Category: Free Essays

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

Liberation. 3rd edition. Arlington: American Anthropological Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making a statement vs. making self feel better

Uniqueness vs. coping

Set apart from mainstream vs. shame

Proudly show Vs. secret

Conscious choice vs. unable to control urge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

CLASS AND STRATIFICATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CASE STUDIES:

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

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

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

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A “slum” is often used to describe informal settlement within cities that have inadequate housing and squalid, miserable living conditions ( city alliance, n.d. myths and realities of slum upgrading. [online] Available at: [Accessed ]

Slums aren’t some kind of contagious sudden growth in a city. Slums in actuality are created when people leave their rural villages to go in search of better life in the city. They are the result of natural economic forces. Due to the high cost of land and rent in the city they resolve to living in slums.

Slums, as they are illegal establishments, are the breeding ground of many social problems. They range from personal sanitation to formation of many illicit activities that threat the peacefulness of the city. Lack of water restricts and leads to bare minimum personal sanitation, transforming the slums into a residential and human waste dump.

Slums are usually overcrowded settlements with many people crammed into a single space. These settlements often lack basic municipal services such as water, sanitation, waste collection, rain water drainage, lighting and roads for emergency access.

For decades these settlements and communities have been unserviced and unrecognized, making them vulnerable, with each year, to worsening living conditions and social indicators on a downward slide; such as, resident crime circles that breed and dwell on the ignorance of the government.

This is the usual horror story of slums.

Population Boom

With each year the population on earth grows. In the year of 2011 we reached a milestone of 7 billion people on earth, out of which more than 1 billion people lived in slums. That is one seventh of all humanity. In a developing country such as Sri Lanka this number is further reduced to 1 in 3 people. (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/slum-f17.shtml) In a country with a population of 21,481,334, (http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=Activities/TentativelistofPublications) this amounts to 644,440. This is a relatively high figure of slum dwellers, compared to most countries.

Cause of slums.

Although viewed solely for its putrid tenure, slums in Sri Lanka and around the world have a complete history and livelihood behind the ramshackle, make-do houses.

In the early 1940s the world of Industrialization seeped in to Sri Lanka (http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/12/15/fea01.asp) This movement turned the world of elite upside down and changed the functioning society in the country. The cities and the economy began to prosper but this creation of vast jobs was the main reason for migration of residents from rural areas of the country to the urban. This huge influx of people built up their own houses and communities in the available spaces in and around Colombo. The resulted so called “Wattas” are the only form of settlement affordable and accessible for the poor.

These communities today are vast cities with their own law and infrastructure. The earliest residents who have fared well from their move to the cities, now rent out their houses to new, fresh candidates of the urban dream. According to the census of population and housing 2011, an average of 593,942 people migrate to Colombo; out of many reasons such as, marriage, education and displacement, employment rem ranks the highest cause for migration with a staggering 240,805 people.

However, Wattas do not merely represent the shifting of jobs from rural agriculture to the concentration of industrial opportunities in urban areas; it’s also the main driving force of the industrialized city. They are a significant economic force and a representation of a successful city. As much 60 percent of the employment is in the informal sector of the urban population (http://www.citiesalliance.org/About-slum-upgrading)

The current approach / take your society glasses off.

According to the City Alliance publication on slum upgrading the attitude of the government towards urbanization is an important component.

Inability of the municipal organizations to realize the existence of slums, most of the slums dwell in its own justice system. This leads to many underground illegal power sources that control the whole community. However, the current authorities believe that if they provide the poor with urban services, it will attract urbanization and cause the slum to grow.

“However, even with no services provided the slums and shanty towns in Sri Lankan urban areas continues to grow. Is the Colombo urban development plan missing something?”

The above stated view has lead them to implement the current system slum eradication; completely uprooting the shanty communities from their lands and relocating them in to apartment complexes located in rural areas. But this method continues to fail throughout because of the government inability to realize the actual needs of the slum dwellers.

Slum upgrading on the other hand is a process that gradually improves, and incorporate the informal areas into the city. It is not simply about water or drainage or housing. It is about creating an atmosphere and putting into motion social, economic activities that are needed to turn around the deforming trends in the area.

