toptermpaper.com

The family has been assumed by many sociologists as a basic unit of socialisation, which plays key function, such as socialising children. The functionalist view the family as a positive institution that has positive function, while feminists sees the family as negative and reproduces patriarchy. Marxism believes the family reproduce labour force while interactionists view families as different and unique.

Functionalists focus on nuclear family and see the latter as the basic building block of family socialisation. They believe that the family is a positive and beneficial institution in which family members receive nurturing and care. They look at the family on a macro scale. Functionalist believe that society is based on consensus, this means we are all socialised to agree on how to behave known as norms, and what is right and wrong known as values. For example when there is no crime, society benefits by maintaining social order .They believe that each part of society has a function to make sure that society runs smoothly and everything stays in harmony, for example, the family’s function is to socialise children and, education has a function to make sure that people are educated to be good at the job they will get after school. (Taylor and Richardson et al, 2002)

Murdock (1949) studied 250 different societies and concluded that the family is so functional to society, that it is unavoidable and universal that neither the individual nor society could survive without it. He argued that every nuclear family has these four essential functions without which society could not continue: sexual, reproductive, economic and education. Without sexual and reproductive, no member of society would be there. Life would stop if there was no economic function that is family providing for its members, and without education, socialisation would not be there hence absence of culture. Murdock has been criticised for not considering whether the functions of the family could be performed by other social institutions and he does not examine alternatives to the family. (Taylor and Richardson et al, 2002)

Parsons (1955) studied the modern American family in the 50s. He argued that there are two basic and irreducible functions of the family. The first is the primary socialisation of children, which Parsons sees as a responsibility of the family to shape the child’s personality to suite to the needs of society. The second function is the stabilisation of adult personalities. The adults gets emotional support from family necessary to cope with the stresses of everyday life. Parsons, as with Murdock, has been criticised for showing the picture of the family as attuned children and compassionate spouses caring for each other’s needs. (Taylor and Richardson et al, 2002).

There is a natural division of labour within the nuclear family, roles are segregated positively and everyone carry out different roles, for example the instrumental male, whose role is to provide for the family and thus the bread winner, and expressive female whose role is to provide warmth, love and care for children at home. Based on Biology the woman is the child bearer therefore has to look after the child. This role maintains social stability. Family patterns have changed with time such as cohabitation, rise of reconstituted families and increase in single or lone parent in western family life. Which has even made divorce easier to obtain.

Functionalist theory has been criticised to have concentrated on the family being positive and gives little attention to its weaknesses, while in feminism the nuclear family is oppressive to women due to gender distinctions in domestic duties. Functionalists argue that the family is of equal profit to everyone, however marxists argue that society was developed by the need of the capitalist economy. It is the bourgeoisie who benefits not the whole society. Functionalists focus too much on the significance that the family has in society and disregard the sense family life has for individual. (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008)

Radical psychiatric argue against functionalism for ignoring the negative aspect of the family like domestic violence. Functionalists also ignore different types of families by focussing mainly on nuclear family. Interactionist David Clark (1991) identified four types of marriage arguing against functionalist, saying not all families are the same. Functionalists depict everything as positive in the family while radical psychiatric looks at the negative side of the family.

Feminism is a conflict theory that sees the family as patriarchal. They believe that men gain more in a family than women. They view the family on a macro scale. Feminists shows how men dominate social relationships, thus symmetrical conjugal roles is seen as an allegory. Feminists argue that men oppress women through domestic violence, the economic involvement to society made by women’s domestic labour within the family.

Liberal feminist Wollstonecraft (1792) wanted equality for women in terms of rights, liberties and vote by the change of law and policy. A radical feminist like Millett (1970) argues that the organisation of society enables men to dominate women. They believed that gender distinctions are politically and socially constructed therefore wanted radical reforms and social change. Kate Millet invented the term “The personal is political” meaning everything in society is political. Radical feminists think not just patriarchal men that benefit from family but all men. (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008)

Marxists feminist believe that the destruction of the capitalist society brings equality to everything. Lesbian feminists believe society forces women into heterosexuality so that men can oppress them. They challenge heterosexuality as a means of male supremacy. Humanist feminists argue that society only allows men to self-develop not women, and that society distorts women’s human potential.

Marxist feminist Bentson (1972) argues that family responsibilities make male workers less likely to withdraw from labour, with wife and children to support. Ansley (1972) sees the emotional support in family, stabilises male workers thus making them less likely to take their frustration out on the system. Feeley (1972) sees the family as a dictatorial unit dominated by the husband. The family values teach obedience, children learn to accept hierarchy and their position in it. Greer (2000) is a radical feminist who believes that family life continues to disadvantage and oppress women. She points out Britain has very high divorce rate thus less stability in families. (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008)

Marxist feminist, like functionalist tend to ignore the diversity of modern family life, assuming everyone lives in heterosexual nuclear family. They paint a very negative picture of family life possibly exaggerated. Functionalists see male and female roles being different but equal, Marxist feminists believe that men dominate family relationships. Feminist theory discards functionalist view, that society as a whole is benefited by socialisation in the family but rather men benefits more. Women are portrayed as passive victims of exploitation. It does not take into account women who abuse men by fighting back. Functionalists believe that norms and values benefits society while for feminist they benefit men more. Feminists focus on nuclear family only and the negative aspect of it.

