Category: Free Essays

The history of male nursing dates back to centuries ago. In 300 A.D., a group of men, the Parabolani, started a hospital that provided nursing care during the Black Plague epidemic. During the American Civil War, both sides had military males serving as nurses. Males were mainly the front line nurses while female nurses usually had to stay at hospitals in the major cities. Men were forbidden to attend some state-supported nursing schools until 1982, But surprisingly Two thousand years ago, nursing school was for men only. Men were only thought to be “pure” enough to enter what is thought to be the world’s first nursing school, which was founded in India about 250 B.C., according to Bruce Wilson, registered nurse and associate professor at the University of Texas-Pan American in Edinburg, Texas. For the next two thousand years, nursing remained male-dominated. It took war in the 19th and 20th centuries to change nursing from being considered a man’s job to a women’s job. One of the biggest changes in the profession came in 1901 when the military nursing corps was reorganized. Men were then no longer allowed to serve as nurses, continuing the process of the feminization of nursing, said Wilson, who is also the manager of American Assembly For Men in Nursing’s Web site. Females were not always the ones dominant in the nursing profession.

According to Gene Tranbarger, associate professor of nursing at East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina “discrimination towards men is quickly going away from schools of nursing but remains imbedded in the school fabric,” he observes. “The staff and faculty still rely on the females when discussing nurses.”

Even with more male nurses growing, the nurse position is still viewed as a “female job”

Nurses are traditionally and mostly female; of the 2.1 million registered nurses in the United States, for example, only 5.4 percent are men. Men also make up only 13 percent of all new nursing students. As many Western nations are having to deal with a shortage of nurses, many and nursing schools and governments are recruiting more males as nurses. For example, when the University of Pittsburgh increased its admission requirements for its nursing program, the number of male students jumped significantly.

There are a lot of myths when it comes to male nursing, one being that nursing is a women’s job. The idea of nursing being only a “female’s job” has given way to the believe that anybody can be a nurse. With benefits like a flexible schedule, good pay, and the challenges nurses have every day make the job very rewarding. According to Jim DeMaria “The scientific and methodical approach to nursing is what I would call “man-friendly.” There are still experienced female nurses who believe males are trying to enter and take over. Some feel afraid and do not want to give up their place, or their place of power, and view male nurses as a threat. This would seem ridiculous, but is sometimes very true. Nursing is a tough world for men. There are female nurses that just do not want them there. Another myth that comes with male nursing is that they are homosexual, the stereotype comes from people’s idea that nursing is a career for females and why on earth would a male want to do it. “He has to be gay”. The same thing goes for female truck drivers, or female mechanics. Sure some of them might be gay, but that does mean every female mechanic is. It’s an attitude left over from a time in medicine when there were only female nurses, and doctors were male, never female. Some people figure that because male nurses work in a dominant female job, they are probably gay. But most male nurses are not gay, and sexual orientation is not a sign of whether or not a man will or will not become a nurse. Many male nurses find this stereotype saddening and upsetting, mainly because it can affect the way they are looked at and treated by society.

Male nurses are frequently faced with demeaning responses to and questions about their career choice. They might be asked, “Are you going to become a doctor eventually?” or “Are you really a nurse?” Many hold the belief that no man would make nursing his first career choice. As such, male nurses are sometimes perceived as individuals who couldn’t quite make the cut as a doctor or medical administrator. Although male nurses are increasingly common, they may still encounter difficulties on the job as a result of their gender. When more men began pursuing nursing in the 1960s, most hospitals prohibited them from treating female patients or being present in the delivery room. While this form of institutional discrimination is a thing of the past, male nurses still have to deal with negative stereotypes and the stigma of being the minority in a female-dominated profession. As time goes by, more and more males will become nurses. Hopefully the barrier will be completely gone one day, and people will not look at male nurses so differently and male nurses will have the same respect as females.

Men choose nursing careers for a few reasons. Many nurses like having a direct connection to their patient’s health. Some male nurses enjoys that their line of work allows them to do many things that they could not do with another job. There are also benefits of having male nurses on staff. Historically and especially in medial-surgical areas men are used for heavy lifting because men most of the time are physically stronger than woman on the staff. Having a male on the staff can also bring balance intro nursing and create a more relaxed work environment. Bringing a balance to any situation can be useful. Bringing more balance to a group can make it stronger by bringing in perspectives that were left out or not there, and increasing the mix of skills in your team.

Males are actually ideally suited to both the pressures and excitement of nursing. Men also have a very different perspective than women on a lot of things, and it’s a good thing having them in the profession. A nurse makes a huge difference in people’s lives. A caring and compassionate nurse is considered as a guardian angel by patients. Nurses have the opportunity to make swift decisions, learn each day and never get bored, as each day is different. Being a nurse has many good things associated with it, just because a male is a nurse doesn’t mean they should be looked down upon. Although some patients might prefer female nurses, others might like a male nurse to mix things up. The male nurse discrimination issue will go away eventually on its own. As more and more males are becoming nurses, eventually the bias and prejudice views will go away. People will eventually realize that the job is no longer just a “female” career. 100 or so years from now maybe the percentage of males to female nurses will be 50 percent, but who knows. The prejudice views are diminishing with time, so it is very important for males interested in saving life’s and men who want an excited career to consider nursing an option, males need to keep enrolling in nursing schools and keep an open mind. The only way men can stop these bias and prejudice views is to keep entering nursing schools. Male nurses do not have it easy, and have to work harder than females, but in the end it is very worth it, and helping or saving someone’s life can be very rewarding.

Mills (1959) talks of a ‘sociological imagination’ when looking at the problems of the individual. How might this ‘sociological imagination’ assist social workers? How might sociological theories offer useful insights into the socially constructed nature of many of the contemporary social problems encountered by social workers? Do this by reference to a contemporary social problem that social workers may have to work with.

This paper will explore Mills theory of a sociological imagination when looking at the problems of the individual, and explain how this theory might assist social workers. The focus will then turn to poverty as a contemporary social problem encountered by social workers. Poverty will be explored and discussed by reference to how sociological theories (Marxism, Functionalism and Feminism) offer useful insights into the socially constructed nature of poverty.

C. Wright Mills (1916 – 62) was, according to Cunningham (2008, p7) “a flamboyant American sociologist.” Slattery (1991, p210) claims “his aim was to reform society as much as explain it, to popularise sociology and develop a sociological imagination amongst the American public.” Matthewman (2007, p91) explains that a sociological imagination “requires a special quality of mind. When we process it we are able to see links between biography and history, to see how the personal relates to the public, and the individual to the structural.” Matthewman is supported by Leon-Guerrero (2005, p14). “By continuing to develop a sociological imagination and recognising the larger social, cultural and structural forces, we can identify appropriate measures to address social problems.” Cunningham (2008) explores this using an example of a person suffering from depression after losing their job. Without recognising factors outside of the personal (such as the current economic or political conditions), the problem cannot not be sufficiently understood, addressed or resolved. Consequently failure to develop a sociological imagination could result in judgements or assumptions being made upon the failure of the individual, rather than societal structures. Stepping back to see the bigger picture can avoid granted assumptions, labels or ones personal values coming into play. Finally, Cunningham (2008, pg7) argues that “learning to think sociologically is one of the most important skills a social worker can bring to their practice.”

Poverty is a long standing social problem and one which is prevalent among service users. This is supported by Smale et al. (2000, p18) who claims “those who use, and are required to use, social work services continue overwhelmingly to be poor and disadvantaged.” Despite this, social workers have been criticised about their knowledge of the effects and origins of poverty and lack of awareness regarding societal structures in relation to poverty. Becker (1997) cited in Cunningham (2008, p47) claims “social workers have little understanding of the complex processes that generate and maintain poverty; they have limited insight into how their political and welfare ideologies and attitudes to poverty affect their daily practice with poor people; they have failed to place poverty on the agenda for social work theorising, education, policy and practice.” Krumer-Nevo et al. (2009, p225) writing for the Journal of Social Work Education agrees and argues that “despite the profound commitment of social work towards people living in poverty, the social work profession has failed to develop practice based on awareness of poverty.”

To measure poverty, it first it has to be defined. There is no universal agreement regarding how to define poverty, although Cunningham (2008) and Leon-Guerrero (2005) describe two main methods used, Absolute and Relative poverty. Absolute poverty constitutes a lack of basic necessities such as, food, shelter and clothing. It refers to a lack of physical needs and is more like to be found in third world countries. Relative poverty was developed by Peter Townsend. It focuses on the inequalities in society. Leon-Guerrero (2005, p224) states that it is based on the premise that “some people fail to achieve the average income and lifestyle enjoyed by the rest of society.” Relative poverty is a widely accepted definition in developed countries and is used by the government in the UK. The Poverty Site (2009) confirms that “the (UK) government’s target of halving child poverty by 2010 is defined in terms of relative poverty.” Moulder (2000, p2) confirms that “sociologists came to define social problems as problems that concern large numbers of people, have social-structural causes, and require social-structural solutions.” Leon-Guerrero (2005, p3) explains “first, a problem is a social condition that has negative consequences. If there were only positive consequences, there would be no problem.” Poverty has many negative consequences personally and structurally. Poverty is more than a lack of money. According to a report by the Department of Work and Pensions (2009, p2) “research about the impact that poverty can have on people’s lives shows that the experience of poverty is almost always overwhelmingly negative, and can have psychological, physical, relational and practical effects on people’s lives.” Moreover, “poverty is a highly stigmatised social position and the experience of poverty in an affluent society can be particularly isolating and socially damaging.” Beresford et al. (1999) concurs with the Department of Work and Pensions findings. Additionally, the media often report on links between poverty and health, educational attainment, teenage pregnancies, anti-social behaviour, mental health and social exclusion. All of which have a negative impact and consequence upon society.

Leon-Guerrero (2005, p3) informs that “a social problem has objective and subjective realities. A social condition does not have to be personally experienced by every individual in order to be considered a social problem. The objective reality of a social problem comes from acknowledging that a social condition does exist.” It must be recognised at an agency (individual) level as having negative consequences for those who experience it. Poverty is apparent at an agency level in society: local clothing banks, annual Children In Need appeal; deprived areas we may have seen or live near, Big Issue sellers, seeing the homeless or beggars on the street, and in the media (reality documentaries such as The Secret Millionaire). Leon-Guerrero (2005, p6) addresses the subjective reality. “The subjective reality of a social problem addresses how a problem becomes defined as a problem.” It is defined by powerful groups in society (politicians, religious leaders, pressure groups, the media or even grassroots). As noted earlier, the UK government has defined poverty as a social problem. Leon-Guerrero (2005, p6) states, “they become real only when they are subjectively defined or perceived as problematic. Recognising the subjective aspects of social problems allows us to understand how a social condition may be defined as a problem by one segment of society, but be completely ignored by another.” Cunningham (2008, p33) explains that “in the 1980s and 1990s Conservative ministers used absolute definitions to refute claims that Britain had a significant poverty problem and that their policies had led to increased levels of poverty. The problem was defined away.” This paper will now explore functionalism, Marxism, radical and liberal feminism.

Functionalism was developed by Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) and further developed by Talcott Parsons. Functionalism views society on a macro scale. Slattery (1991, p63) uses a biological metaphor to explain Functionalism. “It functions like any other natural organism as a system of independent parts – the economy, the family, the government and so on – held together by not a central nervous system but a central value system, a set of sociological guidelines called norms based on underlying moral consensus, or collective consciousness.” Matthewman (2007) asserts functionalists view society as a complex system, involving a vast array of political, economic and social roles, all of which play an essential part in ensuring society functions and continues to develop. Consensus is at the heart of this theory. It assumes individuals are socialised to fit in, taught the norms of society, primarily by the family unit, secondly by educational institutions, peers, the workplace, and wider society. Leon-Guerrero (2005) claims social problems are not considered in terms of how severe they are, but how the problem arises from society, and whether it serves a function. Leon-Guerrero (2005, p228) argues that poverty is seen as a “natural consequence of system stratification.” This refers to rapid changes that took place in society economically and technologically. It created a workforce that was unskilled for the new economy. Functionalists believe inequalities within the workforce are inevitable. Social status, wealth and power is earned, rewarded and deserved, through skill and hard work. Davis and Moore (1945) cited in Best (2005, p29) support this, stating “social inequality is thus an unconsciously evolved device by which by which societies ensure that the most important positions are conscientiously filled by the most qualified persons.”

A well-known writer from the political right perspective H. J. Gans (1971, p1-5) explores how poverty may exist to serve positive functions for society. Some of these include: the poor perform work others do not wish to do; they provide employment for the professionals that service them; activities such as drugs, pawn shops and prostitution continue to prosper; they serve as scapegoats (the honest and hard working can accuse them of being “dishonest, lazy and scroungers”); also poverty acts as a measuring tool in terms of status for the non-poor. However, Gans suggests that “many of the functions served by the poor could be replaced if poverty were eliminated, but almost always at a higher cost to others, particularly more affluent others.” He believes that “a functional analysis must conclude that poverty persists not only because it fulfils a number of positive functions but also because many of the functional alternatives to poverty would be quite dysfunctional for affluent members.” Gans believes poverty will “be eliminated only when it becomes dysfunctional for the affluent or powerful, or when the powerless can obtain enough power to change society.” Interestingly, Gans states his aim with this paper was, “to show functionalism is not an inherently conservative approach, but that it can be employed into liberal and even radical analyses.”

The social construction of poverty from a functionalist perspective is seen as natural and beneficial for the affluent and society, or at least parts of it. Leon-Guerrero (2005, p228) supports this assertion. “Functionalists observe that poverty is a product of our social structure.” Functionalists do not inherently agree with poverty, they acknowledge it has functions as well dysfunctions but recognise that it has a role to play in the structure of society. They strongly believe power and wealth is earned through skill and hard work, not everyone has the talent to succeed, therefore, inequality and poverty is inevitable. The poor are seen as flawed, marked out from the rest of society, deviant and non-conforming. The current recession in the UK which has forced many more into poverty would, from a functionalist perspective, be viewed as a natural temporary occurrence. The role of a functionalist social worker would be to support individuals to get back into their role ensuring the smooth running of society.

Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-93) was one of the key influences in sociology according to Slattery (1991). Marxism is a conflict theory, which like functionalism, views society on a macro scale. However, they argue that poverty is the consequence of a capitalist society; it is constructed due to an unequal distribution of power and wealth. The main thread of the Marxist argument is that conflict exists between the classes: the bourgeoisie (who own the capital) and the proletariat (who provide the labour). Giddens (2006, p16) explains capital is “any asset, including money, machines or even factories, which can be used or invested to make future assets.” Giddens (2006, p16) asserts the bourgeoisie “own their means of a livelihood”, whereas the proletariat are “wage-labour.” The proletariat must seek employment from the bourgeoisie, who form a ruling class over the mass proletariat population. Payne (2005, p228) claims “capitalism is an economic system in which a few people accumulate capital to invest in producing goods and others ‘sell’ labour to them for wages.” The profit earned by the bourgeoisie is seen as exploitation of the proletariat. Moreover, the bourgeoisie create a false consciousness controlling the media, policies, laws, religion and education, influencing and shaping the proletariats norms and values, idealising how society thinks. This false consciousness leads the proletariat to believe economic inequality is fair and just. This is supported by Best (2005) and Taylor et al. (2002). The most crucial point is the relationship between the two classes. Giddens (2006) explains that although each class is dependant on the other this dependency is not balanced. Giddens (2006, p16) explains “the relationship between classes is an exploitative one, since workers have little or no control over their labour and employers are able to generate profit by appropriating the product of workers’ labour.”