This constitutes of providing the slum dwellers with the economic, institutional and community services available to other citizens. These include legal (land tenure), physical (infrastructure), social (crime and education, for example) or economic services. (http://www.citiesalliance.org/About-slum-upgrading#Why_is_slum_upgrading_important)

Steady corporation and perpetual communication among the involved parties, residents, community groups, businesses as well as local and national authorities, is a vital component for a successful upgrade. Moreover slum upgrading creates a sense of ownership, entitlement and inward investment in the area, incrementally forming a dynamic and upgraded addition to the city.

Authorities should recognize the existence of urbanization in Sri Lanka and focus and seek out alternate solutions rather than focusing on rural tranferral development; it is rarely effective.

Nature of the Subject and Topics to be explored
” the places we live”

The activities tend to include the provision of basic services such as housing, streets, footpaths, drainage, clean water, sanitation, and sewage disposal. Often, access to education and health care are also part of upgrading.

“Who are we to deny any person from an impoverished background the opportunity to work, which may allow them to earn enough money to lift their family out of the slums?”

What you’ve read above is the usual horror story of slums. Despite the squalor of living, slums do consist of an infrastructure of its own and it is not all bad. The residents are a close-knit community who are not hesitant to help another member of the community who is in need. People who are well-off in the area are frequent activists of the community who focus on improving the community as it is of their own family.

No matter the conditions, slums have an electric and enigmatic connection between each resident forming a constantly updated network. This is a trait that lacks in the concrete jungles of cities, where a person sometimes would not even know the existence of his neighbor; confined to the tight schedules of work, they are almost like wound up figurines walking around the city to complete the day’s tasks.

With no consistency in life, slum dwellers are masters in adapting to lives situations. Facing the obstacles of their lives, they are not hesitant to start from ground zero which leaves them as an open and accepting community for improvement.

The expected impact of the proposed project, Area Code, is the redevelopment of the available space at 186, Sri Siddhartha mawatha, Kirulapana to stand as a sample housing community and a centre for initiating connection of the community to the city of Kirulapana. It’s mission is to inspire, innovate and impact the surrounding area, Kirulapura, and transform the community to a dynamic addition for Kirulapana. The centre would both stand as a formal league structure and as an open, community oriented functional space. When completed, Area Code, will address the afore mentioned issues of slums and slum eradication ad hoc to the Kirulapura community. The space will invite the community residents, interested parties, individuals and societies in to the space to discuss issues and seek out alternative methods of slum alleviation, provide education on legal aspects of informal living and proper construction of houses, inform and create awareness of opportunities available to an average citizen of Sri Lanka, both young and old and initiate social trends that will benefit the society in the long run..

The center will be the home to housing units and a community space which will be available for activities such as meetings, educational seminars and local function. This space will transform to a more formal social area at night targeting the outsiders of the community to create cohesion and awareness between the city and the community. Ultimately the impact of the project will provide a innovatively refurbished facility which would bring together the community and provide a focal center for the community.

Funding

“United in peace, Let’s Build a Great Nation: HE. The President Mahinda Rajapaksa

With a set current fund for the sustainable development of cities and slum alleviation, the development and the operation of the proposed centre will be funded by the Sri Lankan government.

The project will be supervised by the Urban Development Authority, who overlooks the city urban development and the integration of communities and its benefits, on behalf of the government. (http://www.uda.lk/)

To ensure the project is a successful initiative the UDA will partner with UN-HABITAT, the United Nations agency responsible for human settlement (http://www.unhabitat.lk/about.html), who will provide managerial and technical expertise specified to national slum alleviation.

Precedence
“When you look inside you will find that the apartments are actually like any middle class apartments in the world. So this is not a slum; the slum is in your head.”

“an unplanned piece of city can work as well as one made by architects.” (http://torredavid.com/)

There is plenty of precedence to housing complexes. Around the world plenty of housing unit designs are undertaken and built for various demographics and various countries; and plenty more for slums. But the research yielded a continuous stream of generic data, which for most part focuses mainly on the most cost-efficient way of implementing housing to a collection of illegal dwellers.

Therefore my precedence and solutions came mainly from installations and ideas rather than a slum-wipeout-in-a-box mega housing unit implementations.

“An Idea sparks the imagination and the physical design process takes through the many stages and implications that the project has.”

So you decided to stack them up to save real estate. Tell me, how is that not a vertical slum?

Torre David/ Gran Horizonte Installation and Cafe

A controversial installation by architecture critic Justin McGuirk, photographer Iwan Baan and the team of Urban think-tank of Venezuela, [Arch Biennale Venezuela 2012] Horizonte cafe opens up a fresh perspectives at these so called slums.