Marxism view family on a macro scale. The Marxist perspective is a conflict theory, which sees socialisation process of the family, results in the spread of a ruling class philosophy. Whereby individuals are misled into accepting the capitalist system and the hegemony of the capitalist class thus hegemony.Bourgoisie benefits by creating a labour force and proletariat continue to be exploited. Engel (1972) argued that bourgeois nuclear family is an institution which oppresses women. They were seen mainly as children bearers, economically dependent to their husbands and remain faithful to them. According to Engels the family is designed to control women and protect property, thus men needed to know their children in order to pass on their property. (Taylor and Richardson et al, 2002)

Marxists say the family serves capitalism in four ways. The family acts as a safety valve for the stress and frustration of working class men, the family plays as a unit of consumption, purchases the goods and services provided by capitalism. Women domestic work is unpaid which benefits capitalism and lastly the family socialises children thereby reproducing both labour power and acceptance of capitalism false consciousness. Zaretsky (1976) analysed that the family is one place where male workers can feel they have power and control. This helps them accept their oppression in wider society. Furthermore Zaretsky sees the family as a main prop to the capitalist economy. Marxists view of divorce in families is seen by increased economic pressure from unemployment, this may place added strain. Family members living longer could increase pressure on relationships. (Taylor and Richardson et al, 2002)

Marxists decline the functionalist view that society is based on value consensus, and thus benefits all. Instead they see the welfare of powerful groups influencing the way society is controlled. Marxists view ignores family diversity. It sees the nuclear family as being simply determined by the economy. This theory reproduces conflict between classes, bourgeoisie and proletariat, while a functionalist family operates as united, everything benefits society. Capitalist system is dominated both economically by rich at the expense of the poor, but seen as a fair system by functionalists that works together in the interest of all members causing limited conflict in society. Anthropologists have suggested that the emergence of the nuclear family did not actually coincide with emergence of capitalism. Somerville (2000) argues that Zaretsky exaggerates the importance of the family as a protection from life in capitalist society. Contrary to functionalist marxists focus on the negative aspect of the family and ignores the positive function. (Taylor and Richardson et al, 2002)

Interactionism also known as interpretive humans are seen as symbolic creatures, meaning we define what is around us through signs and language. They study families on a micro scale instead of generalising the whole population. They also look at what family life is actually like, rather than how it should be or how it is assumed to be.Interactionists view families as different and unique thus there is no one way of family life, like other perspectives would suggest. The way a family behaves and interacts is based on interpretation of meanings and roles. We are products of our culture what we take as common sense or reality varies according to the culture we live in. (Taylor and Richardson et al, 2002)

Goffman (1969) compares life to drama, we are actors who take on roles and act them out as public performances. Each role has its own script which tells us how to act and what cues to expect from other members involved in our interaction. Bauman (1990) argues that roles and relationships learnt in the family are essential to shaping our future. Not all families are close and warm family metaphors are often used to represent closeness, for example using the term brother and sister amongst members of political organisations. (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008)

Berger and Kellner (1964) looked at socially constructed roles in a marriage, argues that the reality of marriage is an ongoing construction which needs to be reaffirmed, negotiated and renegotiated. Clark (1991) conducted a study of how couples constructed a meaningful marriage. He identified four types of marriage. Drifting marriages, where meanings and ideas of the future are unclear, surfacing marriages often made up of people who have been married before, establishing marriages which newly wed couple plan for long term future, and lastly struggling marriages, with financial problems often from unemployment, which causes tension and anxiety. The conjugal roles in interactionism show that the roles of husband and wife are constantly evolving. For example both husband and wife working and sharing domestic tasks. (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008)

Interactionist view families on a micro scale, discovering how individuals make family life based on interactions with each other. They are not interested in generalisations about family life but seek to understand how families are unique. They go further than the common sense view of families that functionalism believes in and look at the meanings of what family life is actually like. Unlike functionalism, Marxism and feminism, where there is a set function of the family, interactionism is different for there is no one set function of the family. Families can differ based on their interactions, meanings, roles and culture. The discovery of four different types of marriage offers an opposing argument to functionalism, not an ideal nuclear family. (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008)

It has been criticised while concentrating on meanings, motives and action it ignores the wider structures in which families operate and are shaped. Sometimes generalisations of families are useful as they allow the development of political social policy. Interpretive approaches try to comprehend the family from the perspective of its members.

This research has shown from different sociologist and approaches that the family life has evolved as modernity is progressing. The changes involved have made the family better suited to meeting the needs of society, and of family members. Theoretical approaches to the family, such as difference feminism and postmodernism, have emphasized the variety of family types and living arrangements that exist in contemporary society.

Throughout history society and families have undergone huge changes and these have been argued by many different sociological perspectives. The reasons for the argued changes are as diverse as the theories themselves. In this essay I aim to raise, evaluate and analyse the arguments raised by Functionalist, Marxist and Feminist theories with regards to why and when these changes occurred and their impact on the family and society in general. Economic factors, war, changes in women’s rights, reduction in religious beliefs and increase in divorce and a more recent era of technology are just some of the factors that have affected society and thus changed the structure of the family as was previously known. All of these could be said to have being responsible for what is seen as a breakdown in the family unit as it was known but in this essay I will be looking at the effects of industrialisation on the family.