Hilary Searing (2007) writes from a radical social work perspective. In an article ‘Poverty in the Big Issue’ written for the Barefoot Social Worker website, Searing claims poverty is structurally constructed and the consequence of a modern capitalist society. “Poverty and inequality seem to be an intrinsic part of modern capitalism.” She criticises the government suggesting that poverty has been ignored in order to achieve economic prosperity. “This Labour government, by continuing the neoliberal, modernising agenda of the previous government, regards poverty and inequality as the inevitable price to be paid to maintain competitiveness in the global economy.” Like Marxists, Searing believes social class is a major factor. “The social class a child is born into is a major determinant of their life chances.” Searing believes social workers patch the cracks regarding poverty, rather than tackling the real structural cause. “The government assumes that social workers can deal with poverty without tackling the underlying causes.” Searing believes Labour demean social-structural causes, consequently placing the onus of poverty upon the individual. She states the government “chooses to minimise the part played by social and economic factors, outside the control of the individual, in causing poverty and implies that in most cases personal inadequacy is at the root of people’s failure to remain independent and self-supporting.”

In summary, Marxists believe poverty is constructed by social structures; society fails the poor and the abolition of capitalism in favour of communism is the solution. According to Giddens (2006) Marxists believe revolution among the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie is inevitable, and that it will bring about a new classless society. Giddens (2006, p17) explains Marxists do not consider inequality would be eliminated. Rather, that “society would no longer be split into a small class that monopolises economic and political power and the large mass of people who benefit little from the wealth their work creates.” Marxists would argue that the current recession was caused by greed and unethical risk taking amongst the bourgeoisie, and the proletariats will be left to bear the real costs. Cunningham (2008) argues that Marxists see social workers as agents of social control on behalf of the state, acting in the interests of the bourgeoisie. Their motive for helping people is to get them back into the work force. They believe that much of social work is around control, surveillance and assigning blame upon individuals. Payne (2005, p231) echoes Cunningham suggesting “social workers are seen agents of class control enhancing the oppression by capitalist societies of the working class. They simply enable the capitalist system to reproduce itself in the next generation by helping people to cope with the difficulties of the system.”

Poverty is of particular relevance to feminist theories since Taylor (2002, p179) claims “women are more likely to experience poverty than men.” In an article for the BBC News website (2008) entitled ‘Women’s Low Pay Behind Poverty’, women’s pay was seen to be a major cause. “The TUC said that mothers were being trapped in part-time, low-paid jobs. More than 75% of part-time workers were female. The gender pay gap for full-time workers was 17.2%.” In the same article, TUC general secretary Brendan Barber asserts “as 40% of households are now headed by single mothers, this has concerning implications for tackling child poverty.” Haralambos and Holborn (1995, p145) claim “household incomes are not distributed equally. Women tend to have smaller independent incomes than men and there is no guarantee that they will share fully the income of their husbands or partners.” Additionally, “women are less likely to have occupational pensions and income from investments; married women are less likely to work than married men; more women than men rely on benefits as their main source of income; lone parents are vulnerable to poverty, and a large majority are women. The majority of pensioners are also women.” Glendinning and Miller cited in Haralambos and Holborn (1995, p145) claim women are more likely to live in poverty than men because they are viewed as “secondary workers, their primary role is seen as domestic” and they are “less important than that of their husbands so they are not expected to earn a family wage.” Moreover, “women are disadvantaged in access to social security benefits. Only 60 per cent of women are entitled to maternity leave and many women care for sick and elderly relatives, yet they receive very small state allowances for doing so. This intermittent and often part-time employment of women leaves many illegible for unemployment benefit and redundancy pay.” Moreover, “within the household men command more of the family resources (of money, of food, of space and so on) and this is legitimised by their status as breadwinners.” Hill writing for The Observer (2009) suggests women suffer financially after divorce, while men become richer. She argues “his available income increases by around one third. Women, in contrast, suffer severe financial penalties. Regardless of whether she has children, the average woman’s income falls by more than a fifth and remains low for many years.”

There are varying perspectives of feminism, the main three being liberal, radical and Marxist. According to Trevithick (2005) while there are differing perspectives they generally agree on certain principles. The main aim is gender equality; however, they differ on the cause and solution to this problem. Haralambos and Holborn (1995, p592) state “most radical feminists broadly share the same aim as Marxists and liberal feminists – they seek equality between the sexes rather than dominance.”

Haralambos and Holborn (1995, p592) state “radical feminists see society as patriarchal – it is dominated and ruled by men.” According to Haralambos and Holborn (1995, p602) “Kate Millet was one of the first radical feminists to use the term.” Giddens (2006, p471) argues from this perspective “men are responsible for and benefit from the exploitation of women” and that “patriarchy is viewed as a universal phenomenon that has existed across time and cultures.” Leon-Guerrero (2005, p230) claims “feminist scholars argue the welfare state is an arena of political struggle. The drive to maintain male dominance and the patriarchal family is assumed to be the principal force of shaping the formation, implementation, and outcomes of the U.S. welfare policy.” In the UK, the preservation of marriage and the nuclear family is on the political agenda. Gentlemen (2009) writing for The Guardian claims “the Conservatives say marriage is key to addressing social breakdown.” They also propose rewarding married couples. Bingham (2009) in the Daily Telegraph alleges “the Tories are proposing tax breaks for married couples which would allow women who stay at home to pass on their allowance to their husband.” Abramovitz (1996) cited in Leon-Guerrero (2005, p230) claims “that welfare has historically served to distinguish between the deserving poor (widows with children) and the undeserving poor (single and divorced mothers).” For instance, Margaret Thatcher condemned single mothers in the 1980’s. According to the Workers Liberty website (2007) she “once infamously proposed cutting all benefits to single mothers, stating that they should live in Salvation Army hostels or give up their children for adoption if their own families wouldn’t support them.”

Haralambos and Holborn (1995, p592) allege “the family is often seen by radical feminists as the key institution producing women’s oppression in modern societies.” Giddens (2006, p471) supports this stating “radical feminists often concentrate on the family as one of the primary sources of women’s oppression in society. They argue that men exploit women by relying on the free domestic labour that women provide in the home. As a group, men also deny women access to positions of power and influence in society.”

Firestone (1970), a radical feminist cited in Cunningham (2008, p96) claims “women’s inferiority is linked to their biological sex.” Haralambos and Holborn (1995, p471) explore this further suggesting “men control women’s role in reproduction and child-rearing. Because women are biologically able to give birth to children, they become dependant materially on men for protection and livelihood.” Most importantly “this biological inequality is socially organised within the nuclear family.” Giddens (2006) argues that not all radical feminists agree with Firestone, but rather believe that it originates from culture and socialisation. Haralambos and Holborn (1995, 592) argue that radical feminists believe that “gender equality can only be attained by overthrowing the patriarchal order.” Giddens (2006, p592) asserts that many radical feminists reject the assistance of males in reaching their aim, because “men are seen as the enemies of women’s liberation.”

In contrast, Liberal feminists according to Cunningham (2008) agree that equality should be more equal between men and women. However, unlike radical feminists they do not believe that patriarchy is the cause of women’s oppression. Giddens (2006, p468) claims that liberal feminists “look for explanations of gender inequalities in social and cultural attitudes.” Cunningham (2008, p97) agrees with Giddens but probes deeper stating “the roots of women’s oppression lie with the irrational prejudice, stereotyping and outdated attitudes and practices that lead to sex discrimination occurring in all spheres of life.”

Like radical feminists they believe the family is oppressive to women. Women are expected to play the social role of wife and mother along with carrying sole responsibility for the household chores that go with it. Cunningham (2008, p97) believes it is “an ideology that is perpetuated by the media and popular culture.” A women’s role is laid out before her, she is not free to find their own fulfilment. Life opportunities are not equal to that of men’s. Dunne, Kurki and Smith (2009) assert that economic insecurity is believed to exist due to gender inequality. “Women are disproportionately located at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale in all societies. Women’s disproportionate poverty cannot be explained by market conditions alone; gendered role expectations about the economic worth of women’s work and the kinds of tasks that women are expected to do contribute to their economic insecurity.”

In terms of addressing equality Giddens (2006, p470) claims liberal feminists “tend to focus their energies on establishing and protecting equal opportunities for women through legislation and other democratic means.” Haralambos and Holborn (1995) explain how liberal feminists supported the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Act, hoping these would help to end discrimination. They believe gradual change can be brought about within the existing social structure. Cunningham (2008, p98) states they would also support further female representation and involvement in politics by “the introduction of women-only shortlists.” Liberal feminists are modest in how they aim to bring about change, through anti-discriminatory legislation rather than overthrowing the system like radical feminists. Finally, Cunningham (2008, p99) points out that liberal feminists believe nobody benefits from gender discrimination. “Women lose out on the ability to develop their talents, business loses out because it fails to harness the potential and ability of 50% of the population, and men lose out because they are denied the opportunity to develop close ties with their children.”

This paper has sought to explore how Mills theory of a sociological imagination may assist social workers when considering the problem of an individual, and how three grand sociological theories can offer useful insights into the socially constructed nature of poverty. To conclude, this paper shall consider the use of those theories upon social work practice.

Cree (2000, p7) asserts “sociology offers social work the opportunity to explore meanings beneath taken-for-granted assumptions about behaviour, action and social structure. It offers a knowledge and value base which is not rooted in individual pathology but instead seeks to understand individuals in the context of the broader structures that make up their lives (including social class, gender, age, race, and ethnicity) and the historical movement within which they are living.” Sociology provides competing theories that offer differing perspectives to explain the emergence, existence and persistence of poverty. Moreover, they can raise awareness of oppression and disadvantage that may be constructed in social structures. Cree (2000, p208) confirms that “inequality and oppression exist at both individual and structural levels.”

Dominelli (2002) argues that “practitioners who follow emancipatory approaches seek to achieve anti-oppressive practice by focusing on the specifics of a situation in a holistic manner and mediating between its personal and structural components. To obtain this impact, social workers and their clients develop clear goals to pursue and use networking and negotiation techniques to secure change. Change usually occurs at the micro-level where interpersonal relationships are the target of the intervention(s).” Such an approach could be, as suggested by Cunningham (2008, p48) “task-centred”. This approach “offers a very practical model which is potentially very empowering.” The service user decides which areas they should like to work on. “Practice is based on the premise that the service user will work in partnership with the social worker and learn new methods that will equip them in the future. In this sense, workers could adopt a very practical way to address some aspects of poverty.” However, Cunningham warns “perhaps this still doesn’t go far enough, as this method of practice is based upon an individual approach and doesn’t address the bigger picture. Possibly combining task-centred working with other more radical methods of working might address this.” Dominelli (2002, p86) agrees with Thompson, and suggests “if poverty is causing personal hardship, institutional (meso-level) and/or societal (macro-level) changes may be required alongside endeavours aimed at helping the individual to control its deleterious effect on his or her life.” Feminist and Radical methods of practice both focus on the bigger picture. According to Drakeford (2008, p310) “radical social work, essentially Marxist in persuasion, suggested that alliances could be formed between clients in social welfare which would allow for vested interests to be challenged and authority to be redistributed from the powerful to the powerless.” Trevithick (2005, p284) states that this approach “emphasises the importance of social, economic and political solutions to ‘social problems’, thereby shifting the onus of blame from the individual without denying responsibility.” This involves social workers challenging the social structures that oppress and discriminate. Trevithick (2005, p285) claims that “practitioners who work from a radical/progressive/activist perspective are passionately committed to the issue of social justice and to working alongside people from disadvantaged groups in order to initiate change.” Feminist social work, according to Dominelli and MacLeod (1989, p1) “is informed by a feminist analysis of social problems.” Dominelli and MacLeod (1989, p.23) assert the feminist approach “has focussed on identifying the specific ways in which women experience their existence; drawing people’s attention to the lack of resources, power and emotional fulfilment which hold women down; exposing the social relations and social forces responsible for creating their state of affairs; and placing the plight of women firmly on the agenda for social change.” Dominelli (2008, p113) suggests “feminist social work practice is also relevant to children and men.” This is echoed by Cree (2000). A limitation, according to Trevithick (2005, p282) is that “most women experience additional oppressions, such as discrimination in relation to class, race, age, disabilities, sexual orientation, culture and religious beliefs.” And that “these additional oppressions are not always given sufficient weight.”

Cree (2000, p209) informs that “sociology may not be able to provide social work practitioners with answers, but the questions themselves lead to the potential development of sensitive, anti-oppressive practice.” This is because “all theories, ideas and practices are based on a particular set of political and moral principles. We therefore have to make choices about what theories we believe are most useful, and what actions we think are most helpful (or perhaps least damaging) for those with whom we are working. Social work is fundamentally about values and about value-judgements. Sociological knowledge can provide us with a framework for anti-discriminatory, anti-oppressive practice, by giving us the analytical tools with which to begin to explore the relationship between individuals and society.” Mills (1959, p8) “personal troubles and public issues.” Cree (2000, p5) argues “sociology and social work construct the individual.” It is also for this reason that “social workers need a sociological imagination.” Additionally, “social work’s central purpose is to work on behalf of society to help those individuals and groups who are vulnerable and marginalised.” If a service users problem exists due to structural of inequalities in society, and a social worker fails to make such a connection, they risk blaming the individual/group, perpetuating the oppression and discrimination already felt by social structures. Consequently, social workers need to have an awareness of the discrimination and oppression some people or groups face in society and be guarded not to perpetuate assumptions, labels or blame. Thompson (2005, p137) claims oppressive practice can happen “through naA?vete or ignorance: failing to recognise significant issues of inequality and thus exacerbating them by not addressing them.” And “by reinforcing stereotypes: jumping to conclusions about a particular individual without actually assessing their circumstances.” Therefore, by developing and using our sociological imagination and by being aware and open to theoretical perspectives and approaches to practice, we can take necessary steps to guard against anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory practice.

There are different conceptual frameworks and theoretical models in social sciences to conceptualise and describe the relationship between different people and cultures. In this section, some of the various focal points regarding the process of integration of immigrants and minority groups into their host country or mainstream society will be discussed and used as a springboard for our analysis of the German Sinti and Roma minority integration in to the German society with particular reference to the city of Oldenburg.

2.1. Assimilation

Is a term that refers to attempts to incorporate one micro culture into another or efforts to make one group more homogeneous in relation to another. The term first surfaced during colonial times and re-emerged at the turn of the 20th century. The term is used both to refer to colonized peoples when dominant colonial states expand into new territories or alternately, when diasporas of immigrants settle into a dominant state society. Colonized peoples or minority immigrant groups acquire new customs, language, and ideologies through contact and education in the dominant society. Assimilation may involve either a quick or gradual change depending on circumstances. Full assimilation occurs when new members of a society become indistinguishable from older members (Christine I. Bennett, 1995).

