toptermpaper.com

The social world that we inhabit comprises of several peoples, groups, communities, relations, etc. Those who are interested in comprehending the social world around them and trying to make sense of the same, make use of reason and logic to clarify, label and develop ideas about who we are. These commonsensical notions about the world around us are different from ideas informed by logic and reason. Logical understanding of society finds expression in the ordering of ideas into concepts and the careful arrangement of concepts into hypotheses to be tested, validated and tested for reliability in order to arrive at universal generalisations of social phenomenon.

The central purpose of this essay is to understand two interrelated questions: What is theory? And why do we need theory? We will explore the aforementioned questions by examining two different models of conceptualising society: Naturalistic and humanistic. While examining this point, we would also seek to clarify the need of social theory to exist in a separate domain from commonsensical and lay knowledge. This would be followed by bringing to light the methodological premises on which theory building rests and its implications on the production of sociological knowledge. The argument would attempt to clarify the case for finding a middle ground between methodological individualism and methodological collectivism in methodological situationalism for production of social theory. But before moving to these arguments, we would begin by understanding the relation of theory and concept, as one the most widely used definitions of theory uses concept.

Social Theory and Concept

We begin with the proposition that theories can be described as sets of inter-related concepts and ideas that have been scientifically tested and combined to magnify, enlarge, clarify, and expand our understanding of people, their behaviours, and their societies. A theory is a unit of knowledge that comprises facts, assumptions and hypotheses. This unit shows how facts can be subordinated to general principles or laws and how they relate to them. Theories can be verified by experiments or by methodological observation. Usually theories focus on one selected aspect of a phenomenon under consideration. This means that several or even many theories can be constructed dealing with the same phenomenon. Blumer highlights the issues concerned with using concepts in social theory. ‘In terms of both origin and use, social theory, seems in general not to be geared into the empirical world’. This is problematic because theoretical formulations rely heavily on concepts as means of capturing the empirical world. It is quite evident that the concepts in social theory are vague because the objects of study include social values, norms, institutions, etc which cannot be grasped in their entirety, but can only provide a rough identification of attributes that can be included in the study. There is thus, a need to have clear concepts which can be used for social theory. The difference that Blumer points out is that there is a distinction between definitive concept and sensitising concept. A definitive concept refers to what is common to a class of objects, by the aid of fixed benchmarks of empirical science. A sensitising concept on the other hand gives a general sense of reference and guidance in approaching empirical instances. Concepts used in social theory largely belong to the latter category. They lack the precise referent and benchmark which can be used to grasp the concept. The empirical world of our discipline is a social world of every day experience. Every object can be subjected to consideration for social theory. This distinctive character of the empirical world and its settings make our concepts sensitising in nature. This is not to say that these concepts are unscientific in any way. Sensitising concepts can be tested, improved and refined. Their validity can be analysed through careful study of empirical references that they seek to cover.

Dealing with questions of Agency through an exploration of the Naturalistic and Humanistic perspective

The next section of this essay we will begin with the naturalistic model of social theory. The naturalistic model with its focus on developing a true and valid science of society aimed to align social theory along the lines of empirical science. An empirical science of society analyses the world abstractly as composed of objects and attempts to establish relations among these classes of objects. It is this analytical scheme of empirical science which influences research and also methods of data collection, classification and its implications on formulation of new theories. Social theory finds its fundamental problem, in such a scheme of analysis, as the relation between the empirical referent and the concept used to denote the referent in theory as social theory is largely made of well defined concepts and the relational value attached to them. The concepts that are used in social theory can be vague in nature, in the sense that they may not be able to determine with exactitude the precise specification of attributes to be studied. (As mentioned before)

The domain of sociology has at its centre the analysis of society, and all its related components. The subject matter of sociology becomes problematic because we inhabit the world we seek to analyse. The most critical question that presents before us is to understand how does a member of society become an objective observer of social phenomenon, while being a part of the social model, and thus produce scientific sociological theory.

The task therefore is to delineate general phenomenon from sociological phenomenon. This brings us to the difference between common sense knowledge and sociological knowledge. There are different ways of approaching this question. We begin with the proposition that all the knowledge that we possess about the world may not have the element of truth in it. Human agents as concept bearing actors are aware of their actions and attribute certain meanings to them.

‘To be a human agent is to knowaˆ¦ what one is engaged in and why. There is a sense in which we cannot be wrong about what are actions are..’ Giddens (1987:5). As actors, individuals operate out of their own understanding of what is true knowledge derived from social conventions and is contextual in nature. This knowledge at all times is contested knowledge. While there may be acceptance of different points of view, there could also the possibility of ideas being borne out of false premises or slanted beliefs. ‘Our presumed knowledge about institutions (maybe)aˆ¦ inclined to error’ Giddens (1987:4). The point is that knowledge can be false in the sense that it can be contextual, holding validity only for a particular cultural and social setting. Our actions are always oriented in a setting and a significant part of what a sociologist does is to uncover these premises and lay them bare for an outsider to grasp in the same manner as the actor. This non-discursive side to our activities is of relevance to social theory and forms an important aspect of sociological analysis. This is where the role of social theory then begins to take shape.

Social theory has the task of clarifying the generally held beliefs about social institutions and society at large. In fact, as pointed out by Giddens, our understanding of the social world owes a lot to sociological studies and researches. One should not underestimate the contributions which social research and theory can make to identify false or slanted beliefs widely held about social phenomenon. For such beliefs may often take the form of prejudices and hence contribute to intolerance and discrimination or might inhibit social changes that would otherwise be seen as desirable. Thereby to assert the difference between sociologically true and valid concepts from commonsensical notions, social theory makes use of its own conceptual metalanguage in order to grasp aspects of social institutions which are not described in lay terms.

The study of the non-discursive aspect of social action reveals to us what we already know about the social world but also re-emphasises the need to know what we do and why we do. This also calls our attention to the category of unintended consequences of our action. Actors may perform certain actions being cognisant of only the intended results, while the unintended consequences may remain obscure. Social theory reveals these unintended consequences to help us understand the course of development of any sociological phenomenon as it takes into account what we know and intend to produce as well as the consequences that we are not aware of since they are not intended. This analysis is critical since, there is interplay between society and agency and that although agency creates social life in individual and personal experience and biographies, and it also reproduces the larger social history which exists independent of an individual actor. In performing duties as a daughter, sister or mother, women in any society reproduce the social institutions of family and kinship which they did not bring into existence. ‘The activities are thus embedded within, and are constitutive of, structured properties of institutions stretching well beyondaˆ¦ time and space’ Giddens (1987:11).

While Durkheim argued that the domain of social phenomenon is largely the ‘ways of acting, thinking and feeling, which possess the remarkable property of existing outside the consciousness of the individual’ Durkheim (1982:51), he did not give enough recognition to individual freedom, volition and autonomy. This reduction of the individual as a mere reproduction of society makes the study of larger social institutions the object of analysis. This would not hold true in micro-sociological analyses, which give due importance to interaction between actors to understand basic features of larger social institutions.

Methodologically, the study of sociology can either be informed by the concerns of the naturalist model or can follow a humanistic approach. The 19th century sociologists were advocates of a science of sociology and therefore, adopted a natural science model for the study of society. The natural laws however could not suffice in their explanation of social phenomenon. The humanistic approach, with its focus on, Verstehen as propounded by Weber found its ground as a methodological tool to take into account the meaning of social action. This contrast between explanation and understanding represented by a choice of either model becomes problematic for social theory. The point is that social theory is bound in what Giddens called ‘double hermeneutics’. Anthony Giddens (1982) argued that there is an important difference between the natural and social sciences. In the natural sciences, scientists try to understand and theorise about the way the natural world is structured. The understanding is one-way; that is, while we need to understand the actions of minerals or chemicals, chemicals and minerals don’t seek to develop an understanding of us. He referred to the above as the ‘single hermeneutic’. In contrast, the social sciences are engaged in the ‘double hermeneutic’. Sciences like sociology study how people understand their world, and how that understanding shapes their practice. Because people can think, make choices, and use new information to revise their understandings (and hence their practice), they can use the knowledge and insights of social science to change their practice.

In outlining his notion of the ‘double hermeneutic’, Giddens (1987: 20) explained that while philosophers and social scientists have often considered the way “in which lay concepts obstinately intrude into the technical discourse of social science” that “Few have considered the matter the other way around.” He explained that “the concepts of the social sciences are not produced about an independently constituted subject-matter, which continues regardless of what these concepts are.

Social theory studies human beings who are concept bearing individuals, engaged in social interaction which produce and reproduce larger social structures. The understanding of social actors and theorising about the same, is also appropriated by the same actors who reflexively reflect upon their actions. ‘The ‘findings’ of the social sciences very often enter constitutively into the world they describe’ Giddens (1987:20).

Social Theory and its Methodological Concerns.

The development of social theory cannot be understood completely without taking into account the methodological premises on which the production of social theory were built. We begin by categorising the theories as macro-sociological theories and micro-sociological theories. Macro-sociology can be understood as dealing with social phenomenon and institutions on an aggregate level. Such an approach entails the use of both theoretical concerns on a system level and the use of aggregate data to arrive at generalisations. Micro-sociology deals with smaller groups as the object of analysis focusing on cognitive order and social interaction between actors, significance of meanings, etc.

Theories which can be categorised as macro-sociological in approach have at their core, the study of normative order. This proposition can be further explored by looking at Durkheim’s view of society. Durkheim was one of the chief proponents of a normative-functional integration model of society. For Durkheim, individual actors acted out of social norms which had been internalised by the individual through socialisation and education. These norms informed all the actions and contributed to the overall functioning of the society in perfect equilibrium. The social facts existed independent of the individual, were external and coercive in nature while being collective and general. For Durkheim, the pre-established harmony of society through individual agents was internally controlled and imposed. Micro-sociological approach has brought a remarkable shift in theorising where cognitive order has become the object of analysis. The methodological structure on which micro-sociological theorising is based takes into account cognitive processes that represent and interpret the relevance of values and obligations. It begins with the premise that the actor is a knowing, active subject. Micro-sociologists like symbolic interactionists view actors and meanings attributed by actors in social interaction as ways of understanding the larger macro issues of order. Mead’s conception of the self has the underlying notion of the individual as a composite whole of selves and also the notion of interior audiences where men attribute motives to each other from the perspective of the generalised other which can also be seen as an internalised reference group for giving meaning to action. Such a social theory then recognises the significance of a knowing and acting agent, and the study of related phenomenon not as coerced human action, but as informed human action, to study the manner in then social phenomenon is produced, contested, repaired, organised and displayed in social situations.

Social theory then stands to reconcile both macro and micro approaches to the study of social phenomenon. Taking the above example, social order can be redefined by moving away from the traditional normative-functional-integration model to a cognitive model of micro social action which would take into account the actor not as a puppet in the hands of society but as an active agent in society.

The distinctive feature of micro sociological approaches is the fact that they accord a privileged status to small scale social situations. These social interactions also have their place in macro sociological theory where they may be considered as building blocks for larger systemic conceptions. The point to be made is that social theory must find its ground between methodological individualism and methodological collectivism. Methodological individualism demands that all aspects of social theory be analysed in terms of the interests, activities, etc., of individual human beings. Methodological collectivism holds the view that the society is a whole which is more than just a sum of its parts and that society moulds individuals in socialisation so that they must be seen as dependent upon social institutions rather than their active constituents. An alternative to the dominant approaches of methodological individualism and methodological collectivism is methodological situationalism. Methodological situationalism replaces the model of the actor as the ultimate unit of analysis and leads to the production of knowledge that takes into account the practice through which members reproduce and acquire a sense of order while at the same time searching for order of rules and resources which presumably underlie and generate social conduct. We can summarise this section with the following remarks. Macro sociological theories have focused primarily on interrelations of social action. Micro sociological theories on the other hand, look at micro-social situations for theory building and theory formulations.

Concluding Remarks

The aim of sociological theory is not limited to understanding conceptual ambiguities but to reason systematically and scientifically about some of the major social problems that we face, to illuminate which values are relevant to the context and why, and to give some direction to what we should do. The general goal is to accomplish an understanding of reality. The importance of studying theory can be discerned by understanding the possible functions of theory- descriptive, analytical or explanatory, and to a certain degree predictive as well, and inherently prescriptive. Theory enables the researcher to make sense of the world around him. They guide and give meaning to what we see and observe. Theory helps in orienting the researcher’s mental framework to an established and accepted base from which the researcher can extract an understanding of the social reality around him, and proceed to develop his own hypothesis. Theories are often used to orient the mind of the reader to the purpose of the research study. A strong theoretical background helps in introducing and justifying the need for undertaking a certain research study. When a researcher investigates and collects information through observation, the investigator needs a clear idea of what information is important to collect, which could be solved by using a theoretical tool to dictate the research enquiry.

Theory and empirical research are intrinsically interrelated in the scheme of sociological enquiry. Following the scientific model of sociological enquiry, theory and research are linked in the both the inductive and deductive analysis of social reality. In the deductive model research is used to empirically test the validity and reliability of theory, while in the inductive model theories are developed on the basis of careful understanding and analysis of research data. If theory answers the question of what, why and how, research helps in indicating the purpose, object and end of what a particular theory is aiming to achieve. The significance of social theory can therefore, never be undermined.

What kinds of questions do the different theoretical frameworks encourage you to ask about the Bradford ‘riots’? Which of these questions do you find useful and worth pursuing? Why? What are the limitations of the theoretical frameworks you have considered? What questions do they neglect?