Families have always been the foundation blocks from which we grow and learn, a means of support, who’s components can change differently over time depending on where the families exist. The extended family included three generations of kin. The members didn’t only share a household but also an important economic role which was to work together as a collective group, the purpose was to help keep the family alive and well, for example, the men would do more intensive labour such as subsistence farming, hunting and gathering, whilst the women would do crafts trades and domestic duties like cooking, brewing, caring for the offspring as well as perfecting the role of a successful wife and mother, which kept their husband happier and motivated to work hard for his family.

Eventually, the era of technology was introduced to society. This made a vast alteration in history by replacing most manual and animal labour in many countries across the world, which eventually forced the agriculture industry into an industrial working society.

In the 18th Century, industrialisation hit Britain and small industries started to rapidly grow across the country, specializing from metal production and mining to spinning, weaving and food production e.g. slaughter houses. More additional opportunities for employment were offered, altering the family structure dramatically, from as little as the age four, they were capable of working in factories. The growth of industrialisation resulted in more work for the unemployed. Wages were low, yet the house rent, food and living expenses increased. Many workers had no intentions of limiting their family size as their infant children continued to contribute to the family economy. Eventually the small cottage business’s started to grow into proto-industrial business’ and families started hiring more workers other than kin.

Functionalism was the main branch in society up until the early 1960s, since then it has been increasingly criticized by other sociologists who favoured different sociology perspectives (Martin Holborn and Liz Steel -Collins Publications). Institutions such as schools and churches played a big part in society according to Functionalists and these institutions were functional for societies as a whole.

The first main functionalists were G P Murdock and Talcott Parsons. Firstly, Murdock argued that the society was held together by four functions; Sexual, Reproduction, Economy and Education. Later on, Parsons’ theory (which was widely criticised by historical evidence, notably studies by Laslett and Anderson) was to study nuclear and heterosexual families, Parsons’ Fit Thesis states that the Modern Nuclear family evolved to meet the needs of an industrial society, Feminists argued that tradition roles of the family restricted opportunities in employment. They also argued that although women were employed, that they were also expected to carry out the triple shift at home, which consisted of housework, child care and emotional work. Marxists argued that family helped a lot of children accept authorities without questioning which prepared them to accept capitalist authorities in work places. Another Marxism argument was that without the growing population of the family, the demand for products would decrease capitalist profits.

Marxist feminists agreed with these arguments but also pointed out that it was the women who were exploited most of all, they explained that the tradition role of the mother and housewife figure wasn’t fair, but as they are prepared for this role, it provided help to their husbands at low prices which resulted to male workers being employed at low wages.

Marxists assumed the family had many roles which were beneficial to the Capitalist society, they belived that the family helped capitalism by being the major consumers of paid goods, this helped the bourgeoisie a great deal and proved that whilst the family exists, then the bourgeoisie would resume to make more profit. They also believed that the next proletariat generation were created by housewives, as more children were produced, more jobs were filled which were currently left open by the retired. They believed that the family helped the main income provider, which was usually the husband by relieving pressure from the previous evening allowing him to attend work the next day working and allowing the bourgeoisie to obligate a guaranteed workforce resulting in a beneficial outcome, the proletariat were less likely to rebel against the system due to little stress.

To Marxists, education was considered the main source of socialisation, this was also beneficial to the bourgeoisie since the family and education system would teach the children how the society they live in is precise. Education made the proletariat believe the ideology of Capitalism which encouraged children to believe in the myth of meritocracy.

Marxists believed that the bourgeoisie discouraged the proletariat extended family that once existed. Marxists believe that the proletariat had a mutual support system and acted communally as a support unit, which lead to many people becoming aware of which class they were in. This lead to the proletariat protesting against the capitalist ruling class for power, but as this was brought about by the extended family, the bourgeoisie taught the extended family to be immoral.

Engels saw industrialisation negatively as it increased exploitation of the workers, but also in a positive light as it would eventually cause a communist revolution.

The Marxist theories I have raised suggest that while Marx’s theory makes sense, it has also been disproven throughout history as almost all of the countries that were introduced to the communist revolution eventually collapsed and became capitalist governments

Communists didn’t lead to freedom for the workers, but only to exploitive tyrannies that abused the proletariat more inferior than any bourgeoisie ever did, which concludes that although communism may well have been a great theory, it was never a practical one. ‘

Historically the feminist approach is primarily aimed at men, there view on the family has an economic system which encompasses an array of labour relation in which men benefit from the exploitation of women.

“Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women … We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men … All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women.” (“The Declaration of Feminism” November, 1971)

Many feminists came to the conclusion that when a member of the household worked, the income wasn’t to contribute towards the household, but to the man. They saw the family a way for the man to dominate the woman, as he would benefit from all the work the woman does to contribute towards the family e.g. cleaning, cooking, and bringing up the children and more.

Which also includes other view feminists had involving the 57 varieties of unpaid service.

