Category: Free Essays

Some people in the society believe homosexuality to be an illness and that it could be rectified. But most of of the processes of round the revolve psychological therapies which expects to change homosexual sexuality to heterosexual), the world’s largest association of psychologists American Psychological Association (APA), stated that;

But the strongly religion believes that homosexuality is a sinful act which is against the bible and is and has a direct breach of the bible and other religious books.

Moreover, some two founders of a ministry put to finish homosexuals later described their programme as ‘ineffective since not even one person was changed.

The issue of eradicating homosexuality has became a political debate in America, with Christian political organisations supporting the slogan of changing homosexuality through force of will alone. They argue that many people are leaving their homosexual lifestyles due to sexual celibacy and marriage issues.

Optionally, homosexual rights organisations argue that the views about gays and lesbians views misunderstand the meaning of a gay,and this sprouts to discrimination against the gay and lesbian people. additionally, the American Psychological Association(APA) has carried out a systematic research, which have resulted to that the psychological strategies are neither effective nor do they at any time change the sexual orientation, however instead they can cause a considerable harm.

The views of the society on homosexuality

The research shows that the views concerning homosexuality are specifically very delicate.in the society it depends on the culture and religios backgrounds.it is viewed that diffent people view the issue differently according to the cultural values of their society.gays and lesbians have civil rights which support their acts.however the religion does not agree wioth the acts since it views it as a sin and against the laws of the bible and any other holy book.but in the recent past individuals have tried to negotiate religion inorder for them to be accomondated in the society.

Due to the fact that homosexuality is genetically inherited then some persons thing its bad to call the action sinful.because this is untrue conclusion, and for important reasons. Firstly, being wrongly prounounced, it stems up the the debate off course. The founders and staters of the Church deal with certain acts and doings but though not with such wrong terms as “homosexuality.” The question that rises in this is if homosexual traits are genetic, then how logical is to accuse such person of engaging in a sinful actions of homosexuality?.The issue that arises here are that homosexuality should be given a better wording despite the fact that the action is considered wrong.

Despite the fact that largen sexual performance may be due to the genetic composition of our bodies this do not gurantee that such persons with such large sexual needs committing fornication is not sinfil but the fact remains that such actions are sinful before the holy book of God and its something to be shunnerd in the society and such acts are just like any other sin commitrted by a Christian. Sometimes the people’s genetic composition might make/lead them to violent disposition and this is sinning meaning that inclining is sinning just like when such a person commits murder or treats people with violence in the society

Generally, homosexual is considered as a deviance and behavior that do not comply with the social norms and values of the society, hence therefore is socially created. Since many persons in the United States society believes that homosexuality is wrongful, society has made and highlighted homosexuality to be a a moral wrong. Since moral wrong is relative and not absolute to a society.

Homosexuality is not a universal form of sexual immorality. There are most cultures that allow and support this forms of homosexuality. The Western society defy it though, and mostly this has lead to the non-accepting view resulting to discrimination towards homosexuals. But despite all this they should understand that homosexuality is a way of survival for some persons even if minority in the society and they should be accepted and accomondated the way they are and not isolating the in the society.

The Church also encourages those who endure from the feel and passion of homosexuality. Additionally, the Church can usually and surely do a admierable work with this minority group that exists within her flock, moreover it can also reach out and accomondate them since such people, have much compassion especially when dealing with peoples who suffer from different sexual passions. Mo More so the Church is still should considers such sexual behaviors as passions even in the presence of modern scientific research that shows how homosexuality in particular have a genetic origin also. (Camperio-Ciani ).

Problems of homosexuality

the moral, religious and legal attitudes in trials to curb sexual behavior have interfeared with a clear view of the medical and psychological aspects of homosexuality. This phenomenon is probably much less destructive of social aspects of our society and culture than is generally believed, since it is actually more widespread than is generally acknowledged.( Norman Reider, pp 381-384)

Homosexuality usually has hormonal,social and psychological factors,where the latter of which are the only ones which can be worked with successfully in our present state . A general practitioner’s task is to aid those who wish and need help with this problem in finding psychiatric treatment in the same way that persons with any other emotional disturbance are referred. This should be carried out without bias just as with any other emotional disturbance.( Norman Reider pp 381-384).

Increase in the divorce cases due to increased engagement in the among gays and lesbian marriage hence reduced number of heterosexual marriages.also there is a significant number of unmarried men and women in the society.

Also Homosexuals are unproductive in character this poses a threat to the society’s survival -in the homosexual marriages the acts involved do not lead to production and this stems oup the issue of the society since this will lead to no tomorrows generation in the society hence therefore thi act is considered immoral in the society and harmful.

The recent studies and researches show that the homosexuals have a greater chance of getting psychiatric problems than the heterosexual.such problems are accompanied by some instances such as high rates of suicide,depressin and antisocial personality disorders also use of drugs or substance abuse.( By N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D. Author of “My Genes Me Do It”)

Homosexuals pose a threat to children-the presence of few homosexuals who do not exercise their normalities. These persons sin against the creator and there is no doubt that they are leading to total destruction of the both the family and our nation. I Pat opposed homosexuals and will do he said that he could do everything he could to restrict the freedom of these people to spread their contagious infection to the youth of our nation.( Pat Robertson, May 24, 1994 letter).

Homosexuality is a sad and disillusioning lifestyle-this lifestyle is full of stressfull moments hence things are always stressfull;homosexuality poses and brings about the increased incidences of suicide among gay teenagers,the issues of isolation ,discrimination and the cases of violences increase in the society

Homosexuality causes AIDS and other sexually transimited diseases which are and deadly-hence it does not argue whether homosexuality immensely affects the society or not because homosexuals since AIDS more than heterosexuals; this is due to the fact that the same sex are mo prone to such diseases. infact, it is successful to examine the kind of character s that are favourable to HIV infection, and such traits are shown and noticeable by and on the gays

Homosexuals needs unique political rights and systems.-Different homosexuals want various things in the real life of politics but there should be equality under the law implying that no special or unique or specific treatments or a favours should be performed to a certain unique group of persons alone but just incase such happens then the same should be granted to the othern persons in the same society.The most important areas specifically concerning homosexuality is, marriage laws and government discrimination.

Homosexuality undermines religion therefore leading to stability in the society-The argument stems up problems in some several areas in the society,such areas are such as: Firstly, many of people think its highly beneficial if religion is undermined and we furthermore think its not correct to compare the widespread of religion with “stability” (whatever that is; probably, the definition is tautological, such that stability is defined as following some religion). As is clear from several essays on morality on my atheism page, it is quite possible to have a well-functioning society with caring individuals without any religion at all.

Homosexual behavior is also linked with higher rates of promiscuity, physical disease, mental illness, substance abuse, child sexual abuse and domestic violence–all things that impact society negatively. Don’t try to say homosexual behavior doesn’t hurt society–it is a major force that tears down society and harms children.

Causes of homosexuality

The causes of homosexuality in the modern society maybe due to:genetics inheritance where t where,he baby is born with the gene of homosexuality u in him/her especially from the X-gene from the mother mostly.hormonal imbalance

During birth-.here the boy is born with features that are some common with the homosexuals than in the population. such traits might be inherited (genetic), while others might have been caused by the change in the hormones Jeffrey suggests that someone without these traits will be somewhat less likely to become homosexual later than someone with the( Jeffrey Satinover,M.D. )

Environmental factors.

This comes on various developmental growth needs children kids have, needs for friendship with the parent of the same sex and age-mates of the same sex.Its through this that we understand that the children are not simply born with a sense of their own gender built is formed through the connections and friendships they form with the others, mostly the age bracket of the same sex age-mates.the children always look upon the parent of the same sex first and then to same peers to form their own sexul groupings inorder to understand how they suit in,and the value they own whether male or female.If this connection lacks then children don’t form a healthy same sex bond and such needs for same sex go unsatisfied then they intensify and take another form. (Satinover, 1996).

The developmental factors combined with genetic temperament, impacts perceptions, which all go to the development of homosexuality.

Sexual abuse (molestation) or traumatic experiences.

They contribute to the development of same-sex affection(attractions). personal choice,prenatal hormone defect,lack of bondage between the child and the parent of the same sex.

Reincarnation

Is homosexual judged harshly?

Yes, homosexuals are treated with hostility in the societyaˆ¦the reasons to show this discrimination are given below:-

It is said that gays are not natural. And real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
The society things that gay marriage encourage people to be gays since the behaviuor of people affect others,
It is ctritisiced that encouraging gays to marry will lead open all kinds of crazy behaviors. And even people may even decide to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
It’s also assumed that obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Religion do not support marriage of gays . since in many countries the cultures and religions do not sccept such even in the country.
It’s also criticized that children cannot succeed without the role models of the both sexes. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans

The church which is expected to act as the guide to the society about the issue of homosexuality provides the guidelines for such other than the society being so harsh to the people with such minor traits.The church gives the guide lines on the issue-

The church says that homosexuality is supposed to be seen as the result of humanity’s rebellion against God, against his own nature and well-being and and its not supposed to be seen as a way of surviving and acting for men and women who are created in the likeness and the image of God’s.
It also says that the people with homosexual tendencies are supposed to seek assistance in discovering the specific causes of their homosexual orientation, and to work toward overcoming its harmful effects in their lives.
The church also provides that homesexual persons who accept the Orthodox faith and everyone else who believes and struggles,instructed and counseled in the Orthodox Christian doctrine and ascetical life hence therefore the persons still in need to justify their behavioral traits in the society may not be included and accomondated in the Church’s sacramental processes,this is due to the fact that the sct of doing so would not assist them but rather harm them.
It also suggests that the psychiatrists who are involved and deal with persons with homosexual orientation should be given assistance inorder to help such peoples in their thoughts,actions and feelings with theb regard on the issue of homosexuality. Such assistance will be ideal especially if given to the necessary parents, relatives and friends of the affected individuals in the society.additionally, It is certainly necessary for pastors and church workers also to be given such assistance to be too involved in the rehabilitation of the same.

These affirmations on marriage, family, sexuality, and the sanctity of life are issued by the Holy Synod of Bishops on the occasion of the Tenth All-American Council of the Orthodox Church in America (Miami, Florida, July, 1992)

Conclusion

Its evident that in all societal moral disorders,therefore it follows that homosexuality too leads to the prevention of one’s self fulfillment of goals and objectives and the joy experienced by acting and complying with the creativity and the enduring wisdom of the god the almighty and the moral values in the society.

The Church, and the society in complete objection of the different erroneous opinions on the issue concerning homosexuality, do not by any means reduce neither does it limit but rather defends and selfishly oppresses the personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

Moreover the church is looked upto to regulate the societal moral values and the peoples behavior but at the same time it should leave a room for the minorities with contrary opinions in the society.

Some argue that Britain is the most unequal society in Western Europe, Research conducted by Sutton Trust from 2010 suggests that poverty affects children’s ability to do well in schools, the study indicates that just 45 per cent of children from poorest fifth of families were ready to read daily by the age of three compared to 78 per cent of children from richest fifth of families. This proves that British society is unequal; there are social groups that have access to better standards of living than others.

In order for Inequality to take place, some people need to have more than others, creating boundaries in society that stop some people from getting equal status despite their work and effort.

There are several ways of measuring social class, subjective method simply is based on people’s perception of what social class they should be in. However it is quite vague as some people may be middle class and have a lot of money whereas other might have education, lifestyle and manners of the middle class but are poor. Where objective method takes things into account like occupation, unemployment, income, education and so on therefore it is more reliable way of measuring social class. In order to measure social class effectively, stratification is needed to enable evaluation of inequalities; best way to do it is consider morbidity and mortality factors as unemployment or income are not always accurate way of measuring it. Taking someone’s occupation into an account is might have problems too, as someone could have good profession and be unemployed and therefore struggling financially. The Registrar General is used by the government to objectively measure social class. It concentrates mainly on occupation.