The following is a brief discussion of how some of the different theoretical frameworks of sociology can be used to gain an understanding of social events and structures, with the Bradford riots as the selected case study. The different theoretical frameworks of sociology offer us the structures to carry out and then evaluate social research on particular events or issues, although the differences in these theoretical frameworks need to always be taken into account. The different theoretical frameworks of sociology in fact emphasise differing actors such as individual choices / freedom of action, the impact of economic, political, and social factors, as well as social institutions and social structures. Several research questions are put forward for discussion and evaluation to assess which ones will fit in best with the different theoretical frameworks of sociology that are discussed. The reasons for selecting the final research questions will be explained. Finally the potential shortcomings of the selected research questions as well as the chosen theoretical frameworks will be discussed.

There are arguably various kinds of questions that the different theoretical frameworks of sociology would encourage us to ask about the Bradford riots, or any other social event for that matter. The different theoretical frameworks of sociology are after all meant to give people the ability as well as the capacity to evaluate and therefore to understand general societies as a whole and indeed specific social events in isolation. The shared purpose of the different theoretical frameworks of sociology is to analyse and to comprehend contemporary societies, the asking of pertinent questions being a widespread and also a sound means of determining the direction and the results of sociological research into specific events or areas. The different theoretical frameworks of sociology would in all probability encourage us to ask probing and open ended kinds of questions to find out more details concerning the Bradford riots. Of course the different theoretical frameworks of sociology would then probably go on to provide differing explanations of why the Bradford riots happened, as well as the main causes of what took place. For example questions like the following ones would be highly useful for the different theoretical frameworks of sociology to ask in order to evaluate what happened:

Could the Bradford riots have been accurately predicted?
Did the Bradford riots have long-term social and economic causes?
Did the Bradford riots have short-terms social and economic causes?
Could the Bradford riots have been averted at all?
What role did social factors such as alienation, racial discrimination, and poverty play in causing the Bradford riots?
Why were the local authority, the West Yorkshire Police, and the central government unable to prevent the Bradford riots from taking place?
Are there any lessons that the local authority, the West Yorkshire Police, and the central government can learn from the Bradford riots? And if so should changes be made to prevent further riots in the future?

All of the questions mentioned above would certainly prove to be useful in the provision of a meaningful analysis of the Bradford riots within the context of the different theoretical frameworks of sociology to ensure that important and accurate conclusions are reached about the causes of the violent outbursts. To a large extent all of the questions that could be asked would provide pertinent answers and research for a full analysis of the events surrounding the Bradford riots. However some of the questions would undoubtedly provide more complete levels of data as well as relevant information than other questions concerning the Bradford riots. If answered in full some of the questions would provide enough information to answer the other closely related questions. Indeed some of the less important questions could be used as follow up or secondary questions to the main questions actually being asked.

The main questions chosen to gain the most useful information about the Bradford riots would be the following ones:

Did the Bradford riots have long-term social and economic causes?
Did the Bradford riots have short-terms social and economic causes?
(With a possible follow up question of ‘Could the Bradford riots have been accurately predicted?).
What role did social factors such as alienation, racial discrimination, and poverty play in causing the Bradford riots?
(With the back up question of ‘Why were the local authority, the West Yorkshire Police, and the central government unable to prevent the Bradford riots from taking place?).
Are there any lessons that the local authority, the West Yorkshire Police, and the central government can learn from the Bradford riots? And if so should changes be made to prevent further riots in the future?

These questions have been chosen as theoretically at least they offer the best prospects of gaining as a wide a perspective of possible of the social and other possible causes of the Bradford riots. The selected questions depending upon how they are actually answered would allow functionalists, Marxist, and structuralism sociologists for example to come up with highly diverse conclusions based on the same data and research information about the Bradford riots. The answers given in response to these questions could and will undoubtedly be interpreted in various ways that may or may not fit in with the different theoretical frameworks of sociology already studied such as functionalism, Marxism, and structuralism.

Of course there is a long tradition of the adherents of functionalism, Marxism, and structuralism interpreting data and research information in ways that make their theoretical frameworks appear to be the best method of understanding social events such as the Bradford riots. Thus the proponents of the different theoretical frameworks of sociology would almost certainly argue that their preferred theoretical framework is better than all the other alternative frameworks in explaining and subsequently understanding the Bradford riots. They would also be arguing that their preferred theoretical framework would be the best for analysing entire societies as well as highly specific social events.

If answered in full the questions to be asked in relation to the causes of the Bradford riots should provide enough evidence to draw up research findings and also conclusions that fit in with the different theoretical frameworks of sociology such as functionalism, Marxism, and structuralism. However the conclusions would of course vary depending upon which of the different theoretical frameworks of sociology was actually being used at the time. Although there might be some similarity with the social and economic factors believed to have contributed to the causes of the Bradford riots, even if the different theoretical frameworks of sociology will rank such factors in different orders of over all importance. At the centre of the theoretical differences between the different theoretical frameworks of sociology is the issue of causation. Basically deciding whether or not individuals are free to act as they wish, or whether social structures, or indeed whether social and economic factors have the greatest influence in causing or worsening social events such as the Bradford riots.

In many respects the Bradford riots are a very pertinent example of a social event that could be used as a case study to enable us to understand the ways in which the different theoretical frameworks of sociology use data and information to come up with evaluations of society. Although the different theoretical frameworks of sociology would all claim to have the ability to fully analyse and also to evaluate whole societies in general as well as specific social events in this case the Bradford riots. For those academics and sociologists that fervently believe in the accuracy and the validity of any specific one of the different theoretical frameworks of sociology then it is harder to accept criticism about those frameworks. Criticism and comments that their preferred theories and the other theoretical frameworks do in fact have shortcomings that can adversely affect the validity of research findings based upon their concepts and theories.

Functionalism was one of the different theoretical frameworks of sociology that has the ability to analyse and evaluate the causes of the Bradford riots despite having some serious shortcomings from theoretical perspectives. Functionalism contends that when taken as a whole and also in the case of specific social events are shaped as well as heavily influenced by the inter relationships between individuals, social groups and also social institutions. Functionalism contends those individual beliefs and also social groups such as families or religious communities and social institutions like the West Yorkshire Police, the local authority, and the central government heavily influence their actual behaviours. Functionalism does have the capacity to analyse and to also evaluate the consequences of the interaction between individuals, social groups, and also social institutions. There is a very serious weakness when it comes down the suitability of functionalism for examining the Bradford riots. Functionalism as such does not recognise the possibility of the conflict between individuals, social groups, and also social institutions taking place. A social theory that does not recognise social conflict or struggles is certainly limited in its scope to understand violent events, like riots for instance.

Marxism as a theoretical framework does provide some useful methods for analysing and evaluating the Bradford riots, yet it has obvious drawbacks. Marxism generally contends that class divisions as well as social heavily influence societies and economic inequalities that increase the prospects for conflict. Using Marxism as a theoretical framework allows us to understand the part that social and economic inequality as well as poverty played in causing the Bradford riots. Marxism unlike other theoretical frameworks does not recognise racial discrimination as a direct cause of social conflicts, which ignores the possibility that the Bradford riots were partially or completed caused by issues related to race relationships inside Bradford itself. The Bradford riots were also linked with religious issues, most notably the increased levels of alienation and aggression found within young Asian Muslim men in Bradford that felt isolated due to their race as well as their religion.

Whilst Marxism is useful because it acknowledges that alienation can be a significant cause of social conflict, it tends to over emphasise the importance of class conflict. In the case of Bradford the issues of race discrimination and race relations are more relevant to the situation leading up to the riots, due to the high ethnic minority population within the city. In those circumstances Marxism’s emphasis upon class conflict does appear to be relevant at all.

The theoretical merits of structuralism are that it has the capacity to evaluate as well as examine the various structures and also institutions within contemporary societies, and theoretically at least their impact on specific social events such as the Bradford riots. Over all structuralism actively contends that it is social structures and also social institutions that under normal circumstances the position of individuals within their own societies. The supporters of the structuralism theory go on to contend that individuals within their own societies do not actually have any influence as well as meaningful power over the main decisions and events within their lives.

Structuralism as a theoretical framework does tend to stress how important social structures and institutions such as the emergency services, local authorities, education services, and most importantly of all the central government are responsible for providing individuals with opportunities as well as maintaining social stability. The central government and all the institutions and social structures it controls have the capacity to positively improve peoples lives alongside the negative function of punishing those that attempt to overturn existing social structures. It is thus a theoretical framework that stresses the overwhelming importance of structures and institutions in contemporary societies, and how they can solve social problems. Perhaps more importantly how social structures and social institutions can solve social problems if there is the political The main practical and also theoretical shortfall of structuralism is that it underestimates the influence that individuals and linked small social groups can have over specific social events including the Bradford riots. Individuals and linked small social groups, especially the most alienated and angry ones can cause a great deal of destruction as well as disruption within their local area, or indeed beyond it. Alienated individuals and small groups may be particularly destructive and disruptive when social institutions and structures fail to understand them or underestimate the threat to law and order that they actually pose.

Bibliography

T. Bilton et. al., Introductory Sociology, 4th edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002).

J. Macionis and K Plummer Sociology: A global introduction (Pearson), 3rd edition, 2005

James Fulcher and John Scott’s Sociology (OUP, 2nd edition, 2003)

Kenneth H. Tucker, Classical Social Theory. A Contemporary Approach (Oxford, Blackwell, 2002). John Hughes, Peter Martin and W. Sharrock, Understanding Classical Sociology. Marx, Weber, Durkheim (London: Sage, 1995). Pip Jones, Introducing Social Theory (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003). K. Morrison, Marx, Durkheim, Weber. Formations of Modern Social Thought (London: Sage, 1995). Steven Seidman, Contested Knowledge. Social Theory Today, third edition (Oxford, Blackwell, 2004). Rob Stones (ed.), Key Sociological Thinkers (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 1998).

While the concern of sociology with childhood is far from new, what is noticeable is the remarkable surge in the sociological interest and attention in this area commencing in the last decade (Brannen 1999). What clearly stands out and is novel in this sociological interest and attention is the determination to make childhood itself the locus of concern rather than seeing it subsumed under the umbrella concepts of family or schooling which has been the trend in such studies (Scott 2005).A rise in this view of the child is attributed to the systematic move to re-democratize modern society and to disassemble all the remaining covert forms of stratification (James et al 1998:21). Whereas classical sociology attended primarily to the stratification wrought through social class, modern sociology has begun to address all those areas that have been treated as “natural” or only “human nature” (Jenks 2001). Thus, race, sex, sexuality, age, physical and mental ability, all have come under scrutiny and have all been shown to derive their meanings from their social context (Jenks 2001). Childhood is rather late in gaining the fashion and attention but it has finally arrived (James et al 1998:31). In reaction to the deterministic concept of socialization and the developmental paradigm of children as a state of becoming (Frankenberg 1993), the new approach views childhood as a status rather than a transitory period and considers children to be reflexive social actors (Jenks 2001). This constitutes a new development termed as a new sociology of childhood, one which entails seeing children as active agents and distinctive groups in their own right.

The Socialization theory

Theories of social order, social stability and social integration presume a uniform and predictable standard of action from participating members. Following from this assumption, sociological theorizing begins with a formally established concept of society and works back to the necessary internalization of its norms and values into the consciousness of its potential participants (James et al 1998). There are always children and the process of this internalization is known as socialization. The direction of influence is evident – the society influences the child (James et al 1998:23).

This is not to imply that sociologists are unaware of the biological character of human organisms. As a matter of fact, the model of the “socially developing child shares chronological and incremental characteristics with the naturally developing model”(James et al 1998:23).However, to concentrate on its development within a social context, explanation in terms of natural propensities and dispositions are resisted in the sociological account. The socially developing model is focussed on what society naturally demands from the child rather than focussing on what the child naturally is (James et al 1998:23).

Socialization is a concept that has been thoroughly employed by sociologists to delineate the process through which children, in some cases adults learn to conform to social norms (Elkin &Handel 1972). In this respect, sociologists’ understanding of social order, its reproduction and continuation has largely depended on the effectiveness of socialization to ensure that societies are able to sustain themselves through time. This involves the successful transmission of culture from generation to generation (James et al 1998:23).

Ritchie and Kollar (1964:117) define socialization as:

“The central concept in the sociological approach to childhood is socialization. A synonym for this process may well be acculturation because this term implies that children acquire the culture of the human groupings in which they find themselves. Children not to be viewed as individuals fully equipped to participate in a complex adult world, but as beings who have the potential for being slowly brought into contact with human beings.”

James et al (1998) argue that the process of socialization has been conceived in two ways by sociologists. First is what they have termed as “Hard way” or what Wrong (1961) referred to as the “over socialized conception of man in modern sociology”, socialization is seen as the internalization of social constraints, a process occurring through external regulation. This conception is majorly derives from structural sociology and Parson’s systems theory, who defines socialization as:

“The term socialization in its current usage in the literature refers to the process of child development…However; there is another reason for singling out the socialization of the child. There is reason to believe that, among the learned elements of personality, in certain respects the stablest and most enduring are the major value- orientation patterns and there is much evidence that these are ‘laid down’ in childhood and are not on a large scale subject to drastic alteration during adult life”(1951:101).