Radical feminists believe that the main problem in society is patriarchy, they believe that a man’s point of view is dominance and power, that they aren’t respected like they should be.

A Marxist feminist believes capitalism is to blame for the problem, they believe that capitalism weakens the society ( mainly women ) , and if they eliminated capitalism and introduce communism.

A Liberal feminist believes that over time, sexism has started to diminish and society has started to improve.

In conclusion there are many arguments regarding the industrialisation of the family and its affects. Many factors come into play and the many combinations of these along with the diversity of what family means to different people, I feel it makes it hard for any theory to, on its own, explain how and why these changes happened or to know if they would have anyway and are possibly down to evolution. External influences affect us all differently dependant in class, financial, social and emotional factors within a family unit. There is no norm and so to claim any one theory alone correct would not take this in to account.

Sociology of food in USA

INTRODUCTION

Man and food have close association with one another and this association has also compelled the man to find new means and new forms of food, to bring diversity and sustainability in their food chain. Initially the food was only grown like vegetables and fruits or was got, in the form of meat, of hunting animals. With the progress in civilization and the technology, all phenomenon of production, distribution and consumption changed and with this change raised the issue like health, ethical, environmental, labor and the cultural. When these issues came into focus, the whole scenario brought the field of sociology of food. This field helps to study how the food is currently produced, then goes to the line of distribution and how the people around the country or the world consume it. Along with all other factors, this whole process of food chain also has the social impact and this impact can affect the society in a number of ways. Here, we will discuss the sociology of food in USA and how it is creating social problems.

OBJECTIVE PRESENTATION OF THE SOCIAL CONDITION

In the countries like America, it is not an ancient thought that food used to be cooked at home and was considered as the item that connects the family together and helps them to sit together and interact with each other. It was once the preference that food should be prepared at home and the preparation of food itself required a lot of fresh ingredients and specially loves. After the industrial revolution, along with other concepts, the idea of food as the bonding force also changed. Industrial revolution not only increased the speed of progress in science and technology, but also, altered the pace of life. Industrial revolution also gave the opportunity to work, therefore, most of the members of the family started working. People became busy in earning money and cooking meals at home became difficult for the people and as a result the food industry progressed to an extent that it has taken the place in every home of United States. Food production, distribution and consumption have become one of the biggest industries not only in United States, but, all over the world.

SUBJECTIVE PRESENTATION OF WHY THE SOCIAL CONDITION IS A SOCIAL PROBLEM

Although we are now living in the society which revolves around becoming self-sufficient and economically stable, therefore, people have to spend more time at workplaces, thus, decreasing the time people used to spend their time. Most of that time was centered on making and feeding family members. The abundance of readymade food including: fast food drinks and junk food provided a lot of solutions for the people. Food is an important source to create connections and it is considered that cooking and serving proper meals reestablishes and reinforces the bond between different members of the family and helps them to send time with one another (Debevec and Tivadar). Taking, cooking of food out of our daily lives is causing a lot of social issues, that dominating our way of living and relationships.

Food Production

Five decades back, the production of food had never been an issue. Countries usually depended on their own main crops to meet the needs of their population, but, with the passes of time, transportation, technology, wealth and prosperity of some countries gave those changes to get more and better food for their population. One example is that Asian countries are acquiring land in African countries. This method of production, in foreign countries is to meet the increasing need of the Asian countries to fulfill the demand of the food, due to increase in population in urban areas. This will not only create social issue for the people of African countries, but, also in the countries this food is consumed because the excessive export of the crops of African countries will put pressure on the society because people will not be able to benefit from their own land, thus creating social distress. Also, the people in Asian countries, who will be consuming those products, will have to pay more for it due to increase in cost due to transportation. Thus, a social divide will occur because people of middle and lower classes will have to pay more, even beyond their means, to get the articles of basic need (Gunasekera and Finnigan). Secondly, with the advancement of technology, transgenic technology is used to genetically modified crops or the improved crops. This technology is used all over the world, but, still there are societies which consider them against their beliefs and system. There are societies who collectively thing that producing food by introducing foreign agent into the original form might have negative impact on the health of the people and the originality of the crops. People believe that since all the crops grown naturally are the best form of the food and it is not for the benefit of society to genetically enhance the food and increase production, which might compromise the health of the people, which will ultimately reflect on society (Akumo and Riedel). Thirdly, sustainability has also become an important issue in food production. With increase in population, demand of dietary products and meat has increased and in order to meet the needs several scientific methods are used. Eight hundred million people in the world are suffering from malnutrition, whereas, nearly four hundred million people are obese. The increase in prosperity and population has increased the demand of these products, but, in order to raise more meat giving animals, more water and food for them is needed. This causes an imbalance in the environment because there is already sacristy of the water and the food of these animals need to grow and this excessive requirement compels humans to use unnatural ways to grow food and even increase the speed of growth of animals. Demand of these food items has increased, but, so does their price and the prices of these products are getting out of reach of common people, especially in underdeveloped countries. This also crease social imbalance and the working class again has to suffer due to lack of finances. (Reisch and Eberle)

