Category: Free Essays

During the nineteenth century the founding fathers of Sociology such as Marx, Comte and Durkheim, wanted to accomplish their political objectives by using scientific methods. They wanted people to be convinced of the validity of their views and felt that the best way to achieve this would be to go about this in the most effective way by means of natural science and research methods. Sociologists thus tried to explain how the social system worked. One of the main areas within a social system is education. All children between the ages of five and Sixteen are obliged to attend school, and during term time school children spend over half their waking hours in the classroom. Education in Britain is free and is provided by the welfare state, it is also compulsory, parents who do not send their child to school are breaking the law. According to sociologists in order to have a fully functioning society the members would ideally have to be educated to carry out their role within that society, or society may ‘fall apart’. This essay will include a brief look at the history of education and how it has developed into the system we now have today. This essay will also look at two sociological theories on education; Functionalist and Marxist,. Within each of these theories this essay will also highlight three main perspectives; social class, gender and ethnicity.

The 1944 Education Act was a significant piece of social and welfare legislation, it required Local Education Authorities to provide state-funded education for pupils, up to the age of 15, that incorporated, to quote, “instruction and training as may be desirable in view of their different ages, abilities and aptitudes”. The act was devised by Conservative MP Rab Butler (1902-1982), from this came the introduction of the tripartite system which comprised of; Grammar schools for the more academic pupil, Secondary Modern schools for a more practical, non-academic style of education and Technical schools for specialist practical education. Pupils had to take an examination called the 11-Plus and the result of this indicated which type of school the child would be allocated to. Secondary education now became free for all and the school-leaving age rose to 15. The tripartite system could be seen as a way of dividing classes, as it was usually the children from more affluent families that passed the 11-plus examination. (Bell, 2004; MOC; Murray, 2009).

In 1965 comprehensive schooling was recommended by the Labour Government in document called the Circular 10/65. The new comprehensive system suited children of all abilities in contrast to the tripartite system. The school leaving age was raised to 16 in 1973. The comprehensive system aimed to eradicate the class divide from the British education system. (Bell, 2004; MOC; Murray, 2009).

The 1988 Education Act saw the introduction to the National Curriculum. All education in state funded school was to be made the same and made sure that all school children received the same level of education. Compulsory subjects were introduced which included maths, English, science and religious education. The General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) was introduced to replace O-levels and the Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE). This was another way of trying to make state education classless. (Bell, 2004; MOC; Murray, 2009).

Over the years theories of education have been in and out of fashion this was mostly due to which political party was in power at the time and the state of the economy as the two are very much linked. During the 1950aa‚¬a„?s Functionalism was the dominant force within sociology. During the war the education system had been neglected and was seen as been in a pretty poor state. By the 1970s, structural tensions, inflation, economic stagnation and unemployment, meant that Marxism and other critical theories like Feminism and anti-authoritarian Liberals became far more influential. (Browne, K, 2005; Griffiths & Hope , 2000; Haralambus & Holburn, 2008)

The education system was undemocratic, unequal and unfair. Marxists like Raymond Boudon argued that positional theory determined educational success or failure, he is well-known for his studies into of the role of education on social mobility. It was your position in the class structure that gave you an advantage, or a disadvantage, in the competitive world of education. However for Pierre Bourdieu, the working class lacked what he referred to as cultural capital; without which they were doomed to failure. Cultural capital included the valuable cultural experiences of foreign travel, museums, theatre and the possession of a sophisticated register and middle class norms and values. (Browne, K, 2005; Griffiths & Hope , 2000; Haralambus & Holburn, 2008)

The functionalist perspective was the dominant theoretical approach in the sociology of education until the 1960’s. When considering education functionalists usually ask questions such as; What are the functions of education? What part does it play in maintaining society? What are the relationships between education and other elements of our social system?

A typical functionalist response to such questions sees education as transmitting society’s norms and values, for example a child that learns to respect the rules at school he will learn to respect society’s rules as an adult. Functionalists believe that various parts of society work together for the mutual benefit of society as a whole so therefore education and the economy go hand in hand and school is preparation for the world of work. (Browne, K, 2005; Griffiths & Hope, 2000; Haralambus & Holburn, 2008)

Emile Durkheim was one of the founding fathers of sociology and provided the basic framework for functionalist view of education. He believed that for society to operate efficiently individuals must develop a sense of belonging to something wider than their immediate situation. The education system plays an important part of this process. In particular, the teaching of history enables children to see the link between themselves and the wider society. Talcott Parsons was an American sociologist who further developed Durkheim’s ideas. He argued that in modern industrial societies education performs an important socialising function. Education helps to ensure the continuity of norms and values through transmitting the culture of society to new generations. Parsons saw the school as a bridge between the family and the wider society. Within the family the child’s status is fixed at birth but in wider society new status is achieved through work, friendships and relationships. (Browne, K, 2005; Griffiths & Hope , 2000; Haralambus & Holburn, 2008)

Parson’s also saw that schools prepared children for their roles in adult society through the selection process. Students are assessed and sorted in terms of their abilities and this helps to allocate them to appropriate occupations. Students are also allocated certain occupations in relation to what sex they are, typically girls would be seen as going into more stereotypically ‘feminine’ roles such as secretaries, hairdressers, beauticians, nurses /care givers or homemakers; whereas boys would be seen as going into more stereotypically ‘masculine’ roles such as doctors, builders, mechanics, plumbers or firemen. Boys are also seen as being more scientific than girls. However many of these roles are now being integrated by both sexes. Conversely the roles of being care-givers and homemakers are still seen as being innate in females. (Browne, K, 2005; Griffiths & Hope , 2000; Haralambus & Holburn, 2008)

The Marxist perspective on education differs from that of the functionalist. In Marx’s words the ruling class ‘rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas’. These ideas justify their position, conceal their true source of their power and disguise their exploitation of the subject class. A French Marxist philosopher called Louis Althusser argued that no class can hold power for long simply by the use of force. The use of ideas provide a much more useful means of control. He also argued that the education system in modern times has taken over the role of the church as the main agency for ideological control. In the past people accepted their status in life and saw it as being God’s will. Nowadays however people tend to accept their status and role within society from the way in which they have been educated. The upper and middle classes are primed to become the ruling class and the owners of industry, the lower classes are primed to become the workforce. They are taught to accept their future exploitation. Althusser argues that ideology in capitalist society is fundamental to social control. He sees the educational process as essentially ideological. (Browne, K, 2005; Griffiths & Hope , 2000; Haralambus & Holburn, 2008)

For Bowles and Gintis, the education system propagated a hidden curriculum where the working classes learnt to know their place, to obey rules and were also socialised to accept that inequality was natural and inevitable. They also claim that education legitimates social inequality by broadcasting the myth that it offers everyone an equal chance. It follows that people who achieve high qualifications deserve their success. So in other words education is seen as a reward system, those who work hard and gain a good education will have access to the top jobs. Bowles and Gintis stated that ‘Education reproduces inequality by justifying privilege and attributing poverty to personal failure.’ (Browne, K, 2005; Griffiths & Hope , 2000; Haralambus & Holburn, 2008)

Both Marxists and functionalists have been criticised for seeing people as being nothing more than creatures of the social system, thus Bowles and Gintis see teachers as the agents of capital the students as its victims and their situations being shaped by factors which are out of their control. (Browne, K, 2005; Griffiths & Hope , 2000; Haralambus & Holburn, 2008)

In modern day Britain there is a general consensus of opinion that education should be based on equal opportunities. Everyone should have an equal right to develop their abilities to the full regardless of their age, class, ethnicity or gender. However there is clear evidence that in educational terms those who have certain social characteristics are more likely to achieve better results than others, so this shows that there is a distinct relationship between social class and educational attainment. Throughout the twentieth century there is evidence to show that the higher an individual’s social class, the more likely they are to have a greater number and higher level of educational qualifications. (Browne, K, 2005; Griffiths & Hope , 2000; Haralambus & Holburn, 2008)

Gender has always been an issue in education. Should both sexes take the same subjects? Do both sexes have the same abilities and aptitude? The introduction of the 1944 Education Act was concerned with enabling free and equal education for all. However there is still a worry that discrimination against girls still takes place throughout the educational system. To feminists this is a reflection of the patriarchal nature of modern industrial society. The school curriculum has become increasingly similar for boys and girls. However, where choice is available, there is still a tendency for girls to choose some subjects and boy’s others. (Browne, K, 2005; Griffiths & Hope , 2000; Haralambus & Holburn, 2008)

There is no concrete evidence within the education system to prove whether a student’s ethnicity has any effect on their examination results. Statistics on school leavers and their examination results are a snapshot at one point in time. Individuals may want to ‘catch up’ on their education once leaving school by attending local colleges. There is evidence to show that ethnic minorities are likely to do this. (Browne, K, 2005; Griffiths & Hope , 2000; Haralambus & Holburn, 2008)

“The Swann Report (1985), officially called ‘Education for All’, was a government report advocating a multicultural education system for all schools, regardless of institutions, location, age-range or ethnicity for staff/pupils. The report provided clear data on ethnicity and educational attainment, discovering that racism had a causal effect on the educational experiences of black children in the UK.”

(Griffiths and Hope, 2000).

The statistics shown in the Swann Report were drawn from local authorities with a high ethnic concentration. So therefore it could be said that they weren’t a true depiction of ethnic educational attainment throughout the whole of the country. However due to mass immigration into this country in the last five years some children who come from different ethnic backgrounds are at a disadvantage due to cultural language barriers. (Browne, K, 2005; Griffiths & Hope , 2000; Haralambus & Holburn, 2008)

This essay included a brief look at the history of education and how it has developed into the system we now have today. It also looked at two sociological theories on education; Functionalist and Marxist. The feminist perspective was touched upon when relating education to gender. Within each of these theories essay highlighted three main perspectives; social class, gender and ethnicity. To conclude there are still many barriers to gaining a good education for some of the children in this country due to their class, social stratification, gender or ethnicity. The rich are more likely to get better grades and job opportunities. However some children / young adults may cross the divide and become better educated and move to a high class as an educated adult.

Social disorganization is described as the lack of ability of the community members to unite their values or to solve problems that they experience together and as a community. In the past couple of decades, the themes of social disorganization theory have been more clearly explained and improved upon by Sampson and Groves in year 1989. Sampson and Groves traced social disorganization to conditions that were common and widespread to the urban areas that were the only places the newly arriving poor could afford to live in, in particular, a high rate of turnover in the population which caused residential instability and a wide mix of people from different cultural backgrounds (ethnic diversity). Sampson and Groves’ analyses about the delinquency rates to these places allowed them to derive key facts about the community where crime and delinquency are linked together where when one goes up the other goes up, and when one goes down the other goes down. Their work remains useful today as a guide for efforts to address crime and delinquency at the community level.

Current versions of social disorganization theory assume that strong networks of social relationships prevent crime and delinquency this was pointed out by Sampson and Groves in 1989. When most community or neighborhood members are familiar with each other and are on good terms with one another, a large portion of the adult population has the potential to influence the children and teenagers in their neighborhoods. The bigger the network of acquaintances or contacts, the bigger the community’s ability to monitor itself and perform informal surveillance (because residents are able to tell each other apart from outsiders), for supervision (because people who know each other are willing to get involved and interfered when children and juveniles behave unacceptably), and for shaping children’s values and interests. According to the Sampson and Groves, the community’s characteristics such as poverty and ethnic diversity lead to higher delinquency rates because they interfere with community members’ abilities to work together, for the good of the community.

Just like in urban areas, systems of relationships are related to crime and delinquency in small towns and rural communities. The only feature of the theory that is related to urban areas is the explanation of why social disorganization happens in some geographic locations and not in others.

Rural sociologists concerned with the negative effects of quick population growth provide some evidence that the processes of social disorganization apply in rural settings. Groves and Sampson, for example, argued that the “boomtown” phenomenon brings high rates of crime and other unacceptable behaviors but does not produce alienation or mental health difficulties. Also Sampson and Groves explained these negative effects by the same method as social disorganization theory which states that rapid growth greatly reduces the proportion of people who know one another, which in turn interferes with surveillance and socialization of the young this was originally states by Freudenberg in 1986.

Sampson and Groves theory specified that several variables-residential instability, ethnic diversity, family disruption, economic status, population size or density, and proximity to urban areas-play a huge role in a community’s capacity to develop and maintain strong systems of social relationships.