Education is an important factor when social class is concerned; it is believed that children’s social class is important when it comes to their exam success. Education is the best way to predict if the child would get high earning middle-class job. The link between education and earnings has been found using analyses of the Labour Force Survey, They have found that, men who have attained 1-4 GCSEs at grade A-C have higher earnings by 17%, 5 or more GCSEs at grade A-C increases earnings by 41%. A levels increase earnings by 67% and degree increases earnings by 111% compared to someone with no formal qualifications at all.

Researchers from Joseph Row tree Foundation put forward an argument that ‘Children growing up in poorer families emerge from school with substantially lower levels of educational attainment’ they believe that this is major factor affecting social mobility and poverty. They have found that children from poor backgrounds are brought up in less caring environment than those from richer families; the study suggests that mother’s attitude is different depending on their social class. 81% of mothers from rich families hope their 9 year old will go to university compared to just 37% from poor families. Such attitude to education of mothers from poor families is closely associated with lower educational attainment at the age of 11. That factor is contributed to the %6 gap between children from rich and poor families attainment at the age of 11.

The difference in attainment at school grows quickly during the primary school education and is noticeable by the age of 11, when only around three quarters of children from the poorest fifth of family manage to reach the government’s expected level at key stage 2, compared to 97% of children from the richest fifth. At secondary school the gap between poorest and richest children is not as significant as at the primary school however GCSE’s results show that only 21% of poorest fifth manage to get five good GCSE’s at grades A-C compered with 75% of richest fifth; it is a staggering 54%.

There are two main social statuses in society; ascribed and achieved, they both indicate how people fit into the society. Ascribed status is given at birth; it does not take any attributes or abilities into an account, like being male or born into the slavery, whilst achieved status is determined by an effort and performance like becoming a doctor or a lawyer

There are many things that are assigned to humans at birth, like gender, race, or position in a family. Those things could be crucial in development and chances of success one might have.

Good example of an ascribed status is gender. It is widely considered that men have it easier in life. In many countries around the world girls and boys education is approached differently, they concentrate on educating boys more than girls as it is believed they will be bread winners and girls will be housewives. Inequalities between men and women have been tackled for decades and there are still differences in earnings, conditions of work or positions in most of those cases men are on top.

Women have gone to work in larger numbers since the 1960s, although their occupations have been determined depending on how masculine or feminine the job is. For example postmen, bus drivers are usually jobs done by men where teachers, nurses, secretaries, have more become female dominated. Most jobs in service sector are done by women however most jobs at manager level are done by men. That represents traditional approach and therefore reinforces gender inequalities in society.

Every year hundreds of women get discriminated against because they are pregnant. The gap in pay for the same job for men and women is thought of to be at about 13% below there are some statistics that would explore it a bit further.

The research by Labour Force survey conducted in 2005 outlines how average salaries are different between men and women taking into consideration education.

They divided participants of this particular survey into age groups and compared the differences in salaries between men in women taking into account their educational background. This survey reveals that in each category men earn more than women. That accounts for all jobs. Average weekly male salaries per week from all group ages and all education backgrounds were ?42 higher than women.

Average gross weekly earnings: by sex, highest qualification attained and age, 20051
United Kingdom

? per week

16-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-59/64

All working age

Men

Degree or equivalent

356

619

810

862

732

726

Higher education below degree level

366

501

588

619

583

554

GCE A level or equivalent

290

446

545

536

436

470

GCSE grades A* to C or equivalent

253

410

469

463

503

410

Other (including GCSE below grade C)

253

389

453

435

417

407

No qualifications

250

325

359

366

335

342

All men2

283

483

574

575

487

506

Women

Degree or equivalent

319

528

627

679

651

561

Higher education below degree level

267

384

464

491

488

440

GCE A level or equivalent

250

353

421

364

390

347

GCSE grades A* to C or equivalent

227

330

331

329

309

308

Other (including GCSE below grade C)

187

378

299

315

302

313

No qualifications

182

300

235

262

259

251

All women2

253

425

433

424

381

397

All working age2

270

459

524

515

457

464

1 At spring. Data are not seasonally adjusted and have been adjusted in line with population estimates published in spring 2003. See Appendix, Part 4: LFS reweighting. Males aged 16 to 64, females aged 16 to 59.

2 Includes people who did not state their highest qualification.

Source: Labour Force Survey, Office for National Statistics

Social mobility is the movement of people within the society over time. It refers to individuals and their change in income. Intergenerational Social mobility measures to which extend people’s social status has changed between generations and intragenerational measures how peoples social class changes within their lifetime.

The beginning a rapid increase of UK income inequality is thought of to started in late 1970’s. It was described as meritocratic society where poor could become rich if they worked hard. However Jo Blanden, Paul Gregg and Stephen Machin conducted a study in 2005 and they believe that social mobility in the UK is not only declining but is also lower than in many other developed countries. They argue that there has been a decline in social mobility in the UK in the last decades and children to poor families are less likely to succeed as they were in the past. Their research shows that UK has lower social mobility levels than many other countries including Canada, Germany and Scandinavian countries. ‘Children from poorer families in Australia and Canada have a much greater chance of doing well at school, getting into university and earning more in later in life than children in the United States and the United Kingdom’ was the purpose of 2012 two-day summit on social mobility organized by the Sutton Trust and Carnegie Corporation of New York. They compared levels of social mobility in 4 major English speaking countries. The research states that Australia and Canada are around twice as mobile as the UK and the US, the findings were analysed by professor Miles Corak who is world’s leading expert on mobility. The evidence suggests that children in the UK and US are at least twice as likely to be born to teenage mothers as children in Australia and Canada. It also shows that in the UK students from higher social class are three times more likely to go to the universities than those from the lowest classes. There is a %46 gap in England between the %65 of students from richer families going to university and the %19 from poorer families. In America the gap is %36 while in Australia it is %32.

Karl Marx is famous for his analysis of Capitalism; his research has led to development of sociology and social sciences. Many of his ideas are attributed to political movements in 20th century including communism in Former Soviet Union or China.

Marx’s theory concentrates on two main social classes in society, the property owners (Bourgeoisie) and the workers (Proletariat). The Capitalist society required long working hours and new discipline from the workers so they Capitalists could gain more profits out of the labour. The Productivity and profits of the business were really high however it came at the cost of the workers who were being exploited.

Marx believed that Capitalism would be responsible for creation of Communism that was initiated by dissatisfaction of the workers who would develop class-consciousness (an awareness of them being exploited). In Communistic society private properties are taken over by the Government. Communism would have all the benefits of Capitalist system where the government dictates how things should be and where there is only one social class which is working class(Proletariat) and Government who rules them(Bourgeoisie).

Marx’s theory of Capitalism has been important for the sociology. He defined social structures that were in favour of few but was disadvantageous for the majority of people. Marx believed that Revolution was going to happen in the Capitalist societies like Great Britain or Germany, however first country where revolution took place was Russia which was relatively undeveloped when it comes to Capitalism. Russia wasn’t egalitarian society that Marx hoped for but it was fully controlled by the Russian Communist Party.

Karl Marx encountered some criticism in his theory of Capitalism; his main critic was another German sociologist Max weber who argued that Capitalist societies could be divided into 4 main social classes (the propertied upper class, the property-less white collar workers, the petty Bourgeoisie and the manual working class) as opposed to two that Marx has described in his research. Weber believed that those divisions within these social classes were greater than Marx had expected therefore suggesting that such divisions could mean that working class wouldn’t unite and anti-capitalist revolution would not take place. Weber believed that within social classes there are divisions itself, Marx thought of working class as an economic concept where Weber had argued that within these social classes there are statuses, it could of meant that black people had less status than white or women has less status than men and these differences would mean that it would be difficult to unite working classes.

Davis and Moore, their theory is an explanation of social stratification (hierarchical arrangement of social classes) . It outlines that different positions in the society require different skills and abilities to achieve high performance therefore society needs to select best people to fill those positions. Right people need to be encouraged and trained to achieve highest efficiency. They believed best way to encourage people to obtain required positions would be by motivating them by offering bonuses or commission. They believed that in order to measure how much particular person would get is based on how unique their job is.

This theory has met some criticism, one sociologist who argued with it was Tumin who suggested that their measurement of functional importance of position was inadequate, he disagreed with their statement that highly rewarded positions are most important; he believed that unskilled workers in the factory are as important as the engineers who also work there. Tumin questioned Davis and Moore’s belief that only limited number of individuals have talent to obtain skills for important positions, he assumed that their method of measuring talent has not been thought of properly as there is no evidence suggesting that exceptional talents are needed for high positions and that there might be more talent out there than Davis and Moore have assumed.

Tumin also suggested that social stratification that Davis and More had developed might not be adequate to the functions they had assigned to it. He argued that those born into lower hierarchy of the scale don’t have the same opportunities in succeeding as those born to the higher hierarchy of the scale. He concluded that members of the lower social class might feel excluded from being part of the larger society.

Poverty doesn’t have fixed definition; therefore it is difficult to measure it. However it is based on measurement of the absolute minimum a person needs to survive, things like food, water, shelter, clothing. It varies from country to country and even in the UK in different regions what is considered poor is different.

Poverty can be defined as absolute and relative, Ronwtree used definitions of absolute poverty in his research made in York in 1899, the study had found that over 20.000 people in York were living in poverty. It is roughly 28 per cent of population that had not enough necessities to get by. It raised an issue of huge poverty in Britain. Rowntree’s report contributed to reforms in the government between 1906 to 1912, these included free school meals, sickness and unemployment insurance and first state pensions. Further research was conducted by Rowntree in 1936 and 1950 that revealed steady decline in poverty in York. What has helped it was the introduction of Welfare Stare in 1943 that brought range of benefits to help those in need.

In the UK absolute poverty is really low or virtually non-existent therefore it is not usually used to measure poverty, relative poverty is more commonly used as it gives more accurate indication of the poverty in the UK. There has been many studies conducted on relative poverty, one pioneer in this field was Professor Peter Townsend who defined relative poverty as when someone’s ‘resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities’ Relative poverty is usually measured by the family’s income, each household’s income adjusted for family size and then compared to median income( it is middle income, half people have less and half have more) Those people who have less than 60 per cent of median income are considered poor, that poverty line is agreed internationally throughout the European Union.

In 2009 Joseph Rowntree Foundation had published their report based on public’s perception of what is needed to achieve acceptable standard of living. The research had found that a single person in the UK needs to earn at least ?13.900 before tax is deducted in order to obtain acceptable standard of living. The minimum household budget (not including mortgage of running a car) has risen by about 5 per cent with general inflation rate. Working-age people who are on benefits still remain below minimum income standard. People asked in this survey had expressed that minimum standard of living should allow people not just to survive but fully enjoy part in society.

There are few theories supporting why poverty exists. The concept of culture of poverty was initiated by Oscar Lewis who speculated that people living within poor communities have certain traits that are passed on from generation to generation that prevent them from gaining success. Individuals feel marginalised and develop attitude that it is fate to be poor.

The culture of dependency is when an individual depends on the government welfare for their existence. Murray in his research had described people who rely on state welfare as underclass. People who do not participate in social activities where they live, they have little or not all incentive to work and fail to take responsibility for their families; they usually are also involved in crime activities.

In some way this could be related to functionalism where people need to be connected to and responsible for the others, therefore an underclass in excluded from the main stream society as it is not integrated through work or other social activities. However their social attitude and behaviour (child neglect, criminal behaviour and high levels of illegitimacy) have influence on main stream society.

To conclude the evidence given in this paper suggests that inequalities within British society still exist and leaves open door for further investigation.

References list

Chris Livesey,Tony Lawson (2005). As Sociology for AQA. London : Hodder Arnold. p23-24.