Food Distribution

Food distributions systems work as the network and distribute food products all over the country. The supply of food actually depends on the demand of the product in a certain area, but, certain food items are produced that may be demanded in different markets comprising of variety of social classes and this different in social status may also affect the availability of the product. The availability of these products is also dependent on the purchasing power of the customer. There the distribution is also affected by this, thus making these products unavailable to the lower class (FAO). The main issue associated with the distribution systems is that there are very less number of markets that sell their products locally. Since, these products are sent to other towns and cities, thus increasing the price of the product. The excessive spending on distribution and the money spent on advertising is received from the consumer, which again impacts the working class of the society (Martinez, Hand and Pra). The people who used to come at the churches pantry to get food have increased three times since 2008. But, the amount of food that was distributed to these services has decreased due to decrease in budget. Thus this uneven supply of food to these church services have put the pressure to the churches to feed the peed that are deserving and are dependent on them. Uneven distribution of food and makes people unable to purchase their own food (Greenberg, Greenberg and Mazza).

Food Consumption

The consumption of the food is greatly influenced by the income of the consumer. The families that have better income spend a lot of money on food and especially on fancy and expensive food items. Therefore, a social divide is also created and the food items are produced which can only be consumed by the people who are financially stable (Jappelli and Pistaferri). Due to busy lifestyles the eating out and consuming readymade food is increasing rapidly in the country. Although, research show that the food that is made and eaten at home has good health and social effects. At the dinner table, family get the chance to interact with each other, develop better relationship and come to know about lives of one another, thus creating better family bond and increasing harmony in the society (Eisenberg, Olson and Neumark-Sztainer). Since the people consume a lot of food outside, therefore, their choice of food is also affected by the people around them. People who eat at the public places usually eat unhealthy and fatty food and most of the times they spend more money, than their average spending, this results in compromised health and finances. The obese and financially unstable people further affects the balance of the society (Mcferran, Dahl and Fitzsimons).

SOCIAL CHANGE

Food production industry has changed its shaped since last eight decades and now everything that was considered the specialty of home foods come in packing. Income has increased the demand for expensive food items and the food market has become global. All these factors are affecting the society because transportation from far off places makes, even the most common things expensive, thus making it expensive for major portion of society. This problem can be reduced by introduced more local markets and by promoting local products. Moreover, alternative products to protein like second level protein should be encouraged and produced, to meet the needs of the people. Pulses can also serve as the alternative source for protein; therefore, producing this item can help in achieving sustainability in food chain.

Food distribution has always been the issue all over the world, but, now we come to see even the global distribution of food. Now even the food of Sydney can reach any part of the world. Still there are countries that are facing uneven distribution of food resulting on malnutrition. Uneven distribution is also due to the uneven incomes of different segments of the society. Also different markets have different prices of same item and even. This problem can be solved by introducing centralized distribution system and centralized pricing. These systems can even help the working class to afford all things and everything can become available to everyone, irrespective of the social class. Also, this centralized system will be helpful in ensuring that every member of the society is equally treaty and has access to everything he needs.

The consumption of food can only be controlled by the consumer. The most important should be the heath of the customer, for which customer should take balanced diet and this diet could help to give better and healthy people to the society. People should also, consider the effect of decrease in family meal on their social and family life.. There should be balance in work and family life and the increase in social distress can be caused if this balance is disturbed. Although, it is easier and simpler to get the food from restaurants, but, restaurants cannot compensate for the love of the family and communication with family members. Also, most of the times, the food consumed outside is unhealthy and unhygienic, that can result in a health issue, will demand money for seeing a physician and will put extra pressure on the finances. The government should also conduct awareness programs about the importance of meals made at home and the significance of balanced diet.

CONCLUSION

Sociology of food is an important topic and sociology of food in USA is also. Three different aspects of food chain: production, distribution and consumption. There are a number of social issues in all three aspects and the most prominent ones are due to uneven income of different segments of the society. So, in order to meet the most common needs of all the people, it is important to have if not centralized then controlled system that can ensure that all markets have same price. Moreover, the consumption of the food should also be according to the needs of the body and excessive or unbalanced. A lot work has to be done to the sociology of food in United States in all three areas i..e production, distribution and consumption.

Works Cited

Akumo, Divine Nkonyam and Heidi Riedel. “Social and Economic Issues – Genetically Modified Food.” Muzzalupo, Innocenzo. Food Industry. InTech, 2013. 221-229.

Debevec, Liza and Blanka Tivadar. “Making connections through foodways:contemporary issues in anthropological and sociological studies of food.” ANTHROPOLOGICAL NOTEBOOKS, 12 (1) (2006): 5–16.

Eisenberg, M.E., et al. “Correlations between family meals and psychosocial well-being among adolescents.” The Archives of Pediatricsand Adolescent Medicine, 158 (2004): 792-796.

FAO. “Low-cost Urban Food Distribution Systems in Latin America.” FAO Agricultural Services Bulltin, 111 (1994): 40-48.

Greenberg, Michael, Gwendolyn Greenberg and Lauren Mazza. “Food Pantries, Poverty, and Social Justice.” American ournal of Public Health 100(11) (2010): 2021-2022.

Gunasekera, Don and John Finnigan. “Track social and economic impacts of food production.” Naure, 466(920 (2010): 558-560.