The project starts with the introduction of Torre David, a 45-story office building in Caracas,Venezuela, abandoned due to the death of its developer and the fall of economy in 1994. Where some would see it as an abandoned, dirty building, many squatters in Caracas saw it as a shelter. And today Torre David is an improvised home for more than 750 families (more than 3000 residents) who would otherwise live in slum around the edge of the city.

Supported by the idea “why should the people live in slums when there are empty office spaces in the city?”, the residents of Torre David has created an amazing infrastructure in this abandoned building. Self- put up walls and partitions scattered all over the building form a self-made city. The spaces in this concrete shell is not only occupied by residential units but also with the necessities of the community; which includes a church,a grocery, a hairdresser and a gym.

The UTT spent an year studying the social dynamics within this building and the community. They came to conclusion that successful urban development lies in the collaboration among the architects, designers and the population of the slum dwellers. Thereby forming the cafe Horizonte.

Built in the ground floor of the Torre David, also the popular meeting point, where the residents gather and converse, as an installation, Gran Horizonte, takes the form a Venezuelan arepa restaurant . It forms a genuine point of discussion and social space along with an exhibition space. Introducing the common ground spaces already created by the residents of Torre David, such as meeting spaces, worship and leaisure, reinforces the cohesive nature of the settlement.

Gran Horizonte brings in the public for the taste of the culture formed in Torre David. Along with the exhibition it provides an experience Torre David forms an exhibition space along with a common ground that sparks imagination and discussion to create alternatives for the millions of people in the world that reside in similar settlement.

This display of Torre David also questions the innovation of organic methods of development and the global phenomenon of formal/informal hybridity.

I looked to this project as precedence as it forms and practices the idea of collaboration between the city, people and the designers; to bring out their needs and their actual lifestyles and how their living standards combine with them.

This project provides a point of meeting for two communities with completely contrasting way of life. It flawlessly formulates a path from one person to another, leading to interaction and acceptance.

Throughout my research one thing that leapt at me was that slums aren’t a horror story, they are just a community of people forced into the living conditions through many economical and legal factors of the country. To prevent citizens, especially of a developing country such as Sri Lanka, migrating to the city for better jobs and better life is an absurd theory. Relocating them back in to the rural areas after bulldozing their homes is a failing system as they move back into the city after abandoning their homes in the village. Torre David addresses the issue as it is and sees a community potential rather than their informal, improvised tenure.

Torre Davis is also an testament to failure and success, in the way the failure of the original building lead to the success of the humanity to make sense of this and occupy it.

Torre David not only stands for a mere installation but it becomes a protagonist for design. So it’s not about the project itself but what the project represent and the issues this project is raising. The issue of extraordinary conditions which is a metaphor for many other conditions

Site

The Garage

“Why should we move from here? We have been here from our parents time, from 1972. There are no jobs elsewhere. This is a good place.” – W.G Indrani, a settler in Kirulapura

As the current slum eviction program continues, the inhabitants of the slums have been provided housing in the form of huge apartment complexes that are placed way out of the city. The inhabitants have established their life in the city; the city is their life source in the form of occupation, income, connections, relatives and education. Therefore completely tearing them away from it and relocating to a rural area is a glaring flaw.

The settlers, many without legal claim to their lands and houses, do not want to move anywhere else, even with the promise of a larger plot and better health and sanitation facilities. They know they are sitting on a gold mine of potential opportunities. Indicated in the quote above, the lands acquired are prime plots and they provide the settlers what they came to the city for; better income. Through their access to many jobs, both legal and not-so legal, the settlers are provided a steady income.

The Garage

Immediate Context

Built in [year], [name] is a currently derelict automobile repair shop. Owned by [name] is put aside after a financial crisis. For [time period] it has been the convenient local shop for automotive repairs in the Kirulapana community. The shop compromises of a spacious [area for cars], oven, conference rooms and a extra workshop in its backyard to accommodate more [in need of] cars

Situated in the heart of Havelock city, the structure faces the Dehiwala Canal with its border lines decorated with shanty housing.