The term `assimilation’ has been also used to describe both the model and the process of absorption of people from different countries and different cultures, brought together as the consequence of the migration process. In this context, assimilation is often interpreted as a process of progressive adaptation of leading towards inclusion in the host society whose final outcome should be the disappearance of cultural differences. This unidirectional process is considered the `natural’ way for migrants to adjust gradually to their new environment by absorbing the values of the dominant culture. The model of assimilation is a precise political strategy which intends to keep the national community as homogeneous as possible by endeavouring to ensure that the same basic values are shared by the whole population (Bolaffi et al. 2003:19). Assimilation refers to giving up of one’s own ethnic identity and adopting that of the mainstream society. The American ‘melting pot’ concept is an example of assimilation.

2.2. Meaning of Integration/Social integration

The notion of integration is broadly employed by sociologists and social anthropologists to indicate the process of immigrant adjustment in their destination country and the experiences that could be acquired and shared between the new settlers and the host societies at the various levels of social organization.

According to different scholars “Integration is a long term and two way process of change that relates both to the that relates both to the conditions for and the actual participation in aspects of life in the given geographical area” (Ager and Strang 2008:12). The term integration is considered as the longer-term process through which immigrants or particular social groups become full and equal participants in the various dimensions of society (Gray and Elliott 2001).

Integration is also sometimes referred as a multicultural concept that denotes the removal of barriers that segregate human beings. For some writers integration can only happen when tolerance in the form of mutual respect and acceptance occurs on the part of racially and ethnically different groups of human beings (Banks 1994). Integration, in a sociological context, also refers to stable, cooperative relations within a clearly defined social system. It can also be viewed as a process that of strengthening relationships within a social system and of introducing new actors and groups into the system and its institutions.

Integration is accepting, recognizing, valuing and celebrating as well as giving equal rights for the participation of minority groups. This means social integration includes analysis of differentiation of ethnic groups’ action and relations, and of quantitative and qualitative aspects of relational structures (civic and political participation, participation in social networks, involvement in economic, political, cultural life of society, representation at different levels of governance, participation in units and organisations of fellow citizen (http://www.escwa.un.org)

Dimensions of integration

According to different social researchers there are four basic dimensions of social integration in which minority groups or immigrants use to integrate to the mainstream society social system.

Structural integration

Structural integration means the acquisition of rights and the access to position and status in the core institutions of the host society: the economy and labour market, education and qualification systems, the housing system, welfare state institutions (including the health system), and full political citizenship. These are ‘core’ institutions as participation in them determines a person’s socioeconomic status and the opportunities and resources available to them, in a modern market society.

Cultural integration

Acquire the core competencies of that culture and society. In this respect, integration refers to an individual’s cognitive, behavioural and attitudinal change: this is termed cultural integration. While cultural integration primarily concerns the immigrants and their children and grandchildren, it is also an interactive, mutual process – one that changes the host society, which must learn new ways of relating to immigrants or minority groups and adapting to their needs.

Interactive integration

Interactive integration means the acceptance and inclusion of immigrants/minority groups in the primary relationships and social Networks of the host society. Indicators of interactive integration include social networks, friendship, partnerships, marriages and membership in voluntary organizations. Certain core elements of cultural integration, particularly communicative competencies, are preconditions for interactive integration.

Identificational integration

It is not possible to participate in a host society’s core institutions without having first acquired the cultural competencies by which these institutions function. It is, however, possible to participate without identifying with the goals of these institutions and without having developed a feeling of belonging to the host society. This feeling of belonging may develop later in the integration process develop as a result of participation and acceptance.

Inclusion in a new society on the subjective level – identificational integration – is indicated by feelings of belonging to, and identification with, groups, particularly in ethnic, regional, local and/or national identification (Bosswick and Heckmann 2006).

Assimilation versus Integration

The conceptual dissection between assimilation and integration is controversial among sociologists in the analysis of minority groups and immigrant practices and interactions with their new societal setting. Some of them prefer integration, while others assimilation and some use the terms interchangeably to express the different aspects of the process.

Park and E.W. Burgess (1969) provided an early definition of assimilation, which showed assimilation as the one-way process:

a process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups

acquire the memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other persons and

groups and, by sharing their experience and history, are incorporated

with them in a common cultural life (Alba and Nee, 1997:827-28).

The classical assimilation framework implies that the various dimensions of assimilation -socioeconomic, social, cultural, and spatial assimilation – are interconnected (South et al.,2005). The Socioeconomic assimilation as showed by high levels of education, income, and wealth is hypothesized to enhance immigrants’ mobility neighbourhoods. Social (or,Gordon’s terminology, structural) assimilation is also likely to increase immigrants’ prospects for spatial assimilation with the majority. Cultural assimilation (or, acculturation) – indicates ethnic minorities’ adoption of the cultural practices and norms of the majority and the degree to which minority group members identify with the host society. Spatial assimilation is expected to influence immigrants’ geographic mobility into neighbourhood with the mainstream population (South et al., 2005). Therefore, assimilation means replacing one’s previous identity with that of the host society. Whereas integration is refers to the capacity to access aspects of the dominant culture, while simultaneously retaining an ethnic identity.

Kritz and his colleagues have defined these concepts by corresponding to the two fundamental dimensions of societal systems: ‘structural’ and ‘cultural’. Integration refers to “participation in the structure of a societal system and measured as the degree to which a system unit occupies positions on structurally relevant status lines”. Whereas, assimilation is defined as “participation in the culture of a societal system and measured as a degree to which a system unit occupies positions on culturally relevant status lines” (Kritz 1981:80). Assimilation has also to be distinguished from acculturation, which is defined as cultural change resulting from direct contact between two cultural groups. It is unlikely to the accultured individual to completely ignore his/her ethnic identity, but adopts some elements of the immigration system (Ibid, 81).

In international migration, it is more likely for the immigrants eventually to come to terms with the question of whether or not they and their families maintain the language and culture of their home country or adjust to the culture and language of the host country. “With succeeding generations, assimilation to the new country becomes dominant, but the conflicts are most difficult for the first generation migrants” (Glazier and De Rosa, 1986:314). The first generation immigrants usually compromise and hesitate, which makes it difficult to relate to the new environment. If immigrants/minority groups have never expected of such prior to their migration, the outcomes to the crisis become rather strong, painful, and intense (Ibid, 305).

Immigrants and social groups develop about four strategies in terms of two major issues: cultural maintenance versus cultural contact. The question is whether to remain primarily among their original culture and community or to get involved in the host society, and several possible strategies exist (Kritz, 1981 Mesch, 2002).

2.3. Multiculturalism

In the cultural and political arena multiculturalism can be described as the coexistence of a range of different cultural experiences within a group or society. It is often used as being synonymous with `cultural pluralism’, resulting in a certain amount of theoretical and conceptual confusion. More recently, the trend in literature has been to use similar terms, such as interculturalism and `trans-culturalism’, with far more precise meanings (Bolaffi et al. 2003).

According to the International Organisation for Migration, a multi-cultural society aims to allow diversity, equal rights and equal opportunities to migrants and minority groups, at the same time allowing them to keep a cultural affiliation to their country of origin. [1] Multiculturalism rejects the simple integration process proposed by assimilation theory. Scholars from this perspective view multicultural societies as composed of a heterogeneous collection of ethnic and racial minority groups, as well as of a dominant majority group. This view has been forcefully illustrated in the context of the American society. Most scholars argue that immigrants actively shape their own identities rather than posing as passive subjects in front of the forces of assimilation and also emphasize that some aspects of the cultural characteristics of immigrants may be preserved in a state of un-easy co-existence with the attitudes of the host country. The multicultural perspective offers then an alternative way of considering the host society, presenting members of ethnic minority groups as active integral segments of the whole society rather than just foreigners or outsiders.

With large-scale immigration into Europe, ‘multiculturalism’ has become a major topic of political and intellectual discourse. The terms ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘multicultural society’ have been advocated as concepts that could help clarify the confusing picture of European immigration and integration, both in a descriptive-analytical and in a politico normative sense (Bosswick and Heckmann 2006).

Main variables to evaluate the integration process

In order to evaluate the Integration of German Sinti and Roma minority group in Germany we took the different variables presented by EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020.

In sociology and other social sciences Social integration requires proficiency in an accepted common language of the society, acceptance of the laws of the society and adoption of a common set of values of the society. It does not require assimilation and it does not require persons to give up all of their culture, but it may require forgoing some aspects of their culture which are inconsistent with the laws and values of the society. In tolerant and open societies, members of minority groups can often use social integration to gain full access to the opportunities, rights and services available to the members of the mainstream of society.

Social integration is inextricably linked to broad-based participation. This entails the participation of all social groups in the process of policy development, as well as in the benefits of economic growth and social progress.

Social integration strives to facilitate the emergence of a cohesive and equitable “society for all” through the inclusion of all people in social, economic and political decision-making and development. As such, social integration is considered both a goal and a process. It is a multidimensional concept that embraces socio-economic and political objectives and strategies.

There are different variables to evaluate the integration of minority groups such as ethnic minorities’ refugees and underprivileged sections of a society into the mainstream of societies. According to the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 there are four main variables to evaluate the integration process of minority groups and immigrants in the host community. The framework uses four main policy indicators to measure integration. In Its latest report, in (2010), measured how well policies relating to integration in labour market access, family reunion, long-term residence, political participation, access to nationality and anti-discrimination helped promote integration. Overall, each policy area was found to be only halfway to best practice. The EU integration policy commonly includes work, education, housing, health service, social inclusion and active citizens to measure the successful integration of minority groups in the mainstream society.

Generally, In order to create a fertile ground for social inclusion Policies and strategies that promote the social, economic and cultural inclusion of migrants/minority groups within existing legal frameworks in the host countries needed. Minority groups need to have a chance to fully engage with their host society from a socioeconomic, political, and cultural perspective.

*Access to education, employment, housing, health Care, are the major variables in EU framework to evaluate the integration process.

Abstract: Children are the assets of a state. Unfortunately in many developing countries children involved in various economic activities due to overall for mere survival. The nature and extent of child labor differ from region to region; depending on the socioeconomic condition of a particular society in which the children live. The number of street children has been rising day by day in the capital of Bangladesh. Therefore, the phenomenon of street children developed a preference for development workers and policy makers in the most of developing countries. Many studies showed that thousands of street children all over in Bangladesh, primarily in the urban areas, work and live in the streets. These street children not only deprived of the most basic rights that citizens are guaranteed by the country but also have stopped expecting it. However, in recent years, in spite of the growing social problems in these communities and although some progress were made, there is still a lack of adequate information on the extent of the problem, and knowledge of its root causes.

In this paper, I will try to explore the processes of street migration with the interaction of both ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors not only based on their economic necessities but also their livelihood strategies in street life. This paper will also addresses that high population density, poor quality of education, the conflicting relationships of the family such as polygamy and remarriage, patriarchy (male-headed household), natural calamities, lack of economic opportunities and violation of child rights are the determinant forces that ‘pushing’ children to carry on street life from their rural place to street life in Bangladesh. Most of the children of developing nations have deprived of their basic needs. Their deteriorating socioeconomic circumstances being push and pull in the nature of works that are actually dangerous for their physical and intellectual development. Subsequently, it also examines the difference between the push and pull factors of migration that impinge new challenges for street children.

Background: Street children are tragically found in almost every country in the world. Amongst the world’s one billion children suffering from deprivation of basic needs (Gordon, Nandy et al., 2003), these children are highly likely to experience ‘absolute poverty’ (Bartlett, Hart et al., 1999). Therefore, child labor is considering major social problems for developing countries throughout the worldwide. Although this problem is also found in developed world but the nature of child labor is different in developing countries from that of developed countries. Apart from that, this problem has become very acute in many developing countries like Bangladesh. In Bangladesh, child labor problem has been increasing at an alarming rate. The Technical Committee on National Child Labor Survey, 2002-2003, in Bangladesh, ranked the following five forms of child labor as street children, child workers in battery re-charging, automobile sector, transport sector, and welding sector. In 2002/03, the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) conducted the second National Child Labor Survey (NCLS) [1] by the Government of Bangladesh following the ratification of the International Labor Organization (ILO) Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention (No. 182) in the context of the commitments made by 1999. According to the survey, there are 4.9 million working children [2] – 14.2 per cent of the total 35.06 million children in the age group of 5-14 years.

According to Government/UNDP (2001) in Bangladesh the estimated number of street children is 445,226 (of which 75% are in Dhaka city); 53% boys, 47% girls (Sept 2001 survey). Street children have called as ‘Tokai’ (rag pickers) by the public. Average daily income of street children is approx. USD $0.55 [3] . But the recent official study by Appropriate Resources for Improving Street Children Environment (Arise, 2002) some 500,000 children are living on the streets in the country’s main cities in Bangladesh and they has warned that the number of street children in the country is set to rise as the urban population grows by 9% a year. However, according to the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS) report in December 2004 a total number of street children in Bangladesh is 6, 74,178.

Many street children are orphans, or abandoned, or come from desperately poor families. They are part of a vast population of children worldwide who live in abject poverty and are particularly vulnerable to abuse. In Bangladesh, as in many developing countries, there is a widespread belief amongst the public, policymakers and social workers that children ‘abandon’ their families and migrate to the street because of economic poverty. However, some researcher argued that economic necessity is not only the cause of move to children in street. Aptekar (1988) found that children in street situations were emotionally intact in their intellectual functioning, and achieved high levels of self-management. It has argued that the process of street migration involves the interaction of both ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors. This is because the emotional bond between children and parents or guardians and other household members can only be broken if the adult-child relation collapses (Veale, 1992). The push factor involves a force that acts to drive people away from a place and encourages a person to leave his or her current residence or intrinsic desires of the individual travelers such as the desire for escape, rest and relaxation, health and fitness, adventure, prestige, and social interaction. A pull factor is a feature or event that attracts a person to move to another area. In other words, children tend to maintain and protect the ‘natural’ status of being under the supervision of adults (usually parents) unless push factors weaken or damage the relationship (Masud Ali, Mustaque Ali et al., 1997), leading to the breaking of household ties. In this point of view, Conticini and Hulme (2006) explained that the parallel feeling of empowerment and freedom experienced when running away makes street life attractive. Issues such as the social bonding that children experience on the street, the formation of urban sub-cultures, and the evolution of their self-perception are of significance in understanding the attachment that children develop to the street and the difficulties they face in reintegrating into their former households. These complex interactions of push and pull factors can keep or even entrap children on the street.

There has been an alarming rise in the number of street children in the major cities of Bangladesh. The increase has linked to recent figures released by the government, which show that the urban population of Bangladesh continues to grow, by around nine percent a year (ARISE: 2001). Thus, the phenomenon of street children has been a major concern for most areas of Dhaka city.