What Parsons achieves in his theory of the social system is a stable, uniform and exact correspondence between individual actors and their particular responsibilities and the society itself. They are both cut to a common pattern. What he also achieves is the universality in both the practice and experience of childhood, because the content of socialization is secondary to the form of socialization in each and every case (James et al 1998). The potential for the expression of the child’s intentionality is thereby constrained through the limited number of choices that are made available in social interaction. These Parsons refers to as pattern variables. In this way the model achieves a very generalized sense of the child at the level of abstraction and one that is determined by structure rather than pronounced through the exercise of agency(James et al 1998). And, as this model is also based on developmental scheme, the child is necessarily considered to be incompetent or to have only incomplete, uninformed or pro-competencies. Therefore, any research following from such a model cannot attend to the everyday world of children, or their skills in interaction and world-view, except in terms of generating a diagnosis for remedial action (James et al 1998:24-25).

The second and somewhat ‘softer’ way in which socialization process has been conceived by sociologists is as an essential element in interaction, which is a transactional negotiation that occurs when individuals strive to become group members. This is the version of socialization that stems from the symbolic interactionism of G. H. Mead and the Chicago school and involves a social psychology of group dynamics. This is really, however a perspective on adult socialization. The median analysis of child development is much more a thesis in materialism (James et al 1998). The basic theory of the acquisition of language and interactional skills is based very much on an unexplicated behaviourism, and the final resolution of the matured relationship between the individual and the collective other (that is the ‘self’ and the ‘other’) is a thinly disguised reworking of Freud’s triumph of the super ego over the Id. Thus, generating a wealth of sensitive ethnographic studies from the baseline of adult interactional competence. At this level, it falls in line with the socialization theory espoused by Parsons and the structural sociology.

To a large extent, this accounts for sociology’s neglect of the topic of childhood and also demonstrates why children were only ever considered under the broadest of umbrellas, namely the sociology of family. In all the manifestations of the model of the socially developing child (that is, socialization theory) as they have appeared in many forms of sociology, little or no time is given to children.

Children as the developing unit

The above section elucidates that sociology has viewed chidren’s socialization deterministically, often within the functionalist framework (Silva &Smart 1999: 146). This trend is visible in the childhood studies that have been done. Ambert’s (1993) survey of classical sociological texts and North American journals revealed an absence of children, while post war texts on the family proved hardly better. They make only passing reference to children themselves, subsuming them under the heading of Socialization, Child Rearing or Education. The concepts of family socialization and childhood “are moulded together into one piece that cannot be broken into parts for separate consideration” (Alanen 1992:91).In any discussion of family of course, children are deeply implicated, they are the defining feature of familial ideology, the quintessential blood tie (Makrinioti 1994).But, as such, children are on the recieving end of family values. They are objectified as the rationale for the (adult) “doing of family life, rather than seen as ‘doers’ of family life in their own right. Young and Willlmott’s (1997) classic study of family and Kinship in east London, for example explores relationship between spouses and their wider kin and the respective roles of adult family members, including the work on child rearing. The parents talk of gendered nature of parenting, their methods of discipline and their aspirations for their children’s high schooling and their future careers. The children themselves are brought into picture only as raison d’etre for family life, the ‘project’ around which the families cohere. This tendency to submerge children in their families has been called ‘familialization’ of childhood (Makrinioti 1994: 268-71).Children, it seems are presumed to belong to their parents. Their social identity is thought to mirror that of their parents and when they have become the targets of social approval or criticism, despite numerous intervening influences on their lives, their parents receive the credit or blame. The concept of family seen in functionalist or essentialist terms is often equates with parental agency alone. It is commonly said for example that the family sit her to care for children and if the children were a mere extension of their parents. Statistically speaking, children do not seem to count either. In both research and policy context, talking to children about family life has been conventionally seen as inappropriate. Children are rarely asked to speak for themselves for it is presumed that their parents can speak for them (Brannen 1999). They are described and examined as a by product of the family unit rather than treated as units of observation in their own right (Qvortrup 1997).In these ways children have been fused with their parents into an idealized , inseparable family unit. The studies based on this model of childhood have contributed to marginalization of children in family sociology.

Challenges to this model of childhood began to emerge in the 1970’s in anthropological, social historical and feminist writings and in the interactionist and phenomenological schools of sociology. Researchers from these varied disciplines sought to establish the social condition for children’s childhood to offer a new model of childhood based on the view of children as persons with agency (i.e. with the capacity to act, and influence their social worlds).These ideas were consolidated into new sub- discipline of childhood studies. This new sub discipline is not solely the preserve of sociologists of course. It is an interdisciplinary endeavour that has brought about developments in psychological, historical, pedagogical social policy and in legal thinking about children (Brannen 1999).Perhaps the overarching feature of the new discipline in the recognition that childhood is not simply a natural or universal state arising out of biological condition, but also a social construct which is culturally variable (Prout & James 1997).In the following section, I will discuss this new sociological thinking about childhood which is the contemporary trend.

Social Constructionism

Social constructionism is a new departure the understanding of childhood. This approach has three major landmarks in the works of Jenks (1982), Stainton Rogers et al (1989) and James and Prout (1990).The growth of this perspective complemented the growing liberalism ad relativism that were seeping into the academy in the wake of the 1960’s when the dominating philosophical paradigm shifted from the dogmatic materialism to an idealism inspired by the works of Husserl and Heidegger (James et al 1998: 26).

To describe childhood, or indeed any phenomenon, as socially constructed is to suspend belief in or a willing reception of it’s taken- for granted meanings. Though, quite obviously we all are know what children are or what childhood is like, for social constructionists this is not a knowledge that can be reliably drawn upon. Such knowledge of the child and its life world depends on the predispositions of a consciousness constituted in relation to our social, political, historical and oral context. Their purpose is to go back to the phenomenon in consciousness and show how it is built up. So, within a socially constructed idealist world there are no essential forms or constraints. (James et al 1998: 27).Childhood does not exist in a finite and identifiable form. Aries (1962), Margaret Mead and Martha Wolfenstein (1954) have demonstrated this in their work which move us to multiple conceptions of childhood. Social constructionism therefore stresses the issue of plurality and, far from the model recommending a unitary form; it foregrounds diverse constructions (James et al 1998:24).

This approach is therefore dedicatedly hermeneutic. It also erodes the conventional standards of judgement and truth. Therefore, if for example, as many commentators have suggested child’s abuse was rife in earlier time sand fully anticipated feature of adult child relations, then how are we to say it was bad, exploitative or harmful? Our standards of judgement are relative to our world view and therefore we cannot make universal statements of value. What of infanticide in contemporary non-western societies? Is it immoral criminal act or an economic necessity? Is it extensions of western belief of women’s right to choose? Such questioning demonstrates social constructionism’s intense relationship with cultural relativism and how, as an approach, it lends itself to cultural studies style of analysis, or the now fashionable analysis of modes of discourse whereby children are brought to being. (James et al 1998: 27).

Children within this approach are therefore clearly unspecifiable as an ideal type. Childhoods are variable and intentional. In direct refutation to the socialization model of childhood, there is no universal child with which to engage. Such a perspective demands a high level of reflexivity from its exponents. It is also the case that social constructionists, through their objections to positivist methods and assumptions, are more likely to be for the view that children are not formed by natural or social forces but that they inhabit a world of meaning created by themselves and through their interaction with the adults.(James a al 1998: 28).

The significance of social constructionism lies in its political role in the study of childhood. It is well situated to prise the child free of biological determinism and thus to claim the phenomenon in the realm of social. However it is important to emphasize that it is more than a theory of ideational. It is also about practical application of formed mental constructs and the impact that this phenomenon has on the generation of reality and real consequence. (James et al 1998:28).We shall now explore the studies done with this approach and the insights they give us.

Children as sociological agents

This new thinking opened up a wealth of possibilities. Once the social nature of childhood was recognized it became possible to think beyond the development/socialization framework for understanding children. This approach became one of the prominent approaches to conceptualize childhood. Children no longer had to be seen as empty vessels, but could be conceptualized as active and interactive practitioners of social life. A small but growing industry of research began to explore children’s agency in a variety of contexts, focussing on children negotiate rules, roles and personal relationships, how they create autonomy and balance this with their (inter) dependence, how they open as strategic actors in different contexts and how they take responsibility for their own well being an that of others. (Smart et al 2001:12).In the process, children have emerged as more than unspecified actors: they have become visible as workers, soldiers, consumers, carers, counsellors and clients of a whole variety of services (Brannen 1999).

Given such a climate, childhood researchers sought to explore children’s own social world’s concentrating on informal settings such as street or playground that children control for themselves and where they could freely exercise their agency (Brannen 1996).

Research on children as workers for example, has uncovered the substantial contribution that children make to modern domestic economies and to the labour market (Morrow 1994) and have reconceptualised children’s schooling as unpaid work that they are required to undertake on a daily basis( Qvortrup 1985).It may be the case that because of exposure to family disruption and family diversity, they perform more of emotional labour- for instance, in supportive roles such as parental confidante- at quite young ages. Certainly, the children of immigrants are often called on, in both routine and emergency situation, to act as “language brokers” on behalf of their parents (Scott 2005). In a study of home staying children in Norway (children who spend a great deal of time at home, unsupervised, while parents are at work), Solberg (1990) notes how by “looking after themselves” and by contributing to homecare children are able to negotiate an enhanced “social age”. Solberg puts a positive spin on children spending more time by themselves, suggesting that children can benefit from parental acknowledgment of their autonomy. Hochschild (1997:229) sees “home alone” children in a less positive light. She argues that rationalizing parental absence in the name of children’s independence is yet another twist on the varied ways of evading the time bind. Children in this instance are being asked to save time by growing up fast.

The child focussed research, described above in context of children’s work looks at children as beings in the present. In both US and UK, there has been an extraordinary output of work on the cause and consequences of child poverty. While most of the earlier research was couched in terms of “what works for children” (e.g. Chase-Lansdale and Brooks- Gunn 1995), now it has been recognized that children’s interests, family interest and societal interests may well be different (Glass 2001).For example, policies aimed to reduce poverty may not necessarily be consistent with the desire to strengthen family ties or to prioritize parental care for young children. One of the few studies done to look at household income from children’s perspective suggests that children as young as seven are good tacticians in persuading parents to buy things they want. Nevertheless, although parents are often willing to make financial sacrifices to protect children from some or more visible aspects of poverty, children like others suffer from relative deprivation. Children’s consumption ideas are shaped by affluent images portrayed in media and comparison with more fortunate peers (Middleton Ashworth, and Walker 1994).

Another study done by titled “children’s perceptions of family and family change” tends to explore children’s responses to the changes they are exposed to under the wave of second demographic transition. The researcher interviewed children on their feelings relating to parental separation, domestic violence, conflict, living in lone parent households and their views on marriage. The author concludes that there is a clear developmental progression in the understanding of children. Physical ways give way to of understanding give way to psychological bases. He also claims that children show a remarkable adaptability to survive the transitions in family settings. He suggests that informing children about the causes of disruption in family life, for instance, the letting the children know the reason of divorce or separation among the parents will help children better cope up with the situation than otherwise. His research also reveals that children find the source of support in grandparents when their own parents are too disturbed or ailing from the broken family.

Studying children’s lives in times of extreme social, economic and cultural upheaval can be a useful way of learning how external risks affect the vulnerability and resilience of children (Scott 2005).It can also help identify the factors that accentuate or minimize the risk. The study Children of the Great Depression done by Elder (1999) examined archival data on children born in Oakland, California. It showed the impact of economic depression during the depression was felt mainly through children’s changing family experience, included altered family relationships, and different division of labour and enhanced social strain.

Elder also took a comparative study, using a group of children from Berkeley born just eight years later in 1928-29.This showed marked differences between the way economic depression affected the children of the two birth cohorts. The Oakland children encountered the Depression hardships after a relatively secure phase of early childhood in the 1920’s.By contrast, the Berkeley group spent their early childhood years in families which were under extraordinary stress and instability. The adverse effects of depression were far more severe for the Berkeley group, particularly for boys. The Oakland cohort were old enough to take on jobs outside the home and they could enhance their status within families. This would have been particularly true under conditions of economic hardship, when children earning money could be vital to their family’s welfare (Scott 2005).

This study underlines the need to recognize children as agents of their own family experience and to take account of the multiple relationships which defines patterns of family adaptation in hard times.

This new paradigm of thinking has created a climate in which the insights of childhood and family research can be productively combined. This new field of research has been characterised as the study of ‘children’s family’ rather than families of children (Brannen and Obrien 1996) reflecting a new status that has now to be accorded to the perspectives and standpoint of children. Explorations have been made of children’s values about family life, how they conceptualize family structures, roles and relationships and engage with parents, siblings and wider kin, how in countless way they actively practise contribute to and influence family life (Smart et al 2001: 18).However, this approach has been critiques by some scholars to have led to blurring of boundaries between adulthood and childhood and also has methodological constraints.

Diminishing Childhood

Scott (2005) argues that viewing children as prospective adults – the workers, parents, citizens or dropouts of the future – can inadvertently diminish the importance of children as children. Interviewing children may also raise certain methodological issues that may impinge on the quality of the data. In particular, survey techniques might not be appropriate for very young children because of their cognitive and language limitations (Scott 2000).Young age may be a barrier to data quality.

Conclusion

The way childhood is conceived, in a particular time and place frames our knowledge and understanding. In sociology, until quite recently, children were subsumed under family and households and cot considered as actors in their own right. This is the socialization model which had its roots in the Functionalist theory of sociology. The post modernist view has led to the emergence of new sociology of childhood which rightly emphasises that children are agents. They are not passive victims of circumstance; they act and exert influence on the lives of others around them and they make choices, within that opportunities and constraint that contemporary life brings (Scott 2005).

These are the main themes emphasized in the essay along with the discussion of the studies that have been done by authors and researchers following this new approach and the insights that they have generated into the realm of childhood.