Based on their research in urban settings, Sampson and Groves expected that rates of juvenile violence in rural communities would increase as rates of residential instability increased. When the population of an area is constantly changing, the residents have fewer opportunities to develop strong, personal ties to one another and to participate in community organizations. This assumption has been central to research on social disorganization since its beginning. Massive population change is the main variable when looking at this theory. They highlighted four important points in their research;

Ethnic diversity: According to social Sampson and Groves, it could be expected that, as in urban areas, rates of juvenile violence would be higher in rural communities with greater ethnic diversity. Ethnic diversity interferes with communication among adults. Effective communication is less likely in the face of ethnic diversity because differences in customs and a lack of shared experiences may breed fear and mistrust. It is important to distinguish this hypothesis about heterogeneity from simple ethnic differences. In other words, this hypothesis sees crime as arising from relations between ethnic groups, not from some groups being more crime-prone than others.

Family disruption: Research in urban areas has found that delinquency rates are higher in communities with greater levels of family disruption, and they expected that this also would be true in rural areas. Sampson and Groves argued that unshared parenting strains parents’ resources of time, money, and energy, which interferes with their ability to supervise their children and communicate with other adults in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the smaller the number of parents in a community relative to the number of children, the more limited the amount of adult supervision will be for all the children.

Economic status: Although rates of juvenile violence are higher in urban areas with lower economic status, it was not clear that this relationship should apply in rural settings. The role of economic status in their theory is based on patterns of growth in urban areas. In many major urban areas, growth leads to the physical, economic, and social decline of the residential areas closest to the central business district. These areas then become most readily available to the poor and to groups who migrate to the area. As a result, areas with the lowest average socioeconomic status will also have the greatest residential instability and ethnic diversity, which in turn will create social disorganization. Therefore, many studies have found that urban neighborhoods with high rates of poverty also have greater rates of delinquency.

The processes that link poverty with population turnover are specific to urban settings. In nonmetropolitan settings, poor populations may be stable and ethnically consistent.

Population density: Population density is rather different from the other community factors for two reasons. First, evidence of a relationship between population density and urban crime and delinquency is inconsistent. Second, the meaning of density becomes quite different for nonurban communities, where, in the least dense areas, one must travel several miles to have significant contact with people outside of one’s immediate family. The original reason for the urban perspective was that high population density creates problems by producing anonymity that interferes with accountability to neighbors. In the least dense rural areas, it may be social isolation, instead, that limits social support to monitor children and respond to problem behavior. Sampson and Groves suggested that density might be more important in terms of opportunities for offending than in terms of social disorganization. The comparative isolation of living in a sparsely populated area may reduce opportunities for offending because of greater distance from targets and from potential companions in crime. Victimization rates are lowest in communities with the smallest populations, but only for populations of 25,000 or less. In larger communities, the rates were essentially unrelated to population size.

Proximity to urban areas: This final community variable, which moves away from the themes of current social disorganization theory, considers an issue specific to rural settings and to the linkages among communities. As Sampson and Groves have argued, it is important to look beyond the internal dynamics of communities and consider ways in which rates of delinquency might be influenced by relationships between neighboring communities. Various rural and suburban communities have very different relationships with urban communities, and this is an important theme of research on rural settings. Sampson and Groves suggested that “less delinquent groups of youths are being socialized into more sophisticated types of criminal behavior by youths in adjoining areas”. Because average crime rates are higher in communities with larger populations, this phenomenon would produce higher rates of delinquency in rural communities that are adjacent to metropolitan areas. Previous research has not addressed this topic, however, so it is not clear whether such diffusion actually occurs and, if it does, whether it is strong enough to produce higher rates of juvenile violence in counties adjacent to urban areas.

Summary of Sampson and Groves

Sampson and Groves’s theory revolved around the characteristics of communities with high crime rates. They explained that economically deprived, large sizes, multiunit housing apartments (where a lot of people move in and out) and a high rate of divorce and single parents reduces direct control over the neighborhood and reduces the supervision of young people.

Lack of supervision of young people causes a lack of socialization of children against crime; they don’t do well in school and don’t have the connections to secure a good job, since they don’t have close ties with their neighbors.

Because people don’t know their neighbors they are less likely to interfere with neighborhood problems such as crime or monitoring people’s behaviors.

Most residents have no attachment to their neighborhood and as soon as they have enough money they will leave to somewhere better, this reduces the amount of investments they make in their area and how much the care about their surroundings.

Robert Sampson

Growing up in the small, industrial city of Utica, NY, in the 1960s, Sampson witnessed firsthand the changing patterns within his city. Once a bustling city, his hometown was hit with hard times as industries left and almost half of the town’s population went with them. ”I witnessed those changes growing up and was fascinated-why are some communities declining and people leaving, and why are others thriving?” he asks. From a young age, Sampson was a keen observer of community and city life. The self-described ”upstate New York kid” did not stray far from home for college or graduate school, choosing to attend the State University of New York (SUNY).

As an undergraduate at SUNY-Buffalo, Sampson discovered the tools of psychology and sociology. He graduated in 1977 with a degree in sociology. In the late 1970s, Sampson entered graduate school at SUNY-Albany, where he refined his focus on the study of society. There he worked with some of the most influential sociologists of the time, including Peter Blau and Travis Hirschi.

Hirschi, who later became Sampson’s dissertation advisor, had written what Sampson describes as probably the most cited and influential study of crime in the 20th century, called Causes of Delinquency, which helped launch Sampson’s research on crime. ”It was a very exciting time, very intense. I became interested in the study of crime from a social-ecological perspective,”

Sampson says. During graduate school, he also was introduced to a group of sociologists that have influenced his entire career. ”I was taken by the classical work that was done in what’s known as the Chicago School of Urban Sociology,” Sampson recalls. The group used the rapidly growing population of Chicago in the early 1900s as a sort of ”sociology laboratory” in which to study how social structures and the urban environment influenced human social behavior, particularly crime and delinquency. ”They were studying the massive changes that were occurring based on the waves of immigration coming from Europe,”

Sampson migrated to the home of his ”intellectual mentors” in Chicago, first to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1984 to take his first faculty position in the sociology department, and in 1991 to the University of Chicago (Chicago, IL), where he became involved in a massive effort to study community-level social processes in urban neighborhoods. In 1994, Sampson became the scientific director of the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods; he is now the head of the Sociology department at Harvard University.

Functionalists believe that crime and deviance are inevitable and necessary for a society. Crime shows other member of the society what is right and wrong. Social consensus decides how right and wrong is determined. Crime can lead to social change, say the functionalists, because the existence of crime proves to the people in society that the government does not overly control the citizens. Crime can also help the economy of a society by creating jobs for law enforcement officers, psychiatrists, probation officers and the like. Even in the functionalist society, too much crime can be bad for the group, causing it to lose the standard harmony and eventually causing the society to collapse. (www.criminology.fsu.edu)

Conflict theory is based upon the view that the fundamental causes of crime are the social and economic forces operating within society. The criminal justice system and criminal law are thought to be operating on behalf of rich and powerful social elites, with resulting policies aimed at controlling the poor. The criminal justice establishment aims at imposing standards of morality and good behavior created by the powerful on the whole of society. Focus is on separating the powerful from have nots who would steal from others and protecting themselves from physical attacks. In the process, the legal rights of poor folks might be ignored. The middle class are also co-opted; they side with the elites rather the poor, thinking they might themselves rise to the top by supporting the status quo.

Sociological Perspectives 5

Thus, street crimes, even minor monetary ones are routinely punished quite severely, while large-scale financial and business crimes are treated much more leniently. Theft of a television might receive a longer sentence than stealing millions through illegal business practices. William Chambliss, in a classic essay “The Saints and the Roughnecks,” compared the outcomes for two groups of adolescent misbehavers. The first, a lower class group of boys, was hounded by the local police and labeled by teachers as delinquents and future criminals, while the upper-middle class boys were equally deviant, but their actions were written off as youthful indiscretions and learning experiences. (http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/conflict.htm)

Crime-Symbolic Interactionist Theory

The theoretical perspective following on from this particular epistemological choice is

symbolic interactionism. Symbolic interactionists believe it is through engagement, or

interaction, with the world that a sense of meaning and reality is constructed. It is

contingent upon the notion of people ‘being in their world,’ or a part of their world,

that meaning and reality get imbued with ‘social meaning and reality.’ Being ‘in the

world’ and making sense of it relies on interaction with others, and constructing

meaning and reality through the use of ‘symbolic tools’ and their communication

(Crotty 1998). Interpretation is the other vital ingredient in the construction of social meaning, and, along with interaction, forms the core principles of symbolic interactionism (Bessant and Watts 2002; Wallace and Wolf 1999).

Sociological Perspectives 6

Sociologist, Herbert Blumer, therefore calls on the researcher who incorporates a

symbolic interactionist perspective to get closer to the worlds of those being

researched; to see it from the perspectives of those they encounter: “noting their

problems and observing how they handle them, being party to their conversations,

and watching their lives as they flow along” (Blumer 1969: 87, cited in Wallace and

Wolfe 1999). It challenges us to see life from the other’s point of view, or, in other

words, to put oneself into the shoes of the ‘other.’

Sociological Perspectives 7

Conclusion

In my conclusion, I have to agree with the symbolic Interactionist theory to look at society as it really is and not how we want it to be. If we look at society how it really is then and only then can we start changing the way we all view each other.

Sociological Perspectives 8

This gender issue has been excited topic to our society. Arguments have been hovering over people on whom between men and women are the great and should receive credit. Rationally, looking the issue in a brighter perspective men and women has their own separate traits and attributes that can be positively assessed in our society. The politically-correct aim for ‘equality’ between ‘men’ and ‘women’ is not achievable. It is utterly impossible. It will never be found. It will never be discovered. The search for ‘equality’ between ‘men’ and ‘women’ is a never-ending war between ‘men’ and ‘women. The more forceful and active the irrational search for equality between men and women, the more aggressive and energetic will be the war between two genders. Both genders claim that they are better than the other. Different views, different opinions actually set off their individuality

Nowadays capabilities of women cannot be hindered. We should honor their hard work and achievements that had taken almost two centuries to achieve and a life time to be granted the acceptance of men. They are starting to beat men in terms of leadership; such evidence is those female presidents from other countries. Women who have achieved great importance in government, industry, sports, and the media and have become a well-known sight and yet, it appears that there is no clear public understanding of the realities of women’s and girls’ lives in this earth. Women declare that they are equal to men and curiously enough when asked in what way are they equal they mention that they can do all that men do; they can be doctors, lawyers and so on and that because of these factors they are equal or should be considered equal .In short what they are saying is that the criteria that should be used to judge their equality is their ability to perform in male activities and to imitate men in terms of mind duo.

In our present society today, considering the Arabic culture women are definitely submissive to men, would it be an exemption to what other feminist organization are trying to fight for? That women and men should received equal opportunities in the society. The Teachings of Islam diminish the theoretical belief of discrimination between men and women as human beings. It also diminish any discrimination between them before the law and in social rights, and Islam meant that men and women be equal in that respect seems to be one of the primary factors these days in discrimination against women and putting men into predominance. Fewer women work and head up households which inspires men to do well in his job. In a way or so, religions, cultures and traditions may somehow affect this issue. Equality may be given or manifested in a different way. Women inspire men, while men turns into a good provider having a good wife beneath his wings.

Numerous studies and statistics show that even though the situation for women has improved during the last century, discrimination is still widespread: women earn less than men, occupy lower-ranking job positions than men, and do most of the housekeeping work. Stereotype belief that men in nature have strong disposition in life and have the word of honor to keep. They are good on strategic planning and very decisive which makes the crowd patronize on giving their votes.

But let us not have a bias view on this issue, let us view this from a genetics and reproductive systems point of view, for one may argue that this whole rivalry between men and women can be partially blamed on the differences in genetics. For instance sexual dimorphism which happens to exists because of differences in genetics that cause men and women to have different traits, such as physical height or muscle mass. For example the phrase “Fire-Fighters” has been put in order to implement an idea that women are capable of performing the job, but let us face the true facts here, one a firefighter has to be big and strong to be able to aid himself and other people mainly in times of distress, a job certainly that cannot be done by a high-percentage of women, therefore if you check most fire departments you can clearly see what a none to low amount of women exist in this line of duty.

Also the differences between men and women should be seen from the differences of the man and woman’s brain structure because certainly there is a great difference that cannot be disregarded. The Cerebral cortex, which is the part of the brain that deals with complex analysis and critical thinking, which is connected to the Corpus callosum which connects the two halves of our brains together. Now the main issue here is Corpus callosum is larger with women, which means that women are better at using both sides of their brains at once, no questions asked, unlike men who is so bad at multi-tasking that he can watch television and may forget to listen to anything but the television, this may show why women can do many things at once without growing tired. The Structural differences cause each gender also to have differences in emotions and thinking. In theory men are more focused when it comes to things they need, but women are not, for the sake of clearing things up consider a man and a woman each in need of a new shirt, a man will go to the shop get a shirt and go back home instantly, but a female will go to the shop buy a shirt and get distracted and see other things that she does need and possibly buy it. This may explain why men are better at math and science or well focusing on one issue and why they are more likely to get better results while doing any job that requires extreme focus on one issue, since this genetic build may be seen as a flaw in a woman, but again there are many factors that may be choosen to evaluate differences between men and women.