Methodology: This research was an exploratory in nature, based on primary and secondary data. The study involved both street boys and girls respondents of different age groups. Considering the nature and type of my research problem, a flexible methodology with combining several research techniques such as semi-structured interview schedule and field observation method have used to conduct this study. The street children have selected purposively but using typical case purposive sampling method from different areas of capital city of Dhaka in Bangladesh.

Findings and analysis: The analysis of the main findings steps tries to unpack some of the processes involved immersing oneself and in reflecting on the data. Therefore, this approach is consistent with the qualitative paradigm by thematic analysis. Thematic analysis involves the identifying some major issues such as family background of the street children, their processes of migration, their coping strategy on street life.

The absolute and relative size of the population of children in Bangladesh is quite big as a share of the national population. The estimated total population in Bangladesh is 130 million (2001). Among them about 42 million (32.2% of total population) are 5-17 years old. According to the labor force survey conducted by BBS, 5.8 million children aged 10-14 years were working in Bangladesh in 1990 -91 and this constituted 11.3 percent of the labor force. All the studies conducted so far show that working children live in severe poverty and the number shows an increasing trend. Surveillance data gathered by UNICEF in 1995 show that one million labors are employed in garments industries of whom about 90 percent were female and 1 percent was children below age 14 years.

It was identified by the research participants that due to economic hardship street children cannot afford a good accommodation. Therefore most of respondents lived with their family in slum area of Dhaka city or workplaces. All the respondents who said that they were living in slum they mentioned that their family should need to pay their monthly rent which was in between 400 BD TK to 1000 BD TK (5.97US$ to 14.92US$ per month). One of the girl respondents explained that “In rainy reason we can’t sleep at night because our floor is always dived into water”. It shows that the household conditions of the street were miserable. The houses, that is, rooms are too small and congested. Most of the households have no separate kitchen, veranda or yard. Cooking arrangements are mostly located outside of the rooms where they used shared kitchen. Some of the floors of the rooms are pucka (made by brick and cement) and rest kutcha (made by mud). Some parts of walls are of bricks, other parts of bamboo fences. The ceilings of the tin-roofs are covered with bamboo-sheets to protect from the heat of the sun and cold in winter. They shared their toilet with other slum people. But when they were in street they usually used the corner of road and sometimes they used also public toilet. As is result their living condition on such a slum environment was unhealthy and sanitary conditions were very poor and unhygienic.

According to a recent official study some 500,000 children are living on the streets in the country’s main cities (ARISE, 2001). It frames this analysis within broader discourses concerning the nature of poverty. In particular, it distinguishes between economic (income/consumption) and other dimensions of poverty and uses both objective and subjective assessments of poverty. The major objective of this study was to investigate the everyday life experiences of the street children (boys and girls) in Bangladesh which was related to their migration process or causes of migration on street life. In this study the findings appeared that street children were being pushed and pulled by various factors such as household poverty, family conflict, demands of the city life and violation of child rights etc.

Household poverty is considered one of the major reasons for moving in street life. In this situation one of the respondents said that “My father had a heart attacked two years ago. So he cannot work now. Doctor said he needs an operation for his treatment. After that I and my elder sister started to work and then my mother also joined in a local family as a maid servant. Now, our income is the only source of our family subsistence”. The above statement clearly showed that the role household poverty was one of the major factors that children pushed on street life overwhelming majority of the children mentioned poverty. Moreover, poor families put pressure on their children to work. If children contribute to the family subsistence, the economic well being of the family might be improved.

There was another finding that revealed of violation of the girls child rights that was highlighted through the research. In this perspective one of the street girls mentioned that “my parents and all of my brothers worked and earned sufficient money for survive our life and I think we don’t need my income for surviving our life. However when I asked any question to my mother regarding this issue, she replied that we need to save our money for my marriage as a security purpose” (6 years girl). The above statements showed that lack of awareness of child rights parents violated to their children ignorantly.

As a researcher I found that some of the families send their girls children on street not because of their subsistence needs but because they want to improve their relative well being of the family. This tendency shows the lack of awareness of child rights [4] .

In this situation one of the street boy described that “My father left my mother and married twice. Then my mother married another man in our village. My stepfather and his family did not accept me and always beat me for nothing. Now I realized that may be they considered me as an abandoned child from my father” (10 years/ boy). It was also revealed from the above statements that sometimes children pushed to leave their home because of conflicting family relationship and choose the street life. Under such circumstances children loose their identity as children and decide to turn as earner. In support of the above argument children mentioned negative treatment of either of the step-parents, separation between parents, losses of parents etc. as reasons for their work.

To describe the above situation a street boy cited that “I lost my father when I was 7 years old. My mother didn’t mange our food because we hadn’t any economic and family support after the death of my father. My father’s family always tortured and rebuked my mother and also blamed her for the death of my father. Then one night my mother escaped from my father’s house with me and came here. Then first we started begging and after one year we saved some money and since then I am vending cigarette”. From the above statements it was clearly reflects that family break-up and conflicts influenced child psychology to leave their family and house. In addition it is also a process of abusing child rights because every legal guardian is responsible for their child protection and care [5] .

It was also supported from the previous study where the researcher mentioned that the process of street migration involves the interaction of both ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors, but the a ‘push’ factors was associated with the emotional bond between children and parents or guardians and other household members can only be broken if the adult-child relation collapses (Veale, 1992). They are children who come from families where they feel emotionally, physically or sexually vulnerable and often end up living in streets; generally referred to as street children (Zakaria, 2004). In many families, one of the parents died and the rupture in the family structure places the children in great jeopardy. Children’s stories in fact, often report of tension and difficulties with step-parents as being the main cause of their departure from home (Pelto, 1997)

High unemployment problem in rural areas pushed their family to migrate on city life. Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh is expected to become the sixth largest mega-city of the world by 2010, with a present population of already 12.3 million (UNCHS, 2001). City life is also an important factor that influenced children to the street life however this migration were initiated by their family. The findings appeared that some children have relatives such as uncle, aunt, grand-father etc, neighbors and friends who helped them in the process of migration and settlement in this capital city. It was also supported from one of the previous study where the author mentioned that the rapid increase in the number of landless families in rural areas together with other economic and social changes, have converged to push poverty-stricken families to urban areas to seek new ways of livelihood (Pelto, 1997).

In this study I found that rural-urban migration was one of the important reasons for children to move on the street life. Some respondents said that they were migrated because they were affected by flood and other natural disaster. Rural-urban migration of adults as well as children has been the major cause of this fast growth (Deshingkar and Grimm, 2005; Afsar, 2000; Begum, 1999; Ahmed and Jasimuddin, 1996). It was also found from previous study where the researcher mentioned that a striking feature of the Bangladeshi workforce is that it includes 6.3 million children under the age of 14 (Narayan et al., 2002), most of whom have been migrating from rural villages to the capital city, either to escape from a violent and oppressive situation at home or to find employment opportunities more available in the city.

Migration is therefore viewed from a structural perspective as a product of income differentials and perceived earning opportunities between urban and rural areas (Lee, 1966; Lewis, 1982). According to one of the few specific studies existing on migration of children to Dhaka city (Ahmed and Jasimuddin, 1996), the migration of children to the capital is explained as the result of urban pull factors and rural push factors. This ‘push-pull’ theory, in our specific context, assumes that certain factors such as greater job opportunities, land availability and social and cultural freedom in the area of destination operate as factors ‘pulling’ individual and children to urban areas. On the other hand, high population density, poor quality of education, the rupture of family relationships, natural calamities, lack of economic opportunities and hence poverty, operate as determinant forces ‘pushing’ child migrants out of their rural original areas. This approach implies that individual rational actors decide to migrate because a cost-benefit calculation leads them to expect a positive net return (Massey et al., 1993).

A common strategy for poor families in rural areas for example, is to take children out of school during periods of economic strain and send them to the city to work as servants or apprentices (Deshingkar and Grimm, 2005). Sometimes, they also “feel proud of the money and they earn which gives them importance in the family” (Blanchet, 1996: 85). So we can say that the process of street migration involves the interaction of both ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors from the society.

However there were different findings explained different reasons for moving children to street life such as- Aptekar (1988) found that children in street situations were emotionally intact in their intellectual functioning, and achieved high levels of self-management. Felsman (1989) found that 97 per cent of his sample of Colombian children in street situations had actively abandoned their households due to a non-conducive family environment. Further, street life helped in the development of children’s resilience and street living children had better mental health than their counterparts in families.

Veale (1992) compared children in street situations in Sudan and Ireland, considering their different backgrounds, social demographic characteristics and the processes of their street life involvement. In both cases, she found that street life was a rational choice when considering alternative options and risks.

Lugalla and Mbwambo (1999) found that Tanzanian street living children are highly organized in groups of peers who share resources, strategies, assets and care. According to Baker (2000), the street network of friendships can reduce the real and perceived feeling of vulnerability and social exclusion, and raise the well-being of children in street situations. Chawla (2002) reports that the interaction of children in street situations, within neighborhoods and street communities, is the keystone for understanding the growth of impressive ethical behaviors and that street life fosters the development of ‘cultural richness’.

These empirical studies revealed that the importance of non-economic factors in children’s decisions to migrate and stay on the streets and indicate that street life not only involves vulnerability processes but also processes of empowerment through which children exercise their personal agency and develop innovative coping behaviors. They were presented as ‘robbed by humanity’ (Tierney 1997), and their lives were thought to be characterized by a ‘plundered childhood’ (Siddiqui 1990) and a ‘lost innocence’ (Blanchet 1996).

According to Giani (2006) children in Bangladesh have always received scant attention in the migration process and this is probably due to the same reasons that kept women mostly invisible for a long time when dealing with migration patterns. In Bangladesh, where a patriarchal, patrilineal and patrilocal social system prevails, female migrants in fact, have often been considered as ‘passive movers’ migrating in response to marriage or following the male head of the household (Kabeer, 2000; Afsar, 2003a). Similarly, children have not been considered as an independent constituency who gradually develop a sense of agency and autonomy, since parents and guardians are invested with extensive power and authority over their children (Blanchet, 1996). The majority of the literature on child labour and child migration portrays children as having little or no agency (cited in King, 2002), thus assuming they always migrate with parents or when they migrate alone, parents are the ones who decide whether to send their children to urban areas to work or not.

In that regards Conticini and Hulme (2006) described that the parallel feeling of empowerment and freedom experienced when running away makes street life attractive. Issues such as the social bonding that children experience on the street, the formation of urban sub-cultures, and the evolution of their self-perception are of significance in understanding the attachment that children develop to the street and the difficulties they face in reintegrating into their former households. These complex interactions of push and pull factors can keep or even entrap children on the street. But to a large extent they are subordinate to the initial breakdown of household ties which, makes these ‘pull’ factors of prime importance in understanding why migration occurs. Overall, the stress of economic poverty serves as a push factor, making migration more likely in Bangladesh, but they argued that it plays a secondary role in comparison to the role that social relationships play in the family and on the street.

The concept of child labor is associated with gross violation of children rights, however, contemplating accounts of children on employment, engagements, salary and other benefits it is easy to conclude that children are always faced a vicious cycle of exploitation. It starts immediately after being employed on street and continue as long as they are involved.

Vicious cycle of exploitation as an impact of the street life
Health problems
Involve in illegal activities
Low skills
Low income
Excessive work load
Low / No
Education
Acceptance of Exploitation as a coping strategy

The above vicious cycle represent that when children accept the exportation it becomes connected their daily life experiences. The street children faced different types of violence regardless of their age, income, gender and work place. Humiliation and abuse are everyday experiences of street children. In this study all the respondent reported that they are subject to humiliation, abuse and violent behavior everyday.

The street children mentioned that they usually faced multiple types of violence that includes threat, intimidation, being blamed, thrown something, pushed, grabbed, slapped, kicked, hit with object, choked, pulled hair. All the respondents who have been exploited of such cruelty experienced multiple and repeated episode of violence. As a researcher I found that most common and frequent from of abuse was calling bad words, neglect and drive away etc. Calling bad words were very common. These words are so insulting and degrading for every human being. According to street children “exploitation, violence is nothing for our life basically it is a normal part of our life”.

It was revealed that street children were exasperated by local people and they usually humiliated on baseless excuses. In that regard one of street boy cited that “many people abused us. I didn’t understand why? I think living on the street is our only offence”. That means exploitation is a common occurrence for every street children but the nature is vary from street boys to street girls however the extent and reaction was same.

It is quite often found that street children were tempted to involve in laborious work in return of money. At the end of the day, they were refused to be paid off, threatened by their vendors. Then they were bound to settle down with a lower wage than promised earlier of the day. Vendors and service providers frequently exploited to the street children verbally and physically. Sometimes they were slapped, grabbed or drive away beating. Not only children were exploited by their employers, they were also by other people such as service-seekers, police, security guards, customers, fellow worker, strangers and also family members. Sales assistants were always under pressure not to make any mistake. Hotel and restaurant workers always have to on their toes to perfectly serve their customer. However making mistakes in any job invite two types of punishment one initiated by the service seekers and the other by the employers. One of the respondents who worked as helper in a local food shop he explained that “sometimes customers (especially local political leaders) slapped me because I am not able to serve their order on time”. Another street boy (11 years) said that “some customers complained that my tea is tasteless and make excuses not to pay. If I argue with them, they usually tortured me. In addition that everyday I need to pay 50 Tk. (0.75 US $) as a bribe otherwise they cannot permit me sale by tea on the road”.

In this study I found that the most awful thing was children were exploited frequently without any apparent reason. However, all street children mentioned that the extent of violence was quite often. But the nature of street girl’s exploitation was not similar to the street boys. The findings revealed that the street girls were victims of repeated attempt for sexual molestation by security guards and local people. Street girls were usually exploited verbally like calling bad names (using local slang). Therefore, when a child enters on the street first, he or she involved with begging and after that they saved some money and start their work on street. In many circumstances, children are adept at analyzing their situation and making decisions for their own benefit. These include daily decisions on coping or survival techniques, as well as general assessments of their own best interests. Children may be living in abusive or otherwise unsuitable residential homes/shelters but find some aspects beneficial and on that basis may choose not to move onto, or back to, the street. Some children prefer their independence, including the freedom to make their own decisions and have control over their lives. Others may choose to escape situations of family poverty when they can get more food on the street, or more freedom to play games, or freedom to go to the cinema and video parlors when they have earned or begged enough money

Conclusion: All over the world, children often turn to the streets in an attempt to resolve problems that arise from the social structures and situations in which they find themselves. The role played by violence within the household and the strength of the social bonds built by children on the street are too often ignored by commentators on this ‘problem’ in Bangladesh. This analysis indicates that policies and actions to reduce street migration by children in the country will need to drop the assumption that material poverty is the main cause and tackle the more contentious issues of emotional, physical and sexual violence.

The perception of street children held by the general public, policy makers and many social scientists in Bangladesh is filtered through, and conditioned by, a ‘dominant narrative’ (Roe, 1999) which posits that children are on the street because their parents or guardians cannot meet the household’s basic material needs. These street children not only have been deprived of the most basic of rights that citizens are guaranteed but also have stopped expecting it, at the heart of the state, the capital. And their numbers are growing every day. The number of children on Dhaka’s streets who don’t have enough money to afford a good meal stood at no less than 200,000 in 2005 and is growing, according to a survey conducted by Plan Bangladesh, an international non-governmental organization.