Stepehe Moore,Steve Chapman,Dave Aiken (2001). Sociology for As-level . London: harpercollins publishers limited. p56-58.

Anthony Giddens (2009). Sociology. 6th ed. Cambridge: John Wiley & Sons. p450-456.

James fulcher, John scott (2006). Sociology. New York: Routledge. p100-105.

Amelia Gentleman, Helene Mulholland . (2010). Unequal Britain: richest 10% are now 100 times better off than the poorest. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/27/unequal-britain-report. Last accessed 10th Nov 2012.

Alan Milburn . (2009). The UK is an unequal society in which class background too often determines life chances. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jul/19/alan-milburn-uk-unequal-society. Last accessed 12th Nov 2012.

Lizzie Cocker. (2010). Britain ‘most unequal society in western Europe’. Available: http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/86828. Last accessed 15th Nov 2012.

Jo Blanden, Paul Gregg, Stephen Machin. (2005). Social mobility in Britain: low and falling. Available: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/centrepiece/v10i1/blanden.pdf. Last accessed 10th Nov 2012.

The Sutton Trust. (2012). UK and US much less socially mobile than Australia and Canada. Available: http://www.suttontrust.com/news/news/uk-and-us-much-less-socially-mobile-than-australia-and-canada/. Last accessed 15 Nov 2012.

Women’s Resource Centre . (2012). Facts and statistics on women’s inequality in the UK. Available: http://www.wrc.org.uk/resources/facts_and_statistics_on_womens_inequality_in_the_uk.aspx. Last accessed 14 Nov 2012

The Sutton Trust. (2012). Social Mobility and Education Gaps in the Four Major Anglophone Countries. Available: http://www.suttontrust.com/public/documents/social-mobility-summit2012.pdf. Last accessed 16 Nov 2012.

Alissa Goodman, Paul Gregg. (2010). Poorer children’s educational attainment: how important are attitudes and behaviour. Available: http://www.jrf.org.uk/system/files/poorer-children-education-full.pdf. Last accessed 12 Nov 2012.

Jo Sparkes. (1999). Schools, Education and Social Exclusion. Available: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/6482/1/Schools,_Education_and_Social_Exclusion.pdf. Last accessed 10 Nov 2012.

Donald Hirsch, Abigail Davis, Noel Smith. (2009). A minimum income standard for Britain in 2009. Available: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/minimum-income-2009. Last accessed 11th Nov 2012.

S-cool. (2011). Definitions of Poverty, Adapted from: Developments in Sociology, Volume 7, A. Walker, 1990. Available: http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/sociology/poverty/revise-it/definitions-of-poverty. Last accessed 12th Nov 2012.

Earlhamsociologypages. (2012). Marxist Theory and Capitalist Class Structures . Available: http://www.earlhamsociologypages.co.uk/marxclasscap.htm. Last accessed 14th Nov 2012.

Historylearningsite. (2012). Stratification.,Courtesy of Lee Bryant, Director of Sixth Form, Anglo-European School, Ingatestone, Essex. Available: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/stratification.htm. Last accessed 15th Nov 2012.

This short study discusses the theory of social constructionism, with special regard to its implications for social workers and how its use can help them to understand human behaviour.

Social constructionism represents a sociological theory of knowledge that studies the development of various sociological phenomena in social contexts. The theory, simply put, questions widely held assumptions about inherent qualities of items, concepts, or issues, and instead brings attention to the dependence of such qualities upon the contingent rationale of our social sense. It helps us in realising that human perceptions of reality and the world, of things, concepts and ideas, are shaped by deliberate human choices and linguistic reinforcement, rather than by natural laws or divine intention.

A social construct, the anchor of this theory, represents the artefact of a specific group. To illustrate, intangible words like talent or brilliance, which in the overwhelming majority of cases represent little else than greater effort or the achievement of proficiency, are imbued with special significance and then tagged on to specific people separate them from the hoi polloi, resulting in the alteration of perceptions and behaviour of the masses towards such individuals. To be hard working is to be commonplace, to be brilliant is to be extraordinary. And to be called brilliant is even better. Language, as is obvious, plays a key role in the development of social constructs.

The origins of present day social constructionist theories go back to the writings of Immanuel Kant. Kant argued for the existence of a world that was independent of human minds, thus implying that humans should not assert that they created the world. This world, he said, is without structure and is not divided into things and facts. Structure is imposed on the world by perceiving it and thinking of it in specific ways, as also by the adoption of particular, (rather than other), sets of beliefs about it.

Vivine Burr (2003, p 2) and other advocates of social constructionist theory put forth the view that knowledge of constructionism enables individuals to adopt critical attitudes towards their conventional lenses for perceiving and understanding the world and their own selves. It provides humans with fresh ways of assessing ideas and things that are otherwise considered to be commonplace and accepted without demur. Numerous things like money, newspapers or citizenship are socially constructed and would not obviously have existed in the absence of society. Each of them furthermore could have well been differently constructed.

This essay analyses and critiques the use of social constructionism by social workers in the understanding human behaviour. Specific emphasis has been given to the role of constructionism use in analysing commonly held perceptions and attitudes towards mental disorders. The study is segregated into three sections that sequentially take up the use of social constructionism for social workers in understanding human behaviour, its relevance in understanding mental disorders, and its areas of ambiguity and possible misuse.

The Use of Social Constructionism to Understand Human Behaviour

Social workers have two fundamental objectives, namely, (a) the strengthening of the ability of individuals and groups to cope with the many difficulties and challenges they confront in life and (b) the bringing about of improvements in various social and environmental circumstances in order to improve the satisfaction of human needs; especially of people from underprivileged and oppressed social segments.

Social workers plan and attempt their various interventions through their understanding of environmental circumstances, the various reasons for development of such conditions, and the client system. Such knowledge and the consequent adoption of theoretic approaches significantly influence the point, the tool, and the nature of social work intervention. It becomes evident that understanding of the reality of the client environment is crucial, both to social work theory and to its practice.

Theories of classical empiricism assert that the truth about the world is established and is independent of the individual. Social constructionism conversely puts forth the viewpoint that such truth, far from being independent of individuals, actually depends upon their thoughts, perceptions and beliefs. Whilst empiricists state that reality cannot be known separately from our elucidation of it, social constructionism messages that reality is constructed socially, with language being critical for the interpretation and construction of commonly accepted “reality”. It encourages people to question the widely held perception that conventional and accepted knowledge has sprung from objective and impartial examination of the world. It is in this sense opposed to the positivist epistemology of traditional science and spurs thinking individuals to constantly question their assumptions about the appearance of their environment and its various components.

Objectivists assert that individuals make discoveries and find out about the reality of the world through the construction and testing of hypotheses via the actions of neutral observers, even as constructionists debunk such assumptions, arguing that the interests and values of observers can never be separated from their observations and are thus bound to influence the final construction of common perceptions about world realities. Gergen (1985, p 270), states that generation of ideas of reality is initiated by social, rather than individual, processes and that the touted objective reality of the positivist approach is actually the result of various social construction processes that are influenced by historical, political, cultural and economic conditions.

Berger and Luckmann, (1966), state that individuals experience the world to be an objective reality, comprising of persons and events that exist separately of individual perceptions. Payne (1997), additionally states that reality, according to social constructionism, can be stated to be the guidance of behaviour by individual perceptions of knowledge and reality. Individuals arrive at shared perceptions of reality through the sharing of their knowledge via different social processes that first organise such knowledge and thereafter establish it by making it objective. Social and individual activity thus becomes habitual with individuals sharing their assumptions about their perceptions of reality. People behave in line with social conventions that are based on such shared knowledge. These conventions are furthermore institutionalised because of the agreement of many people on such understandings on different aspects of society. Such realisations and accords thereafter become legitimised by processes that integrate these ideas about reality into ordered and believable systems.

Language provides the means through which individuals make sense of their environment, classify persons and events, and interpret new experiences. The shared reality of everyday life by different individuals distinguishes it from individual realities, (like dreams). Language helps individuals in sharing their experiences and making it available to others. Such sharing of reality leads to institutionalisation and thereafter to habitual ways of working. Habitualism in turn makes the behaviour of different individuals predictable, facilitates joint activity and perpetuates social control mechanisms. Knowledge is as such institutionalised within sub-groups, or at social levels, and significantly influences the behaviour of people. Shakespeare famously used his felicity with language to construct an illusionary reality about Jewish greed that persisted for centuries and shaped the perceptions and behaviours of millions of people towards the community.

With such knowledge of reality being essentially constructed, it can change over time and diverge across cultural groups that embrace different perceptions and beliefs about human nature and development. Considering that the norms, beliefs, values, traditions, attitudes and practices of different cultural groups vary from each other, the social construction of their knowledge is also likely to differ significantly. An understanding of this fundamental principle can help social workers in their realisation of the different perceptions, attitudes and behaviours of different individuals towards similar social phenomena or stimuli.

Social constructionism helps social workers in adopting critical stances towards established assumptions that reinforce the interests of powerful and dominant social groups and assists them in realising that the world has come about because of historical processes of communication and negotiation between groups and individuals. Gergen (1985, p 266), states that people see the world through the eyes of their particular communities and cultures and respond accordingly. Established assumptions, understandings and behaviours of people are sustained by social, political, economic and moral institutions. Social workers should, through its application, be better able to understand the various dimensions of reality within such individual thoughts, perceptions and beliefs.

Social workers, the writer feels, need to realise that social understanding is finally the combined result of various human understandings through the operation of circular processes, wherein individuals contribute to the construction of social meaning within social structures of societies through processes of institutionalisation and legitimisation. Societies consequently create conventions through the participation of individuals in their structures, which, in turn influences the behaviours of people. Spirals of constantly moving influences build and rebuild the conventions that people adopt and by which they live.

Social constructionism allows social workers to question dominant structures of knowledge and understand the impact of culture and history. Social workers understand the requirements of humans by and large through the application of specific ideological, ethical, political and economic approaches. An understanding of social constructionism can help them in understanding the responses behind the actions of both dominant and vulnerable groups of society and decide upon the adoption of the best suited routes for bringing about social change.

Social Constructionism and Mental Illness

Much of modern society’s perceptions about mental ailments are influenced by the medical and psychological models. These state that medical illnesses are real; they concern disturbances in thoughts, experiences, and emotions that can be serious enough to cause functional impairment in individuals. Such ailments make it difficult for individuals to sustain interpersonal relationships and conduct their jobs. They can also sometimes result in self destructive actions, including suicides. The more serious of such illnesses, like extreme depression and schizophrenia, can often be chronic and lead to serious disability.

Social constructionism argues that such perceptions about mental ailments are caused by specifically constructed vocabularies of medical and psychological models, which are replete with elaborate terminologies for mental disorders and focused on deficits. Walker, (2006), states that vocabularies of medical and psychological models, including the concept of mental illness itself, are essentially social constructions. They are made up of terms that describe deficits and diseases and perceive human beings as things that can be examined, diagnosed and treated, much in the manner of machines. Such perceptions (a) lead to obsessions with compliance, (b) distinguish between normal and pathological states, (c) position practitioners as experts, and (d) represent clients as passive and obedient objects of treatment. Recommended treatments focus on elimination of symptoms, support established paternalistic roles, and are not focused on actual client needs. Social constructionism, the writer feels, can help social workers in understanding the destructive illusions that have been created by existing medical and psychological models and deficit based language.

Examined from the perspective of linguistics, reified categories like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are defined by clusters termed as symptoms; schizophrenia for example is concerned with the occurrence of audio hallucinations. Such terms have come about due to the creation of consensus among doctors and psychologists and persist because of convention. Mental illnesses are often described by such specialists in terms akin to physical ailments like diabetes, where individuals manage their lives with specific medications; these comparisons are used to explain the working of medications and to make diagnosis and recommended treatment for mental ailments acceptable to clients.