Gender role theory posits that boys and girls learn the appropriate behavior and attitudes from the family and overall culture they grow up with, and such acquired traits are their manifest their functions in our society.

Equality when it comes to gender, on my point of view is not an issue. The stereotype that man is favored most than women maybe somehow true if we look on the trends with our society. But feminism may have their right to insist that they can do better than men. For me the main issue is how are we people contributes to be a good citizen in our society. Are we using our talents and education in a proper manner or are we part of the juvenile delinquency. Equality on men and women would still be an issue till the next generation, and arguments would still be on discussed by all people. The search for ‘equality’ between ‘men’ and ‘women’ is like a dog chasing its own tail. It will always be out of reach. And the very act of chasing it is costing us a great deal and causing tremendous damage to us.

The solution that we need to seek is not ‘equality’ – because it will never be found. The best that can be hoped for is that people are happy with what is happening. Finally, neither men nor women need to be ‘equal’ to each other in order to be happy with each other

The idea of reflecting on what I have learned thus far is at times a trying struggle for me due to the fact that I habitually contend that I have learned little. Regardless in the end, I am fully aware that I have learned several things about myself and others, the impact of social forces on everyday life, because I have experienced new thoughts, ideas, and insight to new experiences. This paper is a reflection paper from a sociological point of view.

Discussion

According to ( ), sociology is the study of the society and sociologists focus on three primary areas: what holds the society together, what are we, and why there is inequality in the society and its consequences. In the beginning of this course, I had a preconceived notion that people make up society, however, through the course, I discerned that a person cannot survive without socializing, thus, people need society as part of their lives. What I discovered while undertaking this course that absolutely blew my mind about culture was that culture is practiced by a group of individuals who share the same views, beliefs, and so on, and pass it to their generations, and it is not only connected with race. A significant notion that appealed to me since the start of the course was sociological imagination. Before starting the course, I did not even know that such a word existed; however, understanding sociological imagination notably changed my views.

Mills ( ) asserts that sociological imagination is the capacity to see and understand the effect of social factors and changes on the private and public lives of people. Sociological imagination plays a crucial role in the life of a sociologist, because it is only when we have the capacity to look beyond and view the world with a different view, then do we have the power to destroy or escape our traps. In simple words, sociological imagination is the ability, a capacity, a quality of mind, which allows a person to connect and understand his/her life with the social forces and dynamics that affect or impact it. We simply do not view the changes in our lives as being part of the bigger picture; instead we tend to view them as our individual private troubles. Sociological imagination has allowed me to reflect on my life with what surrounds me, and this has made me able to embrace my society and its ways while putting aside my personal problems or issues. Sociological imagination does two tasks fundamentally: differentiating personal problems from public problems, and understanding the intersection of social structure, biography, and history. I acknowledge that as a person, I apply sociological imagination to myself and numerous other elements of my life such as: my socioeconomic status, the structure of my family, gender, and minority status.

Mills ( ) states that individuals are seldom aware of the social forces behind life’s ups and downs. People fail to connect their lives to this bigger picture frequently falling short of coming to the realization that shaping their lives also shapes the society they are in, and it also resolves the historical changes occurring. Just like the way a butterfly flapping its wings can affect the weather, any changes in our lives are liable for historical changes no matter how small they are. Sociological imagination has allowed me to take a critical look at what I have assumed to be true or what I have constantly taken for granted, observe the infinite range of human diversity, and understand the opportunities and constraints that affect my life and to see the strange in the familiar. The latter basically means that we should not restrict ourselves to seeing only what we identify or recognize, however, we should observe what else is present and debunk the situation ( ).

When people see something they are not familiar with, then it should not be observed in a manner as if it was something that they knew, by doing so, people would be able to understand and relate to it instead of simply overlooking the situation. When I initially started my course, I was a bit skeptical and did not expect to understand some of the concepts, but as I continued with my classes, I was able to relate my experiences with the experiences of other people, instead of just focusing on my issues. By doing so, I was able to see the issues the society at large faced and I discerned how I related to me personally and also other people around me.

In order to have an active social imagination, an individual should have the capacity to think from a broader viewpoint and think of how it might affect the society. Looking back, I realize that I have often used the phrase ‘why me’ whenever I am experiencing life’s challenges. However, rather than feeling hopeless whenever things do not go the way I want them to, I have learned to reflect on the factors, which may have led to problem or issue. Without a doubt, things can affect our life’s experiences and we are all aware that the world has changed and undergone several stages.

Therefore, each time is different to the one previously and the one coming after and each time comes with its own elements, which affect our lives in that particular time. It is also important to consider the society that we live in: are the individuals in our society the same as people in an African or Indian society? Do individuals have the same social values, norms, and opinions in each part of the world? It is normally social norms, which affect our personal lives and behavior the most because we all reside in communities, which are part of the society as a whole.

Before embarking on this course, I had a notion in mind entailing the connectedness between individuals all around the globe. And it was quite interesting to have that confirmation that the way we connect in extremely important in our lives today. Connecting to individuals all over the globe through the exportation and importation of products and foods is a way of connection, however, in present contemporary times, people from all over are connected on a more personal level ( ). The internet and technology has given us the capacity to empathize and sympathize with individuals all around the globe. That capacity to connect to others around the world has personally helped me to relate with other people from different cultures than mine, and to relate to their personal problems. In addition to this, when individuals are able of empathy due to global sociological imagination, instrumental changes are more probable.

Personally, I have had numerous preconceived ideas in relation to global sociological imagination and these notions were mutual to the theory. Of course, initially, I was not aware of the concept of sociological imagination and was merely hoping that individuals felt or at times reacted in the same way I reacted to situations. I have found it rather comforting to think of the degree of connections to other people everywhere can help us solve problems, merely due to the connection forged between personal problems and issues.

The first time I experienced racism, I felt that it was a personal issue and as most individuals, I kept pondering on the question ‘why me’, however after reading and comprehending Mill’s theory on sociological imagination, I actually forced myself to think afar and understand the issue in a bigger perspective. Even though it is quite easy to tell a person to think from another person’s viewpoint or to have a social imagination, in reality, it is very challenging to achieve this because, as human beings, we are all born with the penchant of pitying or feeling sorry for ourselves. The result of this is that it holds us down or prevents us from looking at things at a broader perspective; still, as I have learned, it is important to push ourselves so as to attain social imagination.

Looking at the issue of racism that I experienced from a broader perspective, I have come to the realization that because of the harsh times we are all living in, racism is sort of like an inbuilt element in individuals because of the numerous factors like the media, and the manner in which it influences our minds. I have also realized that racism is common in the society because most individuals have been brought up in a way, which teaches them to look down on others or people from other ethnicities. Although grasping this might not have a significant effect on the society as a whole, on a personal level, it has made me feel less trapped and made me understand that being racists was once considered a social norm for some individuals.

Furthermore, I have learned that the way a person views his/her personal troubles affects his/her everyday life. Reflecting back on my life this far, I have realized that the way I handle my personal problems also affects those close to me. Mills ( ) discovered the fact that people function in their personal lives as actresses and actors who make choices about their friends, groups, family, school, work, and other issues within their control. In my earlier days in University, I used to party four nights in a week, at times I rarely attended class and this made me have personal problems, which obviously interfered with my studies. However, making a turn-a-round was easy after I realized the negative effects of these habits, and this made me become a better person and student.

Conclusion

Sociological imagination plays an instrumental role in life, and it is only through it that we have the capacity to look beyond and view everything with a different perspective. Reflecting on my journey since I began the course, I must say that everything that I have learned about sociological imagination has enabled me to have a different view on everything that I personally come across, and whenever I judge a situation, I now attempt to look beyond and try to understand the other side of a problem, before, coming to a conclusion.

The criminal behaviour of Robert Pickton can be examined through the sociological feminist perspective. There are numerous factors throughout Pickton’s life that could have served significantly towards his deviant behaviour. The feeling of male dominance could have led the man to express his anger and superiority on the opposite sex. As a result, this unacceptable behaviour raises confliction between the two genders; this exemplifies a feminist theory of female oppression. Throughout his youthful year, Pickton may have encountered neglect from a female figure, which could have played an influence on the behaviourism of this serial killer. For example, hostile affection from a mother may have caused Pickton to bottle up his anger to the point where he used criminal acts as a release in his elder years. These later acts could be a mirror reflection to the actions of his mother therefore causing him to avenge his past experiences by murdering as many other women as possible.

Taking a look at the Marxist Feminism theory can also serve in sociologically analyzing the behaviour of Robert Pickton. This theory examines the lack of balance in terms of men and women in an economic outlook. Stereotypical roles and class hierarchies divide the two sexes; for example, women are to take on the “housewives” roles whereas men are more of the working money makers. Pickton may have based his attacks on a lower class level than he assumed himself to be in. He was a farmer who produced and well as distributed food to others, yet due to the fact that “many of the women were prostitutes and drug addicts” (CBC News), Pickton clearly picked on this class for a reason. Perhaps he felt that this specific target group was helpless, and had a negative effect on the world. The imbalanced regard to class groups may have numbed Pickton’s feelings of guilt or awareness to the fact that he was murdering countless women uncontrollably. Robert Pickton’s choice of targeting a specific group of women, let alone women in general, goes to show the sociological perspective of feminism in this case.

Psychological Perspective: Psychoanalysis

Thorough psychological analysis of his thinking process, consisting of both his conscious and unconscious mind, can help with focusing on the psychoanalysis of Pickton’s behaviour. The Id, according to Freud, is driven solely by impulses. In the case of Pickton, the impulse was sexual, seeing as the women he murdered were all sex workers. It is only fair to assume that he resorted to these specific women for a specific reason, to satisfy his needs. His sexual impulses led to his Id satisfying them. There is also a chance that Pickton was experiencing internal conflict which led to the outcomes of his decided behaviour. The Id has no care for reality, or the needs of anyone else, merely its own satisfaction.

To continue the analysis of Pickton’s behaviour, we must now take a look at his ego. Considering an ego develops through experience, it is possible that Pickton’s uncontrollable urge to kill women was a result from being neglected in his early years by a motherly figure. Being motivated by unconscious conflicts, Pickton’s ego weakened as his unresolved mental struggle in regards to hatred of an important motherly figure from his youth may have caused his murderous acts. He may have been battling for acceptance or love and lost, hence why afterwards he probably felt in need of retribution against his mother’s rejection. The feeling of betrayal or rejection by a female likely outsourced Pickton’s jealous rage.

Pickton’s super-ego, alike to his ego, can also be seen as weak. This murderer’s conscious had to have been aware that his acts were wrong and socially unacceptable; he chose to disregard the difference between right and wrong as still act out in a poor manner. Additionally, Pickton’s sense of childhood rejection may have caused him to lose trust and view the world as an undependably hopeless place. This mistrust has a direct correlation and affect to his social interaction and his personality. His criminal acts were a mean of expressing the unconscious conflicts that have not been resolved. His superego’s failure to develop is largely due to his inability to identify with his parental figure as well as lack of internalization of parental and social norms, values and morals. Without a fully developed superego, Pickton was missing his conscience and had no empathy for others. The id’s domination of his superego caused it to weaken and easily influence him toward urging violent criminal behaviour. Freudians would characterize Pickton’s behaviour by having a weak ego, absent super-ego and a strong id.

Anthropologic Perspective: Sociocultural Anthropology

Inside on Robert Pickton’s social life can give us an anthropological insight in terms of his behaviour. Going back a few years, it seems as though Robert’s relationships and social interaction were not fully developed. Being rejected in an attempt to build social interactions could definitely have caused Pickton to feel inferior. As this feeling of rejection continued, it developed into anger which he then chose to release through attacking the initial source of it all, women. Due to the women’s clear inability to defend themselves, Pickton matured a sense of superiority which built motivation to continue his attacks.

Growing up, Pickton may have been exposed to excessive amounts of media violence which may have played a toll on his later behaviour. Media has become one of the most powerful weapons in the world. Since society as a whole is our means of expression, Pickton probably became a victim of conformity. The battle of conformity may seem impossible to conquer; it is a battle that will murder an individual’s qualities, and the only way to triumph it is through conscious awareness of its outcome. It is evident that this man is not intact with his conscious, meaning he is either prone to making bad decisions by disregarding their consequences or he was never given taught any better.