From the above empirical discussion of the life experiences of street children in Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh, it can be argued that, the main reason for moving on street life is poverty which was influenced by both push and pull factors. The push and pull factors for moving on street mentioned from the respondents which was broadly identified to the poverty of Bangladesh. It was also found that high population density, poor quality of education, the conflicting relationships of family like polygamy and remarriage, patriarchy (male-headed household) natural calamities, lack of economic opportunities, violation of child rights and hence poverty, operate as determinant forces ‘pushing’ children to move on street life from their rural original areas in Bangladesh. This approach implies that individual rational actors decide to migrate because a cost-benefit calculation leads them to expect a positive net return (Massey et al., 1993).

On the other hand it was also described by Cain (1977) that in Bangladesh children clearly has an economic value to their families since they contribute substantially to household welfare from a very early age which was pulled children to street life also. In this study it was found that greater job opportunities, demands of the city life operate as factors ‘pulling’ individual and children to urban areas hopes for better life. The findings also revealed that most of the children especially street girls dependent on their parents on the process of moving on street life and therefore they were involving with street based works in Dhaka city of Bangladesh.

In that context, Conticini and Hulme (2006) mentioned that children move out of households to live on the street in Bangladesh not mainly because of economic poverty (a lack of access to food, income and basic needs) but because of domestic violence and the breakdown of trust in the adult members of their household (and community). The policy implications of this finding are profound. Rather than trying to help children off the street, and assuming that economic growth and reduced income poverty will stem the flow of new children to the street, it suggests that policies to reduce street migration should focus on reducing the abuse of, and violence against children. Social policy, rather than economic policy, must take the lead. For Bangladesh society, this is an altogether less comfortable understanding of why children move to the street, and what needs to be done, than that provided by the dominant narrative.

All human beings have to go across different developmental stages of life from womb to tomb. These human development stages are inevitable, very common in all human beings and are not very surprising things in human life. What it is interesting in these developmental stages is that each stage has uniqueness and there are many things that can be studied while human beings of different times undergo differently in different settings. The stages can be varied based on the social structure, culture and norms: there are environmental factors contributing the human development and developmental stages (Papalia et al., 2009).

The transitions in the stages are the most interesting stage because it can lead either to positive or negative consequences. According to Golembiewski (1978), he found out that those who are quite aware of this transition can well adapt with the change, having good adjustment while those who are not aware have negative consequences by the transition. Developmental scientists had explained by applying theories that adulthood transition is the major transitional period where physical and psychological changes can be seen obviously.

“Midlife crisis” is the most common that takes attention when we talk about middle adulthood. Papalia et al. states that changes in personality and lifestyle come together to attribute to the crisis, however, whether or not these changes lead to crisis depends on individuals. Hunter and Sundel (1989) speak out that there are some stereotypes about midlife: social problems occur in this period brought about by those midlife persons, especially men. The following are the stereotypes that they presented in their work:

Men at middle age are obsolete at work. They have neither sufficient education nor updated technical training to compete with younger, more educated workers.

Men at middle age leave (or at least want to leave) their wives for young women.

Hunter and Sundel defend that these stereotypes are just myths about transitional crisis in men. They also came up with theories to proof that. These can not be said as myths alone in some settings because the real cases are showing that these are true. There are some other contributing factors that affect these myths.

In this paper, I will try to discuss the contributing factors effecting the midlife transition based on human development. In chapter 2, I will try to explore about the subject for better understanding of the definition of midlife and midlife crisis in middle adulthood.

In chapter 3, I will try to discuss the two myths which are commonly conceptualized by the people. I would also discuss contributing factors to these myths. Then, in chapter 4, I will conclude by bringing up the subject to social work practice and discuss what and how as social workers can intervene in this transition so that the transition would be smooth.

Chapter 2
Understanding of middle adulthood and midlife crisis
Middle adulthood

There is no universally agreed period of middle age or middle adulthood. Papalia et al. defines middle adulthood in the book Human Development as the years between 40 and 65 but it is said to be not absolutely exact considering the facts that different people’s perception about middle adulthood varies depending on social, cultural and geographical factors. It is also explained that middle age can be a time for decline and loss but also for mastery and growth for the rest of the life. Middle adulthood/age is not decided by the chronological age but rather on the perception of oneself.

Midlife crisis

The mid life crisis was regarded as “second adolescence” and a crisis of identity (Papalia et al., 2009). It does not specifically talk about the stress and problems faced in specific age but the main essence of the midlife is that people in middle adulthood face huge transition period where they can encounter stress and problems (Hunter and Sundel, 1989). It is very interesting that Hunter and Sundal provided two different views in discussing midlife crisis; Crisis View and Transition or Non-Crisis View. They explained that the Crisis View is adopted by the crisis model under which “each individual experiences a particular type of crisis at each stage of development in a particular chronological age range” (p. 14). In Transition view, it is explained that “most major life events are expected according to a timetable largely linked to age such as when one is to marry, raise children and retire” (p. 19). It implies that the crisis is not necessarily stressed on midlife but can occur in different stages of development.

In many of the literature, it is found that the crisis is mainly stressed in men rather than in women although the transition has impacts on both genders. It could be because of the reasons that men are more focused towards self achievement (Papalia et al). It is also found that men are the major participants of research studies of midlife crisis. When this account is taken into consideration, it is hypnotize that gender roles and the shift of gender identity in this stage might also make men more expressive and more obvious to point out. Hunter and Sundel also discussed that why most studies focus on men could be because of the difference between traditional socialization between the two genders where women are more expressive of their emotions while men are potentially more stressful since they are more self-contained.

Chapter 3
Discussion on the two myths

1) Men at middle age are obsolete at work. They have neither sufficient education nor updated technical training to compete with younger, more educated workers.

Hunter and Sundel argue that middle age are not obsolete at work but they even get higher satisfaction with their job comparing to younger generations. They claim that there are even more men at middle age who appear to be workaholics and the midlife persons normally hold the managerial levels. However, it would depend on the nature of job and the productivity that the job demands. Considering the facts that job opportunities nowadays are scarcer and more competitive than before, employers and businessmen naturally tend to employ more productive with lower pay. One can not completely claim that the myth is not true but a stereotyping.

The advancement of Information Technology is also a spokesperson in this account. It is obvious that younger generations are better than the middle age persons in these days. In the professions related to the advance technology might very possibly favor younger generations.

It is true that middle age persons have more life experience in problem solving, taking things under control in a mature way. One can not just claim that the middle age persons are obsolete at work and they can not compete with younger generations. To a certain extent the myth is true. The U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010) also reported in their survey that unemployment rate in middle adulthood had declined. However, the generatively of middle age persons in this stage should be appreciated.

2) Men at middle age leave (or at least want to leave) their wives for young women.

In the discussion of Hunter and Sundel, they argue that marital unfaithfulness is not caused by the transition to middle age but because of poor marriage and unhealthy marriage. According to gender identity shift as explained by Papalia et al., men tend to have intimate relationships in this transition. It is assessed according to Hunter and Sundel that for those men who can not fulfill their needs with within their marriage life because of poor marriage, they tend to leave (or want to leave) their wives to satisfy their needs of intimate relationship with younger women.

The personality theories by Erickson, 1902-1994 as cited by Boeree (2006) explains this myth with the seventh stage of the developmental stages which talks about the crisis: Generatively vs Self absorption or Stagnation. This explanation tends to prove that the myth about men wanting to leave their wives for extramarital affairs. In the clarification of this theory done by Boeree, he explains that when people arrives this stage, they sometimes look at their lives and ask themselves about their meaning of life which more often leads men to have affairs. The myth, men leave or want to leave their wives depends on the personality of individuals and other environmental factors such as marriage satisfaction and social norms. Whether or not one successfully overcomes the crisis is an answer.

Chapter 4
Conclusion

As helping professionals, social workers need to be aware of the situation of midlife crisis and how it can affect individuals and the environment. Hunter and Sundel (as cited in McGill, 1980, p. 267) explained that “many men in mid-life experience events which cause them to dramatically and significantly change their personality and behavior.” There are challenges and difficulties during the transition of midlife. For men, according to gender role, who are stereotyped to be the responsible persons for the family may find it more stressful in terms of their job security and in struggling with the developmental needs for intimacy.

The so called “crisis” is a real crisis only if someone can not over come the changes occur in the transition. The “crisis” can be shaped out to be a positive change. Going back to the myths, the myths are to some extent turn out to be true contributed by different factors. If middle age persons can be able to upgrade and adapt themselves with the speeding advancement, they would be less stressful and be able to make the developmental transition out to be positive change. Similarly, if they are aware of their own developmental needs, if they can build up their personality and enhance marital relationship, they would not need to find their intimacy needs outside the marriage.

Social workers may take the role of providing self awareness to middle age persons, at the same time can advice continuous learning.

Michel Foucault in Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality, demonstrates that the tools of disciplinarity (which emerged in the confluence of critical, historical upheavals immediately preceding the modern age, such as geometric demographic expansion, reconfiguring global financial and mercantile apparatuses, the redefinition of territorial boundaries through global explosion and the ensuring establishments of empires, the ad hoc onset of the Industrial Revolution, etc.), upon being brought into proximity to about the only things that presently we are able to bring to it, such as a proclivity towards petty moralizing, our social prejudices, our racial intolerances, the petty agendas of the bourgeoisie – empirical lifestyle enclaves, etc., operate what they have been designed to do, namely the re-proliferation, expansion, multiplication, amplification, production of manipulated strategies for administering populations, under the guise of it redounding to the so-called “public interest,” which on the whole underwrite unconscionable amounts of paralysis, social dissatisfaction and numerous suffering.

At the heart of Michel Foucault’s epistemic discussions on the reorganization of knowledge in the human sciences is his argument during the 1970s that such reshaping established contemporary arrangements of power and domination. Power, he defines, is the “multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which constitute their own organization.” [1] His comprehensive historical analysis on the advent of disciplinary apparatus in Discipline and Punish and discourses on compartmentalization of sex and sexuality, and bio-power in The History of Sexuality postulate an apparent political positioning of power in the sphere of modernity, hence, paving way for a dynamic interpretation of his own understanding of it and the encompassing entity of knowledge.

This academic paper aims to expound on the place of power and knowledge in Foucault’s historical studies on prison and other modern forms of disciplinary institutions, and scientific discourses about sexuality and its deployments. The paper is divided into two parts and will proceed accordingly. The first part comprises the reiteration of Foucault’s claims on tools of disciplinary institutions as polymorphous, hence the interwoven appearance of new forms knowledge and power during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. By having constructed the reciprocity in the entrainment of knowledge and power in the context of the penal system, Foucault tries to demarcate the bounds of these two entities, but also ensures that each converge on the confines of modern disciplinarity (such as geometric demographic expansions). In other words, Foucault does not concern himself with distinguishing the “identity” of knowledge against power, or vice versa, but having and understanding knowledge and power in a “mutual reinforcing relation” so that each is “sustaining the authority of the other.” [2]

This paper also argues that what drove the tools of disciplinarity as new forms of knowledge and power to operate the way they do, as in seemingly paralyzing humanity on its actions, is because, in the first place, they were programmed to act as the antithesis to the utopia vowed by the Enlightenment; hence are hostile to begin with, yet have been stabilized by man’s hopeless state to resist them, as implied in the works of Foucault.

The second part is a critical analysis on two – viz. (1) pedagogization of children’s sex, and (2) socialization of procreative behavior – of what Foucault labels as “four great strategic unities” that “formed specific mechanisms of knowledge and power centering on sex” at the start of the eighteenth century whence the proliferation of the production of sexuality started to surface and became a “historical construct.” Their ontological and epistemological position allowed them to function in autonomy by which they imposed an explicit but restricted methodology in the generation and dictums of new knowledge saturated with sexuality – through which these deployments asserted their own perilous power. [3]

I

The underlying theme of the reorganization of knowledge in Foucault’s works was broadened and highlighted by the introduction of the contemporary prison system in Discipline and Punish. By having the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries “explicitly set” in the realm of discipline, observation, and chains of restriction, Foucault made it possible in his book to produce new knowledge “even as they created new forms of social control.” [4] The new penal system has “[i]ts fateaˆ¦to be redefined by knowledge.” [5] Davidson argues that Foucault’s modern prison also serves as a “reference point” for his scrupulous analytics of power; [6] hence, the horrific revelation and comparison of the spectacle of the early eighteenth century punishment over the subtlety of the new penal structure – exemplifying the scope and the measure of steadiness of power throughout its transformations under different circumstances.

This is one of the most crucial points that Foucault purports. As mentioned above, the prevailing prison system became his reference point in the analytics of knowledge and power, and it is not hard to deconstruct why. As it were, it can be seen that Foucault was indulging himself in the line that separates the violent yet sporadic carrying out of detrimental force that targeted the body (e.g. public tortures and eventual public executions) and the imposition of a “mass of juridical absurdities” [7] by the modern-day form of discipline:

It was a question not of treating the body, en masse, ‘wholesale,’ as if it were an indissociable unity, but of working it ‘retail,’ individually; of exercising upon it a subtle coercion, of obtaining holds upon it at the level of mechanism itself – movements, gestures, attitudes, rapidity: an infinitesimal power over the active body. [8]

The imposition of discipline reconstructs power in the manufacture of “new” behavior – newfound techniques, newborn gesticulation, new actions – and ultimately, new breeds of people. Now, power is not merely power per se in its traditional sense, but it is a power that involves obedience on influence and exploitation. This is what Foucault meant in his discourse on “docile bodies.” Indeed, “the human body was entering a machinery of power that explores it, breaks it down and rearranges it.” [9] It is a power that is autonomous, ad hominem and utilitarian. Allen argues that those who discipline, apart from having a hold over the mobilization of others’ bodies, become compelled in always ricocheting back on “specialist knowledge,” whence knowledge and power come into a mutual crisscross to finally augment each other. Everything comes in tandem: there can be no “criminology without prisons” or “medicine without clinic” for knowledge is only possible in its compromise with the “reciprocating patterns in the exercise of power.” [10] Borrowing the words of Robinson and Davies, disciplinary apparatuses, indeed, cater to a “compulsory captive audience.” [11] “Thus,” Foucault says, “discipline produces subjected and practiced bodies, ‘docile’ bodies.” [12]

The above mentioned means of subjection, along with the time cards, bundy clocks, expected movements, documented schedules, etc., operated subtly through the shake-up of space and time by which peoples perform; hence, the formulation of an indirect flow of action, “cellular segmentation,” and “organic control,” given by the partitioning and distribution of activities. They “served to economize the time of life” and “to exercise power over men through mediation of time,” leaning on “a subjection that has never reached its limit.” [13]

The above interventions paved way for the turn-around between power and perceptibility. There was a swing in political strategies from the presentation of power as spectacle to its employment in perceiving the target thoroughly, i.e., to see and hear him, to monitor and evaluate him, even at a distance. Surveillance, or panopticism, which proved to be far more complex than the sheer exhibition of force, became the autonomous impetus that massively drives action. By being “everywhere,” surveillance forces the target to always stand on attention as he is “constantly located;” it allows the disciplinary power to be “absolutely indiscreet” and to be “exercised without division:” an “automatic functioning of power.” [14]