In this society, not many people can afford goods and education without working. Since we are not all wealthy, most of us must work in order to cover our living costs and other expenses (Borjas, 2008). However, our decisions on whether to work or not are based on many factors that motivate or discourage us to enter the labour force, then we need to decide how many hours to work. The first and second part of the essay will discuss about an individual’s work-leisure decision regarding to her decision to work or not, and the number of hours to work. In the third part, I will discuss about Clark’s report on job satisfaction of men and women. Although women had higher levels of reported stress in their life, they appear to be happier in work than men. Finally, the results which are recently reported by Booth and van Ours (2007) also support Clark’s conclusions.

The neoclassical model of labour-leisure choice is used to analyse labour supply behaviour and identify the factors in a person’s work decision and her decision on how many hours to work (Borjas, 2008). In this model, individuals’ satisfaction which is obtained from consumption of goods (denoted as C) and leisure (L) is presented by utility function (economists assume that both goods and leisure are normal goods):

We want to maximise our well-being by consuming as much goods and leisure as we can. However, there is a trade-off between consumption and leisure (Sparknotes, 2010). If we want to consume more leisure, then we have to give up goods and services because we cannot afford them since we work less (or do not work). In the other hand, if we spend more time to work, then we are wealthy enough to buy those goods and services; though we cannot consume as much leisure as before.

In order to understand an individual’s work-leisure decision, we use indifference curve analysis to explain their responses. Indifference curve analysis consists of two concepts: indifference curve and budget constraint (bized). A person will make her decision through the combination of the consumption of leisure and goods, in which we can analyse her work-leisure decision through a combination of her budget constraints and her indifference curves. The person’s budget constraint can be written as:

Where C: the value of expenditures on goods, wh: labour earning, and V: non-labour income (such as property income, lottery prises, medical insurance, disability insurance, dividends, retirements program)

The total time allocated to work and leisure must equal the total time available in the period, say T hours per week, so that:

Figure 1 illustrates the optimisation in utility of a person by combining her budget constraint and indifference curves. She will choose point P (as this is her optimal consumption of goods and leisure) because she is better off at point P. At point P, she will consume T1 hours of leisure and h1 hours of work per week. Note that in this figure, we assume that the indifference curves are convex to the origin, which is equivalent to assumption of diminishing marginal rate of substitution. It is the amount of consumption a person is willing to give up for an extra hour of leisure time diminishes as leisure time increases (lecture note).

We are interested in how many hours of work a person will choose when non-labour income (V) (may be because of higher investments return or inheritance money) or wage (w) increases. There are two types of effects which dominate in this model: the income effect and the substitution effect. When non-labour income increases (holding the wage constant), the income effect reduce hours of work (as people tend to take more leisure as they feel wealthier)

The worker’s opportunity set expands as non-labour income increases, thus leads to a parallel shift in her budget line. An increase in non-labour income also means that when holding the wage constant and the income effect generates, the worker tend to reduce hours of work (assume that leisure is a normal good).

When the wage rate increases, its total effect is the sum of the income and substitution effects. A person will reduce her hours of work if the income effect dominates (in this case, a person is effected only if she is working); instead if the substitution effect dominates, she will increase her hours of work. If both effects are equal, then there will be no change on individual’s hours of work or hours of leisure. In Figure 3, as the wage rate increase, the income effect generates lead to a decrease in hours of work (movement from point A to B), however, as the substitution effect has equal effect, individual will increase her hours of work (movement from point B to C). As we can see, the hours of work are still the same.

A person makes her decision to work or not to work is based on the reservation wage. It is said that when the real wage exceed reservation wage, the workers will enter labour market. Therefore, if there is a high reservation wage, people are less likely to work.

However, if we hold the reservation wage constant, high-wage persons are more likely to work.

The neoclassical model of labour-leisure choice has some limitations such as: it considers only leisure and goods and ignores home production; it has simple linear budget constraints as in fact, the budget constraints are nonlinear due to taxes, government benefits; labour supply decision may be affected by other members’ decision of a household; and finally, it is one-period model, whereas lifetime labour supply model is more complex and dynamic (lecture notes).

Women’s participation rate in labour force has been increasing due to: rise in real wage (encourages women to enter the labour market), decline in birth rate since the costs of having one more child are very expensive, technological advances (which are the convenient products to help women in household activities), social and cultural factors (feminism, religion), expansion of service industries, and low unemployment (lecture notes). Mammen and Paxon (2000) state that education levels, for women themselves and their spouses, is an important factor in women’s labour-decision. In a competitive labour market, women will consider the opportunity cost of her time and the income that “unearned” (non-labour income). A woman will withdraw from labour force if there is an increase in her non-labour income (may be because her husband’s income has risen). However, when women’s wage rises, it depends on whether substitution or income effect dominates.

One interesting finding which made by Andrew Clark (1997) is that women’s job satisfaction levels are higher than men. Firstly, he introduced his theory of four possible explanations for women’s higher levels of job satisfaction, which are: jobs and gender, work values, sample selection, and expectations. Clark used the individual and job characteristics as control variables in ordered probit regressions to test all the explanations, except for the sample selection explanation, in which he used Heckman sample correction in OLS regressions. His theory is presented as the utility function from working:

u = u(y, h, i, j) (1)

where y is income, h is hours of work, and i is individual’s feature and j is job characteristics.

He concluded that gender (i variables) should not enter the equation (1), for example: “an identical man and woman in identical jobs should report the same job satisfaction score” (Clark, 1997).

The data in this paper were collected from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) which interviewed 10,000 adults in 550 households in 1991. They were asked to rate their satisfaction levels (by the scale number from one to seven) with eight job aspects: promotion prospects, relations at work, job security, own initiative, total pay, the actual work itself, hours of work and something else.

Clark argued that job satisfaction has correlations with the gender’s differences such as: age, education, health, and different job characteristics: establishment size, union membership and hours of work. He found that good health has large positive effect on job satisfaction while renter, union membership, and hours of work have small negative effects (an increase in hours to 50 per week only reduces the predicted probability of reporting overall job satisfaction of 7 to 38% and 30% for women and men, respectively); moreover, higher levels of educations and longer hours of work are connected with lower satisfied workers. Especially, women’s overall job satisfaction is largely determined by renter, union, marital status and managerial status. However, these findings only justify which types of workers are satisfied, not why women are more satisfied than men.

The second explanation of this paper is work values (as men and women consider the work aspects differently). Men choose promotion prospects, job security and pay, are the most important job’s aspects; while women rank highly the aspects such as: relations at work and hours of work. Nevertheless, the results show that women who have same jobs, same personal characteristics and same work values, report a higher job satisfaction score than men do. Thus, work values do not explain why women are so happier at work.

The third explanation of women’s higher job satisfaction (sample selection tests how the individual feel about working) is not effective since it relies on men and women’s participation rate. Clark highlighted that men are more likely to be in employment than women; specifically, married women are less likely to be employed. Since the sample sizes are small (men’s participation rate is higher than women)

Expectations are the last explanation for women’s higher job satisfaction. Clark (1997) stated that women are happier at work than men, because they have lower expectations. Education and upbringing form a part of expectations. For the higher-educated workers, younger workers, those whose mothers had a professional job, those in professional positions, and those working at male-dominated workplaces are likely to have higher expectations about their job aspects. Clark suggested that there is only a temporary result in women’s higher job satisfaction which is explained by improved position of women in the society and labour market. He predicted that women’s expectations and job satisfaction would be the same as men, given that women’s pay only rise at the same pay rates of men.

(gender) used the pooled ordered probit models to show that in the past decade, women’s job satisfaction has indeed declined significantly (nearly by half), while men’s job satisfaction has slightly changed. This paper results support the theory that women’s higher job satisfaction is only transitory and Clark’s prediction of gender differences in job satisfaction.

Furthermore, the results found by Booth and van Ours (2009) are indeed supportive to Clark’s conclusions. Akerlof and Kranton (2000, cited by Booth and van Ours (2009)) stated that women’s improved position in society (such as the female suffragette movement) has made it more tolerable for women to work. This paper examines the relationship between part-time jobs and family well-being by using fixed-effects ordered logit estimation method on the panel data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA). Hours satisfaction is considered to be one aspect of both men and women’s job satisfaction. Women’s job satisfaction is said to be increasing follow their partners’ health. The results from pooled cross-sectional data indicate that men and women’s job satisfaction is higher if their family income and health are high, which is consistent with Clark’s findings. While full-time work reduces women’s hours satisfaction and job satisfaction, it increases men’s hours and job satisfaction. Booth and van Ours (20009) concluded that the male share of house work is always low even when the female spend enormous hours in marketplace. This finding proposes an explanation why women are happier with part-time work.

(developing) In contrast to Booth and van Ours’ findings, Boo (2010) states that in developing countries (as in Honduras), women do not have higher job satisfaction refer to part-time job. Alternatively, both women and men are more satisfied when they are working full-time. For the fact that working full-time increases individuals’ income, poorer women seems to value full-time jobs than non-poor women.

Seeing as the older era, a woman has been treated as inferior citizens of all across the world. The position is more or less the same universally irrespective of the urbanized nation. Women have been consigned to inferior position regardless of the fact that they numerically represent about 50% of the world population today. In perspective of sound and qualified ability, this situation has lowered the woman’s self-esteem, autonomy and pride as human beings. Therefore, women empowerment is a compelling issue in the present world. Women empowerment is the course of actions taken by women to have ownership and control of their lives through extension of their selections (Khan & Awan, 2011). Now this paper will discuss about the factors i.e.; gender inequality, lack of education and that hinders women empowerment and also several recommendations to promote it.

In the extremely commencement of evolution, women enjoyed a highly regarded position in society at equivalence with men. They dynamically indulged in social, religious dealings as well as in competition. Moreover, the traditional ceremonies were considered imperfect if women do not participate. Though, it was their considerable constitution which became hurdle on the approach of doing a variety of different complicated tasks. Gradually, they start becoming dependent on men for their food, work and other necessities. During the development of society, the position of women changed because of the establishment of patriarchy i.e; male dominancy. Gradually, male dominancy enters in society and the caliber of women is been thrown up, who surpass the skills on men. Women have made great progress in different areas of life and got achievements like teacher, doctor, engineer, pilots etc. This achievement should really appreciate as they have achieved these things by passing through highly worst situations and at the cost of severe social criticism.

According to the Fourth UN World Conference for Women, “men-controlled society, firm traditional standards and inflexible socio-cultural customs makes women to suffer” (Awan, 2012). Although, a lot of effort has been done by civil society organizations, microfinance institutes, governing bodies, different international bodies like CARE, UNICEF to uplift women but the status of women is more or less same in the present circumstances.

Women are discriminated and more subjected to problems in many aspects because of gendered social structure. The fact is evident that women are among the vulnerable segment in society (Naz, Ibrahim & Ahmed, 2012). Gender inequality influences women empowerment in a negative manner. In today’s world, although females are working in many fields of work but they are still considered weak in comparison with men. Many cultures and societies question woman’s ability to work in certain tasks. For instance; in Africa, politics and economics are believed to be fields for males. Moreover, in Nigeria, it is a tradition that males will not participate in domestic work but it’s only a responsibility of women. According to the Liberal Feminism theory, society believes that women are by nature less intellectual and physically less capable which excludes women from political, economical and academic domains (Bimolain, 2013). In Pakistan, women discrimination is very apparent in every aspect. As there is a male dominant society, women are restricted to have participation in jobs, properties and even they do not have the right to raise their voice. A study was done in Faisalabad and Rawalpindi to measure the empowerment level of women in study area and to identify the socio-cultural factors that influence women empowerment in domestic aspect. Results showed that majority of women had lack of resources and low education, their paid job involvement was negligible, low level of awareness about their rights, less decision making ability, less mobility and lower level of participation in family discussions (Khan, 2010).

The need for women empowerment came through minor position they were getting for so long. The empowerment is a tool that can bring change in their socio-economic condition. It has been known that no society can progress without the women lag behind. Empowerment needs to start on with women involvement in different aspects of life. Education contains a huge value in this view but education for promoting women empowerment is still not fully understood. To attain empowerment women have to have education about their rights with in a modern society. It is the education that can convey knowledge in them associated with their social status, prejudice and discrimination for them. According to International Center for Research on Women (2005), women with higher

education have more control over their destinies. Moreover, higher education also plays a pivotal role in reducing violence against women, female and infant mortality and risky behaviors. Studies done in Africa and Latin America showed that education lowers risky behaviors and risk of sexually transmitted diseases (“A second look,” 2005). Besides this, financial autonomy is the most important factor that contributes in empowering women. In Pakistan, women are getting educated but still there is a great discrimination. According to Islamic teachings; “It is a duty of every Muslim man and woman to seek knowledge” (Tariq, n.d.). Usually, it is observed that if the family affords to give education only to their one child, they always choose male to be their bread earner. In Pakistan, 69% men are literate whereas for females literacy rate is 45% only which indicates a great gender gap.