Analogies like these however do appear to the writer to be forced and even trifling considering that discussions about thoughts and feelings of individuals concern their identities and not their bodies. Social workers need to understand that the vocabularies of medical and psychological models essentially position clinicians as the most suitable interpreters of client experiences. Even superficially docile terms like “clinical” or “treatment plans” establish contexts where clients are perceived to be abnormal or having pathologies, even as clinicians are established as authorities with abilities to perform interventions for assisting clients in overcoming their pathologies. With the power of definition lying with clinicians, the labelling of people as mentally ill pushes them to the borders of society and takes away from them their intrinsic rights and privileges.

Social constructionism helps social workers in understanding that whilst political and human pressure has helped in eliminating the incarceration of the mentally ill in mental hospitals, the distinction created by vocabulary on mental illness leads to the movement of foci of power to clinicians and undermines efforts for self determination and community integration. Such medical and psychological vocabularies constitute obstacles to more inclusive mental health programmes and undermine social understanding of people with mental disorders.

Gray Areas

Social workers need to however recognise the gray areas that surround social constructionist theory. Dominelli (97) states that social workers are ironically likely to regulate the social construction of the children of poor families, with whom they work extensively, by giving credibility to the “dominant, white, heterosexual, nuclear family model”. The writer feels that the casual application of the theory for the debunking of each and every thing, including important issues like culture and community, can lead to confusion and dilute the focus of social workers. Race and religion, for example, are essentially social constructs of dominant power groups but that does not take away from the fact that they exist and are not expected to disappear because of critical analysis by social constructists.

Wanton overdoing of “social construction” has often resulted in methodologically substandard work, wherein scholars have spent time in libraries, worked on some novels and then put forth findings that the common images and metaphors in them were “social constructions” with wide relational powers in the “reality”, which such novels attempted to represent. Roche and Barnes Holmes (2003) state that the strength of social constructivism is also its weakness; its deconstructive methods dissolve the solutions as well as the problems from which they emerge.

Social constructions surround us and include diverse aspects like racism, child abuse, crime, and disease. The writer feels that these things do not become unreal because of their social construction; even though the dominance of construction processes may differ between each of them.Spending a great deal of time in showing that most things are social constructs can well be little other than wasted effort. The large body of doctors and psychologists are again unlikely to give up their vocabulary because constructionists do not believe in them.

Conclusions

It is evident from the preceding discussion that the ongoing debate and dialogue on social constructionism has facilitated a whole new way of looking at established and accepted “realities”. With regard to the theory and practice of social work, the use of constructionism can help social workers in understanding how dominant groups have for long institutionalised constructs like race, age, gender, and physical and mental disability to perpetuate models of oppression and discrimination.

Students and practitioners of social work, whilst making use of this theory, will however do well to consider that excessive stress on constructionist language and downplaying of materiality may well be counterproductive and result not only in idle discourse but in superimposition of their socialised views on vulnerable social segments. Social workers who participate in what they feel are social constructs could also end up questioning the relevance of their work. They may thus have to battle with their being engaged in phony actions and be adversely affected by the creation of manipulative sensibilities.

Social workers must try to ensure that the theory is used practically for widening their knowledge and clarifying different aspects of human behaviour, yet refrain from making it irrelevant and trivial.

Structure-functional paradigm also known as functionalism is a theory that sees society as a complex system or organisation and everything in society have a special function or contributes to maintain balance of the society (Macionis, 2012). Structural Functionalism is macro level analysis which focus on complex societies, large scale social structures, and social systems. It is origins in the works of Emile Durkheim. According to Herbert Spencer, society is like the structure of the human body (Macionis, 2012). Each part is like organs, bones, muscles in the body. The parts of the body are individually important, but they dependent on one another. Functionalism emphasizes on social stability. From this perspective, disorder in the system, leads to change because other parts must adjust to achieve stability. When one part of the system is not working or is dysfunctional, it affects all other parts and creates social problems, which leads to social change.

In year 1957, American functionalist sociologists Robert K. Merton divide functions into two types, which are manifest functions and latent functions. Manifest functions are intentional and obvious consequences whereas latent functions are unintentional and not obvious consequences. He uses the term “functions” to refer to the positive consequences of people’s action. Functions help keep society or social system in equilibrium. In contrast, dysfunctions are consequences that harm society. They destabilize a system’s equilibrium.

Social Conflict Paradigm

Social conflict is a theory that sees society as an arena of inequality which leads to conflict and social change (Macionis, 2012). Social conflict is a macro level analysis examines whole societies, large scale social structures, and social systems. This perspective is derived from the works of Karl Marx, who see society as segments that compete for social and economic resources. Based on conflict theory, society is ruled and control by the power elite and upper class. This elite and upper class not only want to maintain their dominance in society, they even like to increase upon it. Thus, they influence policy makers to form laws and regulations that legitimize their hogging of resources and wealth at the expense of all others.

Symbolic Interaction Paradigm

The symbolic interaction perspective, also called symbolic interactionism, is a theory that sees society as the results of interactions between individuals (Macionis, 2012). Symbolic Interaction is a micro level analysis, which focus on small and simple groups or community rather than large-scale social structures. According to symbolic interaction theory, all social interaction has a symbolic meaning. Anything that said by any individuals, behaviours of any individual, or what any individual wears has an underlying symbolic meaning to it. This perspective relies on the symbolic meaning that people develop and rely upon in the process of social interaction. Symbolic meanings are given importance because it is believe that people behave based on what they believe and not just on what is objectively true. Thus, society is thought to be socially constructed through human interpretation. People interpret one another’s behaviour and it is these interpretations that form the social bond.

2. Case study to explain/ elaborate each of the perspective associated with each school of thoughts.

The topic that I use as my case study topic is prostitution. Prostitution is engaging in the sexual activity with another person in exchange for compensation, such as money or other valuable goods.

From functionalism perspective, prostitution has still existed widely because it does somehow serve the society. From a functionalist perspective prostitution serves a need in society. If an act is not serving a societal need it wouldn’t continue to exist. According to Erich Goode, social customs and institutions that persist over time tend to be those that are good for society because they serve one or more important functions (Goode, 2008). Now in terms of prostitution, it provides sexually repressed men with a sex life or an alternate sex life outside of their marriage. It also allows women to be entrepreneurs and make money independently without having to deal with any sort of start-up costs. Besides, prostitute does have manifest function, and that is a job because a prostitute makes living through the exchange and they can earn quite a number of money in a short period. Its latent function is to provide the sexual outlet for those who are not competitive in the marriage market, such as physically handicapped, mentally handicapped, and the poor. Moreover, in an exchange, the buyer’s needs are met without any responsibility to the “seller”. Besides, existence of prostitution can reduce the incidence of rape and sexual harassment. The evaluation of the dysfunction of prostitution is transmission of sexual transmission diseases such as AIDS. For instance, in countries such as Vietnam, prostitution is illegal. This is because prostitution are recognised generally as a risk factor in the transmission of HIV infection and it will particularly affects women and children.

Now, let’s look at social conflict perspective. From social conflict perspective, people’s race, ethnicity, gender, age, and social class are all linked to the unequal distribution of money. That’s why the majority of prostitutes are young, female, and poor. For example, large amount of low class citizens in country such as Vietnam, Thailand and Philippine are forced to be prostitutes. They do not know what to do, since they don’t have any education. Thus, the only way that they can earn money without education is prostitution. Furthermore, pimps and madams also exist because of gender inequality in the sex industry. The pimps and madams take possession over prostitute and exploit the use of their bodies for sexual favours. Thus, when these women earn their money, they are oppressed by their pimps or madams who take a large portion of their earnings. So the economic inequality gap is widened. Hence, they need to perform sex continuously in order to live because of the social inequality.

Now, let’s look at symbolic interaction perspective. In Malaysia, prostitution is categorized into three forms which are escort, street and brothel prostitution. According to The Star Newspaper (http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/11/9/parliament/12294866&sec=parliament), in Malaysia, about 47,000 foreign prostitutes are arrested from 2008 to 2012 for soliciting sex. From symbolic interaction perspective, prostitution in Malaysia symbolizes sexual revolution occurs drastically. Sexual attitudes have become so lenient that women are able capitalize upon men’s sexual desires and engage in emotionless sexual activity with multiple partners in order to gain income.

There are three types of functions by Robert K. Merton which he divided according to society. Manifest function which is the intended and recognized consequence, latent function which is the unintended and unrecognized and finally dysfunction which is an unintended consequence that works against the intended purpose of the institution. Dysfunction has a negative impact on society. Functionalism addresses society as a whole in terms of the function of its constituent elements; namely norms, customs, traditions, and institutions. A common analogy, popularized by Herbert Spencer, presents these parts of society as “organs” that work toward the proper functioning of the “body” as a whole.

Case study of Structural Functionalism

An example of structural functionalism can best be seen in crime. As in Durkheim’s article, Structural-Functionalists view crime as a necessary part of society. Functionalists believe that crime and deviance are inevitable and necessary for a society. Crime shows other member of the society what is right and wrong. Social consensus decides how right and wrong is determined. In the eyes of manifest function, crime brings social change and justice to the people. The society continues to live harmoniously as crime offenders are caught. In latent function, crime can also help the economy of a society by creating jobs for law enforcement officers, psychiatrists, probation officers and counsellors. Crimes that happened, in turn create a living for law enforcement officers because by putting crime offenders behind bars, this bring income to people who are in charge of them. There is no category of social dysfunction that is more clearly a result of primitive concepts than the area of crime. When crime occurs, there is much devastation to be compelled. Death toll rises and the safety of a society is questioned.

Conflict Theory paradigm

Conflict theory is to emphasize the role of coercion and power in producing social order. According to conflict theory, inequality exists because those in control of a disproportionate share of society’s resources actively defend their advantages. The masses are not bound to society by their shared values, but by coercion at the hands of those in power. This perspective emphasizes social control and conformity. Groups and individuals advance their own interests, struggling over control of societal resources. Those with the most resources exercise power over others with inequality and power struggles. Sociologists using the social conflict approach look at on-going conflict between dominant and disadvantaged categories. The conflict perspective, which originated primarily out of Karl Marx’s ideas and thoughts of class struggles, presents society in a different light than the other perspectives. The main ideology of social conflict theory is the belief that rich and powerful force social order on the poor and the weak. Last time, Max Weber and Karl Marx constructed their arguments, giving different emphases to conflict theory in power and economics.

Case study of Conflict Theory Paradigm

An interesting way of studying conflict theory is none other than the Caste system in India. The Caste system is a rigid social system, a hierarchy that determines occupation, marriage partners and rank. This system is an unjustly way of the upper class oppressing the lower class and manipulating them in terms of authority and power. In India, this system is life long, and a person has no way of moving up the rank. There are three types of rank in India, mainly Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Sudras. According to the conflict theory the upper classes instituted religion in such a way that they kept control while at the same time they pacified the lower classes by promising a better life. In time, the rich are benefited in terms of crops, education and a better lifestyle and the poor are manipulated even lower and forced to work for the upper castes. Invariably, the personal spills over into the public sphere. Caste, thus, remains visible yet invisible. The invisible is rendered visible socially, culturally, politically and economically.

Symbolic Interaction Paradigm

The symbolic interaction perspective, also called symbolic interactionism, is a major framework of sociological theory. This perspective relies on the symbolic meaning that people develop and rely upon in the process of social interaction. Symbolic interaction theory analyses society by addressing the subjective meanings that people impose on objects, events, and behaviours. Subjective meanings are given primacy because it is believe that people behave based on what they believe and not just on what is objectively true. Thus, society is thought to be socially constructed through human interpretation. People interpret one another’s behaviour and it is these interpretations that form the social bond. George Herbert Mead is widely regarded as the founder of the interactionist perspective. Goffman, popularised a particular type of interactionist method known as the dramaturgical approach, in which people are seen as theatrical performers.