Examining Pickton’s targets, female prostitutes, may correlate with his values, morals and also the economic inequalities of women in the society he grew up in. Seeing as his outlook of women was already poor, prostitution may have been another concern of his. Pickton worked on his farm, meaning he performed physical labour in order to earn his living. On the other hand, prostitution in the view of Pickton may have been a career that earned a living off of pleasure rather than pain; this might have been an unfair and morally unacceptable way to earn a living in the eyes of this murderer. From this, the man may have not felt any sympathy for these women, so he decided to indulge his guilt-free attitude in the killing of a specifically characterized group of targets.

Hypothesis for Research of a Serial Killer

To understand the reason for a serial killer’s motives, we must investigate the conscious and unconscious mind by taking a look at the id, ego, and superego. This will help to determine the driving principle of the criminal, the pleasure they were seeking, their ability to differentiate between right and wrong, and the power and development of the id, ego and superego.

Feminists would examine the perspective of women and their rights within a society, particularly one dominated by men. Social systems, structures and issues in relevance to women will be put to the grand focus.

Structural functionalists regard crime as a necessary and constant part of society. In a given society, the majority of people identify, acknowledge and adhere to a shared set of moral guidelines and rules through legal punishment and public offense. Crime is crucial to society because it sets the legal system and develops a shared set of moral guidelines. A drastic increase in criminal behaviour loses people’s trust and cohesion. Yet, unusual decreases in crime sets the impression that people have no individuality or freedom, as well as do not share moral guidelines to differentiate between right and wrong. Therefore, the stability of a crime rate has a direct relation to the health of a society. We must also take a look at the survival of society and how criminals become outcasts to the structural norms. One’s inability to recognize their place in society, creating an uncertain status, may cause them to deviate from what is acceptable socially.

When conducting research on a serial killer, one must explore and gain insight on the psychoanalytic, feminist, and functionalist perspectives. The collaboration of these perspectives will allow for a thorough understanding in terms of a criminals urge for multiple killings.

The social facts surround us everywhere and affect our lives. To begin with, the social fact is a single, socially significant event or a set of homogeneous events that are typical for some areas of social life, or specific to certain social processes. The main attributes of the social facts are their independence, objective existence, and their coercive nature, i.e. an ability to exert the external pressure on the individual. It is a collective representation of the facts or a collective consciousness. The social facts are a course of actions, ways of thinking and feeling that exist outside the individual (i.e. objectively). These factors possess the normative coercive power in relation to him/her. Into the acknowledgement of the above stated information about social facts it is necessary to add that according to Faraganis (2000), “by a social fact, Durkheim (as a person who defined the social fact in sociology) is referring to facts, concepts, expectations that come not from individual responses and preferences, but that come from the social community which socializes each of its members. Although we might embrace the normative community behavior and share its values, we are constrained by its very existence.”

The main purpose of this work is to reveal a sociological explanation about a social fact. Among different social facts, it is possible to emphasize the pathological social fact associated with the social problems, which is called suicide. The term suicide is related to the social fact because it is a single public event, typically for one or another sphere of real life. The suicide rate is one of the most important sociological exponents of the society’s well-being. Global science has been already established that the act of suicide accumulated a number of the factors: social, economic, political, philosophical, psychological, and religious.

The rate of suicide in Canada is historically similar to or slightly higher than in the USA. Around 3800 suicides occur in Canada each year.

Suicide is a deliberate act of removal from life under the influence of acute traumatic situations in which life itself loses its meaning for humans. Suicidal can be called any external or internal activity, sent by a desire to take his/her own life. People who commit suicide usually suffer from a severe mental pain or are under stress and a sense of inability to cope with their problems. They often suffer from mental illness, especially major depression, and look ahead without any hope.

Suicidal behavior is the suicidal activity’s manifestation that includes the suicide attacks, attempts and manifestations.

Thus, a situation when death is caused by people who may not be aware of their actions or control them, and as a result of a person’s negligence are not related to suicide, but to the accidents.

There are three main types of suicidal behavior: true suicide, demonstrative suicide and hidden suicide.

The true suicide is never spontaneous, though sometimes it looks quite unexpected. Such a suicide is always preceded by depressed mood, depression, or just thinking about leaving this life. Sometimes, even the closest people do not notice this person’s condition (especially if you frankly do not want it). It is obvious that in many cases true suicide is a result of prolonged depression. And any depression is characterized by a focus on past, not the future. The man on the verge of true suicide somehow appeals to the past, clinging to it, but cannot find the picture of own future. Therefore, the “risk group” for suicides includes teenagers and old people.

The main part of the suicides is nothing but an attempt to engage in dialogue: only, of course, that’s so unique and totally unsuitable for this method. Most suicides usually do not want to die, but they kill themselves only in order to reach out to someone, pay attention to their problems, to call for help. The psychiatrists often call this phenomenon “demonstrative suicide.” Researchers stated that propensity to demonstrative suicide sometimes seen as a specific way of manipulation.

The hidden suicide is the destiny of those who understand that suicide is not the most dignified way to solve the problem, but nevertheless other way again cannot be found. These people do not choose an open withdrawal from life on their own, but they choose so-called “due to suicidal behavior.” For example, this is risky driving behaviors, exercises in extreme sports or dangerous business, and volunteer trips to hot spots, and even drug addiction.

Among the major problems of modern Suicidology, the most relevant problems are the features of suicidal behavior associated with alcohol and drugs, the role of family and loneliness factors in the genesis of suicidal behavior and the problem of mental disease and suicide. In any suicide situation, there are usually two operating entities: the person who is thinking about suicide and his/her surroundings, or a specific person with whom he or she somehow tries to establish a dialogue. The increased suicide risk factors can be divided into extra-and intrapersonal. Extra personal suicide risk factors include: psychosis and borderline mental disorders; suicidal statements, repeated suicidal acts; post suicide; adolescence; extreme, especially so-called marginal living conditions; loss of prestige; conflict traumatic situation; drunkenness, drug use. Intrapersonal suicide risk factors can be identified: idiosyncrasies; reduced tolerance to emotional stress and frustrating factors; inadequacy of communication systems; inadequate (overstated, understated or unstable) self-esteem; lack or loss of targets or values underlying the basis of life, etc.

There are the features of suicide, which include: the desire to be alone is natural and normal for every person. But beware, when closed, the isolation become deep and long, when a person withdraws into himself, eschews the former friends and allies. Each of us is naughty from time to time. This condition can be caused by weather, well-being, fatigue, office or family problems, etc. But when a person’s mood almost every day varies between the excitation and decay, there is cause for alarm. There are strong evidences that these emotional fluctuations are the harbingers of death. Depression is a deep emotional decline, which is showed in everyone differently. Some people become isolated, but at the same time, they disguise their feelings so well that it is impossible to notice the changes in their behavior. The only way in such cases is a direct and open conversation with a man. This is a proven fact that a lot of acts of suicide are caused by anger, rage, and cruelty to others. An absence or, conversely, abnormally increased appetite are closely linked to self-destruction thoughts and should always be considered to be a criterion for the potential hazards. In addition to the above-mentioned information, it is necessary to add that “aˆ¦ alcohol and drug use disorders have been found to be strongly related to suicide risk” (Ilgen, et. al, 2011).

People, who plan their suicide, hand out their own things to family, friends, or relatives. As experience shows, this sinister campaign is a direct forerunner of a coming disaster. In each case, it is recommended to have a serious and frank conversation with that person in order to clarify the intentions of potential suicides.

The reasons for suicide are complex and numerous. The reasons can be sought in biological, genetic, psychological and social spheres of a person. Despite the fact that people usually commit suicide in extreme situations, such as divorce, loss of work or study, most experts suggest that it is rather a reason to commit suicide than its cause.

Most people who kill themselves suffer from depression, which often goes undiagnosed and untreated. Since depression often underlies suicide, the study of the causes of depression can help scientists to understand the causes of suicide. “About 90% of suicides occur in persons with a clinically diagnosable psychiatric disorder” (Tondo, et. al., 2011).

Despite the fact that some studies suggest that suicides of famous people can play an exemplary role model, especially among teenagers, this point of view is not fully proven. However, there is some evidence that the famous people’s suicides can be a powerful incentive to others’ suicides, especially among those in the range of 13 to 19 years. In addition, the causes of teen suicides are poverty, family relationships and with their peers, alcohol and drugs, unrequited love, experienced in childhood abuse, social isolation, mental disorders, including depression, schizophrenia, and so on. The number of suicides among young people has increased over the last decade. It is not superfluous to mention that early marriages do not save young people (aged 15-19) from the risk of suicide. This is primarily due to the fact that “young” marriages are more likely an attempt, not always successful, to solve some other, unrelated to marriage problems, for example, get rid of the unbearable situation in family.

Taking everything into account, it is possible to conclude that suicide is the result of the personality’s social – psychological disadaptation in modern society. Psychological crises arise as a result of the intimate, family and personal, social and creative conflicts. In order to avoid the manifestation of suicidal behavior, it is necessary to provide people, especially teenagers with social support by including family, school, friends, etc. It is useful to carry out socio-psychological training issues, provide individual and group lessons to raise self-esteem, development of an adequate relationship to self, empathy, to increase self-control, replacement of “significant others”, to develop the motivation in order to achieve success. It can be based on the behavioral skills’ trainings.

In recent times, social model of disability has gained academic attention through the works of acclaimed activists like Vic Finklestein, Paul Hunt and Mike Oliver (Barnes, 2000; Oliver, 1990a). The social model of disability holds a divergent view to that of the medical model. The social model tends to make a clear distinction between “impairment” and ‘disability’. That is to say the impaired person is disabled as a result of social barriers and structures. This social model of disability view is esteemed highly in the ‘developed’ nations as America, Germany, Britain and Austria. In the UK the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) was enacted based on the medical model however service providers adjusting to accommodate the law reasonably follow the social model (Lewis, 2005). Could the social model of disability be translated into the economies of the majority world where lack basic infrastructure to meet the needs of persons with impairment are far reaching?

This essay will attempt to answer that question by firstly defining what ‘social model’ and ‘developing’ nations are. It will, secondly, develop further by giving a brief historical background of the social model of disability. Thirdly it will discuss other modules of disability such as the medical model, the WHO’s International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps (ICIDH) and International Classification Functioning (ICF). It will make reference to situations in a few minority countries for broader comparison. Disability in the majority world will be examined in conjunction with social model of disabilities ideology. Then finally critically analyse the social model under the microscope of the majority world perspective.

Definitions and Models of Disability

Llewellyn and Hogan (2000) state that usually a model signifies a kind hypothesis that is specifically structural and which looks to make clear an idea by linking it to a theoretical method and device. A model is basically a structure for assessing information. Models of disability therefore offer structures through which the experience of disability is understood. This enables disabled people to provide for themselves and the society they live in a framework through which laws, regulations and structures can be developed. It also provides knowledge about the attitudes, ideas and prejudice of people and the impact they can have on people with impairments. Furthermore, they highlight ways in which society relates to disabled people in daily life. The models of disability are characterised by two primary viewpoints, medical and social.

Williams (1996), a proponent of the medical model, asserts that impairment is a natural part of disability. Given the position that impairment is a natural part of disability, then the individual becomes responsible for his/her disability. Oliver (1990b) highlights this issue by saying that there are two main problems with the individual or medical model. Firstly, it places the ‘problem’ of disability with the impaired person and secondly the cause of the problem and the practical restrictions involved are imagined to arise from the impairment. The medical model was obviously born before the ‘social model’ and is often held in contrasting opinion with the ‘social model’. Mercer, Shakespeare and Barnes (1999) posit that disabled individuals are considered to be reliant on others to be looked after, and to overcome disability they have to rely on healing medicine. Practically, normality through rehabilitation is then sought if the impairment cannot be healed. Overcoming disability can then be considered to be parallel with prevailing over physiological restrictions of impairment.

Disability rights groups often compare this model to the price of intrusive medical procedures like genetic screening. Often big investment in these procedures and technologies is underpinned by the medical model. Oliver (1990b) asserts that where impairment cannot be treated or cured, a lot of people with disabilities will receive unnecessary medical attention, which is oppressive and unacceptable. This is often thought of as a waste of money as adaptation of the disabled person’s surroundings could be less expensive and achievable than medical intervention. The medical model of disability is also seen by some disability rights groups as a civil rights issue and they often disapprove of benevolent initiatives such as awareness raising campaigns which are used to portray disabled people. It is felt that this often encourages negativity and undermines the image of people with impairments and does nothing to promote disability as a political, social and environmental dilemma.