To improve women empowerment worldwide, people need to change their own perspectives, norms and values. Women and men are equal in all respect and there must be some effective work to be done to make women to work equally with men in every aspect of life. There should be some comprehensive framework for women on the national and international level and effective ways for its implementation and monitoring. Women right should be protected in every aspect on governmental level. For Instance, discrimination and abuse against women would lead to jail immediately and have to pay cash penalties. Health resources should be made accessible and affordable to reduce female mortalities but on the other hand women should be given enough freedom to go for their checkups without their husbands as well because humanity comes first irrespective of any culture. Western countries instead of raising voice for the violation of right of women in Pakistan should help them to make the standard living of women by building schools for their education and some vocational training should be there so that they can groom their abilities and to provide the opportunities of earning especially for the women living in rural areas. The main cause of violation of women rights is the lack of earning opportunities and education. If empowerment of women will be their then next coming generation will be more educated and then women will be secured and less hesitated to raise the voice against their rights. Moreover, effective higher education should be provided to poor women with low fees or there must some financial assistance from different governmental bodies. According to one study done in Egypt, it was found that women with post-secondary schooling were about 25 percent more likely to be formally employed (“A second look,” 2005). Participation in politics and decision making on broader level should be in cooperated so that women can raise their voices and opinions and fight for their rights. Biasness regarding sexes and stereotypes against women must be taken under consideration to save women from violence. There must be counseling sessions for women in both the rural and urban areas so as to make females aware of their rights, needs and risky behaviors and their consequences. This crucial insight suggests that strategies for change need to be targeted at specific groups of girls and women and significant others such as fathers, husbands and sons, taking into account their particular circumstances (David, 2012).

In Islam, women have given huge respect as it can be proved by the sayings of Prophet Muhammad that “PARADISE LIES UNDER MOTHER FEET”. Whether it is a Pakistani society or western, women should get equal rights and respect from every aspect. The chore is not too complex to accomplish. Two things that are honesty and sincerity on the element of those concerned are required. If the change occurs in lots of women then definitely it will provide a constructive impact on society. Hence, the women’s empowerment is the need of the hour. Word count: 1379

1328 Words Essay on Women’s Empowerment in India

http://cssexam2013.blogspot.com/2012/11/essay-women-empowerment-in-pakistan.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1482560

The task is not too difficult to achieve. The honesty and sincerity on the part of those involved is a must. If the lots of women change, definitely it will have a positive impact on society. Hence, the women’s empowerment is the need of the hour.

In every society, with no exception, it exists a what we could call a ”behavior diagram of the collective life”. Every individual in it knows how to behave in certain situations and knows what reactions he should expect from others based on his actions. When unexpected actions of a deviant behavior occur, which do not belong in the accepted patterns of moral behavior, and threatens the health of society, they get sanctioned. Sanction and punishment represents one of the elements of social control. In its general meaning, social control represents the means and mechanisms that regulates, orientates and modifies or influence the individual behavior in societies in order to obtain a compliance to the system of values and maintaining the equilibrium of society.

The concept of social control was first introduced in sociology at the beginning of the 20th century by the American school of ”Sociological jurisprudence” to determine the main ways that society assures its functionality and stability through different methods. In E.A. Ross’s view, the social order is never spontaneous or instinctual, being determined by both the direct psychological pressure of the actions or suggestions of stimulation by different social forces and by institutions that have the role of controlling and adjusting behavior. In his opinion, low represents the most specialized the most perfect mechanism of control in society, and considered it to be the core of social order. The representatives of the ”Sociological jurisprudence” included in the social control not only the means of sanction of the undesirable behavior but the means and method to promote the desirable conduit that suits society such as education, art, ethics and so on. This fact has determined J.Carbonnier that this is a more subtle form of social constrain. In the context Szczepanski was pointing out the fact that every group, collectivity or society develop a series of measures, suggestions, means of persuasion, systems of pressure, interdictions, constrains, sanctions going as far as the physical constrains, systems and forms of manifesting gratitude, according prizes and distinctions which leads the individuals and groups to an accepted model of behaviour and values which ultimately leads to the conformity of members(in society). We could call this system the system of social control. The polish sociologist took notice that not all behaviours and actions of individuals are subdued to the same measures of social control. Every human being has the right to a certain ”private zone” that limits the social control, that can be larger or smaller depending on the following aspects:

1.type of society- authoritarian or democratic, traditionalist or modern etc

2.group unity-the greater the unity is, the greater the control

3.institutions in which individuals belong-for example, in paramilitary institutions the social control is extreme.

4.position of individuals in the group hierarchy-for example, a politician is exposed to a larger social control than a normal individual.

Actions that are indispensable to the development of collective life, are much more controlled than actions that have an individual importance. Thus, for example, society has more interest in how a school principle runs the educative activities a school rather than what he does in his free time. The more an action refers to the life of a group, and influences that group, having a greater impact on it, the more it can be considered as a threat and could be sanctioned in accordance. The whole purpose of social control is to influence the members of a society to act and behave so that they can maintain and conserve the well being of their society. J. Cazeneuve includes in the system of social control the whole processes of socialization and the pressure that individuals exert on others.

From the perspective of other sociologists such as W.G. Sumner, regulating conduct of members of society takes place largely through so called ”folkways”. The main condition of the social life is the adapting human at the environment, which gives birth to different groups of solidarity kept together by beliefs, opinions, and customs. Folkways contribute to the social solidarity, they have an imperative function to the behaviour. They represent for social groups what habituation represents for an individual. W.E Brugess and E.R. Park distinguished in the book ”Introduction to the Science of Sociology”(1921) the existence of three main forms of exerting social control in society:

-spontaneous forms, elementary to social control(spontaneous adaptation of the individual to the behaviour of a group, under its pressure)

-public opinion(which is the not institutionalized social authority)

-institutions and legal regulations(which functions as an imperative and institutionalized authorities)

According to the functionalist-structuralist theory of T.Parsons, social rules indicates the individual the permitted social norms for different situations, from which he orientates his activity and chooses from all possible alternatives the most suitable one. Parsons insists over the idea that the obedience to the rules isn’t caused by a coercive social control but rather by a natural behaviour, due to the internalization of the social values. The interpretations of social control that sociologists make today can be grouped into two large categories:

restrictive interpretations which emphasize institutionalized and coercive character of the social control

regulatory interpretations which treats the social control systematically as set of actions focused towards defining social deviance and stimulating the social reaction of prevention and rejection of it.

Allan Horowitz suggests that the definition of deviance changes from a subculture to another in accordance to different norms of utilization. Take for example homosexuality. It is considered as an illness in some cultures while in others it can be seen as a libertine way of living.

M. Sorin Radulescu considers that the main criteria of the forms of social control classification is:

1.by the means of originating, social control exercised by state institutions(courts, prisons, mental hospitals etc) by different social groups(family, school, associations, organisations etc) or by particular individuals who possess a certain authority within a group(priest, householder etc);

2.by the means of which social control is exercised, is formally organised, achieved by specialized institutions and spontaneous, achieved by traditions, customs, public opinion etc

3.by the utilized means: the incentive of social control(positive), through the means of rewards, distinctions, suggestions etc and the coercive social control(negative), through rumors, manipulation(propaganda and advertising), prohibitions etc

4.by the methods(types of sanction) adopted in relation to the act of deviance, there is penal social control(punishment), compensatory (payments as a consequence of damaging other individuals property or state property), conciliator(negotiations and mutual understandings), therapeutic(resocialization).

Starting from the last criteria Horowitz points out the existence of a number of social control ”styles”: penal(the punishment that the individual suffers as a consequence of his act), compensatory(which obligates the individual to compensate his acts through payment, thus restoring his place in society), conciliatory (can be carried out without the need of coercive sanction) and therapeutic(has the objective to change the individual personality in order bring him back to ”normality”. According to the last ”style”, the therapeutic style, individuals are being treated as victims of an illness which they cannot control by themselves thus being forced to a programme of medical treatment.

The deviant behaviour became a key concept in sociology in 1940, and as time went by, it has developed its own study, the sociology of deviance. Sociology of deviance studies crime, violence, alcoholism, prostitution, drug consumption, invalidity, suicides, mental illnesses, homosexuality and lesbianism. The definition of social deviance was first gave by two authors: Sellin and Merton.

Sellin defined it as being the force that disturbs the social equilibrium of institutions and the rules of conduct. A similar definition gave Merton. The type of behaviour that opposes the conformist type, and includes not only breaking the law but every deviation from the rules of cohabitation. Many behaviours can be categorized as being deviant from being indecent and obscene to antisocial behaviour. We can assume that although most deviant behaviours consist in breaking the law, there is a part that are not dangerous for society (victimless crimes). In order to clarify this concept a distinction is to be made: between the phenomenon of deviance and that of abnormality. The first is a sociological concept(deviance) and the second is a psychopathologic(abnormal). The last refers to the incapacity of the individual(medically valid) to adapt to social life and its requirements. A few observations are necessary to clarify the concept of ”deviance”. Deviance is a relative notion because of at least two reasons: because the normative system differs from a society to another and where in one society an act might be considered deviant and immoral in another the same act could be interpreted as being conformist. The second reason is that the law represents an important factor in the changes of society which could induce modifications in the reception of normative context of a society and it could even transform itself under the impact of a social change. For this reason, even in the same society at different points in time, an act could be seen as deviant or not. Tolerance to behaviour changes along with society, it evolves. These arguments sustain the fact that deviance is relative and is in accordance to age, law, culture and the form of society. It is also necessary to divide deviance from anomie. It must be clarified that deviance does not correspond with the absence of norms, with anomie, social disorganization. The term anomie comes from the Greek ”a nomos”(without law) and refers to the state of disorder of a social system or subsystem caused by the disintegration of the norms that assure social order and regulates the behaviour of individuals.

The sociologic term was established by Emile Durkheim who used it first in his work ”The Division of Labour”(1893) to explain one of the malfunctions of labour division and later on in ”Suicide” to assign on type of suicide within other types.

An example of anomie is revolutions. Revolutions overcome the old social order, creates situations of anomie because it provokes disorientation of norms, confuses system parts that should normally guide behaviour. Analysing the great tragedies of the Russian revolutions, Pitrim Sorokin, a Russian-American sociologist found that the state of anomie generated by revolutions are shortly followed by a downfall of human behaviour, with deviant tendencies. Consequences emerge from the revolution into individual and social behaviour of masses, such as:

-The disappearance of old customs and values and the appearance of others, in an extremely short time compared to the normal society.

-Individuals adopt new forms and methods of thinking, involving the religious, moral, aesthetic, political and professional realm.

-the involution of the individual to its primitive stage where his basic needs are his main interest.

-justification of the act of crime in the name of the fight for freedom, fraternity and equality.

-verbal and written reactions of the public amplifies(meetings, press articles etc)

-the increasing of the property crimes

-the growing number of divorces, sexual delinquency and other types of moral delinquency that affects the public

-the change in the relationship of authority and the negation of hierarchies and the authority of the law.

Understanding the concept of social control is a key understanding of crime, its causes, its effects and its ”surroundings” as it may lead to ways of preventing crimes, and social disorder. It describes the very foundation of crime and crime related behaviour. It provides a complex definition of both deviant behaviour, antisocial behaviour, or just eccentric behaviour and classifies each of them into categories by their different influence and importance to social health. Social control is the form society preserves itself from various internal threats, sets patterns of behaviour and norms that individuals must follow. It draws the relationship between individuals and institutions. I consider that understanding it is not only extremely important but vital into understand criminology.

Andrei Dan Cristian

SC.104, Spring essay: ”What do criminologists mean by social control and why should they be interested in it?”

Tutor: Darren Thiel

Throughout the history of human existence, there have always been questions that have plagued man for centuries. Some of these questions are “what is the meaning of life” and “which came first, the chicken or the egg”. Within the past 400 years a new question has surfaced which takes our minds to much further levels. The question asked is whether nature or nurture has more of an impact on the growing development of people. It is a fact that a combination of nature and nurture play important roles in how humans behave socially. However, I believe that nature has a more domineering role in the development of how people behave in society with regards to sexual orientation, crimes and violence and mental disorders.

Height, hair color, eye color and sex are just a few examples of ways our DNA has shaped us. But could it be possible that our DNA also affects the way we behave in society. It is possible that genetics affect us is more ways that we may have imagined. Dr. Peter B. Neubaur believes that shyness, eating disorders, obsessive behavior and psychological illness can all be traced back to our genetics. Sexual orientation is also believed to be derived from genes in our body which determine what sexual preference we prefer. Violence and other types of crimes can be linked back throughout a person’s lineage to witness that other family members have been committed similar crimes without ever meeting one and other.

Throughout our lives we have all been influenced by our environment and other outside forces. Our environment may change the way we think, act and behave in life. Since we are all products of our environment, it comes to no surprise that we, as humans, tend to behave in a society the same way others around us behave but at the same time we strive to find who we really are (Schaefer 73). Since birth, humans have always analyzed the world around them. With each day that passes, humans take in more and more information from the outside world. The information which humans obtain through their environment subconsciously influences the decisions people make throughout their daily life (Neubauer 16). On the other hand, our genetics also play a vital role in determining what type of person we are and what will we become.

The sexual orientation of a person has been a critical debate over the past several centuries. For several decades many people believed that nurture had a more profound impact on the sexuality of humans than did nature. Even the famous psychologist Sigmund Freud believed that sexual orientation was derived from nurture. Freud developed a theory which explains that at birth till the age of four every child is bisexual. When the child reaches the age of around four, he/she begins to learn to withhold their feeling for members of the same sex and start expressing those sexual feeling to members of the opposite sex. Freud proposed the idea that male homosexuality originates when this crucial developmental stage is hindered by some outside force also known as nurture. According to Freud, this can occur when either a chided is raised in a fatherless household or with an overbearing mother figure. However, when this idea was actually tested, it did not fall through as many would expect it would (Steen 185). Since many years after Freud’s passing, it has become apparent that nature holds a strong role in the development of sexual orientation of humans.