Rouse provided a physical description of surveillance. According to him, surveillance was not only manifest as affixed to the walls or structures of institutions, whose primary aim, again, was to enrich the capacity to perceive, but also in the “creation or extension of rituals,” particularly examinations such as psychiatric tests, job interviews, meetings, and even military exercise wherein the commander only stands aside to witness the passing of a marching troop instead of actually being its forefront figure. [15]

Foucault’s argument of panopticism and how it is improbable for people to not be observed shows its extent in The History of Sexuality. He argues that with the assimilation of the discourse of the sins of the flesh in the Catholic confession after the Council of Trent (Counter-Reformation), and even just traditional confession per se, the Church created a hold on its faithful by subjugating them to perfect obedience. Even through the screens of confessional boxes, one is compelled to allow himself to be audible, hence perceived, by an authority. Foucault argues:

We have since become a singularly confessing society. The confession has spread its effects far and wide. It plays a part inaˆ¦the most ordinary affairs of everyday life, and in the most solemn rites; aˆ¦one goes about telling, with the greatest precision, whatever is most difficult to tell. One confesses in public and in private, to one’s parents, one’s educators, one’s doctor, to those one loves; one admits to oneself, in pleasure and in pain, things it would be impossible to tell to anyone else, the things people write books about. One confesses-or is forced to confessaˆ¦man has become a confessing animal. [16]

Such manifestations of panopticism and process of keeping records chains behavior exactly by the manner in which it creates more and more access for things and phenomena to be known. Yet, digging more deeply, it must be argued that such new forms of knowledge also assume new sets of constraints, which in turn allow people’s movement to be perceived. Rouse asserts that such more specific knowledge makes room for also a more omnipresent constraint on people’s actions – cycling towards the vast probabilities for “more intrusive inquiry and disclosure.” [17]

These knowledge and power techniques have two-fold insinuations. First, they operated to control, or, to a higher extent, neutralize, societal factors that are deemed perilous and threat to what has already been established. Second, having controlled such unusual and abnormal elements, they provide an avenue for the enhancement of productivity and utilization of their subjects. By doing so, the use of these knowledge and power that was initially applicable only to quarantined institutions, such as prisons and mental wards – in other words, exclusive and extreme entities – was slowly emancipated and incorporated into an assortment of new contexts; hence allowing the expansion of their application. Foucault named this as the “swarming of disciplinary mechanisms” and argues:

While, on the one hand, the disciplinary establishments increase, their mechanisms have a certain tendency to become ‘de-institutionalized’, to emerge from the closed fortresses in which they once functioned and to circulate in a ‘free’ state; the massive, compact disciplines are broken down into flexible methods of control. [18]

He adds that

On the whole, therefore, one can speak of the formation of a disciplinary society in this movement that stretches from the enclosed disciplines, a sort of social ‘quarantine’, to an indefinitely generalizable mechanism of ‘panopticism’. Not because the disciplinary modality of power has replaced all others; but because it has infiltrated the others, sometimes undermining them, but serving as an intermediary between themaˆ¦and above all making it possible to bring the effects of power to the most minute and distant elements. [19]

These present-day techniques ought not to be understood as a place-over upon prior structure/s. Instead, these practices ought to be realized as constituting wholly different objects for knowledge to be tickled. Amongst these new sets are strategic statistics and inputs, such as geometric demographic expansion, and the redefinition of territorial boundaries according to the continuing progressive development in International Relations; structures that incessantly tackles development, as in reconfiguration of global financial and mercantile apparatuses, or age-group and pedagogical attainments; distribution patterns, like income distribution in households, and a history of familial diseases like cancer and diabetes; and indications of the state of life like cholesterol and sugar count. Consequently, such practices generate redefined, if not new enough, types of human subjects in consanguinity with another phase of production of new knowledge, objects, and power modalities.

These political practices constitute a very methodical comprehension of the individual, of course through the assistance of the elements that compose panopticism. Foucault, in Discipline and Punish, argues that such knowledge engraves a barrier that maintains the target’s individuality – in his very own individuality. Hence, there is a permanence of knowledge, a knowledge by which the progress of the individuality of the target is always under scrutiny and evaluation. [20]

The more important thing, though, is that this knowledge of individuality, individuating comprehension – call it what you may – plays a crucial role in the economization and politicization of the population. In The History of Sexuality, Foucault argues that peoples have also been singled-out, i.e., instead of dealing with “people” or “subjects,” the government has now shifted its attention and focused on dealing with a “population” with all its encompassing features that, just like the individual, had also been subjected to surveillance: mortality rates, healthiness, history of diseases, immunity to them, etc. All this individualizing of the people as a population always involve a reflux into the politic and economic in the population, i.e., population as labor force, population and efficiency in resource allocation, etc. [21]

Foucault associates the above knowledge on individuality with the regulation of the individualized people, or population, with the concept of normalization, which purports mutuality with the knowledge and comprehension of populations by determining distributions. Lorentzen argues that norms occupy the whole of society, yet impose the greatest influence on institutions like church, school, and household; [22] in short, the ones that hold specific populations, such as students and families. Hacking, in his book The Taming of Chance, defined normal distribution as something that tries to promote constancy in numbers as implied in the survey of Europeans on their populations. [23] Along with certain populations, the individual also aids in the production of knowledge by being listed under a category; hence, he is epistemologically located without degrading into the standard. For Foucault, normalization is individualization because, although it “imposes homogeneity,” it also “individualizes by making it possible to measure gaps, to determine levels, to fix specialties and to render the differences useful by fitting them one to another.” [24]

In conclusion, it can be said that the influx of newly constructed knowledge and power operate today the way they do because they were meant to counter the premise and promise of the Enlightenment. Enlightenment was “the advance of thought” [25] that aims, in this case, to cultivate the prison and/or penal system as humanly as demanded by the modern society, and to emancipate mankind from sexual repression. But Foucault has presented it with a sense of hostility, if not real contradiction. As formerly vastly discoursed in this paper, the civilized prison and liberated sexuality further entangles humanity, and Foucault’s presentation of these entities addresses the materializing need to resist them as contemporary modes of knowledge and power. Yet, to go with this, he also insinuates that such resistance has no solid framework to come into existence, hence creating that in-between where there is a shocking paralysis engulfing man, and suffering and dissatisfaction looming amongst them.

II

Some of the increase in child abuse is due to the publicity itself. [26]

– Ian Hacking

The History of Sexuality portrays the interrelation between knowledge and power through a historical account of the origin of the context of sexuality. It is not a given, but rather a “historical construct” of discourse. Its mode of deployments created new power relations – parents on their offspring, psychiatrists and doctors on patients, men on women, youth and old, etc. – and exercise further control on also extended areas; hence, were able to legitimize the knowledge it purports. [27]

Foucault discusses “four great lines of attack which the politics of sex advanced for two centuries,” [28] yet are still prevalent in the society today. Two of which shall be discussed shortly, viz. the pedagogization of children’s sex and socialization of procreative behavior.

Pedagogization of children’s sex. The convergence of knowledge and power in and on the bodies of children allows the gathering of data on what is medically appropriate for them, in congruence with what is also necessary for their educators and parents to maintain that medically appropriate environment, influence, and other factors in which they are deemed to operate upon.

A journal in 2008 by Kerry Robinson and Cristyn Davies regarding the relationship of sexuality with the childhood of Australian children ought to shed light on this first deployment under the scope of this paper. According to Robinson and Davies, the means by which Australian kids ought to acquire knowledge on sexual related phenomenon have been transformed into something “controversial” by the great debates whether the pedagogy on sexuality ought to occur at home, under the supervision of parents, or at school by the children’s educators. Finally, for various reasons, the school was selected to address sexuality to children, yet Robinson and Davies argues that by the continuous denial of the education curricula on sexuality as an important part of children’s identities, childhood and sexuality become compartmentalized as purely social constructions by which there is a naturalization of heterosexuality as the norm of sexuality and hence strengthening heteronormativity amongst children. [29]

By having children perceived as docile bodies, schooling became a “disciplining state apparatus,” whence the knowledge-power nexus operates through the imposition of knowledge-regulating documents, such as Health Curriculum and Health and Personal Development/Health/Physical Education (PH/H/PE), which constitute the heteronormativity of children as subjects. [30] The practices involved in these documents gradually become assimilated in the general physical state of children, and whatever knowledge regarding sexuality was allowed to penetrate into the children’s minds “was always highly regulated by social norms and religious taboos that depersonalised the processes for both the children and the teachers.” [31]

Earlier in 2007, Philo analyzed a radio broadcast that involved Foucault referencing to children’s games like tents around gardens or those that are played on top or under their parents’ beds. He argues that, indeed, what these games imply is an attention to the reverberating theme of “wider trans-disciplinary field of social inquiries into children,” especially with sexuality, although he was apprehensive about some of Foucault’s claims. [32]

Both of the assertions of the above mentioned intellectual studies resonate to the underlying assumptions made by Foucault. On the one hand, Philo’s article is a proof of half of the assertion of the deployment of sexuality currently at hand – that children have the natural inclination to participate in sexual activities; whilst, on the other, Robinson and Davies’ study constitute the significant other half – that institutions, such as, in this case, school and families, are the intermediary entities that limit the dangerous sexual potential immanent in children. [33]

Given the above assumptions, it is easy to go back to the premise of Foucault’s disciplinary apparatus and relate this pedagogization as one of its most influential tools. Putting into context Hacking’s argument which was cited at the opening of this chapter, it can be said that such pedagogization does not much have of an impact to its intended target in children as much as it does for the people revolving around the target. With the prestigious promise of pedagogical, as well as medical, knowledge about sexuality on children, it has functioned as a regulatory tool in reshaping, and perhaps instilling imaginations that never surfaced until then, the minds of people in the hierarchy of societies that looks onto the children’s. By knowing the constraints of teachers, doctors, and parents on maintaining the child’s framework towards his sexuality, it has become easier for other people to imagine otherwise; hence, child abuse became and continues to become increasingly prevalent. In short, though the pedagogization of children’s sex allows children to be oriented in a pre-defined structure, it has had become more of a tool for disciplinarity on the outside audience; therefore, another state of limbo, of paralysis, perpetuates around the surface of human action.

Socialization of procreative behavior. As it was scrupulously discussed at the earlier parts of this paper, population is one of the central themes of The History of Sexuality. Knowledge and power also converges on couples, allowing their growth on their circulation through the procreative capacity of the married pair.

What could be the perfect example of this deployment other than the components of the current debate on the Reproductive Health Bill? Yet its discussion remains to be written on another academic paper. The issues on fertility, regulating procreation through contraception and abortion, and enhancing human propagation through modern reproductive technologies circumscribe the married pair to function accordingly in this deployment of sexuality.

Indeed, often that this deployment of sexuality is understood in the context of the medical field and economic. How, for example, has impotence evolved from being technically uselessness and meaninglessness before to something that can be remedied by the science of medicine today? Having no children before yields into an immediate notion of non-productivity, but today one may think otherwise. Yet, one of the many implications of this deployment that is not necessarily given that as much attention as compared to medicine is sex differences, the very indicator of procreativity. Cook, in her work The Personality and Procreative Behavior of Trial Judges, attempted to look into sex as an emerging concept in the sphere of political participation, approaches, and socialization of men and women trial judges. For example, women trial judges’ decision on what political arena they would immerse themselves into is affected by socio-cultural factors like obligations at home or with children. Men judges, on the other hand, have a higher rate of participation in the political sphere, not only because of less pressure in terms of the constraints of household and domestic obligations, but also of less structured functions (i.e., as compared to women’s political role being translated from their “home-making role,” men judges have definite and straight-to-the-point objectives in the realm of politics)

Historically, it was perceived that social research could be performed objectively using positivistic techniques related to the natural sciences. Despite their ideological variations, Comte, Durkheim and Marx all perceived that natural scientific methodologies could be applied to social studies thus providing objective value free research. Yet the social sciences are divided as the objectivity of social research has been a highly contested issue within ontological schools of thought claiming that the social world cannot be explored wholly objectively. This debate was brought to the forefront when Becker who takes an interactionist perspective, claimed that it is impossible for social researchers to make values free judgements and that sociologist’s ‘take sides’ namely that of the underdog, the oppressed and the powerless. This essay will explore the concept of objectivity within social research by giving a historical account of social theory before critically analysing the claim that the objectivity of the social researcher is fatally compromised when he or she takes sides. The Becker/Gouldner debate will be critically addressed before analysing the notion of ‘public’ sociology.

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

Although not positivists,both Durkeim and Marx both ascertained that social research could be studied using natural science techniques therefore obtaining objectivity. Although not a positivist himself, Durkheim drew upon positivistic methods in his study of suicide using statistical data to identify patterns of causal relationships. (REF)

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

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

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

What are the arguments against this?

GOULDNER

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

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

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

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

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

ANTICOMMONS 300

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REFLEXIVITY 300

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

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

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

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

200 words

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

Robert Merton and the institutional imperatives of organised science. Do you think that the normative structure of science is working today? Why?

Robert Merton has been hailed as the most important American sociologist of the 20^th century^[1]. His oeuvre includes works on the theory of knowledge, the sociology of science as well as functional and structural analysis. This essay will examine one of the most significant claims of Merton, that is that science is regulated by four distinct norms. While his work has arguably to the foundation of a whole academic discipline^[2], the normative notion of science itself unites various strands of enquiry that are testament to the diverse personal and scientific interests of Merton. In nuce, Merton’s claim that science is essentially a normative endeavour conducted to the tune of shared ethical rules, straddles the fields of the philosophy of science and theories of knowledge just as it draws on assumptions located in the domain of moral philosophy and the theory of truth.

The essay will approach this complex in the following way. First, Merton’s claims will be outlined in as much detail as possible. Second, the essay will sketch the main lines of criticism that Merton’s theory of scientific ethos has attracted. Finally, an example of scientific debate will be examined in view of Merton’s claim that will allow us to assess the validity and usefulness of Merton’s theory.

Merton’s thesis about the normative structure of science goes back to an article he published originally in 1942, early on in his career^[3]. The essay is short and, with the exception of mentioning two works by Talcott Parsons, makes no references to its immediate philosophical context, the emerging sociology of science. Furthermore, Max Weber is not mentioned at all throughout the piece. Nevertheless the article has become one of the most celebrated and debated publications in the theory of science.

