hants.

4. Hansen, ed ((2002), A Comparative study of six city – state cultures, Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Copenhagen.

5. Kamerman, Sheila and Kahn, Alfred, (1981), Child Care, Family Benefits and Working Parents, A study in Comparative Policy, Columbia University Press, New York.

6. Knorr-Cetina K. and Cicourel, A.V., eds., (1981), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology, Routledge & Kegal Paul, London.

7. May, Tim, (1996), Situating Social Theory, Open University Press, Buckingham.

8. Oyen, Else, (2002), Comparative Methodology, Sage Publications Limited, London.

9. Quovertrus, Mads, (2002), A Comparative Study of Referendums, Manchester University Press.

10. Whiteford, G. (2003), A Comparative Study into the competitive Advantage Theories, (Thesis).