If nurture isn’t the cause for sexual orientation then nature must be. According to Grant Steen, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, a large study was recently conducted which gathered gay males who have either identical or fraternal twins or adopted brothers. The goal of the study would be to see if genetics played a role in twins. At the end of the survey more than half of the identical twins of gay men were also found to be homosexuals. At the same time only about 22% of the fraternal twins were found to be gay and only 11% of the adopted brothers were gay. What these statistics show is that DNA plays a very important role in determining sexual orientation. Nature seems to have such a large impact on the sexual orientation of individuals that I feel that nurture has almost little or no effect on whether a person is homosexual or not.

If homosexuality is genetic then there should be a dramatic occurrence of homosexuality with families who have many homosexual relatives than to families in the general public who do not have homosexual relatives. Another survey was conducted in which 114 openly homosexual men were asked questions about the sexual orientation of their relatives. The study showed that “homosexuality is indeed strongly clustered in some families; among the brothers of men in this study, the incidence of homosexuality was nearly seven-fold higher than in the population at large” (Steen 197). Homosexuality can be considered hereditary because families with one gay relative are more likely to have others somewhere in their family lineage.

Some skeptics may begin to raise the question that if homosexuality is genetic then there should be a “gay gene” in our DNA. After many studies, scientists have found that there is at least one gene which is responsible for homosexuality. Though this is not conclusive evidence because scientists still haven’t unlocked all of the DNA strands, scientists figure that with time and the advancement of technology we one day might be able to actually pin point this “gay gene” in DNA (Plomin 337).

Reporter Jeff McMullen of ABC interviewed David Reimer in May of 2000 who fell victim of a botched circumcision when he was only eight months old. The doctors at the time felt that David would be better off living the rest of his life as a girl. The doctors believed that the nurturing of a child and not nature would determine their psychological make-up. David explained to McMullen that throughout his entire childhood he felt out of place. It seemed that even though David grew up as a woman, inside he felt something was wrong. This interview strongly supports the idea that nature plays a vital role in determining sex. No matter how much of an effort was put in to surround David’s environment with feminine characteristics, it would not be strong enough to over come the resilient power of nature. From the time of conception, nature has already planed out many important factors which will effect our lives in so many ways. If nature does control our sexual preferences then it is possible that it could control many other facets of human existence.

In the United States about twenty million crimes occur each year and most of the time the criminals are repeat offenders. One may begin to speculate whether society in the United States promotes crimes or are criminals born with the desire to commit these heinous crimes. According to Steen there is “evidence from a large study of adopted children which shows that there is a tendency for children to reenact the criminal behavior of their biological parents”. So even if a child was adopted and was raised in a house which had no criminal activities, the child would be more likely to commit the same crimes as their biological parents which they have never met. This obviously disproves the notion that people are taught and raised to commit crimes.

The East Coast sniper John Lee Malvo would hide in remote places all along the east coast and would shoot and kill people when the opportunity arose. Doctor Patricia Haensly believes that the DNA of John Lee Malvo differed from most peoples DNA. She came to the conclusion that most criminals are born with the genes that allow them to not think about the actions that they are coming are immoral. This is a very true statement because most people commit some type of crime, granted not murder but more along the lines of littering, but we tell ourselves that it’s not a problem and forget about it moments later. Murderers may feel the same way about killing as some people feel about littering. Nature also has a strong impact on domestic violence. In the United States over 18% of all homicides involved family members killing each other (Steen 228). This can lead to the deduction that just as the households which have one gay member are more likely to have other homosexually oriented family members; households which have one member who commits violent acts are more likely to have other family members who commit similar acts of violence.

Sometimes nature cannot explain all the crimes committed in the United States. Some may feel that “simply living in such an environment places young people at special risk of falling victim to aggressive behavior” (Ferguson 81). For example, if a person is constantly surrounded by crimes and violence, then that person is more likely to commit the same crimes. However it may just be that people who live in bad areas would still commit those same crimes even if they resided in a low crime environment. Never-the-less your environment should not allow you’re to commit the same crimes no matter how much crime is going on. If a person keeps committing crimes in a bad neighborhood then it is most likely that the DNA of that person convinces them that it is all right to commit murders. This explains why many people in jails in the United States are repeat offenders. One may begin to wonder if there is more to these criminals than what is on the surface

Many mental disorders have been scientifically proven to be heritable. Manic-depression is a trait which is inheritable through family lineage. Many separate studies have arrived at the conclusion that identical twins are more likely to acquire manic-depression than do fraternal twins. In fact four out of every five twins tend to share the same types of mental disorders (Steen 141). One study found that risks of clinical depression are much higher in certain families than in others. Close relatives of those who are depressed are three times more likely to suffer from depression than people who don’t have depression in their family history (Steen 147). This further secures the fact that nature plays such a crucial role over nurture in our lives and within our own families.

There are some mental diseases such as schizophrenia which adults may suffer from which some people believed is cause from various problems in a person’s childhood. This leads many so speculate that the roots of schizophrenia extend far back into childhood. Within the past ten years a discovery was made which scientists were able to link a gene on our chromosome to schizophrenia. This “schizophrenic gene” would be a dominant gene which means that if any person had this gene in their DNA then it is likely that he/she would suffer from schizophrenia. Even though more research needs to be done on the “schizophrenic gene”, it still provides us information which could one day lead to the solving of schizophrenia and many other devastating diseases (Steen 151).

It has become clear that nature and nurture both play very important roles in how humans behave in a society. I feel that nature plays the more domineering role in the foundation of human existence. All though every day we are bombarded with outside forces, it is our internal make up that determines how we would react to our environment. Our environment only adds to what nature has given to us. If we use it in the correct ways then it will be beneficial to society and our selves. However, once the environment starts to turn to the ways of violence and crimes we can only assume that it will only have negative effects from any point you look at it.

The black report on Inequalities in health care was introduced by the Department of health in the UK by Health Minister, David Ennals in 1977. It wanted to point out why the NHS had failed to reduce social inequalities in health and to investigate the problems. He would do this by analysing people’s lifestyles and their health records from different social class backgrounds. It found that the overall health of the nation had improved but the improvement was not equal across all the social classes, and the gap in inequalities in health between the lower and higher social classes is widening. It seemed that some of the main causes of this were class and ethnicity.

Class

The black report was based mainly around social class and that middle and upper class people have better standards of living, better quality of life and health than the working class and the lower class people. The report stated that there were four types of explanations for the differences of life expectancy and illness within different social classes and they were:

The substantial artefact explanation: your age, your profession, and whether you are upper, middle, working or lower class.

Natural or social expectations: lower social class and lower wages, poverty and poor housing do not cause illness – it is in fact on the contrary. A lack of energy why they are placed in deprived circumstances.

Cultural or behavioural explanations: focuses on behaviour and lifestyle choices of people in lower classes. Poor nutrition and exercise, smoking and alcohol seemed to be connected to working class people. This is also related to illnesses such as cancer, bronchitis, and diabetes and heart disease. Difficult circumstances lead to this lifestyle choice. Not the other way around.

Material or structural explanations: Poor diet, poor housing, low income, poor environments and unsafe and insecure employment are more common in working class families. Studies in these areas confirm that social factors are the main causes which contribute towards ill health.

Ethnicity

There is evidence that there is a higher frequency of rickets in children from Asian families due to a lack of vitamin D in their diet. Most ethnic minority groups have shorter life expectancy and have higher infant mortality rates. This could be associated to the social economic situations face by migrant workers.

Cultural and language barriers can limit the use of health services. For example Asian women do not feel comfortable going to see male doctors. Translation is another language complication. This is because it is not easy to capture the same meaning when translating between two completely different languages.

There are regional differences in patterns of health and illness. Morbidity and mortality rates are different in other areas of the UK. For example within England, lung cancer is above average in North West, Northern, and Yorkshire regions and below average in the South Western, Southern and Eastern regions. This shows that the mortality rates and morbidity rates are higher in different areas in the country.

Chances of becoming ill and even dying are linked to several factors which include social class, gender, age and ethnicity. The two social groups that are being compared are social class and ethnicity. These social groups affect health issues and explain the sociological perspectives and the patterns and trends.

Social class and patterns of health and illness

Social class is the classification of people based on their education, occupation, income and manners. It is said that the healthier you are the higher your social class. Poverty and inequality in society have consequences on the social, physical and mental well-being of a human being. These two factors are closely linked.

The infant mortality rate – IMR – for children born to underprivileged parents are higher than that of a child born to wealthy parents. People from a higher social class are much less likely to die of illnesses such as cancer, heart diseases and strokes and would be likely to live longer compared to others.

The Black Report – which was introduced in 1980 – studied the health differences of people by dividing the population into five social classes and offers information on how social and environmental issues of health and illness and life expectancy are related to one another.

“There is overwhelming evidence that standards of health, the incidence of ill health or morbidity and life expectancy vary according to social groups in our society especially to social class”. (Stretch, B, 2007, Pg361).

One of the explanations for this is that the higher social classes can afford to pay for private healthcare. Their level of earnings is also much higher which then also results in a better lifestyle and housing. People who were in inadequately paid jobs meant they had poor housing and a reduced amount of money to provide nutritious food and heating.

In 2009 the main cause of infant mortality in Great Britain was ‘certain conditions originating in the perinatal period, accounting for around a quarter of all infant deaths among males (27 per cent) and females (25 per cent) (ONS, 2010c; NRS, 2010a).4

Life expectancy data for 2009 are period life expectancies from the 2008-based principal projections. Source: Office for National Statistics; National Records of Scotland; Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency

Between 1930 and 2009 period life expectancy at birth in the UK increased by around 20 years for both sexes (Figure 2). In 1930 life expectancy at birth was 58.7 years for males and 63.0 years for females, increasing 33 per cent among males to 78.1 years and 30 per cent among females to 82.1 years in 2009.

At age 65 period life expectancy increased by more than 50 per cent for both sexes: from 11.7 years for males and 13.5 years for females in 1930, to 18.0 years and 20.5 years respectively in 2009.

In 2007-09 the UK period life expectancy at birth was highest in England at 78.0 years for males and 82.1 years for females and lowest in Scotland at 75.3 years and 80.1 years respectively (ONS, 2010b).

An important reason for the increase in life expectancy is the fall in infant mortality rates (deaths under one year old), which decreased by 93 per cent from a rate of 63.1 per 1,000 live births in 1930 to 4.5 per 1,000 in 2010, the lowest on record. Similarly, neonatal mortality rates (deaths under 28 days old) have fallen by 90 per cent to their lowest recorded level, from 31.5 per 1,000 live births in 1930 to 3.1 per 1,000 in 2010.

There are also differences in health between the ethnic groups. In April 2001 Pakistani and Bangladeshi men and women in England and Wales reported the highest rates of both poor health and limiting long-term illness, while Chinese men and women reported the lowest rates.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhealth/286/28608.gif

Age-standardised limiting long-term illness: by ethnic group and sex, April 2001, England and Wales

South Asian people are reported to have high rates of heart disease and of hypertension;

Black Caribbean people are reported to have high rates of hypertension, but not of heart disease;

All ethnic minority groups are reported to have high rates of diabetes, but low rates of respiratory illness;

Black Caribbean people, particularly young men, have high rates of admission to hospital with severe mental disorders (psychosis).

According to the January 2007 report by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Why are some ethnic minority groups at more risk of ill health than others?

Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups commonly have worse health than the general population, although some BME groups are much worse than others, and patterns differ from one health condition to the next.

Evidence proposes that the poorer socio-economic position of BME groups is the main reason which is motivating ethnic health inequalities. A number of strategies have aimed to challenge health inequalities in recent years, although to date, ethnicity has not been a continuous focus.

Ethnicity results from various aspects of variation, which are socially and politically fundamental in the UK. These comprise race; culture; religion and nationality, which influence on a person’s identity and how other individuals see them. Identification with ethnic

groups is at many different levels. They may see themselves to be: British, Asian, Indian, Punjabi and Glaswegian at different times and in different circumstances.

Health Survey for England exhibit showed that Black and Minority Ethnic groups (BME) as a whole are expected to account ill health. Amongst the BME this begins at a younger age than the White British. There is more deviation in the rates of some illnesses by ethnicity than other socio-economic factors.

On the other hand, patterns of ethnic variation in health are particularly diverse, and inter-link with a lot of overlapping factors:

Some BME groups experience worse health than others. For example, surveys commonly show that Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Black-Caribbean people report the poorest health, with Indian, East African Asian and Black African people reporting the same health as White British, and Chinese people reporting better health.

Patterns of ethnic inequalities in health vary from one health condition to the next. For instance, BME groups tend to have higher rates of cardio-vascular disease than White British people do, but lower rates of many cancers.

Ethnic differences in health vary across age groups, so that the greatest variation by ethnicity is seen among the elderly.

Ethnic differences in health vary between men and women, as well as between geographic areas.

Ethnic differences in health may vary between generations. For example, in some BME groups, rates of ill health are worse among those born in the UK than in first generation migrants.

Sociologists try to describe how society ranks itself but there are many different philosophies for this, which often clash with one another. Some of these common theories include Marxism, Functionalism, and Interactionism. There are also more modern or current theories such as Feminism. Each sociological perspective has different views.

Marxists are concerned with the distribution of economic power and wealth. They believe that society is in conflict between two classes. Those classes are the Bourgeoisie; who own the means of production, i.e. land and the Proletariat; who sell labour to these owners for wages. The Proletariat are being exploited in order for the Bourgeoisie to gain economic and cultural power over them; Marxists believe this leads to antagonism, arguments and conflict between the two classes.

Functionalists argue that society is organised much like the Human Body. Everything must function correctly in order for society to work as a whole, just like every organ in the body must function correctly in order for the body to work as a whole.