Jappelli, Tullio and Luigi Pistaferri. “The Consumption Response to Income Changes.” The Annual Review of Economics (2010): 476-506.

Martinez, Steve, Michael Hand and Michelle Da Pra. “Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and issues.” Research. 2010.

Mcferran, Brent, Darren W. Dahl and Gavan J. Fitzsimons. “I’ll Have What She’s Having: Effects of Social Influence and Body Type on the Food Choices of Others.” Journal of Consumer Research,36(6) (2009): 915-959.

Reisch, Lucia and Ulrike Eberle. “Sustainable food consumption: an overview of contemporary issues and policies.” Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 9(2) (2013): 7-25.

Functionalism is a structuralist theory. This means it sees the individual as less important as the social structure of society. It is a ‘top down’ theory. The family can be defined as an intimate domestic group composed of people related to each other by blood, sexual relations and legal ties. When assessing how useful functionalism is when looking at the family, other views/perspectives need to be taken into account before making an overall conclusion. Views from Talcott Parsons, George Murdock, Ann Oakley, Edmund Leach, R.D Laing, David Cooper and Friedrich Engels will be taken into account as well as perspectives from Marxism, feminism, family diversity and radical psychiatrists. This will help draw the final conclusion.

Functionalist sociologists suggest that the nuclear family is the norm in modern day industrial societies.

George Peter Murdock (1949) supports the idea of functionalism. After analysing 250 societies, Murdock argues that the family performs four basic functions; sexual, reproductive, economic and educational. These are the essentials for social life, since without sexual and reproductive functions there would be no members of society, without economic functions life would cease, and without education there would be no culture. Human society without culture could not function. Clearly, the family cannot perform these functions exclusively. However, it makes important contributions to them all and no other institution has yet been devised to match its efficiency in this respect. A weakness of Murdock’s view is that some sociologists may find his description of the family almost too good to be true. Some of his views on harmony and integration are not shared be other researchers. He also does not examine alternatives to the family, not considering whether its functions could be carried out by other social institutions. Murdock is criticised for being Euro-centric, as he is only concerned about the Western families. However, he is supported by anthropologists; Morris (1968) said the family was a result of biology and culture over generations (socio-biology). This could be a strength as it shows some researchers have the same view.

Talcott Parsons bases his ideas on the family in modern American society. However, despite this his ideas have more general application since he claims the American family has two ‘basic and irreducible’ functions which are common to the family in all societies, unlike Murdock who argued there were four. These were, the primary socialization of children, where culture is learned and accepted by children so they know the norms and values that allow society to exist. Secondly the stabilization of adult personalities, which is where a marriage relationship and emotional security a couple provide for each other keeps a personality stable, and acts as a counterweight to everyday stresses and strains that can make a personality unstable. This process is otherwise known as the ‘warm bath’ theory, where the family provide a relaxing environment for the male worker to immerse himself in after a hard day at work. A criticism of Parsons view would be that he idealises the family, much like Murdock, with his view of well adjusted children and sympathetic spouses caring for each others every need, when in reality not all families are like this. Also Parsons fails to explore the differences between working/middle class families, as his ideas are generally based on the American middle class family. Parsons perspective supports that of functionalism, that the nuclear family is the norm in society.

Ann Oakley has described the typical or ‘conventional’ family. She says conventional families are nuclear families composed of legally married couples, voluntarily choosing the parenthood of one or more children. This shows support for functionalism. Leach (1967) has called this the ‘cereal packet image of the family’. This image of a happily married couple with two children is prominent in advertising and the ‘family sized’ packets of cereal and other products are aimed at this group.

The family is functional for both its members and society as a whole. Increasingly this picture of the family is coming under strong criticism. Some observers are suggesting that on balance, the family may well be dysfunctional both for society and its individual members. This criticism has mainly been directed at the family in Western industrial society.

The Marxist view on the family opposes that of the functionalists. It is seen to challenge the idea that the family is universal or natural, but instead that it is human creation; a social invention that has served a specific economic purpose. The Marxist theory on the family emerged from the work of Friedrich Engels. It is argued by Marxists that the working-class extended family has been deliberately discouraged by the capitalist ruling class, because its emphasis on a mutual support system and collective action encourages its members to be aware of their social class position. It is believed that the nuclear family under capitalist law in an ‘anti-social’ family. It labels all other forms of family life as inferior and abnormal. However, a weakness of the Marxist view is that there is a tendency to talk about ‘the family’ in capitalist society without regard to possible variations in family life between social classes.

Family diversity supports the fact that the ‘conventional family’ no longer makes up the majority of households or families. For example, women no longer aspire exclusively to romantic love, marriage and children. There are now acceptable alternative life styles some people prefer, such as pre-marital sex, serial monogamy, cohabitation, single-sex relationships, childlessness etc. Men’s roles too are no longer clear in a postmodern society, and the resulting ‘crisis of masculinity’ has lead to man redefining both their sexuality and family commitments. Others disagree with this view. They argue that family diversity is exaggerated, and that the basic features of family life have remained largely unchanged for the majority of the population. Nuclear families are still very common – but alternate types of family are steadily increasing.