[located in the western edge of male]

Immediate context

[ Located in Sri Siddhartha road, the site is surrounded with lush greeneries. The access to the pathway is provided through the High Level road; the main arterial road of the city. Due to the close vicinity to many prominent high schools and work places along with the junction that separate bus route 120 and 138, this road experiences high level of traffic during the peak hours. (mornings, lunch time or school finishing time and the evenings ) This constant flow of passengers to their destination creates a fast paced and energetic atmosphere in the area throughout the day.

Even though the area turns into a highly congested, loud human hub during the peak hours, this bustling activity keeps the area rich with energy.

The Ghandara street, which is on the other side of the High Level road, also feeds into the bustling romanticism of the area.

A well know haven for artists and treasure hunters, the Ghandara street is the home to Ghandara, the antique furniture shop and many other art galleries, antique shops, designer wear outlets, music and lazy cafe’s and bistros.

“If a work of art is a confession, then ‘Gandhara Street,’ confesses of its unrelenting passion and zeal to cater to artisans and art-lovers of this island.”

The Kirulapana area with it’s mingling services: bistros, market squares, repair shops, galleries, main transit stops, attracts such a colorful variety of people , rich, poor, young, old, with various backgrounds all throughout the day.

Even though the site and structure is in close proximity to the main street, the lush greenery sets the bustling roads as landscape sans sound.

The frontal view of the garage consist of a panaromic view of Kirulapana and Kirulapura settlements, which is an important aspect as it emphasize the contrast between the city and the slum.

End user demography

Area Code proposed to be developed at (garage number) will be targeting and servicing the Kirulapaura watta and the surrounding community of Kirulapana . Like slums around Sri Lanka, the population of slum dwellers aren’t homogenous, they are a diverse group of people with different means, interests and backgrounds. (http://www.citiesalliance.org/About-slum-upgrading). The center will accommodate and act as a common ground mainly for the following groups.

The Children

According to the census of 2011, (http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/PDF/Population/p9p26%20Children%20born.pdf) the ‘Watta’ of Kirulapana subsist of atleast 1000 families with an average of 3 children. According to a recent survey carried out, I was able to obtain detail regarding the life, education and the activities of the resident children. All the children in the community attend school, at least till the fifth grade. The children from the poorest families, who live on the financial margins, seek out work after school hours to help and support their families. These families, employed as maids and cleaners, sustain their life usually with a mere 400 rupees per day, the daily allowance of well-off high school teenager.

According to the Employment of Women,Young Persons and Children Act (No. 47), 1956 (http://www.hrsrilanka.com/resources/articles/81-terms-and-conditions-of-employment-in-sri-lanka) the minimum age of employment in all sectors is 14 years. This reason coupled with extreme poverty, forces the education of majority of young men to come to a halt after Local Ordinary Levels, and exam taken at the age of 15.

The children usually seek out employment in menial jobs, or in places that accept their level of education. Needless to say, they do not achieve high ranks with their level of education and the majority end up in areas such as Pettah.

The percentage, who are left unemployed with no intent and interest in furthering their education, wonder idle in the streets with their peers. These young children therefore, with the mindset of ‘getting money’, are prone to many ill activities and criminal elements operating in the area.

Therefore it is probable these youngsters benefit from this center. The classes and lectures conducted on developing skills and opportunities available for them as a citizen of Sri Lanka will boost their confidence and need to achieve their dreams. Since the voluntary classes are conducted free , this becomes a interesting and an economically viable activity for the insight deprived children of kirulapura.

Along with the above mentioned initiative, the introduction into a new society, and the ability to express and find themselves will encourage them to frequent the centre.

The Driving force

In most cultures and societies women and men have contrasting roles, responsibilities, needs and perception. (http://www.citiesalliance.org/About-slum-upgrading) The gender role played in such a sensitive community in a developing country becomes a crucial aspect of redeveloping a community.

Women play a vital role in slum upgrading. Male oppression is known and is a common occurrence in the society of Sri Lanka, this seeps deeper and darker in to the closed slum communities. Women are constantly abused by their drunken and unemployed husbands, and withheld from their right to voice their opinion. In other cases, women have fled to urban slum communities to evade domestic violence or discrimination in rural areas.

But looked from another perspective, this community forms head strong women, who are capable of running a household among numerous obstacles and poverty. Women are the heart of the community and the driving force behind the family. They are active in the community and are aware of its form and issues. This knowledge and skills are imperative for the slum upgrading to result in a successful initiative.