Another classic view is Interactionism. We can liken Interactionism to a play; everyone must play their respective roles in order to create a successful performance – in society everyone must do their jobs in order to create a successful society. This approach is much like the functionalism viewpoint.

The biomedical model of health looks at individual physical functioning and describes bad health and illness as the presence of disease and symptoms of illness as a result of physical causes such as injury or infections and doesn’t look at the social and psychological factors. E.g. biomedical models assume that the complexity of individual can be reduced so that by accumulating facts about the parts that make up their body a decision about how to fix that part will result in health

The social model of health looks at how society and our environment affect our everyday health and well-being, including factor such as social class, occupation, education, income and poverty, poor diet and pollution. E.g. poor housing and poverty are causes to respiratory problems and in response to these causes and origins of ill health. The socio-model aimed to encourage society to include better housing and introduce programmes to tackle poverty as a solution.

The focus of these models is principally to explain why health inequalities exist and persist. The key cultural explanation places emphasis upon pathological (i.e. personal/individual) consequences of behaviour such as poor diet, excessive alcohol consumption, smoking, drug addiction, sexual practices or lack of exercise. On this argument, inequalities in health will be reduced when people make healthier personal behavioural decisions.

The health selection explanation argues that people in ill health will inevitably fall to the bottom of society and that therefore inequality is inevitable and will persist. People in this group are also least likely to alter unhealthy lifestyles. The structural explanation sees factors outside the individual’s control affecting life and health chances. Issues relating to the form and nature of employment and unemployment are critical; as is the individual’s position in society relating to, for example, home ownership, education, income, quality of life, living conditions and poverty (where few people have any real choice). Knowledge of health issues and of how poor health can be avoided or treated is equally critical

Socio- model of health is one where:

The state of health is socially constructed resulting historical, social and cultural influences that have shaped perceptions of health and ill health.

The root causes for diseases and ill health are to be found in social factors, such as the way society is organised and structured.

Root causes are identified through beliefs and interpretation for example, from a feminist perspective, root causes relate to patriarchy and oppression.

Knowledge is not exclusive but has a historical, social and cultural context as it is shaped by these involved.

The biomedical of health is where:

The state of health is a biological fact and the norm.

The body is a machine and ill health results from dysfunction of that machine.

Ill health is a deviation from the norm.

Ill health is caused by biological factors such as viruses, bacteria, genetic characteristics or trauma.

The cause of ill health is identified through the process of diagnosis, considering the signs and symptoms.

Individuals play little or no part in the interventions to restore the body to health.

There is no consideration of the individual’s interpretation of health and ill health or social factor that may contribute to ill health. Finding a cure is a greater concern than preventing ill health.

Culture plays an incredibly important role in the cause and reasoning of mental health. Cultural beliefs can shape the way people identify stress and the way in which they seek help. Indeed, in some cultures, people suffering from depression and anxiety disorders can also present with physical/psychosomatic symptoms.

As Britain becomes more culturally-enriched, striving for a melting pot of nations and ethnicities as opposed to a salad bowl of clearly defined ethnic groups, our society is slowly adapting.

Cultures differ in what is considered normal and what is considered abnormal. Therefore, the conception of mental illness is tied into whether or not members of a culture will seek help, what kind of help these individuals will seek and from whom. It should be remembered that traditional psychotherapy evolved from both the existential and psychoanalytic framework imported from Europe. Sigmund Freud has become a household word, and it was his approach to psychoanalysis that influenced much of the psychodynamic approach that is used today. The humanistic approach associated with Carl Rogers is an offshoot of the European existential theories which were evaluated by American psychologists as being too morbid. Many of these European theorists believed much of the individual’s problems are related to death anxiety. The humanistic approach puts emphasis on a more optimistic view of the individual. The therapist focuses on responding to the client with empathy, warmth and positive regard. Irrespective of the approach to treatment, it is important that mental health providers have some concept of what for the client constitutes mental illness (Hall, 2005).

The term ‘mental health’ was popularised in the early 1900s by physicians, social reformers and former asylum patients. They wanted to reduce the stigma surrounding mental illness, and said ‘illness’ reinforced prejudices against asylum patients because it implied segregation between the sick and the well. Focusing on health countered a persistent misconception that only some people are prone to psychiatric problems.

The label ‘mental illness’ is highly stigmatising to many given it encourages people to think of ‘the mentally ill’ as an entirely separate group from ‘people like us’, rather than as ordinary people who have, for whatever reason, more severe emotional difficulties to cope with. Popular misconceptions, fuelled by the media, depict ‘the mentally ill’ as violent and dangerous. These stereotypes are contradicted by ordinary people’s experiences of mental health problems affecting themselves, their family, friends or work colleagues.

Mental illness is a narrow meaning often used by psychological and psychiatric services. By placing an emphasis on the word illness we acknowledge the need for medical treatment. But there are certain difficulties with describing someone as mentally ill as there is no universally agreed cut-off point between normal behaviour and that described as mental illness. (Reader, David L Rosenham p p70-78) What is considered abnormal behaviour? An abnormal reaction to circumstances differs between cultures, social groups within the same culture and even different social situations.

The use of the term mental illness may be misleading if it is taken to mean that all mental health problems are solely caused by medical or biological factors. In fact, most mental health problems result from a complex interaction of biological, social and personal factors. For example, some people may be biologically vulnerable to experiencing depression, yet strong social support during difficult times can reduce their risk of becoming severely depressed. Similarly, in people with a higher than average genetic risk of schizophrenia, a particular psychotic experience may be triggered by stressful life events and circumstances. And for many people the existing systems of categorising illnesses do not relate closely enough to their experiences.

THE NATURE OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

OKUMAGBA, OGHENERO PAUL, FAYEYE, J.O. & EJECHI, EUCHARIA

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

DEFINITION AND MEANINGS

Different people see Sociological & theory in different ways. Different people have regarded different aspects of sociology as theory and students are also involved because their works are based on theories.

How do we define a theory? In other to give an answer to this question, we must have some definition which must help us in this task.

Mennell, S. (1972) distinguished what a theory should be and what by convention is named Sociological theory. He started by saying that sociology theory in some cases is not sociological theory. What this means is that, it deals in most cases with a body of ideas attached to theory, and this is not always their in the strict Sense of it.

For Mennel a real sociological theory is formalized and ultimately testable explanations which are accumulated to a large extent in the ordinary process of Sociology Research i.e. sociological theory must be related to Sociological Research. Our theories may only try to explain limited and specific properties of reality. They may belong to some or all area of sociology such as Urban sociology, Sociology of the Family, Political sociology etc. i.e. they may only cover an aspect of sociology and not all. They may be what R.K. Merton calls MIDDLE RANGE THEORIES, i.e. theories that are interested in specific or limited areas e.g Social roles.

Mennel goes on to ask the question, what is social theory in the customary sense. Sociological theory is a general collection to topics. it also tends to include the discussion of Some Epistemological issues such as what is science, what is sociological theory. Is it a science? Etc. this is what Stephen Mennel refers to as META THEORY. There is another category which Mennel calls PARA-THEORY. He got this from the works of Ralph Dorhendorf. He defines it as all statement before, around and after Sociological theory which are capable of empirical test themselves but are geared towards theories, We also wasn’t to distinguish this type of theory from what is known a s BASK THEORY. It does not necessary have to be scientifically validated, i.e. it does not contain empirical components as it basis. Although most of the great Sociologists may have developed theory without going on to test them. They ore more or less based on their experience or from reading.

Some writers have called the above type GRAND THEORY. This theory is concerned with providing a scheme that can be used to explain the empirical data of research. This type of theory depends on interrelated construct, concepts, prepositions, scientific statements etc. that presents a systematic view of phenomenon by specifying relationship among variables with the purpose of explaining and predicting phenomenon. This type of their is based on data collected from society and it is usually used in explaining certain segments of social reality. We may s ay that Grand theory is based on abstractive ideologies, patterns and principles which undering given nature and social world order i.e. it is global scheme. Ware as empirically based theory concentrates on formulating, generalizing from specific data in other to explain phenomenon. We may say at this point, that the two seems necessary in order to provide a concueate analysis of social reality. However, they may not be isolated from each. other.

Grand theory tends to be constructed on abstract terms and we may question what process of abstraction does it given to the understanding of the whole social process. Empirically. based theory is derived solely from the data collected from social processes.

For Goode and Hatt:…. a theory states a logical relationship between facts. From this theory other prepositions can be deduced that should be true, if the first relationship holds. These d educed propositions are hypotheses. To them, and to many others as well, a hypothesis is a minor theory. it “states what” were looking for” and “Leads to an empiritical test”. It is a proposition capable to empirical verification but not yet verified.

It is apparent at there is more then a semblance of circularity in the reasoning of those who discuss the relationship between a theory and a hypothesis. It is commonly claimed that all “scientific” hypotheses arc- derivations from empirically supportable theory. It is also typically asserted that every theory had its beginnings in on hypothesis. Hence, one mans hypothesis may be another’s theory. It all depends on the aim and ingenuity of the investigator.

Scientific theories are logical systems of propositions which attempt to account for why phenomena ore the way they are and predict their behaviour. Theories are built of data generated, for example Mertonian paradigms and sociological perspectives are synonymous. The direct data generation and theorizing efforts to some aspects of the social world. Thus one can produce specific theories from a particular perspectives e.g. the theory of segmenting opposition and Merton’s social structure and anomie theory fall within the functional perspective. A theory can also be seen as a logically consistent statement of causal laws. Causal laws ore statements of regularities in concomitant occurrences between antecedents and events. The question we should be asking ourselves is, Are we limited by the process of data collection? We have to have a facilitating relationship between the two. Theories which are based on empirical footing helps to direct the grand theory and provides concrete data for the grand theory and helps the researcher develop a conceptual framework.

The word ‘theory’ derives its meanings and usage from the user. To call a statement a theory is sometimes intended to increase its value by suggesting that it goes beyond ‘mere facts’ e.g when a person says I hove a theory about James he means that he cannot be deceived by him. But sometimes, the word theory as clearly used to reduce the value of a speculative idea by denying it a close connection with reality. In this sense it is often asserted “tings are all right in theory” but not in practice.

Theories would have no value if they did not go beyond facts. Facts are nothing more than statements which we believe to bear truth about particular events which have occurred.

Theories ore not meant to be about particular events but about the whole categories of events, it is generally said that Theories or some theories are nothing but general facts.

A statement general fact would be either a shorthand or number of statements of the same kind or type, a general statements of the characteristics of a type of events.

It is true that all theories go beyond facts; however not all statement which go beyond facts are theories. For example if say that, the colonial masters colonized Nigeria, and established a foreign culture that would otherwise not have developed. I am going beyond facts, but no one can know what culture would have developed if there had been no Colonization in the first instance.

However, one can guess, and ones guess is an hypothesis. This guess is not a theory; because it stated something about particular events or particular complexes or events but it states nothing in general about the characteristics of colonial domination.

To be testable this theory would have to state the kind of evidence that could be treated as refuting it. Instances of species which have survived being w c-Il adapted to particular environment or instances of Species which were well adapted to a particular environment but which had not survived.

In the final analysis, the criterion of a adaptability is the capacity for survival 1.e. One does not really know how adoptable a species is until one has already observed its Capacity for survival. The fact that such a theory is not strictly testable does no mean that it has little value. Its values lies in directing inquiries of the students of evolution In conjunction other theories, some of which are highly testable it has helped evolutionary biologists to explain a great deal.

Its own role is programmatic, it says if you are making enquires of this kind, makes a species more or less adaptable table in a particular environment This has proved useful. This example removed the assumption that if is only the social sciences attempt to be satisfied or utilize theories which ore not strictly testable.

TYPES OF THEORY

Cohen; (1968) in his book Modern Social Theory out lined four broad types of theories and they are as follows: –

Analytical Theory
Normative Theory
Metaphysical theory
Scientific theory
ANALYTICAL THEORY

These are like theories of mathematics or logic which may state nothing about the real world but consist of some sets of axiomatic statements which are true by definition and from which other statements ore derived for example Adam Smith’s their on human economy which stress that people tend to maximize their gains while minimizing their losses.

NORMATIVE THEORY

These theory elaborates a set of ideal state of which one may aspire for example, ideologist fall within this category Normative theories are subjective in the sense that they deal with the ideal or what ought to be rather than what is.

METAPHYSICCAL THEORY

These are theories which are beyond the senses in other words, they have no empirical foundation. A good example is Darwin’s theory on Evolution of man and Malthusian’s theory of population.

SCIENTIFIC THEORIES

This is ideally a universal empirical statement which exacts a causal connection between two or more variables (or types of events). At this simplest, it has this form e.g. whenever x occurs they Y occur X = Y.

Scientific theories are universal because it state something about the condition under which some events or types of events always occur

If theories go beyond facts, they must have a connection with reality. Hence no experience of reality is worth recording, or could be recorded if it is not for theories.

The most elementary theories, which we use a re embedded in our language. All language must use certain universal, categories; and to use a universal category is in effect to use a theory. If for example It says’ that ‘James is a deviant presume certain universal characteristics associated with deviance, as opposed to conformity.

Without universal categories there will he no communication, without communication there will be no culture, no society, no science, no technology, no shored experience of die world of reality. Theoretical consideration end theoretical concepts, implicit or explicit have an essential rule in shaping the direction of research, in direction observation an and in guiding description itself,

For a theory to be used wisely with sharp awareness, awareness users must have the knowledge of its nature and of its varieties. We need to know its concepts and diverse terminological forms they take.