The International Classification of Disease (ICD) was the first definitional schema developed by the World Health Organisation (WHO). It had been in existence since 1893 and evidenced that the health care systems previously focussed on disease. The theorisation of disease was purely straight forward. If a disease manifests it is able to be cured or it can develop until the organism dies. The progress in medical technology drastically changed the potential outcomes of pathologic conditions beyond weighing morbidity and mortality. Impairments and disabilities figure prominently in these conditions and as the ICD model could not assess health problems that were chronic or disabling a new model that would make assessment significant was required.

The new definitional schema took an individual model approach in the name of International Classification of Impairments, Disability and Handicaps (ICIDH). Bury (2000) confirms this when he comments on ICIDH2. He writes of his excitement as WHO shied away from its constricted medical model view point. ICIDH was developed in the mid 1970s and is part of a family of classifications. It was purposely designed to constrict the gap between what health care will be able to do and what it is expected to do (WHO, 1980b). The International Classification of Impairments, Disability and Handicaps (ICIDH) basically examined the cost of non-fatal disease to an individual and also the interaction between that individual and society. There are three parts of the ICIDH which are related to the state of health. They are namely impairment, disability and handicap which has been defined as follows:

“Impairment – In the context of health experience, an impairment is any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function.

Disability – In the context of health experience, a disability is any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being.

Handicap – In the context of health experience, a handicap is a disadvantage for a given individual, resulting from an impairment or a disability, that limits or prevents the fulfilment of a role that is normal (depending on the age, sex, social and cultural factors) for that individual.” (WHO 1980a:27-9)

This classification was recognised world wide and underpinned many medical assessments but it was not long before it came under criticism. Oliver (1990) for instance disapproves of the ICIDH because for an individual to carry out their role as an ordinary member of society the person would be expected to change instead of his/her environment. He feels the medical viewpoint on disability is propagated through the definitions given and that individuals are expected to be healed through some form of interference. Pope and Talov (1991) also criticised the usage of the term ‘handicap’. The word had negative connotations which inferred limitations in performance. They also assert that ICIDH fails to make a clear distinction between disability and handicap planes.

WHO, in the light of criticisms, brought about the development of the ICIDH-2 which soon after became International Classification of Functioning (ICF) (WHO, 2001). The social and medical models of disability have been integrated in the ICIDH-2 (Finkelstein 1998, Barnes and Mercer, 2004; World Health Organisation, 2002). The aim of the ICF was to create a classification that would be simple enough to be considered by practitioners as a significant description of the consequences of health conditionsAmong other things it was to be functional and enable identification of health care needs, shape intervention programs like prevention or rehabilitation. De Kleijn-De Vrankrijker (2003) affirms that the ICF is a better revision of the ICIDH. The language is impartial and the fundamental values very contrasting.

The social model, however, was developed in the 1970’s by disabled people. It was a response to basically how society treated disabled people plus their experience of the welfare and health systems which drove them to being segregated and oppressed. Scholars like Vic Finkelstein, Colin Barnes and Mike Oliver gave it a backing (Shakespeare and Watson 2002). The social model could be said to have been initiated from an essay entitled “A Critical Condition” written by Paul Hunt in 1966. (Hunt, 1966) In the essay Paul Hunt argued that society held non-disabled people in high esteem making disabled people feel unlucky and good for nothing. Fallow (2007) however, argued that this might not be an exact view of disabled people but one that had been imposed on them.

Almost a decade after Paul Hunt’s essay, the Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) developed the social model in their definition of impairment and disability. They asserted that disability was:

‘the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary social organisation which takes little or no account of people who have physical impairments and thus excludes them from participation in the mainstream of social activities’ (UPIAS 1976:14).

Mike Oliver, teaching a group of social work students, later coined the term social model in an attempt to introduce the ideas of the UPIAS Fundamental Principles. He said focusing on the individual model concept against that of the social model he derived the difference made between impairment and disability by UPIAS. (Oliver 1990b)

Making a clear distinction between impairment and the disabling effect of society in relation to impairment is what the social model is about. It implies that when a person cannot walk it is not his/her inability to walk that disables them but the lack of stairs that are not wheelchair accessible that disables them. If a person is visually impaired, it is not their impairment that disables them but the lack of information in Braille or large print that disables them. Disability can be said in other words to be socially constructed. The social model recognises people with physical, mental or learning difficulties may not be able to function and therefore seeks to remove any barriers that limit their functioning. It advocates for disabled people to enjoy equal rights and responsibility. Swain et al (2004) assert that impairment should be considered as a positive benefit not something pitiful. It has been documented from disabled people’s perspective that being impaired can have benefits.

Definitions of ‘Developing’ and ‘Majority’ World

‘Developing’ nations is an economical term used to describe medium income economies for the purpose of this essay. It is a term that has many variations for example third world, and the south (Stone 1999). These terms are sometimes frowned upon because they give an impression that western industrialisation or so called ‘developed’ nations provide the yard stick for judging advancement. Stone (1999) alleges that the idea of the west occupying the highest sit in development and the rest world hanging to the sit is inherent. ‘Developing’ nations also refers to a nation or country that does not have a well developed economy and political structure compared to industrialised nations. World Bank Group (2004) defines developing nations as countries with average levels of GNP per capita plus 5 high-income developing economies like Hong Kong, Israel, Kuwait, Singapore and United Emirates. Pearson Education (2005) states that they are nations that have been defined by the World Bank as having low or middle incomes with low living conditions compared to high income nations. Katsui (2006) uses the South to refer to developing countries and beneficiaries of growth collaboration and North for developed countries.

Majority world refers to non-westernised countries where often policies and structures are lacking to support the nations. These are countries that fall outside of the minority world and are considered to have low income per capita, levels of economic growth and low indices of life expectancy and education. Minority world also stands for developed world, western world, the North and industrialised nations. Countries like America, Australia, Germany France, Britain, Netherlands etc that have high level of economic growth according to their income per capita and high gross domestic product per capita. Industrialisation is another economic criteria used to measure growth in these countries. In recent times more outstanding issues like human development index matched with economic weight, national income, other measures, indicators like life expectancy and education have become part of the criteria for measuring which type of world a country is from.

Disability in the Minority World

Priestley (2005) puts forward that there has been a remarkable change in the way disability is viewed in European social policy. The minority world has over the years seen the application of social model of disabilities in various laws, policies and strategies. The European Commission (EC) (2010b) maintains that disabled people should have dignity, basic rights, and protection against intolerance, equality, justice and social cohesion. It sees disability as a social construct which fronts intolerance and stigmatisation. Consequently, it is the disabled person’s environment that has to change and not the person. The EC has a disability strategy plan (DAP) which guides disabled policies.

The EC wants to see disabled people get involved in disabled affairs and also have more accessibility, job opportunities and self-sufficient living. EC (2010a) further asserts that about 80 million Europeans have a disability and cannot enjoy the everyday comforts like riding on a bus, shopping, using the internet and watching television because of barriers put in place by society. A new strategy to remove these obstacles has been implemented. These EC statements are certainly underpinned by the social model of disability. They all advocate for a disabled person’s environment to be altered to enable them participate fully in society. National Disability Authority (2005) adds its voice to the debate by saying the social model has added to the shift from disability based agendas to a more conventional and inclusive approach.

All of the above makes it relatively easy to live with impairment in the minority world. The provision of the welfare system is a fundamental part of western society and those who benefit from it most are those who are unable to work because of ailment (Overland 2007). If a person lost a limb, for example, they would be registered disabled as they would be limited in what they could do. Their needs would be taken care of by some sort of income benefit. Fit-for-purpose cars are built for people who have difficulty moving about. Special parking spaces for disabled people are provided making life relatively easy for many disabled people. Architecture supports building design and factors in access ramps. The Disability Equality Duty (DED) which was introduced by the new Disability Discrimination Act of 2005 in the UK for instance makes public bodies obligated to take into consideration the needs of disabled people when they are planning services. An affirmative attitude is recommended to be shown towards disabled people. Out-Law (2006) affirm Disability Rights Commission UK’s view that the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 would bring a great change to disabled people and will change how public authorities offer their services.

Walking aids are provided for those with balancing difficulties to help support and maintain their balance. Visually impaired are given guide dogs to move around with. They have various assistance technologies to help them study and participate in full economic and social activities. Most organisations provide accessible information for the hearing and visually impaired. There are electronic resources that support disabled life. Enabled People website is one of them. It gives information about disabled support, rights and systems (Bristow 2005). Developed nations and their respective governments make sure that disabled people live normal lives or reduce restrictions placed by disability. They have organisations and networks and people or organisations with political clout lobbying on disabled people’s behalf. Disability in Britain was transformed by disabled people’s movement in the 1980’s (Hasler,1993).

The European non-governmental organisation, European Disability Forum (EDF) stands for the concerns of 65 million disabled people in Europe. In America effective laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 regulates disability law and prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in housing, employment and access to public services. The purpose of ADA is to assist disabled people in any way practicable and to ensure that their human rights and civil liberties have not been abused. It ensures that disabled people have all the comforts non disabled people have like disabled parking space and permits, ramp laws to showers and bathroom installations designed for physically disabled people. ADA was also established to improve quality of life by training both disabled and non disabled.

Social model disability ideology

The developing world cannot boast of such a life for its disabled people. The social model of disability has become known and thrived within minority or western society but critics have said it cannot be translated into the majority world (Stone, 1997; Miles 1996). In Britain the social model has become a fundamental indicator of disability politics which is used by disabled activist to differentiate among establishments, strategies, regulations and ideas (Shakespeare 2002). The needs and opportunities for people with impairments in majority world are sometimes entirely divergent from those in minority world and may require various solutions, systems of enquiry and explanations. The inequality is not a stand alone issue, but has roots in the various ideologies that surround disability in the majority world.

The social model of disability has two main schools of thought. Those who believe that capitalism has contributed to the oppression of disabled people and those who believe that disability is as a result of an inherent believe in culture, attitude and prejudice (Sheldon et al., 2007; Barnes and Mercer 2005).The former, materialist, believes that the economic and political structures put in place in society have largely contributed to disabilism. Therefore political effort is desired to effect fundamental changes of an unequal system designed by capitalism. The latter, Idealist believes that disabled people are excluded from society purely because of lack of thought than anything else and in that sense a redress can be sought with education and addressing people’s attitudes without changing legislation that excludes people from everyday activities and inaccessible infrastructure (Priestly, 1998). This line of argument supports the improving of existing social systems.

Capitalism which controls most of the world economy today is believed by the materialist to be the undercurrent of poverty in the majority world. Norberg (2003) raises issue with the fact that per capita GDP is more than 30 times higher in 20 wealthiest nations than in 20 deprived nations. Oliver (1999) asserts that the oppression of disabled people is ingrained in the economic and social formation of capitalism.

Free markets have allowed various international organisations and individuals to set up home in the majority world taking away land and property from original settlers. Eskine (2009) asserts that numerous rich nations are purchasing land from the majority world for future investments. Since 1960 a new global industrialisation has arisen with international corporations operating in offshore outsourcing (Nash J and Fernandez-Kelly 1983). This has caused people who use to rely on agriculture; fishing and petty trading to lose their livelihood pushing them into poverty. Poverty is a major cause of disability in the majority world as simple diseases like diabetes cannot be managed making people blind. Thomas (2005) posits that poverty and disabling impairments are expressly connected and most disabilities can be avoided because they are poverty orientated.

Meanwhile, other social commentators also argue that the free market is a good thing and that developing countries will benefit from this freedom (Urbach, 2004; Murkherjee, 2004) People will be able to travel freely and immigrate to other countries. They would also be able to trade with who ever they wish to trade with. It is further argued that consumers will have a wider choice and businesses will be able to lower their cost by hiring workers from other countries. Organisations setting up home in the majority world will bring more work to the society and people will be able to learn new skills, have social links and mix with other cultures but are these arguments not entrenched in colonialism or neo colonialism?

Nkrumah (1965) asserts that neo-colonialism is the most damaging form of imperialism because those who engage in it have power but not accountability leaving those at the brunt of it exploited with no way of putting things right. Examples are, in the mid 20th century in places like Africa where nations obtained independence from their European masters but found that they were not totally free from their influence. Governments were undermined using destruction tools like propaganda, coup d’etats and the nomination of specific people into positions of influence (Hanlon, 1991). This caused many nations to remain dependant on their colonised masters even though they were free.