Merton contends that science is characterised by four interconnected but distinct organisational principles. These principles are ethical in nature and function as structural imperatives for science. First, science is universal insofar as contributions to it are ‘assessed on merit and significance’^[4]. Second, scientists judge scientific theses against empirical material that is available, and ‘suspend judgement’ until all the facts are known. Merton calls this ‘a methodological and institutional mandate’^[5]. Third, Merton maintains that scientists are committed to disinterestedness, and do not regard self-interest as a viable motivation for scientific work. The objective for scientists is to advance scientific knowledge rather than personal interests. Fourth, scientific knowledge that has proven to be reliable and accurate is to be readily available to every member of the scientific community, a phenomenon that Merton calls ‘communism’. ^[6]

Merton’s sketch of all four principles in the article is brief. Organised scepticism receives especially short shrift with just about two paragraphs^[7]. In these two paragraphs Merton conspicuously fails to provide a definition of it altogether and instead discusses the wider context of this ‘methodological and institutional mandate’^[8] for scientists. The question is whether Merton has presented a picture of science that is accurate today. The problem is that it is not quite clear what Merton actually says. He has been praised for his eloquence, but his admirable articulacy sometimes obscures the meaning of his thesis. The essay will now examine some of the more obvious criticisms.

The first difficulty concerns the main thrust of Merton’s argument. In arguing that four normative principles organise scientific endeavour, is he making a normative or descriptive point? Are these observations of empirical nature or do they outline prescriptive ideals that ought to guide scientists in their work? We may take Merton’s thesis to articulate some more general prescriptive standards of science, which ideally ought to be applied in the scientist’s work in order to facilitate scientific progress. ^[9]

Merton makes a point then which requires empirical verification. He has to show that science conducted in this way promotes scientific advancement which scientific work conducted contrary to these norms would not. Understandably this is hard to prove. It requires a historical argument, a narrative of successful scientific development, which to a certain degree he attempts to provide in his article.^[10]

So what does Merton try to say with his four criteria? The list of norms does not allow us to differentiate between valid and invalid science. It also fails to provide us with guidance as to what good and bad science is in a more general context. Perhaps at some time in the future, science requires secrecy and the exclusion of some parts of the scientific community from the results of scientific work. In fact, critics pointed out that Merton’s thesis works on the peculiar assumption that only academic science is science. Industrial research must by nature fail to comply with his standards of enquiry and hence cannot aspire to be science^[11]. A nonsensical conclusion since much of sciences progress is owed to research in an economic and entrepreneurial environment, conducted for reasons of profit and the furtherance of self-interest.

Yet, perhaps all these interpretations of Merton’s argument overlook the obvious. Possibly, his four standards of scientific discovery only make an observation on the nature of science in general. In this way Merton must be understood to make a simply descriptive point that scientific conduct is regulated by norms that may not always be explicit and unarticulated. If we would take him to argue this, his argument then all of a sudden fits into the wider functional theory of science that he was keen to advocate^[12].

Merton argues that the adherence to the four norms produces a system of knowledge that has features that we associate with science, and which have subsequently have come to be synonymous with science. The scientific ethos is then only a historical by-product and Merton’s succinct formulation of this ethos in four principles of scientific behaviour simply describes the way in which science is done. Research that does not comply with these standards may still be science but does not contribute to science as a coherent system of human behaviour. Merton’s normative structure of science thus tells us something about the way in which science has come to sustain itself as a system of knowledge^[13]. The four standards of scientific enquiry fulfil a function in generating systematic knowledge that contributes to the advancement of science as a coherent system of human interaction within a (academic) community.

Critics have pointed out that this vision of science is not less problematic than the ones we have sketches above. Two general accusations have been levelled against this Mertonian notion of science. The first criticism argues that Merton is simply stating the obvious or, even worse, that his argument is tautological^[14]. The second criticism is of different calibre and claims that Merton’s normative vision of science advocates one particular type of scientific endeavour that de-legitimises other forms of research^[15]. Both criticisms warrant some closer examination.

The first criticism is easily outlined and echoes some points made earlier. If Merton believes that the normative principles structure scientific knowledge then he can be taken to make either of two points which are different in scope and nature. First, he may simply be stating the obvious, describing the way in which science is being conducted. Any future changes to this may result in the end of science as we know it and as a coherent sub-system of human conduct but may give rise to the development of a new system of science, along different, yet unknown lines. Norms and standards, in this scheme of things, are contingent yet critical for the type of science that is currently institutionalised universally. Unless Merton attaches some value to this current form of science, his observation is bordering on the tautological, since it fails to tell us anything about the way in which we ought to do things in science. If he does associate the current state of science with a particular value, he needs to tell us what is so valuable about this specific type of science, an issue that philosophers of science discuss through the lens of scientific innovation^[16]. Philosophically, this requires some wider justification, something that Merton fails to do. In fact, there is a plethora of criticism that targets exactly the kind of (modern) science that Merton seems to find commendable. Feminist and environmentalist criticism abounds. So there is evidence to the contrary that he would have to confront.

The second criticism draws on radical theory and maintains that Merton’s normative notion of science acts as a gatekeeper to exclude other, conflicting visions of science. His theory of scientific endeavour thus fulfils a political function that translates into the suppression of deviant forms of scientific conduct. Bourdieu makes this claim forcefully in an article on Merton’s sociology of science in 1990 when in an unflattering way he calls Merton’s work ‘a hagiographic vision’^[17]. Further on he writes:

… if Merton takes note of the existence of the work of scientific production, he continues to apply to it analytical categories which hare imposed on him by this very world itself, so that what he present as a description of its positive laws of functioning is often little more than a record of the normative rules which are officially professed by its members. He therefore departs only in appearance from the ‘internal’ reading…^[18]

This is a damning observation since the critical content of Merton’s theory of normative science resides in its ability to provide an external as well as internal picture of what scientists do^[19]. If Merton, as Bourdieu claims, only replicates in his vision of science the self-understanding of scientists, his theory is little more than self-congratulatory contribution to identity formation in the scientific community. On a more sinister note, propagating these standards of scientific enquiry would deny other scientifically orientated behaviour the badge of honour. Merton’s theory of normative science would then become the main vehicle for defending a particular version of science, resting on values and principles that are far from universal. This is the point where theory spills over into institutional practice and may result in exclusion of scientists that fail to conform to a particular type of scientific behaviour.

A brief example may demonstrate this problem. In 1994 two American professors published ‘The Bell Curve’, a sociological investigation into the link between race and intelligence^[20]. Their work presented ample empirical material while their conclusions were particularly repugnant. The book included an argument for and against various social policies and therefore the authors deliberately placed their work in a political context. Although they adhered to all obvious scientific standards critics labelled the book as a political treatise with a foul set of conclusions. One of these conclusions was the authors maintained that there was evidence that African Americans were of inferior intelligence to White Americans. There can be no doubt that this repulsive claim strikes everyone who does not harbour racist attitudes as demonstrably false. Academic critics consequently slated the books’ premises and conclusions and pointed to a whole array of either ethical or methodological inconsistencies in the work^[21].

What does this mean in the context of Mertonian imperatives for scientific discovery? First of all, Merton’s vision of science claims that disinterestedness is a norm of scientific enquiry, hence however abhorrent the conclusions are scientists must pay no heed to the social or political ramifications of their endeavours if they wanted to preserve science as a coherent system of human activity. Given the social context of race studies this is a plea for unethical behaviour while salvaging an internal code of practice that may have repellent consequences. To contend that scientists can conduct their enquiries in a bubble of self-contained norms is nonsensical. It is far more likely that scientists constantly re-negotiate the standards and norms of their work^[22]. Science is a social endeavour, yet the social norms that apply to scientific conduct are drawn from wider society not from the reclusive community of academics only.

Secondly, however, it is exactly the violation of the proclaimed standards of scientific behaviour which allows scientists to re-assert and re-evaluate the boundaries of science as a particular type of human conduct. Adherence to the self-professed norms thus does not advance science as a body of knowledge but produces a sterile and eventually inert body of knowledge that lost its connection with the purpose of scientific enquiry, to better the human condition. Thus science is in a constant process of boundary revision and definition, interacting with society and its needs.

Merton’s internalist functionalist vision of science cannot accommodate this aspect of scientific endeavour and hence fails to acknowledge the actual purpose of science in the wider context as well as its resources for constructive change and transformation.

References

Pierre Bourdieu. Animadversiones in Mertonem. In Robert K. Merton. Consensus and Controversy, edited by Jon Clark, Celia Modgil, and Sohan Modgil. London New York Philadelphia: Falmer Press 1990, pp.297-301.

Cynthia Fuchs Epstein. Seredipitous Science and The Prepared Mind: Merton on the Microenvironments of Discoveries. In Contemporary Sociology. A Journal of Reviews, September 2005, Vol.34, No.5, pp.477-453.

Steven Fraser (ed.). The Bell Curve Wars. Race, Intelligence and the Future of America. New York: Basic Books 1995.

Lowell L. Hargens. What is Mertonian Sociology of Science? In Scientometrics, Vol. 60 (2004), No.1, pp.63-70.

R. Herrnstein and C. Murray. The Bell Curve. New York: Free Press 1994.

John Law and David French. Normative and Interpretive Sociologies of Science. In The Sociological Review, 22 (1974), pp.581-595.

Robert K. Merton. The Normative Structure of Science [1942]. In Robert K. Merton. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Edited and with an Introduction by Norman W. Storer. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, pp.267-278.

Nico Stehr. Robert K. Merton’s Sociology of Science. In Robert K. Merton. Consensus and Controversy, edited by Jon Clark, Celia Modgil, and Sohan Modgil. London New York Philadelphia: Falmer Press 1990, pp.285-294.

Nina Toren. The Scientific Ethos Debate: A Meta-Theoretical View. In Sic. Sci. Med., Vol. 17, No. 21 (1983), pp.1665-1672.

Jonathan H. Turner. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Homewood: The Dorsey Press 1978.

1

Compare and contrast Merton’s theory and the labelling theory of deviance.I. Introduction
Your Essay Outline

Write about Compare and contrast Merton’s theory and the labelling theory of deviance in the first sentence. Summarize Mertons Theory in the second sentence. Summarize Labelling Theory of Deviance in the second sentence. Summarize Comparions & contrast in the third sentence. Briefly summarize So in short, both theories try to explain crime from a social perspective but one explains why crime begins while the other one explains why crime continues. in the final sentence of the first paragraph.

In second paragraph you need to expand on Mertons Theory. Write one sentence summarizing Mertons Theory. Then write two sentences expounding on Mertons Theory. Be sure to back up your argument for Mertons Theory. In the final sentence transition from Mertons Theory to Labelling Theory of Deviance

In third paragraph you need to expand on Labelling Theory of Deviance. Write one sentence summarizing Labelling Theory of Deviance. Then write two sentences expounding on Labelling Theory of Deviance. Be sure to back up your argument for Labelling Theory of Deviance. In the final sentence transition from Labelling Theory of Deviance to Comparions & contrast.

In fourth paragraph you need to expand on Comparions & contrast. Write one sentence summarizing Comparions & contrast. Then write two sentences expounding on Comparions & contrast. Be sure to back up your argument for Comparions & contrast. In the final sentence transition from Comparions & contrast to your So in short, both theories try to explain crime from a social perspective but one explains why crime begins while the other one explains why crime continues..

In the fifth and final paragraph, summarize Mertons Theory again. Summarize Labelling Theory of Deviance again. Summarize Comparions & contrast again. Then write two sentences stating your So in short, both theories try to explain crime from a social perspective but one explains why crime begins while the other one explains why crime continues..

Outline and assess the structionalist themes of crime and deviance

Structural theories of deviance are similar to Merton’s theory. They explain the origins of deviance in terms of the position of individuals or groups in the social structure.

In the 1930’s Robert k Merton wrote an article entitled Social Structure and Anomie. It became one of the most influential explanations of crime and deviance. He offered a social rather than psychological or biological explanation. In particular, it was a structionalist theory as it saw the structure of society shaping peoples behaviour.

According to Merton, American culture attaches great importance to success – and success is measured in terms of money and material possessions. There are norms which define legitimate means for achieving success. These legitimate means include gaining skills and qualifications and career advancement. The American dream states that anybody can make it to the top if they try hard enough. So much emphasis is placed on material success that many people experience pressure to deviate from accepted norms and values. Deviance occurs when they reject the goals of success and/or the legitimate means of reaching that goal. For example, some people are tempted to use nay means of getting to the top-even if that involves criminal behaviour. Merton refers to this pressure as a ‘strain to anomie’. Anomie means normlessness – it refers to a situation where norms no longer guide behaviour, where ‘anything goes’.

Despite what the American dream says, not everybody has an equal chance at success. The social structure prevents equal opportunity. In particular, the strain to anomie is most strongly felt by those at the bottom of the class structure. They are less likely to acquire skills and qualifications needed to reach the top. As a result, they are more likely to seek alternative routes to success.

Merton identifies five possible adaptations or responses to the strain to anomie in American society, conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, rebellion. Conformity according to Merton, most people conform despite the strain to anomie. Even if they don’t make it, they continue to strive for success and follow the normative means of getting there. Innovation, people who adopt the deviant adaptation accept the goals of success but, in Merton’s words, they have ‘little access to conventional and legitimate means to becoming successful.’ As a result, some innovate-they turn to legitimate means, to crime. The pressure to select this adaptation is greatest for those in the lower levels of the class system. Ritualism, people who follow this deviant route abandon the goal of success, but stick rigidly to the rules- for example, people in dead end, white collar occupations that follow their job descriptions to the letter. Retreatism, this deviant adaptation involves a rejection of both the goal of success and the normative means of achieving it. It applies to people who ‘drop out’- tramps, drug addicts and habitual drunkards. Rebellion, this involves a rejection of conventional goals and means and their replacement with alternatives. The revolutionary who seeks to change society illustrates this type of deviant adaptation.

Merton’s strain theory was an early attempt to explain crime and deviance in terms of culture and structure of society. It provided a sociological alternative to biological and psychological theories. In particular, it offered an explanation for working class crime. Whatever its weaknesses, Merton’s work provided a spur for the development of further theories of crime and deviance.

Merton’s theory does raise a number of unanswered questions. First, why do people but not others adopt deviant adaptations? For example, why do some people in the lower levels of the class system turn to crime but others do not? Secondly, Merton’s theory focuses on individuals rather than groups. Crime and deviance are often collective activities. How can this be explained in terms of strain theory? Thirdly, crime and deviance are not always motivated by a desire for monetary gain. How can activities such as vandalism and fighting between rival gangs be explained in terms of Merton’s theory? In search for these answers subculural theory was formed.

Subcultural theories explain deviance in terms of the subculture of a social group. They argue that certain groups develop norms and values which to some extent different from those held by other members of society. For example, some groups of criminals or delinquents might develop norms that encourage and reward criminal activity. Other members of society may regard such activities as immoral, and strongly disapprove of them.

Subcultual theories claim that deviance is the result of individuals conforming to the norms and values of the social group to which they belong. Members of subcultures are not completely different from other members of society: they may speak the same language, wear similar clothes, and attach the same value to family life. However, their subculture is sufficiently different from the culture of society as a whole to lead to them committing acts that are generally regarded as deviant. Often, structural and sub cultural theories are combined, as in Albert Cohen’s analysis of delinquency. The development of subcultures is explained in terms of the position of groups and individuals in the social structure.

Cohen was the first sociologist to develop a subcultual theory of working class crime and deviance. He examined delinquent gangs in low-income, inner city areas. Delinquency refers to the criminal and anti social acts of young people.