Violence, abuse, cultural norms, broader issues of gender and resulting vulnerabilities of being a widow are few of the many issues they can address in the “centre”, this would create them to form an understanding and seek out solutions. Further information will provide them with legal knowledge and security. These reasons will strengthen the connection between the “centre” and them.

.

Along with the disease of racism and sexism, there is a disease called ageism. This is a social disease also fed by stereotypes. All these aged people are put in to the heading of “old” and have these characteristics in them, they start acting like children, ask many questions, they become senile, greedy, sorry to say unattractive and cranky. Here are five ways the Media show stereotypes in elderly people.

Elderly people are shown as helpless victims in different movies and TV shows.

Old people who avoid or oppose negative stereotypes are shown as bizarre and comical on the media.

Media shows elderly people as unattractive, unhappy and weak as health wise.

Old people are shown as devils and having a demon personality. Being greedy and harsh.

Most of the media sources show old people being ignored and considering them as a part of the society.

Media has made things complicated for old people.

What evidence is there for potential biological differences between centenarians (those who live to be over 100 years old) and others who only survive into their 70s and 80s.

Answer: The main factor in centenarians having the age of 100 years is that it is inherited to them. They also get less age related diseases as compared to people who survive into their 70’s and 80’s. Along with their family member also get the advantage of getting factors that enhance the aging process in them and factors that help them in preventing different diseases. This factor of long aging is inherited to them from their ancestors from last three generations. People with long ages have “significantly larger high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels and particle sizes and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels that reflect on their health and cognitive function performance.”

People who survive till their 70’s and 80? have a factor that the live alone without any spouse or any children. They don’t have any life quality as they enter into their old age and there is no one to care about them as well which leads them to early death.

What are ways in which our society seeks to deny or avoid death? How do these influence your own attitudes toward death?

Answer: Everyone wishes to live a long and happy life. It’s in a human’s blood to avoid death. People use different ways to avoid death. There are many ways a person can avoid death. It just needs some precautions to take and to be careful while taking different decisions of our life. The biggest problem in today’s society is that people are lazy and eat things they really don’t have to eat. Especially the young generations is trapped in this laziness and finds shortcuts to life. The biggest reason of many diseases is that we drink a lot of fizzy drinks and a lot of junk food. Food with a lot of fat which gives us different heart diseases. The best wayto avoid many diseases is to exercise on daily basis. Go to the gym if not possible then do different exercises in your house. Go for a jog. This prevent many death causing diseases.

What are some issues for people to consider when preparing for death? What can you do in your own life to prepare for your own death?

Answer: Death cannot be dodged. One has to die one day or another. Before death people face different issue about their life, their family and the savings they have made. How to distribute it without making any problem and equally. During a person’s life they make their savings and have assets. But in my opinion thinking about family more essential then a person asset. One should put their family in a position before death that they live a comfortable life after the person’s death. And for that one has to distribute his legal will in an equal manner before his death because afterwards in many societies the male member’s get more part of the legal will then the female member’s. Another good thing one should remember is that the person should give his online accounts details in the will because they become public and anyone can access them easily, so one should be careful.

What is your position on euthanasia? With regard to older people. With regard to youth. What would you want for yourself if you were terminally ill? What would you include if you were writing a Living Will?

Answer: Intentionally killing yourself is a sin. It’s just like suicide. But in some situations a person has to do so to get relief from pain and suffering. With regard to old people it depends on the disease and the time period they are going through the specific disease. If the disease is operable and the person can handle the pain and suffering then killing himself is not an option. As regard to youth they can face pain and suffering more patiently as compared to old people. So the youth should not give and fight the disease until their last breath. Killing themselves is not an option. If I was terminally ill the thing I want for myself is to spend some quality time with friends and family, because they are the closest a person has. The thing I would include in my Living Will, will give all my assets to poor people after my death.

2nd Assignment:

Why should there be such dramatic inequality in the world. Should we take from the rich and give to the poor

Answer: The reason in my view for this dramatic inequality is that everyone thinks about themselves. The rich does not care for the poor and just treat them as slaves. Even the government supports the poor to a certain limit. The poor become poorer and has no status in the society. The poor is treated without justice and the rich is given proper protocol. The best way to finish this dramatic inequality is to take from the rich and give it to the poor. For this the government should start increasing tax on the assets of the rich, so that they get more from the rich and give it to the poor so that they can also live a good life. Poor people also have the right to live a happy and tension free life. So the rich should also think about the poor and help them in different ways without forcing them to help them.