Case study of Symbolic Interaction paradigm

An obvious study of symbolic paradigm is Gandhi himself and his symbol of subversion. Gandhi is the prototypical example of a symbolic interactionism on the world stage. The political course of the twentieth century was changed, thanks to his powerful use of non-violent symbols. For 37 years, he led nearly 300 million Indians in the battle “for right against might”. His mega symbol of subversion is the ‘Khadi’. The Khadi movement aimed at boycotting foreign goods and promoting Indian goods, thereby improving India’s economy. The freedom struggle revolved around the use of Khadi fabrics and the dumping of foreign-made clothes. When some people complained about the costliness of Khadi to Mahatma Gandhi, he started wearing only dhoti. Thus it symbolized the political ideas and independence itself, and to this day most politicians in India are seen only in Khadi clothing. Through this symbolic actions he brought the world’s largest empire to its knees and liberated the world from the ideology that justified colonialism on the grounds that it was doing those who were colonised a favour.

(1137 words, 6 pages)

Jay, Lara and their children would be considered as a family. It is in examining the “institution” like the urban family and its wide range of issues and other intricate social arrangements where sociologists do most of their theorising. In sociology there are three broad areas of sociological study structural functionalism, symbolic interactionism and conflict theories (including feminism and postmodernism) but for the purpose of this paper structural functionalism will be looked at and critiqued by a post modern perspective in terms of the context of Jay and Lara’s family.

Structural Functionists would observe the role the family provides and the purpose that they perform. In investigating the different parts of society’s structure in relation to others, functionalists look at how different institutions contribute to the continuation and survival of the social system as a whole. The family operates in a society characterised by rules and these rules are ordered and reoccurring and these relationships occur throughout societies and can therefore be put under scientific rigor and testing in terms of a positivist quantitative outlook and this can be considered almost universal in application. So in simple terms the ‘institution’ of the family contributes to socialisation of new members of society as this is the rule or function the family provides to society.

Parsons (1951) argued the family plays a number of roles in socialisation of individuals. Two roles being key in Jay and Lara’s case are the socialisation of children into suitable values and norms. The other key point Parsons makes is the stabilisation of the adult personality through marriage which helps to cushion parents from the stresses and strains of day to day life. (These ideas will be discussed further later in terms of criminological theory). Jay and Lara are therefore the primary ‘socialisers’ of their children. They are (perhaps unwittingly) passing along a belief that crime does pay if Jay is to continue to offend and move back into selling drugs, also that it is usual to carry a knife to protect yourself in their neighbourhood. It would also suggest that the family as a buffer to stresses and strains is perhaps one more characterised by conflict than harmony as originally suggested by Parsons. Parsons theory has very little argument as to what makes a family dysfunctional and other family pathologies or to recognise a family different from the nuclear ‘American dream’ family of the 1950’s era.

Norms of family structure have changed overtime, and these changes in families can be thought of as the move toward a newer ‘post-modern’ idea of family. For example, Weston(1991: 3) argues that “Familial ties between persons of the same sex that may be erotic but are not grounded in biology or procreation do not fit any tidy division of kinship into relations of blood and marriage”. There is increasing variation in family types. It is not that the nuclear family has been replaced it is more so a case that individuals move in and out of different family types throughout the course of their lifetime.

Coontz (1992) has suggested central to these different ‘types’ of families are the decline of child rearing and marriage as central defining characteristics. These define less of a person’s identity and have less influence over the life course decisions and are no longer socially universal. The family is now, she suggests, characterised by greater freedoms to choose your own style of life. Leading individuals in either positive or negative directions as the family now presents less constraints to those who are a part of it. Post-modernism has tried to suggest that rather than a family serving a function in society it is more characterised by multiplicity, difference, particularity, locality, temporality, and the “scattered and shifting character of contemporary social processes” (Outhwaite 2002).

This can account for Jays change in behaviour from a family centric one with the success of the job, which could be argued by functionalists as a success of the family socialisation to buffer Jay from stresses and strains of his local community to one where his individuality has been expressed by losing his job, and heading out for himself with no regard for his family and the outcome of his actions would have had on them which holds to be a very post modern dilemma.

(put something here about the ramifications for social work from these two perspectives.)

Writers and theorists with sociology disagree to the way actions of the state interfere with the family. Mclennan et al (2000) have noticed that modern families have come under state intervention more so than other periods in time. Some policy outcomes, such as the welfare state, have been seen as something that should be a function of the family rather than a function delivered by the government. Sociologists, however, do recognise that social policy can be an area which provides social change by changing individual behaviour (Wallerstein 1989). Jay and Lara and their family are affected directly by these policies but this paper shall look at family and child policies and how they affect social work and the family unit.

During the past 10 years there have been a lot of changes in government policy regarding children and families. With the introduction of ‘every child matters’ (HM Treasury 2003) which outlines how this agenda will restructure current services with multidisciplinary working and better information sharing, it also details how early intervention should be concentrated on. The ideas set out in every child matters suggests that early intervention is more cost effective and early prevention is possible because of the vast knowledge about risk factors and the negative impact these can have and that parenting is vital. The report also suggests that services such as social work fail to intervene in a positive way because they lack accountability and have not been sharing information well. The states policy is therefore one of a more active interventionist role in relation to children and their development. The sure start programme being an example of this and has been directly mentioned in the Conservative party Manifesto paying for more than 4500 new sure start workers and refocusing onto early intervention once more (Conservative Party website 2010).

A further focus of Policy over the past 10 years has been to look at the role of parents. Parents have been suggested as the background for changes in anti-social behaviour and social exclusion. The state has also increased its role in parenting support asking local authorities to develop a parental support strategy and employ a single commissioner of parenting support services (family and Parenting Institute 2009). Further to this the Government committed itself to getting rid of child poverty by 2020 and halving it by 2010 (Conservative Party website 2010). This is due to the evidence from studies such as the millennium cohort study which followed 16 000 children and noted a difference in child performance based on socio economic status. Parents have also been called to be more involved with their Childs education including the hard to reach (Reynolds, 2006). This message is echoed in the Children’s Plan (2007) which states,

“Parents’ support for their child’s learning is an essential foundation for achievement. Parents told us they want to be more involved in their children’s education, and schools see the benefits of greater engagement with parents” (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2007a, p53).

To achieve this, direct transfers to families through benefits and tax credits have increased, focusing particularly on low-income families in employment. These have been accompanied by measures aiming to raise the employment rate among parents. Lone parents have been singled out as a target group for welfare reform, alongside measures to improve childcare availability and affordability. There has also been a major expansion in maternity leave provision, along with the introduction of the right for parents to request flexible working, in an attempt to make it easier for parents to balance work and family responsibilities. The final section of this report focuses on shifting family forms and family relationships, and the state’s role in helping couples to stay together and to parent their children after separation. Many challenges still remain in family policy, such as: integrating adult and children’s services to meet families’ needs; ensuring families have access to both good universal services and specialist ones; achieving child poverty targets; and creating real choice for parents in how they balance paid work and family responsibilities. The changes of the past 10 years have taken place against a background of national economic prosperity. The current recession is imposing new challenges on both families and public services, and even if the recovery is quick, the context for the next decade will be one of high public debt.

It can be seen that the current conservative government hold that the family function is on that needs to be upheld. The previous labour government taking a more liberal (postmodern) view and less moral overtone to the ideas of family as can be seen with the policies introduced pre conservative government such as a focus on tax breaks and increasing resources being moved to low income families regardless of their married or unmarried status. With the new administration it may be argued that a more functional view of the family situation will be adopted where the ideal of the nuclear family as suggested by Parsons (1951) will be supported. The role of the social work will be therefore to protect these family institutions. Interestingly in light of the recent review of child protection after the Baby p case Henricson (2007) pointed out there was too much focus on structures and procedures and less emphasis on well trained social workers and other professional’s with appropriate caseloads. Allowing them to fully understand the family situation and use their professional judgement in a more appropriate way.

In reality practice is however fraught with resource limitations and need to provide help to those already in crisis rather than early intervention. In ‘Building Britain’s Future’ the Prime minister promises a move from ‘a system based primarily on targets and central direction to one where individuals have enforceable entitlements over the service they receive’ (Prime minister 2009, p18). This could have a great impact on Social Work services and service provision

This week’s readings are composed of the topics of structural violence and symbolic violence. Galtung and Farmer’s perspectives on personhood and conflict relationship are built around the concept of the “structural violence”. In general terms, structural violence means sociopolitical inequalities emerge out of the structures. In addition to them, Bourdieu and Bourgois & Schonberg bring new perspective by looking at the debate from different angle with the term “symbolic violence” which means gender inequalities emerges out of the embeddedness of female subordination by male in daily life.

Galtung first discusses the concept of violence in his 1969 article of “Violence, Peace and Peace Research” and displays the relationship and difference between direct/personal/with subject and indirect/structural/without subject violence. In his article “Cultural Violence” (Galtung, 1990), it is defined as “any aspect of a culture that can be used to legitimize violence in its direct or structural form” (p.291). In Pierre Bourdieu’s article, we analyze how symbolic violence influences the gender relations by being embodied in the daily life habits of an agent. We may add that culture sometimes play a legitimizing role to strengthen symbolic violence. In my country, Turkey, there is still the “honor killings” phenomenon in the name of “culture”, which actually includes cultural and symbolic violence. It is a somewhat direct violence but also somewhat symbolic for the rest of the society and male-female relations. Galtung’s prescription against those types of violence is clear; establish negative (the absence of direct violence) and positive (absence of structural and cultural violence) peace (p.183).

In his article of “Gender and Symbolic Violence”, Pierre Bourdieu looks at violence in a different perspective than Galtung and builds relationship between violence and gender. According to him, hegemonic power and the domination of this power on its victims can be called “symbolic violence”. The male domination over the female can be strengthened with the help of the concepts, language, and symbols used in daily life habits. He does not mean to reduce the importance of physical violence, instead, focuses on the construction of misrecognition through the dominant discourses in various types of socio-cultural domination. Misrecognition is “confirmed” by dominant discourse and is embodied in women’s body with “hidden symbols”. As he mentions this symbolic violence is most of the time unnoticed-partly unconsciousness- because the “victims” of this violence may not recognize it, or become silent because of their subordination or they feel daunted against the violence. His prescription is explained as “aˆ¦radical transformation of the social conditions of production of the dispositions that lead the dominated to take the point of view of the dominant on the dominant and on themselves.”(p.342).

Paul Farmer’s “personhood” is much more related to structural issues. In “On Suffering and Structural Violence”, he tries to understand the mechanisms which cause social forces from poverty to racism to be embodied as individual experiences (p.281). He argues that what happens to Acephie and Chouchou – the former dies because of AIDS and the latter dies because of political violence- are two different versions of structural violence. He reaches the conclusion that inequality of power and its implications on the poor are because of the structural arrangements of dominant powers of the world. “Silence of socioeconomically poor people” is because of the dominant power relations and its reflections on Third World countries. According to him, what happened to Acephie and Chouchou is explained as; “these afflictions were not the result of accident or of force majeure; they were the consequence, direct or indirect, of human agency”(p.286) He also mentions that when people are suffering because of poverty, their access to health, food, and shelter are limited because of their social status. His prescription is much more related to the “humane” and offers global precautions. He thinks that instead of debating “cultural differences”, the social inequalities should be reduced. The precautions should focus on reducing global poverty, by so we can break the link between social violence and “social acceptance of poverty”.

After the discussion on historically reproduced structures of social inequality and the deficiencies of accessing to health care which is a basic human right in Third World countries in Farmer’s article, we witness similar arguments in Philippe Bourgois and Jeff Schonberg’s book of Righteous Dopefiend. The authors give us a portrayal of the sufferings of the homeless and heroin addicted community of Edgewater from their own personal participant observations. In general, the book is so impressive because of the use of photographs, transcripts of recorded conversations and the authors’ participant observations. The authors display the daily experiences of these heroin addicted-homeless people and analyze anthropologically those experiences. In the book, we see how those people suffer but also try to hang onto life one more day by involving in burglary, day labor, panhandling and so on.