Another form of capitalism which has influenced the majority world is Imperialism. It has been described as the ultimate form of capitalism and an extension of the basic parts of capitalism (Lenin 1916). Imperialism creates socio-political systems which make the world an unfair place and this inequality is constantly represented in global relationships where the rich and poor nations fight for the same resources and the improvement of their citizens. That is, if a nation is able to get in the lead by maximising its resources, technology and power then it becomes a super power and rules the others who could not. This gap then becomes a divide which has been termed the North-South gap. This ruler and ruled is an old concept. Wallerstein (n.d) posits that difference is a basic truth about today’s world systems as is of past world systems.

Even though Imperialist rule has long gone, distribution of resources and power is still uneven. Global south is still being exploited and continues to trail behind the super powers with all types of international insecurities like starvation, disease, civil war and the digital divide (Fong 2009; Compaine 2001). This inequality produces continuous discrimination making majority nations more impoverished. The gap means the rich minority world has been able to create powers that in effect control the poor majority world. Organisations like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) have over the years designed policies and strategies which are difficult for the majority world to follow (Barnes and Mercer 2005).

Disability in the majority world

According to the World Health Organisation 650 million people are disabled in the world. Of this total, 80% live in developing countries, 20% of them are the poorest in the world. Out of these figures only 2 – 3% of disabled children have access to education (Youthink, 2010). These figures are significant and make uncomfortable reading. Katsui (2006) gives further insight by stating that according to the United Nations (2000) and San (1999) Out of 80% disabled people living in the developing world only 2% receive some type of help. He further asserts that disabled people who live in the south are mainly uncared for by the governments and the global society. Godrej (2005) posits that in the majority world people with impairments are not at the top of the priority list.

Disabled people in the majority world face multiple challenges, the overarching being poverty and social discrimination. WaterAid (2010) indicates that disabled people in the developing world do not only deal with social barriers but poverty and isolation. Yeo (2001); Coleridge (1993) states that suffering high levels of poverty is not the only problem for people, but the likelihood of acquiring an impairment. Furthermore, people with ailments normally have little rights to property, medical care, healthy food, accommodation, education and work.

Lack of thorough diagnosis of ailment and on going medical care is another challenge for the disabled in the developing world. Impairments like Down syndrome can be detected in the womb but the fairly sophisticated equipment for doing this is often lacking. In child birth, routine conditions which are taken for granted in the minority world cause complications which often lead to brain damage and other physical disabilities for babies and their mothers. Baylies (2002) states that, pregnant mothers who for instance, abuse alcohol are often not aware of the harm they are causing their unborn children. A large number of mental impairments are acquired because of Iodine deficiency or poor nutrition.

Disabled people are normally very deprived and frequently reside in places where health care and other facilities are hard to come by or does not exist leaving some impairments undiscovered and others not discovered on time (United Nations Enable, 2006). In the developing world many disabled people are less likely to be employed. Many resort to begging on the streets to support themselves and their families as most of the time there are no structures in place to support them in employment. Income is scant, dwindling and unequally allocated among the disabled. Transportation is another challenge as cars, lorries, buses and trains are not accessible for disabled people. Savill et al (2003) argues it is challenging for disabled people to travel therefore difficult to find a job or socialise.

In many parts of the majority world culture affects the way disability is perceived. Often times, ignorance, superstition and fear cause people to see disability as a curse from God. In some parts of the majority world disabled people are seen as sub-human and unhealthy to join in community activities. Some are ashamed of their disabled relatives and hide them depriving them of any prospects whiles others view them as supreme beings and worship them (Turmusani, 2003; Edgerton, 1970). Disabled people hardly form part of the political process in the majority world often missing in the process of making decisions in communities and governments. Some even don’t have the basic right to vote in elections because of difficulties in getting access and information. Most of the time, they are not consulted on subjects and decisions concerning them.

Relevance of Social Model in majority world

Advocators of the social model emphasizes that discrimination against disabled people is socially constructed and has little to do with their impairments. Meaning that disabled people in the majority world can live more like their non disabled peers if social barriers like inaccessible roads, transport, schools, hospitals and churches were adapted to accommodate them. Barnes (2009) states that disability is a social problem which has been worsened by globalisation and that the answer to the difficulties disabled people face in the developing world will probably remain the same if fundamental changes do not occur at local and global stages. Albert and Hurst (1997) affirms that the social model has given rise to awareness among the disabled people to forge a common front to fight for their basic rights.

However, the relevance of the Social model of disability has been questioned by a number of academicians. Grech (2009) criticises the social model saying it is challenging for cultures because it for a certain period and speaks for certain class of disabled people in the minority world. She further argues that applying the social model in communities where the source of revenue is based on household economies is debatable. Edgerton (1970) describes in his East African research on how different communities across East Africa view people with mental impairments. Some show prejudice, others welcome them whiles others revere them. It has been argued that these cultural differences would make the adaptation of the social model of disability difficult. Albert and Hurst (1997) refute this argument asserting that many local customs like genital mutilations and killing of infants are acceptable in certain cultures but are they acceptable world-wide? This is affirmed by Baird and Hernandez (2005) Tomas Hernandez a disabled activist from Nicaragua highlighted on the changes that took place in Managua after wheel chair users demonstrated, realising they could not go to work without help. This demonstration had a positive effect where the sitting government took measures to lower kerbs and build ramps to accommodate wheel chair users.

The Social model of disability is also accused of not taking into account the impairments of disabled people. Albert and Hurst (1997) asserts that this a major problem for the minority world how much more the majority world but they immediately defuse this statement by arguing that the statement is made by able bodied people who have no idea of what it means to live with impairments. Thomas, Gradwell and Markham (1997), and Oliver (1996) state that the social model of disability does not overlook impairment but refuses to give it attention. Opponents of the social model of disability like Crow (1996) and French (1993) question the reason: the word impairment is being overlooked and calls for it to be brought to the fore as it is a fundamental part of being disabled. Albert and Hurst (1997) further argue that the social model of disability does not overlook the source of disability rather it advocates for the removal of social constructs like poverty and wars that easily beset people.

Another argument is that the social model of disability is a western phenomena and that disabled people in the minority world have basic needs and therefore are able to fight for social rights whereas their compatriots in majority world lack even the basic needs (Werner 1998 cited in Albert and Hurst 1997 p27). Charowa (2005) posits that disabled people in Zimbabwe are frequently not able to acquire personal aids so they make use of makeshift wheel chairs. Albert and Hurst (1997) however, counter argue that the social model of disability is not a western phenomena as a large percentage of its out spoken proponents come from the majority world. Schmidt (2010) indicates that specialist equipment that will require the use of energy will not be helpful to the 1.5 billion people who are poor. International Energy Agency forecast that 1.3 out of the 1.5 poor people will not have access to energy until 20 years time.

Another point raised against the relevance of the social model of disability in the developing world is the matter of difference. Where for example, the physical impaired are treated better than people with mental impa

In this essay I intend to discuss the family as a social construct and institution. I will be critically discussing the different forms of the family, and the role of the family within society from four sociological perspectives.

The family as a social structure is often taken for granted to mean a married couple with children, possibly incorporating grandparents and directly linked blood relatives. This stereotypical view does not take into account a changing society with changing norms and values. It is important when discussing the family in a sociological context to define the family in a wider perspective.

Ferrante (2011) suggests that “the family is often described as a social institution that binds people together through various means, blood, marriage, norms and law.” According to Zelditch (1964) as cited in Ferrante (2011) “there is no concrete group which can be universally identified as the family.”

Several institutions including political parties, the legal system and the media have been blamed for creating the ‘cereal packet’ family but not all sociologists agree with what appears to be typical British family. Gittins (1993) as cited in Marsh and Keating (2006) states “The ideology of the family would have us believe that there is one type of family, one correct way in which individuals should live and interact with each other…An ideology that claims that there is only one type of family can never matched in reality, for it represents an ideal to which only some can approximate, an others not at all.”

During the last century the concept of the family has altered, this is partly due to industrialisation, modernity, changing norms and values and the media. The family can now be seen to have many dimensions, what was considered to be deviant or diverse is often accepted as a norm.

Some sociologists argue that during the nineteenth century, post industrialisation, social order, or kinship, “a network of relatives (kin) who are connected by common decent or marriage.” (Fulcher and Scott 2007) began to alter. Communities that were based on traditional shared values of religion and community changed. Cottage industries began to disappear and families moved from rural areas into towns and cities the nature of the of kinship began to diminish. The economic and social life of this type of family relationship changed, according to Ritzer and Ryan (2011) “Rural people were lured by the novelty of city life and the prospects of greater economic opportunity. The domestic economy of the pre-industrial family disappeared.” The industrial revolution provided factory work for men leaving the females to take a more prominent role as the caregivers, the family dynamics began to alter creating a major change in the division of labour within the family.

“Industrialisation was identified by many as having sounded the death knell for this way of life, destroying extended families and undermining communities.” (Ogburn 1955 as cited in Gillies 2003). The extended family tends to include generations of family extending both horizontally and vertically including connections my marriage and blood. It is argued by some sociologists that industry has destroyed the traditions of the extended family and the social bonding of kinship, leading to the nuclear family. Talcott Parsons (1949) as cited in Fulcher and Scott (2007) stressed that in the absence of the extended family and kinship, the nuclear family met the needs of a changed society. However Laslett and Wall (1972) as cited in Fulcher and Scott (2007) suggest that the nuclear family has always been the more dominant family type throughout the history of family life.

The functionalist approach to the family suggests that the family itself is responsible for ensuring that vital tasks are achieved. Functionalists believe that social institutions such as schools, churches, political systems and the family are all essential to the structure of an effective functioning society and all of these institutions inter relate with each other for the benefit of the whole of society, if one aspect of the structure does not function adequately then society will inevitably experience some form of failure and conflict. Functionalists suggest that the family is one of the most important institutions responsible for the successful raising of a child and parents play a key role in ensuring that children become well integrated within society.

Murdock (1949) conducted a study based on two hundred and fifty societies with the aim of discovering if the family was universal. His conclusion was that the nuclear family was a universal social institution that comprised of four basic functions. These he called, sexual relationships, economic cooperation among members, reproduction and the socialisation of infants and children. (Stark, 2010)

Murdock’s theory has been criticised by many non functionalist sociologists suggesting that his study focussed on the nuclear family and did not take into account other family forms. Gough (1959) argued that Murdock’s theory did not take into account societies such as the Nayar, where one woman could have up to twelve potential fathers to a child and a man could have an unlimited amount of wives. Support came from brothers, sisters and children not from potential fathers. This system was based purely on kinship groups. Gough suggests that the existence of the Nayar was not based on economic cooperation between husbands and wives, the socialisation of infants was provided by the women and their kinship groups, and any affectionate relationship between men and women was prohibited. Gough’s criticism can be closely compared to family groups in British society today looking at family units that do not meet Murdock’s nuclear family theory these families could be single parent families or families consisting of same sex couples. (Bell 1968)

Parsons (1959) as cited in Macionis (2012) argued that the family retains two primary functions, these functions are found in all forms of family thought out the world. He suggests that the primary socialisation of children is the first and most important setting for child rearing and parents are in the position to ensure children are able to become well integrated into society and the structuring of the personality in the early years leads to contributing members of society. He acknowledges that family socialisation continues throughout the life cycle but secondary socialisation becomes more dominant as the child develops due to the family being less involved, and agencies such as schools and peer groups become involved.

Parsons as cited in Harolambos and Holborn (2008) argued that families “are factories which produce human personalities”. Parsons second observation of the family was the stabilisation of the adult personality arguing that men and women who have deep personal relationships will lead content and fulfilling lives which in turn will improve family life removing some of the tensions that the family may face such as work and relationships. Marxist sociologists may argue that although family life can be fulfilling and happy the fact that contemporary British society is based on capitalism, which results in exploitation, family members will inevitably be placed under financial strain and tension which can cause problems of discontent and the breakdown of the family unit. Criticisms were that his theory was outdated and based on the ideology of the nuclear family alone.

Marxist writers in the 1970’s put forward a different perspective of the family they argued that “the capitalist system exploits the free domestic labour of the housewife through the domestic division of labour.” (Fulcher and Scott 2007). They argue that the concept of the nuclear family promotes the role of the man to be the breadwinner and the woman to be the housewife which has led women, if wanting to work, becoming the reserve army therefore being called upon when required, for example during times of war, according to Marxist theorists the nuclear family provides employers with cheap disposable labour that tends to be less valued than their male counterparts. (Fulcher and Scott 2007)

“On what foundation of the present family, the bourgeois family based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie …The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of modern industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.” (Marx and Engels, 1848 as cited in Ferrante 2011)

Although Marx and Engels seem to be criticising the family and suggesting that the family may be considered as a tool for capitalism they were in fact suggesting that the family should be improved and it was the traditional family types that approved of the exploitation of women and children. According to Marsh and Keating (2006), Engels believed that the family exploited women and children and the end of the exploitation within the family could only be achieved in a communist society.