Use the Internet to find a non-governmental organization (NGO) with programs that reduce poverty in some of the world’s poorest countries.

Answer: New life foundation is an NGO that is operating in Ghana. It has different programs to reduce poverty in some parts of the world. The different programs its doing to reduce poverty are 1. Health 2. Water and Sanitation 3. Computer training 4. Women & Youth Development 5. Good Governance & Human Rights 6. Education. It’s providing education on malaria and HIV AIDS. It is providing different computer training programs to the youth and pupils. The NGO is also reducing poverty by promoting community development by getting volunteers for development programs. The NGO is also constructing schools and clinics for rural communities. The NGO is also promoting education by giving scholarships to students and Skills training/Apprenticeship for Youth Placement for overseas schools (Junior and Senior High Schools). The NGO is also making boreholes in order to provide water to the villagers, training of community water and sanitation comities. It is also promoting hygiene educations at schools and communities.

How do race and gender affect the chances of being wealthy or poor and the experiences of being poor or wealthy?

Answer: Race and gender does have a huge impact on being wealthy or poor. Most of the jobs in our society are given on the basis of gender or race. For example if there is a vacancy for a job and the applicants are a black American and a white American, it’s obvious that the job will be given to the white American. This will discourage the black American and he will remain poor and go for other alternatives such as theft etc. The same scenario goes for the gender factor. There is a lot of gender discrimination in our community. Females are not given the opportunity to excel in their life which remains them in the dark side of life and the male gender excels and go for the brighter side of life. The female gender then has to remain dependent on the male gender and have to live a life as a slave.

Do you think there should be a universal “right to food”?

Answer: Food is basic necessity for every human. Without food and water a person cannot survive and yes there should be a universal “right to food”. There should be justice in the distribution of food. The rich people are getting richer and the poor cannot even eat properly. Here I will tell a famous fact that rich people walk to digest their food where as poor people walk in search of food. This world is cruel nothing is distributed equally. For example in under developed countries people starve for days and when get food do not get proper food. Most of the poor people find food from trash cans and left food by the rich people. Poor people cannot even feed themselves in dignity. They feel ashamed on what and how they are eating. The right of food include that human are free from hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition. So everyone has the right to eatwell and should get this right.

Operating in 118 countries, McDonald’s has more than 33,000 restaurants. KFC has more than 20,200 restaurants in 109 countries. Does this expansion constitute desirable development? Why or why not.

Answer: More development means more job opportunities and less poverty. Yes! All of these expansion have contributed in development. Expanding their restaurants mean they need more man power to run their system which mean hiring more people and giving job opportunities. This also helps the government of countries they are located in because the government will charge those taxes and from that money they will develop the country in different ways. Having so many franchises will make a lot of revenue for the specified restaurants and they can make a good reputation by helping the community by developing different environment friendly projects. McDonald’s with more than 33,000 restaurants and 47 million people is the largest catering chain all over the world. Having so many people is a significant contribution in the development of many countries. KFC in the next three to five years will create almost 9000 new jobs. This is a huge contribution towards development.

1st Assignment

Today’s class system subject’s women to caste: Women should perform traditional tasks as a moral duty with men more often financially rewarded for their efforts. Is this why most chefs are men who work for income, while most household cooks are women performing a household duty.

Answer: Women have also a status in this society. They can also join a profession. They are not born to be housewife an only work at home. They should also help men financially and work at different places to take care of their families. Men choose traditional task like being a chef at some five star hotel or restaurant. Women should also go along with men to perform the same task, because women are good at this and earn a lot and support their family in a good way. Men doing traditional work results in a great impact on their sex life as well, if compared with those men who do not make do traditional work. This is according to a new study from the American sociological review. Women doing traditional work are labeled as pink-collar workers. The profession includes typical services industry.

We all think of being rich as having more money than we have now. What do you think is a good definition of being rich in terms of income? Why.

Answer: It’s a dream of every person to get or earn as much money as they can. A person is never satisfied with the things they have. They want to have more than they have. The good definition of being rich is that a person can fulfill his basic needs and fulfill some of his desires. The basic needs of a person are food, shelter and clothing. So a person should have an income in which he can eat good and healthy food. Live in a good place. A place or community where there is safety and peace. People desire to have heavy incomes so that they can live in big houses but this is not necessary for a person. Living in a small apartment can also give happiness. The third need is having clothes to cover your body. One can cover his/her body by simple clothes which a person can buy from a normal amount of income.