The book is constructed on the themes of how violence is seen in childhood, community of addicted people, in gender relations, in race issues, sexuality, power inequality, and so on. In the book, one of the main arguments is that while we enter into twenty first century, neoliberalism has produced a strata of rich people but also a strata of “lumpen” in United States. Those people who couldn’t adapt themselves into the changing system are marginalized and exposed to the structural violence and victimized. They are Edgewater dopefiends now. On page 320, the authors mentioned that the burden of lumpenization is more severe in nonindustrialized societies. They add that there is not only power inequality and poverty issue but also poverty is being “punished” which is actually the extension of symbolic violence. Authors barrow from Bourdieu’s concept of misrecognition and symbolic violence (Bourdieu 2000) and apply it to Foucault’s power/knowledge relationship. According to them, “policy debates and interventions often mystify large scale structural power vectors and unwittingly reassign blame to the powerless for their individual failures and moral character deficiencies.” (p.297). Here we see that, the heroin addicted-homeless people of Edgewater, Sanfransico, are not only excluded from the whole social network and locked up into their own social network but also blamed on them for their failure. Although the book criticizes so much of health care system and the role of structural forces on the suffering of those people, I believe I would be happy to read ethical considerations of the authors during their research.

In conclusion, this week’s reading were so impressive and must be thought on more. In addition to that, I believe what they are theorizing must be put into practice and the awareness on structural, cultural and symbolic violence must be increased with policy recommendations. Or the project/practice areas should be determined and implemented by the field experts.

One of the assumptions in the Structural and Functional theory is ???ocial system properties applied to families In today?S? world, what is the most striking element of social system that you perceives as most applicable to families? There are two important elements in Structural Functional theory, which are ??’tructure” and ??»unction Social system is complex and it consists of several subsystems, such as family, school, and organization. In another word, social system is structured. The structures should be perfect and could not miss any subsystem. Parsons (1937, 1951) proposed that every social system need to achieve the system equilibrium. The subsystems need to contribute some positive outcomes to the social system to assist it in achieving the system equilibrium. In other words, every subsystem should have its own functions (White & Klein, 2008).

The most striking element which is most applicable to families nowadays is ??»unction This element is suitable to apply in families because it involves the function of socialization. The element of structure is less applicable to families nowadays because there is a lot of single-mother or single-father in a family. In additional, single parent families are not necessary leads to family and social system dysfunction.

There are two basic functions in families, which are socializing with children and stabilizing adult?S? personality (White & Klein, 2008). These two functions are interrelated. Parents socialize and convey important values to their child. The values are all related to their society and culture. Child will learn those values and bring it out to the school and workplace in the future. The child will integrate to their society by adopting the suitable values. They will perform very well in the society and does not violate the society?S? norms. How the societal values are learned by the child? Socialization between parents and child can make it. All the messages can be sent when parents socialize with their child. Parents will tell their child what they should not to do, the consequences of the negative behaviors, the roles of them, and others.

The next family function ??’tabilizing adult?S? personalityis not applicable to families nowadays. It is because in the process of stabilize adult?S? personality, it involves the family role structure. Family role structure address that the structures of family will influence on child?S? well-being. Both of the father and mother should be including in a family. The family structure of single-mother or single-father will leads to child?S? maladaptive behavior.

If a family deviates from the societal norms, is it considered dysfunctional? Justify your answer.

If a family deviates from the societal norms, it is considered as dysfunctional. According

to Parsons, society only can survive while share the norms and values to every society members. Deviation from the societal norms will leads to disorganization of the whole system. Family is one of the important systems in the society. Family deviation includes divorce, non-marital sex, single-parent families, teen delinquency and etc. In Structural Function theory, all of these patterns or behaviors are not accepted because they will threaten the survival of society. Therefore, all of these behaviors are defined as dysfunctional (as cited in Structural Function Theory, n.d.).

The more details will be discussed. George Murdock (1949) described that nuclear family is the basic structure for a family. Nuclear family must consist of husband, wife, and their children as well. This is one of the norms in the society. If a family which only consists of mother and children, it will considered as dysfunctional. It is because the family have deviate the societal norms. However, what is the reason if family deviate societal norms will be considered as dysfunctional? Then the family role structure should be discussed. Parsons proposed a family role structure to let all society members to follow. Parsons proposed that male should play a role as ???nstrumental Instrumental role means that they provide the financial support to the family. The physical needs of family members such as shelter, foods, and education will be provided by the father. Female plays a role as ???xpressive Mothers should provide the emotional supports to the family and they are doing the ???ndoorworks only (as cited in Structural Functional Theory, n.d.).

The societal norm had provided as above clearly indicates the roles of each members in a family. Thus, all family members should follow the roles and rules which formed by the society. If the father and mother exchange their roles, this will considered as deviate the societal norms. And this family will be considered as dysfunctional.

Compare the concept of ??‘olesin both Symbolic Interactions and Structural Functional theory. If a researcher wishes to study parental roles in polygamous family, which of the two theories are serves as a better guide for the research? Why?

Both of the theories are using the concept of ??‘oles The main difference between these two theories is, the concept of role in Structural Functional theory attaches to the ??’ocietal expectationsbut the role in Symbolic Interaction theory is attached to the ???nteraction First, we have to understand the meaning of the term ??’ocietal expectationand ???nteraction(Ross Eshleman, 2003).

Compare the ???olesin Two Theories

In Structural Functional theory, the role is formed by the society expectations. Society expects that how an individual or social group should perform their roles. For example, they expect that male should be more aggressive than female, female should be protected, fathers should raise the family and mothers should bear the child, students should respect teachers in school, and others. From the examples as stated above, we can see that the roles are also associated with the rules. The rules are set by the society for every role. The social group should perform their roles by following to the rules (Ross Eshleman, 2003).

Compare to the Structural Functional theory, Symbolic Interaction theory is not focus on the rules. It focuses on the ???nteraction The expectation roles are formed through the process of interaction. The cooperative behavior and communication is very important. People will communicate first and then they know what they should perform. The role taking serves as an important term in the process of forming the expectation roles (Ross Eshleman, 2003).

The obvious difference can be seen at here is, the role in Structural Functional theory is how the society expects on it and it is mainly associated with the rules, but the role in Symbolic Interaction theory is mainly focus on the interaction and communication. The role is form through the process of interaction. The other difference between these two theories is the roles in Structural Functional theory are not easily to change but for the Symbolic Interaction theory, the roles are less rigid. The roles in Structural Functional theory are not easily changed because these are related to the expectation of the whole society. However, in Symbolic Interaction theory, the roles are easier to change because these are form through the interaction mainly between two individuals or groups. The differences are made as the points at below,

Societal expectation versus interaction

Focus on rules versus less focus on rules

Rigid versus less rigid

Polygamous Family and Structural Functional Theory

Structural Functional theory is more suitable to support the study of polygamous family. Polygamous families are considered as a nuclear family in Structural Functional theory. It is because the families are consisting of father and mother (Structural Functional Theory, n.d.). According to Al-Krenawi & Graham (1999), polygamy is defined as a marriage involves one husband and multiple wives. Polygamous wives may live together or stay in different houses. They could be cooperative or live without disturbing each other. It is depends on how the husband would like it.

Al-Krenawi & Graham (1999) had conducted a study about the story of Bedouin-Arab women in a polygamous marriage. In this study, the roles in Bedouin-Arab are form according to the gender differences. This is about how the society expects on the roles of a family. In a family, the men who include father and son are the leader and they have authority in the household, economy, and polity (Al-Krenawi, 1996 in Al-Krenawi & Graham, 1999). Thus, the role of father is to set the family rules and manage the household economy. However, the roles of Bedouin-Arab women in polygamous family are to bear children.

Not similar with the Bedouin-Arab society?S? role expectations, Parsons and Bales (1955) propose that both of the father and mother are superior in a family. Parsons and Bales (1955) stated that the family role structure is formed according to the gender roles. Father is serves as an instrumental superior role and mother is serves as an expressive superior role in family. The son is serves as an instrumental inferior role and daughter is serves as an expressive inferior in a family (as cited in White & Klein, 2008). From these, we can see that both of the father and mother also are superior in the family, but the only difference is father has to take care of the household economy and mother has to take care of their children. Again, we can see that how the different society and culture might make different parental roles in a family.

Structural and Functional theory is suitable to apply in polygamous families because it needs the family roles structure and rules which form by the society. The wives have to follow the roles and rules which formed by the society. This may eliminate the conflicts and disagreements between the wives.

.

Figure 1 Structural Functional Theory explains the parental roles in polygamous family.

Discuss the major critic of development theory. If a researcher wishes to explore family dynamic within a step or blended family, identify suitable concepts from this theory that can guide such study.
Major Critic

The major critic in Development Theory is about the assumption of universality. Not all the families are developed in the same way. Development Theory proposed the development stages that used to explain the family development. For example, there are eight stages in family life cycle (Ross Eshleman, 2003). The stages are as below,

Married couples without children.

Childbearing families with oldest child 30 months.

Families with preschool children (oldest child aged between 2 and half to 6 years old).

Families with school children (oldest child aged between 6 to 13 years old).

Families with teenagers (oldest child aged between 13 to 20 years old).

Families with the first child to last child living outside of home.

Middle-aged parents who already retired.

Aging family members (retirement to death).

All of the stages listed at above are not suitable to all types of families. The stages are

only applicable to the normal developmental families. For example, a woman in a family is unable to pregnant. Thus, the eight stages are not accomplished by that family. Another example is that a teenager was pregnant and then gets married. The stages are not in sequence as what the eight stages have proposed. Nowadays, there is a lot of step-family from in the society. A couple may divorced and get into another marriage. They may stop at the second stage and start the first stage again when they are in the other marriage. Thus, it is not applicable to all forms of the families nowadays.

Concepts Using in Step Family

If a researchers wishes to study a dynamic within a step-family, the concepts of ??»amily changeand ???ositions, norms, and rolesare suitable to support it. Family change is defined as an outcome change that experienced by the family. In step-family, the family members had experienced the family change. For instance, a couple was divorced and the father gets married with other woman who will be called step-mother in the family. The children in the family are experienced two changes, which are their parents was divorced and their father was remarried again.

When the family changes had happened, the positions, norms, and roles in a family may be changed. From the instance had mentioned, the positions in that step-family include father, step-mother, son, and daughter. All of the family members should follow the norms and roles that had formed by the society. Normally the societal norms are formed for the ??‰ormal family The norms and roles can be formed by the step-family itself or formed by the society as well. The roles of the father in step-family can be instrumental and roles of the step-mother can be expressive. However, the roles of father and step-mother can be exchanged as well. It is depends on how the family forms the rules. The decision making is influenced by the societal culture.

One of the roles for the step-parents is to seek affinity from the step-children. Either the step-father or step-mother is seeking affinity to maintain a good relationship in the family. However, some of the step-parents are not seeking the affinity because they do not feel that maintain positive relationship with the children is important. There are three types of affinity, which are not seeking affinity from the step-children, seeking affinity before married only, and seeking affinity before and continuous in the marriage (Ganong, Coleman, Fine & Martin, 1999 in Arnold, 2008).

How does the concept of ??’elf interestdiffer or similar in Conflict Theory and Social Exchange Theory? Propose a research framework using Conflict Theory and highlight the use of self interest as a guiding concept.
Similarity and Differences of ???elf-Interestin Conflict and Social Exchange Theory

In both of the Conflict and Social Exchange Theory, people are always motivated by their self-interest. In Conflict Theory, when self-interest collides with othersself-interest, the conflict will happen. Self-interest in Conflict Theory is not involving the process of ???xchange In other words, people prefer to get what they are interested without contributing anything. They don?S° want to lose anything when they get the things that they are interested.