We should be familiar with the history of sociological theoretical endeavours with its changing emphasis, its successes and failure, and its promise for the future, These in themselves constitute the subject matter of the studying of sociological theories.

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORYAND SOCIAL ORDER

Theory is a set of prepositions complying ideally with the following conditions;

The propositions must be put in terms of exactly defined concepts.
They must be consistent with one another.
They must be such that from them the existing generalization could be deductively derived.
They must be fruitful i.e. show the way to further observation and generalizations were increasing the scope of knowledge.

From the foregoing, sociological theory can be understood in the sense in which the word theory is used in other sciences. Hence it is;

‘a structure of systematically organized law like propositions about society that con be supported by evidence.

The aim a sociological theory from the foregoing is explanation that goes beyond description and systematic definition (or taxonomy). Some characteristics of sociological theory. It is needful to odd that many sociological theories do not meet the ideal criteria of science (i.e. universality, empruism, and causality).

CHARACTERIST1C OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

Theories are thoughts and ideas used to explain particular Social phenomenon or situations in society. It is a set of systematically relatered propositions a imed at explaining a particular situation. They are thoughts, ideas, or conceptual schemes used to solve societal problems. A theory is good and useful when it is able to solve problems successfully.

Sociological theories attempts to explain and investigate problems, issues or events within the context of observable social phenomenon, they attempt to offer scientific and theoretical explanation which on the basis of the past have immediate applicability and are also capable of application to similar problems in the future. All theories attempt more than anything also the question “Why”.
All contemporary sociological theories are selective in their analysis of social phenomenon. No one theory con interest or explain a total social phenomenon (such as the Grand Theory by TALCOTT PARSONS and middle range theories by ROBERT K. MERTON) for example, DEMOGRAPHISM as a sociological perspective is concerned with man’s various responses caused by increase in population. Then TECHNOLOG1SM emphasizes the effect of technology on man and social organization, while ECOLOGISM emphasizes the influence of non human environmental on human behaviour.
Contemporary sociological theories must be empirically grounded. They are not merely thoughts or speculations. They are not “armed chair theories” but are based on observable facts that can be subjected to scientific observation and analysis. They are thoughts backed by verified fact or knowledge.
Sociological theories tends to state scietific and observable relationships between variables usually between the dependent and independent variables.

independent Variable -independent Variable

X Y

All sociological theories attempts to solve the problem of order in the society,
All contemporary sociological theories deal with social phenomenon that are either imposed or generated by the individuals and these imposed or generated phenomena must either be subjective or objective.

Finally, any sociological theory that does not fall into these set of categories is not qualified to be called a sociological theory.

FUNCTIONS OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

Theories in any discipline have certain function which they perform in investigation info societal problems,

It extends the Scope of the original empirical findings by showing the interrelationship between various variables.
It provides facts for the accumulation of both theory and research findings.
If increase the fruitfulness of research through the successive exploration of the implicajiohs of research findings.
lt introduces a ground for the predictions.
It entails precision which is derivable from test-ability or verification The importance of precision in theory was stated by R.K, Merton when he wrote those theories which admits a precise precision confirmed by observation taken on strategic importance since they provide an initial basis for choice between competing hypothesis.

THE CENTRAL PROBLEMS OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY AND SOCIAL ORDER

The Problems of Order

To take the position that sociological theory centers around the problem of social order may result into laying criticism of conservation ideological bias. To those who sees conflict, they will assume that the position presents or emphasizes order and affirms its desirability.

It is certain that people in most societies desire order, they may not accept any kind of order at all cost. The fact that order is desired by many does not justify its central position in sociological theory.

When order is presented as being at the centre of sociological theory it is done so because of the following

Order is itself something positive, and its opposites only conceivable in terms of it.
The very idea of human society presupposes order.
The existence of social order is problematic and cannot be taken for grated.
The investigation of the problem of order illuminates (or shows) the nature of disorder in its various aspects.

Prejudice has been around since the seventeenth century this behavior still exists and continues to surround us all in each population. In many countries today prejudice is still a big issue among different cultures people always tend to stereotype others just because of race,sex,color or whatever the case may be I fell this is unfair because people lives are at jeopardy in so many ways because of the negative thinking. Prejudices are opinions formed beforehand without any reason knowledge or thought. I have been taught about the history of prejudice and how serious it had been in the past. So many people and great leaders lost their lives because of stereotyping.

The nature and power of prejudice

There are so many prejudices in the world today from racial, gender, and culture. I have experienced all three in some way or other gender being one I have a family member that prefers the same sex and I have watched my own family tear him apart. it upsets me because he is family have heard these same people sit around and talk about how other people are prejudice and they are doing the same thing to a loved one. I have witnessed him being told that he needs to stop acting and straighten up or he will be disowned from the family now that they have made him feel out cast he has not come to a family gathering in three years. I know that in the bible it says you must not commit this sin but people are only human and they are going to choose to live how they want. I feel that people can live their lives how they choose they will suffer their own consequences when the time comes.

However, racial and culture prejudice is the most despicable and ignorant people should not be judged for the color of their skin these days all colors have some kind of racial slur about all cultures. On the other hand, many people have moved away from being prejudice. For example, people of different races now share many of the same attitudes and aspirations (Etzioni1999). For instance, where I work there are blacks, white, Hispanics and when Obama was being elected in to office only a few where upset and out of that few they were black majority of the white were agreeing that we need a black president in office. I feel that racial prejudice may be disappearing many people attitudes are changing with time from how it has been in the past. I am a very neutral person even when I am hearing my friends or family say negative things about Caucasians’, I pretty much get along with everybody it really just depends on that persons attitude you should do unto others as you wish them to do unto you the world would be a much better place.

Social sources of prejudice

Social sources of prejudice starts from family influences there are so many children raised to be prejudice. Prejudice springs from unequal status and from other social sources, including our acquired values and attitudes (Castelli&others2007). Sinclair stated that children implicit racial attitudes reflect their parents explicit prejudice (Sinclair&others). When raised in these types of homes puts society at risk, many children hold a lot of anger depending on what they were taught by their family.

One example being, I watched this movie called bowling for columbine and he talked about a lot of prejudice issues and people who have the authoritarian attitude. He talked about how the KKK still lives and showed clips of how they live and train their children. Many of the clips were disturbing they showed how they taught children to shoot guns and a lot of negativity towards African Americans. He also discussed how those boys killed many students at columbine high school. I remember one clip showing the boys talking about whom they were going to shoot and one of them had stated we are going to get the black boy just because he is black. “The insecurity of authoritarian children seemed to predispose them toward an excessive concern with power and status and a flexible right-wrong way of thinking that made ambiguity difficult to tolerate. Such people therefore tended to be submissive to those with power over them and aggressive or punitive toward those whom they consider beneath them.” (Myers 2010) I fear for society if people are out here teaching their children to hate, I am almost afraid to send my children out in the world when we have people out here with these negative thoughts.

Religion and prejudice

However, religion and prejudice stated by William James those who benefit from social inequalities while avowing, “All are created equal “need to justify keeping things they way they are (Myers2010). I agree with this statement there are so many hypocritical people that attend church they are the most judgmental and stereotypical people I have ever seen. So many churches lead people to support their prejudices. I have an uncle and aunt whom are very deep off into church.

They are always quick to judge, I remember when I was a little girl they would call my father the devil. Because he drank, instead of trying to help him, they would talk about him and he would constantly talk about how he hated lesbians and gays. Sometimes you have to be careful of what you say now their children have grown up and they are now doing those devilish things like drinking, and relationships with the opposite sex. The church that I attend is not bad when it comes to judging people. This church is a come as you are there are different races, cultures and people with the opposite sex whom attend church. My pastor teaches us to love one another and not to be so judgmental towards people. He always says each of us will have our judgment day when that time comes. I feel that people should live their lives how they want they are the only ones whom have to answerer to god.

Social institutions support racial prejudice these people use their superiority to justify their beliefs. This was most common in the 1960s. For example segregation in schools and banks whom would not offer opportunities to unmarried women and African Americans. I do remember a couple of years back reading an article about how a school down south wanted to segregate the prom and how parents were protesting not to segregate the prom. I feel racism still exists in many communities in America.

Sources that motivate prejudice

Frustration and anger has a lot to do with issues of being prejudice when people are competing for things that may be scare to society. Now that we are in recession, many people feel that Caucasians’ have a better chance at job opportunities than African Americans. I feel that in some ways it is true because how society is so judgmental these days and this is why many people have so much hate towards each other. Things will never get better it just seems like everything just keeps going around in a circle. For example, my Caucasian friend and I conducted an experiment to see who would really get the job I had all the qualifications for the position and she did not have any skills for that position. At the end of our interviews, she had been the one chosen to fill the position. This is what keeps society frustrated and anger and this is what showed us how I had been stereotyped just that quick.

Social identity and feeling superior to others was one way that our ancestors lived to protect themselves by living in groups. People will do whatever they have to do to protect their groups in most countries. For example, over in Iraq when the war first started how these people are so willing to kill themselves to protect their country. When lacking self-esteem this is what causes people with social identities to become confused. Many disadvantage people find security in groups and this is what makes them so willing to do anything in their power for their group. Many feel that by being in groups this is a need for status and feeling superior over others.

I have noticed that we do tend to still group when you look at different communities you can see how we segregate ourselves there are many communities where there are all African Americans. Hispanics and Caucasians’ where as some communities have a mixture of all races that live and get along in the same communities with no problems. I feel that in some way or another we all have some kind of issue with prejudice even if you do not feel like you are it is somewhere deep down inside and that is why we segregate our selves. I have heard some people say that neighbor hoods were blacks live are terrible I could never live there. I have heard people talk about communities saying that the police are prejudice where there are majority whites. That is why they choose to live elsewhere. Nevertheless, these are the same people that are quick to call someone else prejudice and not willing to admit to their own.

However, we must learn to avoid prejudices by suppressing unwanted thoughts this can be very hard for people that have phobias about homosexuals and elderly people. This would be because this is all that that have known all of their lives. I can remember when I use to work in a retirement home in dietary their were a lot of elderly people and they use to always make racial comments when I waited on their tables I would just look at them and ignore the ignorant slurs. I had to deal with this for six years I use to feel so much anger towards Caucasian people. I then started to realize that I could not hate all Caucasians’ because of what a couple of elderly people were saying. This is the way that they had been raised all of their lives and they were from the segregation days and times are changing now. Not all Caucasians’ have this same racial attitude. I am proud of myself by going through that experience it had brought me to break the prejudice habits that I may have had.

Cognitive sources of prejudice

Cognitive sources of prejudice are in categories by classifying and grouping people from what we perceive. We as people are always quick to put people in two categories by their appearance. “Jim Blascovich stated it is necessary for prejudice social identity theory implies that those who feel their social identity keenly will concern themselves with correctly categorizing people as us or them”(Jim Blascovich1997). For example, when I first moved in to my home my neighbors are Caucasian I had lived here for a couple of months she and I had never spoken so I instantly categorized her thinking she was prejudiced as she had already assumed the same for me.

Until one particular night, someone was trying to break into my home while I was here asleep and she sent her son out to scare him away. The next morning she came over knocked on the door and told me what had happened. I then realized she was not what I had thought about her all along she is a very nice person and every since that day we speak on a daily basis and we always keep each other informed on what is going on in the neighborhood. Sometimes we have to be careful on how we judge people because you may actually miss having a good friendship with someone.

I feel that black men in society today or categorized, as dangerous gang members, and drug dealers. This is why when a crime has been committed black men are the first to be accused. I have always heard statements like was he black or white. The main thing that gets me is that they ask if he was black first as if they had already been assumed that he is black. I remember a couple of years back when a Caucasian woman drowned her own children she blamed a black man of kidnapping her children and stealing her car the police and media were on this big man hunt for this black man just because they are assumed as criminals every time something happens.

I feel that because of all of our negative perceptions of people we all tend to categorize on another. For instance, how men use to categorize women as only being able to stay home and bear children and not being intelligent enough to work. These perceptions also feel that all blacks are uneducated hoodlums, and the same is for how homosexuals are a disgrace to the world. These errors occur because most of us focus on the person and not on their situations. The more we continue to have these types of stereotypical attitudes it is a lesser chance that the world will be willing to accept one another as equal human beings.

Consequences of being prejudice

There are have been many problems in society because of the ignorance of prejudice. When society tends to label, it can sometimes lead to dangerous activity. I can remember learning in school about all of our civil rights leaders and how many of them had lost their lives, how people acted out with violence in the sixties. There were billions of dollars lost, because of riots due to the violence in society. They were only trying to bring people together in harmony, so that we can all treat each other’s as equals to put an end to stereotyping. There were so many people at this time that were angry that they felt there should not be equal rights between each human being and this is what lead them to take the lives of these very heroic men. So many innocent people have been targeted by prejudice actions, and affect the behavior of the person holding the prejudice issues as well. For example, for most homosexuals find it hard to tell their families that they are living this life style, because they feel they will not be accepted, so in order to avoid the rejection they end up committing suicide. the person whom holds all the anger with prejudice issues will eventually one day act out in society with some kind of violent act and this is how innocent people always end up getting killed for instance the 9/11 attack there were thousands of people who had died for nothing just because of the ignorance of prejudice.

In conclusion, Prejudice has been around since the seventeenth century this behavior still exists and continues to surround us all in each population. In many countries today prejudice is still a big issue among different cultures people always tend to stereotype others just because of race,sex,color or whatever the case may be I fell this is unfair because people lives are at jeopardy in so many ways because of the negative thinking. The world would be a better place if everyone would just stop being so judgmental towards each other.