As we move into a postindustrial society, will prestige be less a matter of owning things and more a matter of developing personal creative potential.

Answer: As a person moves to a post industrial society, having a good reputation and high self esteem is what every person wants. Being well known in the society is a person desire. People providing services are literate and want a good reputation. This good reputation is gained by buying things that increase a person reputation and self esteem. Every person wants a prestigious life. A prestigious life can is seen by having prestigious things in one’s possession. Developing a personal creative potential is also considered as a matter for prestigious people. Creativity is a symbol of prestige. Creative people have a good reputation and high self esteem in the society.

What has caused the long-term rise in income disparity?

Answer: Income is the source of survival for a human being. People have unlimited wants and less resources to fulfill their desires and wants. To fulfill their wants they seek jobs with high salaries. A person does not want to have a constant income throughout their life. A person has to care about his family as well. Other than his own wants he has to fulfill his family’s wants. Than main cause in my point of view for rise in income disparity is that the education expense of a person’s children. It’s a person’s dream to see their children studying in a good college or university. Everybody wants a quality life. Life without anxiety and tension. A peaceful life with the family. Another reason in under developed countries is that they do not get their basic wants. So they need rise in income to fulfill their basic needs and for that they work hard and try to get promotions and increments.

Time magazine reported that 62% of stories on poverty in Time, Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report were illustrated with photos of African Americans, who make up about one-third of the U.S. poor. Does this difference call attention to the plight of black people, who are at high risk of being poor, or is it an example of racial prejudice. Why

Answer: This whole scenario is an example of racial prejudice, because African Americans are not given their rights properly. They are always at the bottom of the food chain. They are always treated as slaves. Sorry to say that. They have no image and reputation in the society. They cannot excel in their life because of their race. That’s why they remain poor their whole life and struggle their whole life. They are not even given the opportunity to perform any white collar job, despite of their high qualifications and experiences. Not getting opportunities lead them to a life of a criminal. They do crime to fulfill their desires and to take care of their families. Most of the African Americans are in the profession of labor. Their profession does not even fulfill their basic needs and they remain poor and never excel in their life. So the percentage of stories on poverty related to African Americans will increase day by day.

Background

Colonization (and more recently globalization) certainly accounts for the drastic changes in the linguistic landscapes of the world over the centuries. Conceptualized as as the directing control of politics, society and people by foreign states, colonization has imposed to the colonized several harmful challenges. The compulsory necessity of engaging with a language ascribed to oppression, exploitation and slavery stands out, though.

Moreover, colonialism, in many territories meant also an imposed mosaic of different ethnic groups and human types that prior to European penetration, had different political, cultural and social structures which were randomly obliged to coexist in that space. Such impositions regarding language and life styles reflected and altered the identity of the colonized people and, according to Turkmen (2003), played an important role essential to colonialism to be successful:

“Identity is one of the indispensable components of colonialism, if we consider colonialism as a body; identity constitutes its spirit while the economic exploitation is its corporal body. The colonizer coming to the virgin lands with the feeling of colonial desire and obsession to have cheap profit in his heart finds himself ready to defame the inhabitants, regard them as “the other”. And he starts his policy by deterritorializing and reterritorializing…” (p.189).

In that sense, people were forced to be what they are not. This is evident by the fact that the colonizers used to call the colonies “new lands”, as if they were “virgin” lands, uninhabited before their arrival. Turkmen (2003) stresses that the colonizers did not perceive their actions over the colonies as reconstruction because they did not consider the institutions and cultures established in the colonies as valuable. The colonizers also imposed their culture and language as a way to legitimize their power:

“In the colony what is asymmetrical, rather than merely different proves to be pathological. In order to legitimize their maltreatment, the colonizer tries to project the other not only different but also dangerous, primitive, aggressive, lazy, etc. The aim is making people feel that colonialism is not an unfair perpetration, rather, it is a necessary drive, for, and these people do not deserve these lands by virtue of their notorious traits. Also, the drive, after all, will promote their life standards. This is for their interest”. (Robert Young in Colonialism and Desiring machine as cited in Turkmen (2003), p.190)

As shown, the colonized is forced to internalize a new identity through the reinforcement of stereotypes by the colonizer, which is easily understandable if one thinks that the colonized finds him/herself in a circumstance they have never experienced before, after having been obliged to abandon all what constitutes his/her “world”. The colonized then has no option other than “emulate the colonizer as a sole model in front of him”. However, his attempt is rejected by the colonizer. Motivated by his urge for exploitation, he makes sure to set hard limits to the difference, as “to them the difference is what feeds the colonial system, what legitimize and postulates it” (Turkmen, 2003).