In Social Exchange Theory, people get what they want by contribute something. They exchange things and get the profits that they are interested to. For example, a woman would like to give up her freedom to marry her boy friend. This woman lost her freedom but she will get various supports form her husband. Self-interest in Social Exchange Theory is involving rational thinking. People gain the profits through two procedures, which are Comparison Level (CL) and Comparison Level for Alternatives (CL+). According to White and Klein (2008), CL is defined as people compare their profits with other people who have same situation. C+ is defined as an individual compare the profits with the other choice or alternative.

Table 1 Compare Self-interest in Social Conflict and Social Exchange Theory

Social Conflict TheorySocial Exchange TheoryNot involved in ???xchangeExperience the exchange procedure:

loss and gainNot involved in rational thinking. Involves rational thinking.

Not involved in CL and CL+ Involves CL and CL+

Research Framework

The research topic is ??•he relationship between self-interest marital satisfactions with the mediator of marital conflict

Introduction

Conflict is very common in a family. The conflicts between parents, couples, parent and child are very common nowadays. Conflicts occurred because the family members have their own different tastes, habits, likes and dislikes, values and standards (Marital Conflicts, n.d.). If the opinions of two people had crashed, conflict will happened. For example, parents may have their own preferred parenting style, child-rearing patterns, activities, religion, career decision, and so on. If their self-interest is crash with their partner’s and they do not seek for the solutions, mostly they will facing conflicts. Conflict will lead to both positive and negative outcomes if it does not be solved. Conflict may leads to divorce and low marital satisfaction (Morawska & Thompson, 2008).

Theory and Concept used

Social Conflict Theory will be used to explain this study. The concept of self-interest explains how the conflicts happened between the couples. Self-interest of couples may different in the aspect of finance, sexual relations, career decision, and leisure times. When self-interest of the couples in these aspects is different, they will face conflict. Thus, the self-interest and marital conflicts of these four aspects will be measured.

Research Question

Is there any significant relationship between marital conflict and marital satisfaction?

Research Hypothesis

There is a significant relationship between marital conflict and marital satisfaction.

Design

Mix-method will be conducted in this study. Questionnaires which consist of open-ended and closed-ended questions will be used to collect data. Researchers will interview the respondents who have already married.

Independent Variable: Self-interest will be measured based on four aspect, which are financial

investment, sexual relations, career decision, and leisure times.

Mediator Variable: Marital conflict will be measured based on four aspects, which are

financial investment, sexual relations, career decision, and leisure times.

Dependent Variable: Marital satisfaction

Urie Bronfenbrenner proposed that the smallest unit of analysis in studying development is the dyad, not the individual person. Describe this proposition in the context of delinquent behavior.

Bronfenbrenner?S? ecological system theory proposed that there are five interrelated system level, which are Microsystems, Mesosystem, Exosystem, Macrosystem, and Chronosystem (Hong, Huang, Sabri & Kim, 2011). Microsystem will used to apply in the context of delinquent behavior.

Microsystem Level

According to Bronfenbrenner, Microsystem is the layer closest to the child. The layer contains some structures which have direct interaction with an individual. One of the structures is family (Ryan, 2001). In Microsystem level, a child has direct interaction with their parents. Parents considered as the primary agent to have interaction with the child. Thus, the parent-child is considered as ???yad

Parents Influence on Child?S? Behaviors

Interaction between the child and parents will bring impact on both of them. However, the negative impact on child will be discussed at here only. Bronfenbrenner believes the reason that child?S? behavior is mostly influenced by their parents is because the parents assist the child to explore the environment. In between, parents are also giving their child the affirmations (Ryan, 2001). The child will adapt to the environment and maintain it when dealing with other complex environment in the future (Bronfenbrenner, 1979 as cited in White & Klein, 2008). If this immediate interaction is break down, child will adopts delinquent behaviors especially during adolescence.

Empirical Implication

Parent-youth relationship is associated with youth?S? delinquency and substances used (Chang & Le, 2005 in Hong, Huang, Sabri & Kim, 2011). The communication and socialization between parent-child is important to influences on child?S? development. Parents would like to socialize and communicate with their child about the consequences of delinquent behaviors. This will reduce the tendency of child to engage in delinquent behaviors (Hong, Huang, Sabri & Kim, 2011).

One of the studies was using the instrument which developed by Bronfenbrenner to measure the maternal and paternal parenting. The parentings are including support, communication, and psychological control (Torrente & Vazsonyi, 2008). The researchers aim to examine the parenting influences on adolescentsantisocial and delinquent behavior. The result revealed that there is a significant difference of maternal parenting on male and female adolescents. Female adolescents reported higher support and communication parenting compare to male adolescents. Male adolescents reported higher psychological control parenting compare to female adolescents. Besides that, the result also showed that mother?S? support and communication were negatively correlated with adolescentsdelinquent behavior. However, there was only father?S? support has significant negative correlation with adolescentsdelinquent behavior. Lastly, the study found that, maternal support was significantly predicting the male?S? delinquent behavior negatively and, maternal psychological control was significantly predicting the female?S? delinquent behavior positively. In another word, high maternal support will lead to less delinquency among male adolescents, and high maternal psychological control will lead to high delinquency among female adolescents. The father did not show any significant parenting predictors towards adolescentsdelinquency (Torrente & Vazsonyi, 2008).

Discussion

One of the reasons to explain that mothers have significant contribution to the adolescentsdelinquent behavior is, they are spending more time together with their children. They have more socialization with their children during their children?S? development. Therefore, mothers develop an important relationship with their children more than the fathers. They provide supports when their children are facing difficulties. This may assist the child to solve problem and adapt to the environment. Mothers always communicate with their children about their thinking and belief will assist the child to learn it and understand what they should not to do.

Social and cultural theories are often used when studying and applying knowledge to sports. The theories in society often provide a framework for asking research questions, interpreting information and being able to uncover the deeper meanings and stories that are associated with sports, they also enable citizens in the society to become more informed so that we can apply what we have learned from the research and being able to apply it in the world that we live in. Theories also enable people to see things in new angles and perspectives and give us the ability to make informed decisions about sports and how sports participation can be used in our lives, communities, families and societies. The six main theories used in sport have many points and can overlap with each other but only two are going to be discussed in this study. The two theories chosen to compare are functionalist theory and conflict theory.

Functionalist theory is a macro sociological theory that is based on the characteristics of social patterns, structures, social systems and institutions such as family, education, religion, leisure, the economy, media, politics and sport. If all these social institutions are organized and co-operate with one another around a set of core values functionalist theorists assume that the entire social system will function properly and efficiently. Society in functionalism has a view that it is an organized system of interrelated parts that are held together by shared values and established social arrangements that help maintain the system in being in a state of equilibrium and balance. When sociologists use functionalist theory they split it into two parts, the first concept of interdependent parts is all of the social institutions (media, religion, sports, politics and economics) and how they are linked together.

In the tradition of Talcott Parsons and his conception of functional imperatives (goal attainment, adaptation, latency and integration) functionalists argue that there are four basic “system needs” for any society in sports (team, clubs etc) to run smoothly and that everyone will benefit. The four principles are

Adaptation – In order to survive in a society it is essential that members learn to adapt to changes in the social structure and culture. Another important element to survival is the emphasis on being physically fit as it is required for most sports.

Goal Attainment – This is the motivation of individuals to achieve society’s goals through socially accepted means. Sport is preoccupied with tracking the success and failures of its participants however it also teaches participants that if they work hard enough it will lead to victory meaning success.

Integration – Sport promotes social connections between people and gives them the opportunity to co-operate with each other in a group and a community. It also provides a feeling of social identification as well as a source of personal identity. The society must keep itself together.

Latency (pattern maintenance and tension management) – Each system must maintain itself in a possible state of equilibrium for as long as it can without any outside disruptive influences. Many forms of pattern maintenance are provided by sport primarily through participation where the participants are taught to accept an authority structure that is well defined for example athletes knowing that referees have the authority over them to make sure they stick to the rules of the sport.

Functionalist theory in sport generally leads to the conclusion that it is popular in society because it can maintain the values of character that help to preserve stability and order in social life. Functionalist theory also supports sporting policies that help and recommend the growth of competitive sport programmes, developing coaching education programmes, in the case of youth sport there is an establishment on criminal bureau checks and qualification checks on coaches before working with younger children. The theory also supports the establishment of training centres for elite athletes so they can maintain their top-level performance and making sure to have increased surveillance and drug testing so they are able to supervise and control the actions of athletes by preventing those taking drugs so they can’t cheat their way to attaining a better sporting performance. People in society who have positions of power tend to favour functionalist theory as it is based on the assumption that society is organised for benefiting the people in that society of equality and that in any dramatic way it should not be changed. While functionalist theory is a popular approach it does have some weaknesses.

The weaknesses of functionalist theory is that it tends to lead to exaggerated accounts of positive consequences of sports and sports participation however it mistakenly assumes that there are no conflicts of interests between the different citizen groups in society such as women, people with disabilities, racial groups and people who are economically poor in society yet it doesn’t recognise that sport can privilege or disadvantage people more than others. The theory also ignores the powerful historical and economic factors that have influenced social events and social relationships.

Functionalist theory is centered on the idea that there is a consensus in the values and norms of society and that social institutions found within a society are integrated and function together. In contrast conflict theory looks at the role of power and the inequality found throughout society and how sport is shaped by these economic forces and used by people with economical power to increase their influence and wealth. Conflict theory is based on the ideas of Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) which rose to importance during the 1970s because of the growing disenchantment with functionalist theory. This theory of Karl Marx views sports as being built on the foundations of economic power. In society’s that are capitalistic you see that relationships and social arrangements are organised around wealth, money and economic power for example in the United States it’s easy to point out the owners of the sport teams as they are benefiting financially from the expense of elite athletes, the coaches that work alongside the athletes and the spectators who watch the sport.

Like functionalist theory conflict theory is based on the assumption that society is like a social system however conflict theory focuses on the “needs of capital” rather than the “general system needs”. Theorists of conflict theory explain that a society which is capitalist will not be able to survive and grow without exploiting any workers for the sake of boosting financial profits; they also suggest that if radical changes are to be concluded in sport and society by prevailing justice and fairness they need to identify the negative consequences that sport has. Once these changes are made sport will become a source of creative energy, expression and physical well-being. People who live in capitalist economies are generally not comfortable with the assumptions and conclusions of conflict theory because they say it has a negative effect and does not fit into their ideas about society and sport as they feel uneasy with the conclusions of calling for radical change in the current organisation and structure that they already have.

Much of conflict theory is directed at sports which are dominated by spectators. Conflict theorists if they had the choice they would increase the control that athletes and other sporting participants have to promote sport at local community level so that it benefits all classes of people rather than just all elite athletes. Meaning the working class would have more influence of sport than the rich class giving them more motivation for participation and eliminating profits. Many conflict theorists favour player’s unions that confront pro-team owners and are supporting organisations that help to guard against public tax money being used to benefit wealthy people. Ideally any public resources would be used to help aid sponsoring sports that are designed to improve physical fitness, political awareness and include placing the element of fun into activities. Conflict theorists (Leonard 1980; Rigauer2004) would also campaign for athletes at all levels to have representation with making decisions about sport in organisations so Olympians would be able to vote on policy questions that concerned the staging of the Olympic Games.