Cohen agreed with Merton that the mainstream value of success creates problems for young working class males. Many do badly at school and fail to acquire the skills and qualifications needed for success.

Employing Durkheim’s concept of anomie, Robert K Merton, an American sociologist, developed his theory of deviance by analysing the American reward system. Merton’s argument is that in a well-regulated society, goals and the means of achieving these goals are integrated in that they are available to all in society. In some societies the accepted means of achieving these goals are not available to all, hence those who wish to achieve the goals, but are not able to do so through legitimate means, must adapt to the situation. Merton presented a typology describing the modes of adaptation. The important aspect of the typology is the relationship between the cultural goals and the institutionalised means of achieving them. I will describe the typology in the following paragraphs.

Howard S. Becker’s labelling theory of deviance asserts that “deviance and conformity result, not so much from what people do, but from how others respond to those actions”. It analyses how definitions for deviant behaviour are created by social groups.

Merton then sets out a typology of modes of adaptation in terms of conformity, or non-conformity, to cultural goals and institutionalised means:

1. Innovation – accepting cultural goals but employing illegitimate means, for example, property theft, cheats.

2. Ritualism – adherence to means whilst ignoring the goals, for example, bureaucratic adherence to routine – going through the motions.

3. Retreatism – withdrawal, opting out of socially defined desirable behaviour, for example, alcoholics, addicts.

4. Rebellion – not only rejection of goals and means, but a positive attempt to replace them with alternative values, for example, political revolutionaries, religious prophets.

Merton’s analysis suggests that deviant behaviour is functional. First, for the individuals involved, since it enables them to adapt to the circumstances in which they find themselves. And second, for society as a whole – since modes of individual adaptation help to maintain the boundaries between acceptable and non-acceptable forms of behaviour.

Criticisms

1. Non conformity, such as ritualism, is not really the same as deviance (indeed with ritualism you do the actions, but have the wrong thoughts – it’s nearer blasphemy). It does not convey the same stigmatising quality as in the label ‘deviant’.

2. The assumption of cultural consensus is implicit in the idea of cultural goals, and ignores the possibility of sub-cultures and a pluralistic culture, where cultural goals might differ considerably.

3. It does not really provide a causal theory as to why some groups might adapt via rebellion and others by retreatism. Obviously some form of socialised commitment and differential associations becomes crucial for influencing perceptions of the alternatives to conformity. It does not explain movement into deviant careers.

4. It does not take into account that just as legitimate means to success are limited, that so too are the illegitimate opportunities. Not everyone has equal access to criminal sub-cultures. An analysis of the opportunities for deviant activity is required.

However, Merton never claimed that his typology was a total theory of deviance and many of the criticisms of his work were picked up on and improvements attempted by sub-cultural theorists.

Conclusion

Merton’s strain theory is basically an explanation of why people commit crime. His approach involves looking at how people accept reject or redefine our cultural goals according to the means available to them in accepting those goals. So for example, success is the goal, the appropriately accepted way to achieve success in America is through the belief that hard work will get us success. But many people work hard and are not successful. So one adjustment would be to reject the idea that hard work is how to become successful and replace that means of achieving success with an alternative method such as selling drugs. You achieve monetary success without hard work.

Labeling theory is also an effort to explain crime from a sociological position. However labeling theory explains why a person continues committing a crime but does not explain why they committed a crime in the first place.

So in short, both theories try to explain crime from a social perspective but one explains why crime begins while the other one explains why crime continues.

‘Education policy in the UK now contributes to a more meritocratic society’. Discuss the various explanations that sociologists have offered for differences in educational outcomes
Introduction

Many policy developments regarding education have had as their express aim the need to make the education system fairer (including the 1870 and 1944 Education Acts and the 1988 Education Reform Act, which introduced the National Curriculm): that is, to achieve a position in which educational achievement reflects children’s innate ability.^[1] However, despite these manifest aims the basic pattern of educational achievement remains stratified along lines of class, race and gender: in general, children from middle and upper class families (as defined by the occupational grouping of the father) tend to achieve both a longer and more qualified education (see Douglas, 1964 or Halsey et al, 1980). Similarly, race differentials of attainment are also evident (see Orr, 2003). Finally, educational outcomes, despite successive attempts to overcome them, remain gendered: girls tend to be concentrated within the ‘feminine’ subjects such as English, whilst boys tend to do better in mathematics and the sciences (see Thomas, 1990). However, the largest factor affecting educational outcomes in the UK remains class: this is not to say that all working class children fail educationally; however, there remains a strong correlation between social class and achievement levels.

Thus, despite a widespread belief in the meritocratic nature of modern western society this belief may in fact be little more than a legitimating ideology: it is therefore the unequal educational outcomes of children with similar ‘natural’ abilities that social theorists have sought to explain. However, as many theoretical approaches have been utilised in this attempt as the number of theorists so involved: theorists with liberal, conservative, feminist and socialist leanings may further show actor-centred, structuralist or functionalist tendencies to their explanatory schemas. In this essay I have decided to concentrate on the work of two theorists, Pierre Bourdieu and Basil Bernstein, my reasoning is threefold: firstly, space limitations negate the feasibility of a broader survey; next, though Bernstein was previously influential within educational theory, it is the work of Bourdieu that now appears ascendant and to have wider applicability; finally, whilst both Pierre Bourdieu and Basil Bernstein have been associated with class-based analysis, it is that of Bourdieu that has subsequently been more widely adopted, therefore they provide neatly contrasting explanations of educational differentials.

In the next section I outline the educational theory of Basil Bernstein; in the following that of Pierre Bourdieu. In the conclusion, I critically asses both approaches, arguing that, whilst at first glance they appear similar in that they both aim to account predominantly for the class-based dimension to educational differentials, in fact it is the more subtle and nuanced theory of Bourdieu that is better able to account for educational differentials of a wider type: those based on gender, race, and class.

Basil Bernstein: The Elaborated and Restricted Codes

Basil Bernstein (1925-2000) initially developed his account of the elaborated and restricted codes during his time teaching young men motorcycle repair in the 1960s. It was then that he noticed the different ways in which language was used by the tutors and pupils, leading him to conclude that it was in fact two different forms of language that were being used: the restricted and elaborated codes. He defined the ‘restricted’ code as being inherently context bound, emotion based and reliant on condensed symbols: ‘restricted codes are more tied to a local structure and have a reduced potential for change’ (Bernstein, 1972: 164). In contrast, the ‘elaborated’ codes ‘orient their users towards universalistic meanings’ (Ibid.) and are defined by Bernstein as utilising rationality and logic; ‘elaborated’ codes are thus described by Bernstein as being context-free; it is the elaborated code that Bernstein takes to be dominant within education.

Bernstein believed that the elaborated language code is the norm for the middle classes, whilst the restricted code is usually used both within working-class and middle-class families, with differences the result of the ‘cultural transmission’, via socialisation, that turns the biological infant into a cultural being (Bernstein, 1972: 162). He argued that the process of socialisation naturalises the social order and occurs via social institutions such as the family and school. He identified two family types: the ‘positional’ and the ‘person-centred’, and these are likely to utilise specific modes of interaction (Bernstein, 1972: 170). Arguing that all children have access to the restricted code, Bernstein believed that it is only those from the person-centred family type (the middle-class families) who are likely to have had regular contact with the imaginative and interpersonal language of the elaborated code outside of formal education, giving them an advantage within education:

Historically and now, only a tiny percentage of the population has been socialised into knowledge at the level of meta-languages of control and innovation, whereas the mass of the population has been socialised into knowledge at the level of context-tied operations (Bernstein, 1972: 163).

In short, the language used within the home gives middle class children an advantage at school; they ‘speak the same language’ as the teachers. Bernstein does not argue that either mode is better than the other, his aims to be a descriptive, rather than a prescriptive, account; instead he argues that it is the educational system itself that favours one code above the other and thus privileges the children of one group, middle-class children.

Pierre Bourdieu: Cultural Capital

Similar to Bernstein, Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) developed his theory of cultural capital as part of an attempt to explain the class-based educational differentials between children with similar natural abilities. Two concepts are central to this schema: those of cultural capital and cultural reproduction. In the first, culture is viewed as similar to power (Bourdieu, 1986: 243) because, like money, one is able to inherit it and it can be translated into other social resources, including wealth and status (Bourdieu, 1986: 244-5). It is this transferability of cultural capital that leads to the second key concept, that of cultural reproduction: for in this schema the class that dominates economically is also able to dominate culturally and ideologically; thus, similarly to Bernstein, schools play a key role in socio-cultural reproduction by valuing middle-class culture more highly than that of the working-classes.

Bourdieu isolates three distinct types of cultural capital, embodied, objectified and institutionalised: the first describes the way that cultural capital becomes incorporated into the very body of the individual (Bourdieu, 1986: 244-5); the second refers to artefacts which may be inherited (Bourdieu, 1986: 246); whilst the third refers to those academic qualifications which allow an individual access to economic capital via the job market (Bourdieu, 1986: 247). In this way schools, along with other institutions, help to both naturalise and perpetuate inequality. Like economic capital for Karl Marx, for Bourdieu cultural capital has the capacity to reproduce itself ‘in identical or expanded form’ (Bourdieu, 1986: 241).

In short, for Bourdieu education plays a key role in legitimising and naturalising social inequality; for if all children are believed to have equal opportunities to succeed according to their ability then any failure must be a result of differences in their level of ability: it must be their own fault rather than the fault of the system as a whole. Bourdieu posits the educational shortcomings of the working classes on their situational constraints in two ways; firstly, the objective class position of the children’s family is used to provide the basis for assumptions regarding the kind of cultural resources they therefore hold; secondly, their social position limits the amount and type of capital an individual is likely to accrue and pass on to their children. Within Bourdieu’s theory, each economic class is thus assumed to have developed a ‘class culture’, or way of both acting in and perceiving the social world, and in this way social inequality is internalised or embodied as it is also naturalised.

Analysis and Conclusion

The two approaches appear similar at first glance; both concentrate on the class-based aspects of educational inequality, and, as such, both are open to the criticism that they fail to account for other educational differences, such as those resulting from race or gender (McCall, 1992: 851). Further, both approaches are liable to be criticised for their economic determinism: John Frow has argued that with Bourdieu’s approach the cultural resources of an individual are merely assumed from their class position (Frow, 1995: 63) and this criticism might equally be applied to Bernstein. Finally, both approaches entail the idea that differential educational achievement is best explained with references to ‘barriers’ to achievement: both posit the way that society is organised, the education system in particular, as itself limiting the ability of some children to succeed.

However, Bernstein’s theory has been criticised empirically, theoretically and ideologically; first, little empirical is cited to support his hypothesis and he conducted no participation observation of either middle or working class family homes (Rosen, 1974: 10). Theoretically, Bernstein utilises a crude conception of class analysis which ignores the ruling class entirely whilst also concentrating solely on the unskilled section of the working class (Rosen, 1974: 6). He fails to address the relations between the two classes (Ibid.), further, by concentrating on the role of the family his theory fails to acknowledge other institutions or the role of peer groups or the media (Rosen, 1974: 7). Finally, he fails to acknowledge the effect that the attitude of the teacher toward their students may have on their education. Whilst there is a ‘grain of truth’ to his argument, in that there are differences in the language use of the various social classes, by attributing the failure of working class children solely to their language-use Bernstein misses the point: it is not the language that inherently contains power, but rather it is the broader education system that, by imposing middle-class culture via pedagogic authority, limits the ability of working class children to succeed. Although he aims to only describe the differences between the two language types, Bernstein himself falls into the ethno-linguistic trap of believing his own language use to be the superior form (Rosen, 1974: 6). Finally, as Deborah Cameron states: ‘the theory of codes could be boiled down to a political truism, those who do not speak the language of the dominant elite find it difficult to get on’ (Cameron, 1985: 159-160).

Bourdieu’s approach is more subtle; although he agues, similarly to Bernstein, that language plays a key role in the under achievement of the working classes, Bourdieu’s explanation involves many other factors, including the development of a specific habitus, or set of predispositions, and the social, cultural and economic capitals. Thus Bourdieu does not point to language as the sole cause of working-class children’s educational failure, but instead describes a complex process that not only attempts to account for this failure but also its internalisation. Indeed, Bourdieu’s theory is supported by in-depth participation-observation, rather than the assumption and anecdote of Bernstein, reflecting his recognition of the complexity of the causes of unequal educational achievement.

In recent years Bernstein’s theory, though once influential, has fallen out of favour within educational sociology, as a quick survey of recent articles reveals, whilst the theory of cultural capital has become increasingly influential (Burkett, 2001). Whilst at first glance the theories appear similar, in fact it is the theory of Bourdieu that is better able to account for educational differentials of a wider type: those based on gender, race, and class and many theorists have sought to thus extend the theory to account for these wider differentials (see, for example, McNay, 1999; Reay, 2004). Indeed, Ben Fine has argued that academia has been gripped by a kind of ‘capital’ mania (in Burkett, 2004: 234), in part, at least, attesting to the strength of the explanatory schema.

Bibliography

Bernstein, Basil (1972) ‘Social Class, Language and Socialisation’, Language and Social Context: Selected Readings, Giglioli, Pier Paolo (Ed.), London: Penguin Education, pp. 157-178.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1986) ‘The forms of Capital’ in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, Richardson, J (Ed.), London: Greenwood Press, pp. 241-258.

Burkett, Paul (2001) ‘Book Review: Social Capital versus Social Theory: Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium’ by Ben Fine, London: Routledge, Historical Materialism, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 233-246.

Cameron, Deborah (1985) ‘Beyond Alienation: An Integrational Approach to Women and Language’, Feminism and Linguistic Theory, London: MacMillan, pp 134 – 161.

Douglas, J.W.B (1964) The Home and the School: A Study of Ability and Attainment in the Primary School, London: MacGibbon.

Frow, John (1995) ‘Accounting for Tastes: Some Problems in Bourdieu’s Sociology of Culture’, Cultural Studies, Vol. 1(No. 1), pp. 59-73.

Halsey, A.H; Heath, A & Ridge, J.M (1980) Origins and Destinations: Family Class and Education in Modern Britain, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

McNay, Lois (1999) ‘Gender, Habitus and the Field: Pierre Bourdieu and the Limits of Reflexivity’, Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 95-117.

Orr, Amy (2003) ‘Black-White Differences in Achievement: The Importance of Wealth’, Sociology of Education, Vol. 76, pp. 281-304.

Piper, David Warren (1984) ‘The Question of Fairness’, Is Higher Education Fair to Women?, Acker, Sandra and Piper, David Warren (Eds.), Guilford: SRHE and NFER-NELSON, pp. 3-24.

Reay, Diane (2004) ‘It’s all Becoming a Habitus’: Beyond the Habitual use of Habitus in Educational Research’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 431-444.

Rosen, Harold (1974 [1972]) Language and Class: A Critical Look at the Theories of Basil Bernstein (3^rd Ed.), Bristol: Falling Wall Press.

Thomas, Kim (1990) ‘The Question of Gender’ and ‘Feminism and Education’ in Gender and Subject in Higher Education, Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press, pp. 1 – 23.

1