So the colonized loses his former identity but he is also not supported in building a new one. As Turkmen (2003) puts, it, “he will neither be like the colonizer nor himself…. Thus, he lives in a complete oblivion. All at once, he is casted out from his history, memory and citizenship”. Nonetheless, through colonialism identity is not totally lost, but set in the unknown ground temporally placed between prior and after the colonizers came.

Identity and language

Identity and the cognate terms in other languages have a long history as technical terms in Western philosophy from the ancient Greeks through contemporary analytical philosophy. They have been used to address the perennial philosophical problems of permanence amidst manifest change, and of unity amidst diversity. Wide spread vernacular and social-analytical use of identity and its cognates, however, is of much more recent vintage and more localized provenance.

The introduction of identity into social analysis and its initial diffusion into social sciences and public discourse occurred in the United States in the 1960s (with some anticipation in the second half of the 1950s). The most important and best-know trajectory involved the appropriation and popularization of Erik Erikson (who was responsible, among other things, for coining the term identity crisis).

But there were other paths of diffusion as well. The notion of identification was pried from its original, specifically psychoanalytic context (where the term had been initially introduced by Freud) and linked to ethnicity on the one hand and to sociological role theory and reference group theory.

“The term identity proved highly resonant in the 1960’s diffusing quickly across disciplinary and national boundaries, establishing itself in the journalistic as well as the academic lexicon, and permeating the language of social and political analysis”. (Davis, 2004, p.61)

Stuart Hall, one of the well-known scholars specialized on identity, points that identity is dynamic, not stable and is in constant flux:

“Perhaps instead of thinking as identity as an already accomplished historical fact, which the new cinematic discourses represent, we should think, instead, of ‘identity’ as a production, which is never complete, always in process, and always constituted within, not outside, representation (ibid 210)”, (Davis, 2004, p.184).

Therefore, cultural identity can be considered as a historically located set of experiences that need to be recovered in order to fulfill the desire to become one nation or one people, hence, happens to the language.

As it expresses beyond what its words signifies, language also reveals “the way individuals situate themselves in relationship to others, the way they group themselves, the powers they claim for themselves and the powers they stipulate to others” (Sterling, xxx). People use language to indicate social allegiances, that is, which groups they are members of and which groups they are not. In addition, they use language to create and maintain role relationships between individuals and between groups in such a manner that the linguistic varieties used by a community form a system that corresponds to the structure of the society.

Therefore, a speaker uses language not only to express but to create a representation of him/herself in relation to others with whom s/he is interacting. The issue of respect is an aspect of the broader relationship between power and language. Power is the degree to which one interlocutor is able to control the behavior of the other. S/he then uses the language of intimacy and familiarity as they used it in greetings, communicating about family, and leave-takings. In talking about their jobs and other “external” acquaintances, they use the colonizer’s language, which possibly signs distance.

Sterling (xxx) also argues that within a society or a culture, speech patterns become tools that speakers manipulate to group themselves and categorize others with whom they are interacting:

“Because of the relationship between language use and group membership, language can inspire deep group loyalties. It can serve as a symbol of unification on several levels. On the national level, language loyalty can serve an important political function. Many people in the United States are threatened by the use of languages other than English. To speak a language other than English is thought to be “un-American.” This is because English is “promoted as the one and only possible language of a unified and healthy nation”. On a local level, language is a symbol of loyalty to a community”. (Sterling, xxx, p.xx).

For the community as a whole, socialization through language learning creates conformity to social norms and transmits the culture of the community. As s/he learns language, a child learns the social structure of the culture, learning the appropriate linguistic form for each kind of person. This is part of communicative competence. Communicative competence is not only knowing how to speak the specific language(s) used in the speech community but also knowing how to use language appropriately in any given social situation in the community. And the ability to know that is closely related to the identity that one holds. “Speech patterns become tools that speakers manipulate to group themselves and categorize others with whom they are interacting” and that is only shared with those sharing a certain identity, whether in a community or a culture.