The development of the Marist perspective continued throughout the century and the views of Engles and Marx were applied to a modern capitalist society. Modern Marxists would argue against the functionalists who stress that the purpose of the family is to raise children. Marxists agree that the family has a job but that job is to reproduce the labour power that maintains a capitalist society. It is also suggested that the family is a control mechanism that exerts social control on parents. Living in a highly consumer orientated society, children are often in competition with their peers and parents are in competition with other parents to ensure that their children have the best technology and prospects, the pressure to remain in a competing capitalist society gives the parents little choice but to compete in the workplace and accept capitalism as a norm. “The family is thus an integral part of what Marxists call ‘commodity fetishism’; it helps to fuel the creation of false needs, which in order to be satisfied, require people to work hard. Mobile phones, laptops, X-boxes; all these frivolous things need to be bought by someone and in western capitalist societies it is now increasingly young people who are an important market. And young people come from, of course, families.” (Abbot 2010)

Historical changes in society have led to changes in feminist perspectives creating several waves of feminism. Although there are several types of feminist views including Liberal, Socialist, Radical and Marxist they do all share a common belief that women experience a range of social, economic, political and personal difficulties in their lives but they don’t all agree on the cause of these difficulties.

In general feminists have discarded the Functionalist theories of the nuclear family and suggested that many parents have socialised their children to behave in a manner that is considered to be appropriate to their gender roles. Feminists argue that when children see their parents behaving in their appropriate gender role then the children naturally assume that they should behave in the same way. Females have been shown what is considered to be feminine or female, dependence, obedience, conformity and domesticity and males have been encouraged by parents to be dominant, competitive and independent. (Holburn and Steel 2012)

The radical feminist perspective of the family agrees basic concept of the Marxist view suggesting that exploitation is a key aspect of the family, however where Marxists suggest that capitalism plays a key role for the exploitation of women the feminist approach suggests that the division of labour is due to genetic predispositions that women are seen as the carers and are more suitable to child rearing that their male counterparts who are seen as the providers. Feminists argue that in the division of labour is unequal and that the domestic role is unrewarded and undervalued. According to Sheeran (1993) as cited in Marsh and Keating (2007) “Marxist and radical feminists argue that the family is both an ‘ideological construct’ and a repressive, socially produced reality, which helps to perpetuate capitalism and / or patriarchy. Such criticisms are overtly anti family, and argue that women have been forced into taking responsibility for child care by that ‘agent’ of the state, the patriarchal family.”

Morgan (1975) as cited in Haralambos and Holborn (2008) suggests that “both functionalist and Marxist approaches, both presuppose a traditional model of the nuclear family where there is a married couple with children, where the husband is the breadwinner and where the wife stays at home to deal with the housework.”

The Interactionist approach is seen to be quite different and works at a micro level rather than the macro level like the previous perspectives. Symbolic interactionism has been an important theoretical perspective in family studies since its early development in the 1920s and 1930s. Symbolic interaction theory describes the family as a unit of interacting personalities. LaRossa and Reitzes (1993) as cited in International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family (2003). Interactionists suggest that families reinforce and rejuvenate their bonds through the use of rituals. Some social scientists believe that rituals like gathering together for a family meal or the ritual of marriage using symbols to reinforce the bonds this can be seen as a source of family strength and if families preserve rituals then children will become more emotionally equipped to face problems in the future. (Hughes and Kroehler 2011). Critics stress that symbolic interactionism only looks at the micro level and that this perspective does not take into account larger issues of society.

The New Right perspective of the family was born from functionalist ideology and supports the theory that the nuclear family is the only type of family that works effectively within British society. Between the 1950’s and the 1990’s the nuclear family began to alter, families were no longer perceived to be seen in the traditional stereotypical sense, families were becoming more diverse partly due to changes in the law, abortions were legalised, homosexuality decriminalised and the introduction of legislation such as the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act was introduced. New types of families were emerging. Single parent families, reconstituted families, individuals that cohabitated and the formation of same sex relationships that may or may not have had children from previous relationships. The New Right believe that the lack of traditional family and values and diversity has corrupted society. Lone parents were blamed for wayward children suggesting that without a male and female parent residing within the family unit then children would not be able to function as contributing members of society. Critics of the New Right suggest that by suggesting that the nuclear family is the only family that works for the benefit of society it ignores the dark side of the family issues such as domestic abuse and by trying to impress that the nuclear family is the superior and morally correct route it creates a them and us situation which can lead to discrimination, persecution and ultimately suggests that other family types are not families at all.(Yorkshire 2011)

According to the Office for National Statistics (2011) between 2001 and 2010 families by type have altered slightly to show that there has been a slight increase in the alternative family and a slight decrease in what is considered to be the nuclear family. As the Office of National Statistics now take into account Civil Partnerships as legitimate families the figures reflect a more accurate account of the makeup of the ever changing British family however the categories in which families are assigned do not represent a true picture of the family as it fails to differentiate between reconstituted and nuclear families, while the minority groups such as civil partnership couples and lone parents have been allocated a category of their own.

According to Morgan (1994) as cited in Marsh and Keating (2006) “We cannot speak of the family as if it were a static and changing thing. Rather it is better to use the word as signifying the character of a complex series of processes over time…we should speak of family processes, family living or family life courses. In this way we will come to recognise that family life is always subject to change and variation that change is at the very heart of family living”

As society changes with time it can be argued that the family will alter and perceptions of the family from influences such as the media and politics will change the ideology. Although the school of thought may differ depending on what perspective is applied it appears that the family plays an important role within British society, it is important to recognise that without understanding the family it makes it difficult to understand problems that may arise such as domestic violence and child abuse and how they are interpreted as private troubles or public issues.

Nothing worth having in life is ever attained without taking risk’ (Nansen, 1927 p36). Nansen; a great Arctic Explorer and Nobel peace prize winner said this in his speech about the human need for excitement. Not only this man, but up to 50% of Norwegian people are willing to take risks in life (Norwegian national survey, 2003). The number of people participating in extreme sports seems to be growing (sportbusiness.com, xtremesport4u.com), as is the number of championships in these sports. It seems there is more news about extreme sports and there are more advertisements. An example of a recent risk taking event that made the news in the Netherlands is a thirteen year old girl who wishes to sail around the world on her own. The news of this girl became prime news and many different institutions interfered with the girls’ plan. The Dutch child protection tried to stop her. Eventually they succeeded; the girl was not allowed to execute her plan by court order.

The example in the last paragraph shows a paradox; the contrast in risk-seeking behavior and the risk avoidance or risk minimization in national policies. Modern policies are aimed on risk avoidance, all risks should be minimized (Beck YEAR, Giddens YEAR, Breivik YEAR). Modern societies do this very obviously. Clear examples; bridges, car, airplanes, nuclear reactors, elevators, toys and electrical devices, all should be safe. People all need to behave according to guidelines (i.e. laws) if you do not you will end up in jail. Different kind of examples but good examples nevertheless are an organizer of a raft event was sued for being negligent when in 2007 two young women died when their raft slipped of a dam, insurance companies giving a discount on their insurance if enough smoke detectors and other safety equipment is present in a house, or the building of gas stations outside of urban areas and dozen more examples could be given. What these different exemplifies is a seemed tension between the deeply rooted need for excitement on one hand and the risk avoidance policies by societies nowadays.

Where could this seemed tension come from? Elias and dunning (YEAR) write in their book -Quest for Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilizing Process- that modern society constitutes of routines and relative lack of risk. The comparison is made between Greek wrestlers and Roman boxers to modern ones in order to exemplify the extraordinary violence permissible in antiquity and the soft and rule controlled society of present time. There are also empirical data which raise questions about the theory that the quest for the excitement of sports is an escape from the routines of modern life. This data shows a difference between the ‘richer’ and the ‘poorer’ side of society. Poorer, more often the most routinized people (i.e. factory workers), seem less prone to look for excitement in sports than the less routinized richer people of society. On the contrary of this empirical data that thrill seeking, risk taking, sensation seeking and all other synonyms of people looking for excitement has been found to be a personality trait and therefore has genetic roots. The genes involved in this trait are closely related to major personality dimensions like extraversion and psychoticism (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977). A paper by Fulker, Eysenck, Zuckermann (1980) discards sensation seeking almost as a disease. ‘Sensation seeking was found to relate to both extraversion and psychoticism but not to neuroticism. The general pattern of relationships to other trait tests suggests that sensation seekers are impulsive extraverts, but not necessarily neurotic or anxious’ (Fulker et al., 1980 p262).

There does not seem to be an at hand answer to the question: Does a safety-orientated society make people want to look for excitement in for example extreme sports? This is the research question for this paper. We hypothesize that a safety orientated society makes people want to look for excitement in for example extreme sports.

This paper is a review of articles present about the raised topic and will try to get an insight in if, why and how people are looking for excitement nowadays. In the first chapter we described what we mean by a safety orientated society. In the second a definition is given of excitement and in the thirth excitement is related to risk. The fourth chapter explores whether extreme sports are truly sports. In paragraph one this is done from the perspective of autonomy, and in paragraph two from institutional embeddedness as proposed bij Tamboer & Steenbergen (2007). Chapter five gives an answer to the question why people participate in extreme sport. The last chapter mentions in what way extreme sports are influenced bij our safety orientated society. In the conclusion we give answer to our main question.

We do this literature study as an assignment of the Sport and Society course as a part of the Master Human Movement Sciences but the outcome of this paper could be meaningful to others interested in the human need for excitement.

1. A safety-orientated society

As mentioned in the introduction the safety-orientated society does play a major part this research. Many examples have been given of this supposed risk avoidance society. But what is it and is the society that different than we world we lived in, in the past? Ulrich Beck, a respected sociologist, wrote about the risk society in 1998 (Beck, 1998; Kelman, 2003). Beck describes a risk society as risk avoiding because everything in daily live seem to be focused on risk. Society wants to know everything about risk and want to avoid every risk. All risks should be controllable, calculable and predictable. In other words each task, each product or each activity is at least statistical analyzed for hazards. Although this definition is useful to understand the term ‘risk society’ Beck and Giddens decided in a collaboration paper to extend the term risk society into six parameters of risk society. Every parameter is interconnected. The parameters are: the omnipresence of risk, risk is everywhere. At the very core reflexive modernity is characterized by an awareness of living in a society of increasing vulnerability to the unpredictable, unfamiliar and unprecedented risks manufactured by modern science and technology. Different understandings of risk, the proliferation of the risk definitions, the reflexive orientation to risk and risk and trust. These six parameters make the definition is more comprehensive, because …… Besides this cooperation between Giddens and Beck they did not agree completely. Giddens didn’t settle with the first short definition. He insisted that ‘risk is not the same as hazard or danger. Risks refer to hazards that are actively assessed in relation to future possibilities’ (Giddens, 1999). Further contributions of the definition of risk have been made by Wells, Douglas, Luhmann, Joffe and Fox. They represent different disciplinary approaches to risk. To mention all these different approaches would be beyond the purpose of this paper. But the scope of the different authors may be clear. Modern society is a risk society because societies are focused on risk.

Although we completely understand the point of view of the different authors we strongly believe that society is, for the same reasons as proposed by the authors, focused on creating a safe society. The reason why we chose for this contrast is based on our point of view. We have a propensity to look at this society as a safety-orientated society, because we feel that societies aim on safety. From this save society we look into the risks of extreme sports. This contributes to the contrast between these factors. Hereby we presume that a person who starts doing extreme sports started his live in this safety-orientated society (i.e. a predictable and therefore maybe boring society). The people who step out of the safety-orientated society to participate in an extreme sport; what are they looking for?

2. Excitement

Zuckermann (1983 and 1994) wrote that some sports activities might provide a method by which sensation seekers satisfy their appetite for excitement. Potgieter and Bisschof took it a little further and proposed that sensation seekers are not interested in low risk and low excitement activities such as marathon running (Potgieter, Bisschof 1990). But what is this need for excitement? This chapter will provide a definition for the need of excitement and explain the sub factors that come forward from this definition.

In his paper Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal Zuckerman provides a definition which fits seamless in this paper. He states the need for excitement as: ‘’Look for excitement is a trait defined by the need for varied, novel, and complex sensations and experiences and the willingness to take physical and social risks for the sake of such experience”(Zuckerman 1979, p.10). Between 1979 and the present there has been done much research on this topic. Other researchers added some dimensions and that is why (Zuckerman 1994, p.26) came with a new definition for looking for excitement: ‘sensation seeking is a trait defined by the seeking of varied, novel, complex, and intense sensations and experiences, and the willingness to take physical, social, legal and financial risks for the sake of such experience”. Although this better defined definition there was still the need to define it into four sub factors which are:

Thrill and Adventure seeking represents the desire to engage in sports or other physically risky activities that provide unusual sensations of speed or defiance of gravity, such as scuba diving or skiing.