Conflict theory also has three major weaknesses. The first weakness is that the theory tends to ignore the possibility that sport in capitalist societies can and may involve experiences that give individuals and groups power. Conflict theorists talk about how sport is organised to maximise the control that wealthy people have over other members in a capitalist society. The conflict theory approach doesn’t acknowledge that sport can take many forms of serving interests in the have-not society and denies that any participation in sport can be a personal creative and liberating experience that will inspire members of society to make economic changes that will help to promote equality in exiting capitalist societies. Secondly conflict theory ignores the importance of race, ethnicity, gender, disability, age and many other factors when it comes to explaining how people want to identify themselves, how they relate to other members in the society and how they organise the social world in which they live. Often it’s leading people to overlook the possibility that inequalities and power in any society are based on factors other than economic and social class differences. Thirdly the theory assumes that all aspects of social life are determined economically and is shaped by the needs of having capital in society and profit motive. Theorists of conflict theory focus on the assumptions that of economic factors when studying sport however they tend to overlook participation and recreational port for healthy living.

Functionalist theory and conflict theory both focus on the needs of society and how sport can relate to the satisfaction of the system needs. The theories don’t inform us about sport in everyday life and the ways in which people are active agents who are participating in the processes of sports and societies that are organised and changed. They both also ignore that sport and social constructions emerge in people’s everyday life when they struggle to decide what is important and how they are going to collect organisation in their lives.

Inequality is a social reality affecting many cultures and societies. The term stratification is described by Chaefer as structured standing or position among various individuals perpetuating the concept of unequitable distribution of reward and power, a privilege enjoyed by the privileged few (34). Hierarchies paint the social landscape and social classes are defined by means of their membership to a particular social group or subculture, occupational type, educational level, income class, and amount of wealth. Between-individuals inequalities in status are to be found universally; but the question is how much inequality would warrant a so-called stratified society.

The Four Basic Structures of Stratification

In Sajjadi, basic stratification structures were identified: first, slavery; second, estate; third, caste; and fourth, class. Viewed as the most extreme of all these structures, slavery is one in which individuals are owned as property by others where the owner exercises full control over the slave which often times end in the use of violence. Existence of slave system is sporadic across many eras and locations; however, two examples of slave societies are in the early Greek and Roman civilizations and the southern US during the 18th and 19th centuries.

The second is the estate system akin to feudalism. There are three salient features of feudal estates. One of which is that they are legally sanctioned. Each estate possesses its own status having legal obligations, privileges, duties and rights. The next is division of labor which means that a group is expected to perform a definite set of functions. The nobles were ordained to protect and defend the people; the clergy, give spiritual comfort; and the commoners, to ensure there is food in every table. The last is that feudal estates are political structures which mean that all of these three estates function like political groups and possess power.

The third is the caste system which is closely associated with Hindu tradition, custom, religion and philosophy. According to the Hindus, the caste system has a divine sanction and origin. The origin of this stratification in Indian societies could be traced back in the chaturvarna system. Doctrinal teachings subdivided India into four major varnas – Brahmins, Kashtriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. The Varna system which is highly prominent in the Vedic period is mainly based on occupation as well as division of labour; however, evolved in ancestral traditions. A family who makes a living of being a teacher had been in generations past resorted in the same profession and is followed by succeeding generations, believing that divine appointment has caused their clan to become teachers.

The fourth basic structure is social class. This system is a universal occurrence which denotes that a certain group of individuals having definite societal status permanently defines their association with other groups. Basis for the stratification is undoubtedly economic but they are not simply economic groupings. Across time and societies, the virtual significance and meaning of membership to a specific group varies, most especially in those societies that have legally differentiated groups of individuals according to occupation or birth. The popularly known illustration of socioeconomic class is adopting a system of hierarchy with reference to income, wealth, economic status, or occupational type.

Stratification in United States

The sociological phenomenon I find most interesting to study and work on is the stratification and social mobility in United States. Social class seems to be the most appropriate type of stratification to describe inequality in America. Social stratification certainly exists in United States although most Americans believe only in the three class model – the rich, middle class and the poor. Some sociologist proposed more complex structure and yet others deny its very existence. Here we try to expound on some academic class model proposed by sociologist William Thompson and Joseph Hickey: the upper, corporate elite, upper middle, traditional middle, lower middle, and working classes.

Upper class is a term that includes those referred to as the “blue bloods” for instance the Roosevelt and Astor families. There seemed to be confusion on the inclusion of “nouveau riche” into the upper class or the exclusive use of this term to denote established families. W. Lloyd Warner, a 20th century sociologist subdivided upper class into two: the first is composed of the “upper-upper class” or the bourgeoisie and the “lower-upper class” or the yuppies. In the former, established upper-class families are included while in the latter are those who have achieved a highly wealthy status in their lifetime. Because there is no such thing as a lower threshold in the upper class, it is an outright impossibility to compute the exact proportion of American households identified in this class.

The high incomes and the potential for wealth from stock options have given rise to the term corporate elite; among them are top executives especially Chief Executive Officers or CEOs who receive the best financial compensation of all occupations in the US today. The median salary received by an American CEO annually is $140,350; this income exceeds the combined income of 90% of households in the U.S. On the other hand, the upper middle class is composed of professionals who are highly educated and perform self-directed work. A number of them have earned Master’s degree at the very least and have incomes greater than the high five-figure range. In this group, members are actively involved with professional as well as personal networks therefore they have a great influence in society.

The middle class is probably the most unclearly defined of all the social classes. The term has been found to be used to either define a group of managers and professionals also referred as upper middle class or those between wealth extremes with a disregard for significant differences in occupation, influence, educational level, culture and income. Those households occupying the center of American society may be called middle-middle class. These average Joes or those lying at the middle of the socio-economic divisions are commonly where the working class and the lower middle class meet. The lower middle class is generally described as having less privilege compared to the middle class. Individuals in this group are commonly working in supporting occupations and seldom acquired advanced academic degrees though more often than not they are bachelor degree holders. The term working class is used to denote individuals who are working at this level.

Markers of Social Class in United States

Markers of social class in United States includes but is not limited to social status, income, education, occupation and culture. Social status is defined as the rank or position of an individual or group in society and determined in two ways- through individual achievements or achieved status and by inheritance or ascribed status. In the US, many members of the society have sorted themselves along the position continuum which varies in compensation, prestige, influence, and importance. In this land of opportunity, many people especially immigrants have gained better living conditions, far from the land they came from due to their ‘ given chance’ of getting better education and occupation. Thus, having them earn a considerable place in the society. In other cases, where in status is inherited or has been fixed by birth, the individual is given and taught many social roles and are socially positioned by their family by equipping them with all the traits and characters that would sustain their inherited status. For example, being the son of a wealthy family may carry the same status or even higher status than his parents due to his upbringing that makes him even better in the craft that made his parents wealthy.

Income is regarded to be an important feature in a social class. It does not cause stratification rather it is reflected on that status. There are two types of income being monitored by the Department of Commerce: personal and household income. Personal income is an individual indicator which is often applied only to individuals whose age is above 15, 18, or 25, the age requirement for membership to the labor force. Several factors affect income in the US and these include education, racial background, gender, and age. The US Census Bureau mentioned that men are generally highly paid than women while Caucasian Americans and Asians have higher earnings compared to their African American and Hispanic counterparts. Individuals above 18 had an overall median personal income amounting to $25,149 ($32,140 among 25 years old and above in 2005. In the same year, earning of age 15 was $28,567.

In contrast, household income considers all the residents in the household over 18 and does not only cover all salaries and wages but also personal investment, business, regular rental receipts, child support payments, and unemployment insurance. Residents need not have any consanguinal relations with the household head for their income to be part of the household’s income (US Census 2007 pub 60). Because households are quite similar economically, utilization of household income is still one of the most widely acknowledged income indicators (Williams 10).

Some experts would say that prestige and income are societal incentives necessary to occupy desired positions with the personnel that is highly motivated and qualified (Levine 7). However, this conclusion is divergent to the general observation that upper management in several companies are less informed and experienced than most of their subordinates, and that their positions are attained because of inheritance and connections.

Because income is a product of employment and education is a principal determinant of employment, the level of education is a variable often related to generated income in the United States. Many studies have correlated income levels to other social outcomes such as health care, housing, life expectancy, and quality and quantity of education attained. Many studies have emphasized on the relationship of income to education. The higher the educational level, the higher a person earns. For instance, individuals who have a college degree have comparatively higher income than the national median while those who have high school diplomas have lesser income than the national median. Studies have also shown that individuals with doctorate degrees belonged to the top 15% based on annual earnings. Educational attainment then is an important class feature in American society and is considered a crucial factor toward social mobility.

Another feature of social class is occupational status. Occupational status is a product of level of education and is a variable that also impacts access to social resources such as health, housing, and income. People with low-wage jobs are associated with low education levels because these jobs are often sought out and available to those who have less education. Blue-collar workers are paid less because it does not take a college diploma to perform these jobs. On the other hand, white-collar jobs But, White collar jobs require more human capital, skill and knowledge and therefore produce higher earnings. With higher education it is more likely for one to occupy a professional-level job wherein he or she may earn a higher salary. Therefore, those with less education are more likely to be working in Low-wage jobs.

Class culture also has been shown to have a strong influence on the mundane lives of people, affecting everything from the manner in which they raise their children, initiation and maintenance of romantic relationship to the color in which they paint their houses. The strongest cultural differences seem to run along the professional middle class-working class divide. A recent increase in residential class segregation and the overall tendency of individual to associate mostly with those of equal standing as themselves has further strengthened class differences.

Social Mobility in United States

The most important concept in a class system of stratification is social mobility. In class system, social stratification based on both birth and individual achievement; personal merit becomes more important. Since societies became more competitive and more meritocratic some elements such as energy, social skills, character, ambition, physical attractiveness, talent, and luck played great role in social mobility and changing social position. Social mobility refers to changes in social position which occur during a person’s lifetime.

There are two ways to study social mobility; intragenerational mobility and intergenerational mobility. By the first concept, we mean upward and downward movement in social ladder and by second one we refer to upward and downward movement in social hierarchy compared with the previous generation. Such a change may be described as “vertical mobility,” by contrast with a more general changing position (“horizontal mobility”). Mobility is enabled in part by cultural capital (such as higher education or an authoritative accent), human capital (such as competence and effort in labour), social capital (such as support from one’s social network), physical capital (such as ownership of tools), and symbolic capital (such as the worth of an official title). Many of these factors, however, ultimately remain intertwined with economic capital.

Upward social mobility is a change in a person’s social status resulting in that person receiving a higher position in their status system. Likewise, downward mobility results in a lower position. A prime example of an opportunity for upward mobility nowadays is athletics. There is an increased number of minorities seeking careers as professional athletes which can either lead to improved social status or could potentially harm them due to neglecting other aspects of their

life (e.g. education). Transformative assets would also allow one to achieve a higher status in society, as they increase wealth and provide for more opportunity. A transformative asset could be a trust fund set up by family that allows you to own a nice home in a nice neighborhood, instead of an apartment in a down trodden community. This type of move would allow the person to develop a new circle of friends of the same economic status.

Social class in United States is an open playing field. Through an individual’s achievement, occupation, educational attainment, and hardwork can attain a significant place in the society. Many individuals have already made a great leap in the social ladder. The new rich have increased tremendously over the last twenty years. There is upward mobility in social class ladder in that span of time. But with the current economic crisis that started two years ago and recovery is far from what is hoped for, that resulted in massive employment recession, it seems that the social mobility will move downwards. There is now increasing numbers of ‘new poor’ Americans. Still, definition is relative, what they consider poor might not be compared to other people of the world. Definitely, there will be changes in the social class structure of United States with the economic situation it is facing nowadays.

Social stratification concept makes it possible to understand people’s behavior. Without classifying people, it will be difficult to address social needs and social issues. Social class determines people’s way of life, customs, religions, happiness and other important aspects in the development of the individual, the community and the nation as a whole. Popular culture’s catering to the wealthy and social welfare for the poor can be easily tracked as shift in economic activity is pronounced such as the economic situation now.