When looking at a critical view of the family, radical psychiatry mat be taken into account. Edmund Leach supported the idea in the family there is too much emotional pressure on each individual to live up to expectations. R.D Laing associated schizophrenia with the emotional pressure and anxiety of the nuclear family. David Cooper suggested the personality of the individual is controlled by the family, forcing them to conform to the rules of both the family, forcing them to conform to the rules of both the family and wider society. These three radical researchers all agree that the family is a dangerous place and mental illness could be the result of pressures laid down to the individual. From this angle it can be seen that the family has a negative, this view does not agree with the view of functionalism.

Friedrich Engels acknowledges that the position of women within the family is an important aspect of what the Marxists see as its harmful effects. However, he emphasizes the relationship between family and capitalism, and is less concerned with its effects on women. Feminism has broken itself down into different perspectives, Marxist feminists, liberal feminists and radical feminists. Friedrich Engels speaks for the Marxist feminist view. Liberal feminists believe that both sexes contribute to domestic chores in an atmosphere of mutual support and hegemony, and there is an equal division of labour. Radical feminist beliefs are that the nuclear family is based upon male power and serves to support that. Male power is often expressed in the home as domestic violence. It is seen that patriarchy is transhistorical; it is ever present in all societies and cultures. A weakness is that feminists often do not take into account the possible differences in family life, for example, social classes, ethnic groups, heterosexual and gay families etc. They just seem to assume every family is a nuclear family, so may exaggerate the effect of families to women. They therefore ignore the possibility of women fighting back against exploitation and do not see the positive side to the family.

Now that perspectives and ideas criticising and supporting functionalism have been illustrated. A conclusion can be made. If looking at Murdock and Parsons it can be seen that they both tend to only take into account Western societies, and tend to generalise. Apart from that they both have strong, similar ideas on what the family is. Oakley and Leach support their ideas on the nuclear family being the majority of society. However, although the argument supporting functionalism is sound, other views need to be taken into perspective. For example Marxism, questioning the idea of a universal/natural family. Family diversity offering different options to how people choose to live, feminists saying the family exploits women and radical psychiatry claiming the family is a dangerous place and causes mental illness

Sociology developed as an academic discipline throughout the 18^th and 19^th centuries. Provide an explanation of the historical and social context from which sociology developed.

Sociology has its roots in the changes within the society since the 18^th and 19^th centuries as there was the industrial revolution, the creation of empires, and the enlightenment of scientific reasoning ( Bauman and May 2001, p. 3). Furthermore, early practitioners developed the discipline as an attempt to understand the societal changes. During the 1960s, especially, it became a major social science subject. ( Do mention capitalism)

Moreover, sociology is determined as a new academic discipline as it emerged in the early 19^th century in response to the challenges of modernity (British sociology). Eventually, there was an increasing exposure of people to cultures and societies different from their own due to the increasing mobility and technological advancement. Throughout this exposure, there was variation in the way people would eventually accept the sociology as a discipline. However, for some people it included the breakdown of traditional norms and customs and warranted a nuanced understanding of how the world works.

Furthermore, the term Sociology was coined by Auguste Comte in 1838. Comte hoped to unify all the sciences under sociology he believed sociology held the potential to improve society and direct human activity. In addition, the development of sociology was first recognized in the mid-19^th century by the English philosopher Herbert Spencer as he had written a book with term Sociology in its title. In the United States, the first sociology course was taught at the University of Kansas, Lawrence in 1890 under the title Elements of Sociology.

In brief, sociology emerged in Comte’s vision; it eventually subsuming all other areas of scientific inquiry, sociology did not replace the other sciences. Indeed, in the past decades, sociological research focused on the organization of complex, industrial societies and their influence on individuals. Today, sociologists study a broad range of topics which can be structures that deals with the organization of the society such as race or ethnicity, social class and gender roles. This shows the development of sociology throughout the years.

Sociology involves a unique way of thinking. What are the features of sociological thinking and C. Wright Mills Sociological imagination?

Sociology involves a unique way of thinking as one should have a broad mind in order to see little difference in everyday routine (Johnson Bethany 03 June 2015). Indeed, the sociological imagination is a concept used by the American sociologist C. Wright Mills to describe the ability to “think yourself away from the familiar routines of everyday life” and look at them from an entirely new perspective (Johnson Bethany 03 June 2015). In order to develop such skills, one must be able to free yourself from one context and look at things from an alternative point of view (Johnson Bethany 03 June 2015).

Furthermore, Mills defined sociological imagination as “the vivid awareness of the relationship between experience and the wider society” (Johnson Bethany 03 June 2015). It is a way of thinking about things in society that have led to some sort of outcome, and understanding what causes led to that outcome. The sociological imagination is the ability to see things socially and how they interact an influence each other. According to the theorist C. Wright Mills who stated that to do this; one must use critical thinking skills, such as the use of the sociological thinking. In addition, the sociological thinking and sociological imagination are intertwined and works together.

In brief, Mills deduced that one of the key ways people understand society and social change is to apply the sociological imagination. This involves something called making the familiar strange, or questioning and critiquing the world around us. It is similar to putting on a new pair of glasses, in this case with sociological lenses, seeing our society and the everyday behaviors and interactions we usually take for granted in a different way. In this case of analyzing the society critical thinking is a mean of understanding the surroundings in different perspectives.