Experience seeking involves seeking of novel sensations and experience through the mind and senses, as arousing music, even psychedelic drugs, art and travel.

Disinhibition describes the seeking sensations through drinking, partying, gambling and sexual variety. Items of this scale indicate seeking of stimulation through other persons.

Boredom susceptibility items indicate intolerance for repetitive experience of any kind including routine work and boring people.

3. Excitement related to risk

Can we relate look for excitement to risk? Is it a relation? Or can you have excitement without taking risks? If you relate excitement to extreme sport you can answer this question with yes. Besides this perspective, (Highhouse 1996) showed a view from the perspective of society. He uppers that risk could also be taken by threats and opportunities. Threats are related to loss and opportunities are related to gain. (Highhouse 1996) Present an interesting empirical study. This study concludes that people want to take risks but there is a clear leverage beneficial to threats. This basically means that i.e. Program A 400 people will die. Program B 1/3 probability that nobody will die 2/3 probability that 600 people will die. According to Highhouse people will chose for program A. The results typically reveal a framing effect with choices involving gains revealing more risk aversion. The example shows that not always excitement can be related to risk. This test clearly showed that people are risk avoidance. They don’t grap the excitement to win 400 lives in fact they chose for not loosing another 200 people.

According to (Zuckerman) sensation seeking is always related to risk he wrote’ biosocial trait of sensation seeking as a predictor of risk-taking behavior. There are good reasons for this as the sensation-seeking motive can illuminate why some people take risks and others do not, and several studies have shown the validity of the concept in this field’. Zuckerman related to this concept , behavioral expressions of sensation seeking have not only been found in various kinds of risk-taking behaviors such as driving habits, gambling, health, financial activities, alcohol and drug use, sexual behavior and sports but the trait was found to be also involved in vocational preferences and choices, jobs satisfaction, social; premarital and marital relationships, eating habits and food preferences, creativity, humor, fantasy, media and art preferences and social attitudes. This list of Zuckerman covers all the four sub factors of the definition ‘look for excitement’.

4. Extreme sports

Many philosophers have askes themselves the questions: ‘what makes sport sport?’ and ‘what makes sports populair?’ Like ‘normal’ or ‘mainstream’ (Rinehart, 2005) sports, ‘alternative’ or ‘extreme’ sports are described by the use of these words while they are never clearly defined. In literature there has not yet been a comprehensive definition, although some have tried. Tamboer & Steenbergen (2004) have proposed that sports can be seen from two different perspectives: from its autonomy and from its institutional embeddedness. For the use of this paper the difference between sports and extreme sports is explored by using these perspectives.

Extreme sport and its autonomy

Bernard Suits describes sport as similar to game and play, and he came up with the following definition (Meier, 1988): ‘to play a game is to engage in an activity directed towards bringing about a specific state of affairs (1), using only means permitted by rules (2), where the rules prohibit more efficient in favor of less efficient means (3), and where such rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity’ (4). This somewhat philosophic definition can be clarified by an extreme sport example. In downhill mountainbiking a competitor has to follow a specified set out course (1), he is only allowed to use a mountainbike which is approved by the competition organization (2), the course set out by the organization is more difficult than the easiest way down (3) but all competitors apply to these rules because this is the game/sport they are playing

Meier (1988) wanted to distinguish sport from game and added a fifth element to the definitions. This fifth element is the demonstration of physical skill. Extreme sports can even better be described by this definition (i.e. think of all the extreme sports with a jury like halfpipe snowboarding, skateboarding, BMX, freestyle windsurfing), but there remain some characteristics which could make extreme sports different from other sports.

Most sports that people call extreme are associated with taking (physical) risk. Extreme sports are about the mastering of a skill (Willig, 2008) to overcome the risks mostly caused or provided by the environment. Mastering a skill is highly individual and this makes extreme sports very indivually aimed sports. There is not even a need for an opponent in most cases because it is about the person mastering a skill or overcoming the dangers of the environment, the environment can be seen as the opponent. In extreme sport there are less rules then in many other sport. The natural surroundings make obstacles. This makes the second element in Suits definition of sports less appropriate for extreme sports (i.e. offpiste skiing or snowboarding this is often the most efficient way down). The risk that is associated with extreme sports could be a factor that makes these sports more exciting or more sensational than other sports (or other activities). Also the environment in which these sports take place can account for the feeling of excitement and therefore be a reason to do an extreme sport.

Extreme sports and its institutional embeddedness

The national and international championships that are organized for many kinds of extreme sports show that there is an institutional embeddedness. Mountainbiking and windsurfing are even at the Olympic sports and are regularly seen on TV. According to Rinehart (2003) extreme sport is mostly developed by young people who are looking for excitement. After this first phase entrepreneurs starting to get in the sport by two ways: firstly businesses develop gear and products, which reduce the risk of an extreme sport. And secondly the sport becomes popular by magazines and TV programs. The results of entrepreneurs who enter the extreme sport is that it becomes popular in general and possible to do for the safe society. A second distinction between extreme sport and a mainstream sport is that the persons who are doing extreme sports aligning themselves with sport in addition to a lifestyle. Which again opens a new market for business ventures and entrepreneurs i.e. clothes and drinks such as Red bull. These institutions want something to say about the sport. They all profit when extreme sports becomes bigger. There will be more media attention, more sponsors, and more people to buy their products. Extreme sport is highly dependent on expensive material, so as for instance in cycling good material is a never ending business. Could this be the reason for the problem Elias and Dunning proposed? As mentioned in the introduction extreme sports are often done by the ‘richer’ members of society. This is easily explained by the highly dependence of expensive materials. The members that can afford to escape the routinized boring society. Extreme sport is surrounded by the concept of lifestyle. Extreme sport is not just participating in the sport activity but also in de kind of life that is a part of this sport. In many of these sports, but for instance bicycle motorcross (BMX) and surfing, ‘chilling’ is a part of the lifestyle. This lifestyle can be seen in de clothes that people wear, the drinks, the shoes, sunglasses and caps or scarfs.

5. Participation in extreme sports

Because it seems extreme sport has become very populair but is also associated with risk (for physical harm or even death) there is the question: ‘Why do people want to participate in extreme sport?’

Extreme sport seems to distinquish themselves from other sport because of the risk involved. Could it be possible that participators do so because of the risk? And do they need this in order to escape our (boring) safety-orientated society?

Taking risk is associated with thrill- and sensation-seeking behavior. This would mean that people are taking risk because of the excitement that comes with it. As mentioned before, in Zuckerman’s definition of sensation risk-taking behavior is not an essential part, people are only willing to take the risk to experience the sensation. It is possible to experience excitement without risk.

Whether people want to experience excitement with or without risk is dependent from the situation. Highhouse (1996) showed risk is perceived as an opportunity when in a loss position, but as a threat when in a gain position. Perceptions of threat or opportunity could have effects on risk taking (Highhouse, 1996). Catar (2006) proposes there is a difference between real risk and perceived risk. Real risk a numerical estimation of the likelihood of an event and perceived risk is influenced by cultural factors. In adventure tourism (activities like bungeejumping, raften, paragliding, etc.) 94% of the participants found there was a very low or non-existent possibility for los, which ment that almost everybody thought the activity was without risk (Catar, 2006). Besides this, the participants evaluate the activities in relation tot the risk of everyday experiences, like driving a car at high speed (Catar, 2006).

There can be concluded that de perceivement of risk is dependent on situational factors, and that people do not seek risk but the experience of sensation.

Catar (2006) states: ‘Although participants are safe in this knowledge of an outcome, there is no knowlegde as to what the experience might feel like, which is where the attraction really lies’. This experience might be so different from everyday experiences, and in combination with an outstanding environmental view the reason for people to participate in extreme sport.

At this point rises the question wheter extreme sport is still extreme without the risks involved. And do the experience and environment make extreme sport different from other sports?

There are also empirical data which raise questions about the theory that the quest for the excitement of sports is an escape from the routines of modern life. If this is the case, and it certainly seems plausible, how can we explain the well-attested fact that the advantaged rather than the disadvantaged members of society are more likely to do and to watch sports? In other words, those whose lives are least routinized, e.g., professionals, are more likely to seek excitement in sports than those whose lives are most routinized, e.g., factory workers. Perhaps the answer lies in the kinds of sports that are popular with different groups of people.

Before people participate in new activities there are two very important elements that must be met. First, people have to be aware of the existence of the activity and the possibility to participate. And, secondly, people have to be in the circumstances that it is possible for them to participate in terms of time, skill, and money. Most extreme sports are quite new and many people are probably unaware of the existence of these activities. By television, advertisments, and stories from friends they become acquinted with the new sports. But before people decide to take part in these sports they have to be in de right circumstances to do so. Most material is very expensive, and there are many sports that cannot be done anywhere. For mountainbiking their have to be tracks or a natural environment, for skiing snowy mountains are needed, for surfing their have to be big waves etc.

People who are looking for these circumstances can probably be called sensation-seekers. Donnelly (2006) point out that the way in which research has been done on extreme sports often only includes the core participants. Their mode of participation has come to be called ‘authentic’ in contrast to the participation of so-called wannabes, posers and nonparticipants. Their relationship with extreme sport is a commercial one. The identification with extreme sport relies for a big part on the adoption of the related lifestyle (Donnelly, 2006). This points out what big influence media, advertisements and groups have on people. And it shows that there are very different kinds of people who participate in extreme sport. Of course this is also the reason why there isn’t a simple answer to the question why people do extreme sport. Extreme sport may be so popular in contrast to other sport because most participants are attracted to the lifestyle, the products and may not even be practising the sport itself.

6. Are extreme sports under influence of the safety-orientated society?

It could be concluded from chapter 5 that there is a safety-orientated society because people are looking for safety. It is not only our society, but people aren’t looking for the risk of death of great physical harm. When there are many people who want to take part in extreme sports, safety has to be guaranteed. But when extreme sport becomes safer, there will be more people who want to take part.

It seems extreme sport has a very succesfull image which has been made by media and companies. Advertisements and the way the media shows extreme sport make it sound very exciting. But these sports also have a lifestyle that is known as chilling and relaxing. Not only the sport itself but also the special places to go for participating in that sport make it also special and exciting.

In this way extreme sport mirrors our safety orientated society. Because the risks have decreased, and physical safety is assured, people can seek their needed thrills and sensation in extreme sport.

Conclusion

Does a safety-orientated society make people want to look for excitement in for example extreme sports?

Our safety-orientated society makes it possible for all kinds of people to seek excitement in extreme sports.

Implications??

Government: If you want excitement then please do an extreme sport instead of experimenting drugs and alcohol because being physically active keeps you healthy and that’s safe!

References

Donnelly, M. (2006). Studying extreme sports: beyond the core participants. Journal of sport and social issues, 30, 219

Elias, N. & Dunning, E. (1986). Quest for Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilizing Process. Oxford, Basil Blackwell

Fulker, Eysenck & Zuckerman, M. (1980). A Genetic and Environmental Analysis JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN PERSONALITY 14, 261-281

Highhouse, S. & Yuce, P. (1996). Perspectives, perceptions, and risk-taking behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 65, 159-167

http://www.xtremesport4u.com/extreme-sport/extreme-sport-growing-in-popularity/

http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/143916/surge-in-popularity-of-extreme-sports

Meier, K.V. (1988). Triad Trickery: Playing With Sport and Games. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, XV, 11-30.

Nansen (1927) ‘Adventure’, in G. Breivik, THE QUEST FOR EXCITEMENT AND THE SAFE SOCIETY, journ. Safety science

Potgieter, J., Bisschoff, F., 1990. Sensation seeking among medium and low risk sports. Perceptual and Motor Skills 71, 1203_/1206.

Stranger, M. (1999). The aesthetics of risk. A study of surfing. International review for the sociology of sport, 34 (3), 265-276

Tamboer, J. & Steenbergen, J. (2004). Sportfilosofie. Nederland, Budel: Uitgeverij DAMON.

Willig, C. (2008). A phenomenological investigation of the experience of taking part in extreme sports. Journal of health psychology, 13, 690

Zuckerman, M., 1983. Sensation seeking and sports. Personality and Individual Differences 4, 285_/292.

Zuckerman, M., 1994. Behavioral Expression and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Zuckerman, M. (1979): Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ruch, W. & Zuckerman M. ( ). Sensation seeking in adolescence. Hoofdstuk 1