One way of using sociology to understand the relationship between the individual and society is to use different perspectives and models of society. Explain and contrast the key features of macro and micro models of society.

Sociology has helped to understand the process of relationship between the individual and society. The society has contributed to the interaction, cooperating, and acting with one another. Furthermore, the question that arises is how to behave in one’s society, what is right and what is wrong, all these things has to be learn in the society (Mondal, 2015). Indeed macrosociology involves the study of widespread social processes whereas microsociology involves the study of people in face to face interactions.

Firstly, macro and micro level studies each possess their own benefits and disadvantages. For instance, macrosociology allows observation of large-scale patterns and trends, but runs the risk of seeing these trends as abstract entities that exist outside of the individuals who enact them on the ground (Mondal, 2015). Beneath, examples can be objective or subjective in accordance with macro studies such as: society, law, bureaucracy, architecture, technology and language for objective aspects. In addition, subjective examples would be culture, norms and values (Mondal, 2015).

In contrast to macro level, microsociology allows for this on-the-ground analysis, but can fail to consider the larger forces that influence individual behavior. However, sociological analysis can take place at micro level, and can be subjective or objective. Classifying the objectives examples would be patterns of behavior, action, and interaction (Mondal Puja 02 June 2015). In addition, subjective examples would be perception, beliefs and the various facets of the social construction of reality (Mondal, 2015).

In brief, it can be deduced that macro and micro level studies plays an important role within the society. It helps in the process of integration of the individual and the sustainability of the society.

Using sociological concepts and theories, explain the relationship between the individual and society.
Answer should include explanations of the following: how the key sociological concepts of socialization, social order and social stratification can be applied to the analysis of the relationship between the individual and society.
How a theory of consensus, a theory of conflict and a theory of social action can be applied to an analysis of the relationship between the individual and society?

Sociologists develop theories to explain social phenomena. A theory is a proposed relationship between two or more concepts such as theory of consensus, a theory of conflict and a theory of social action and can be applied to an analysis of the relationship between the individual and society. In other words, a theory is explanation for why or how a phenomenon occurs (Putnam, Robert, 2001).In addition, the relationship between individual and society can be viewed from three angles that are functionalist, conflict and symbolic interaction perspective.

Secondly, functionalist perspective focuses upon the macro level as it takes into consideration the individual as formed by society through the influence of such institution as the family, school and workplace (Mondal,2015). Furthermore, functionalism draws its inspiration primarily from the ideas of Emilie Durkheim (Durkheim, and Lewis A. Coser. 1997). Indeed the functionalist deals up with rules and status that exists in society so as to provide social control or social order as it is necessary for survival. Durkheim pursued to explain social cohesion and stability through the concept of solidarity as the individual and the society would perform similar tasks that held the society together. Based on the metaphor of an organism in which many parts function together to sustain the whole, Durkheim argued that modern complex societies are held together by organic solidarity (think interdependent organs) (Durkheim, and Lewis A. Coser. 1997).

Thirdly, there is conflict theory maintains that society as a complex system striving for equilibrium in contrast to functionalist but rather as a competition. Society is made up of individuals competing for limited resources (e.g., money, leisure, sexual partners, etc.) (Smith, Christian. 2003). However, the conflict theory contributes to social change in contrast to the functional approach. In fact, there are primary assumptions of conflict theory that are; consensus is characteristic of human relationships rather than competition, individuals and groups that benefit from any particular structure strive to see it maintained (Smith, Christian. 2003).

Last but not the least, there is symbolic theory which may involves exchange of communication or symbols among individuals. Here, the symbolic plays a prominent role in relationship with the individual and the society as it involves interchanging of culture and teaching. Symbolic theory argues that people become selves by learning and internalizing the symbolic materials of the social and historical context and culture they are born into and raised within (e.g., the individual is formed by the society), and then act back upon and alter societies (e.g., norms, cultures and structures) by deploying the symbolic resources at their disposal throughout the course of their ongoing lives (e.g., the society is formed by the joint action of individuals) (Merton, Robert 1957).

Thus to conclude, the a theory of consensus, a theory of conflict and a theory of social action can be applied to an analysis of the relationship between the individual and society as it can be deduced that each theory plays an integral part within the society. Each theory has its own contribution to the upbringing, stability and continuous survival of the society.

References
Question 1

Bauman and May 2001 introduction(Bauman and May 2001, chapter 10, “Thinking Sociologically”)

http://studymore.org.uk/ybaumay.htm

http://www.britsoc.co.uk/what-is-sociology/origins-of-sociology.aspx Accessed on 1:57 PM 21 June 2105 NPTEL – Humanities and Social Sciences – Introduction to Sociology

http://www.nptel.ac.in/courses/109103023/download/Lecture%201.pdf Accessed on 2:05 PM 21 June 2015

Question 2

Bethany Johnson C. Wright Mills and his view on the power elite and the sociological imagination. http://www.Study.com. Accessed on 11:52 am 03 June 2015

http://wps.prenhall.com/ca_ph_johns_ob_6/0,9429,1510150–1510152,00.html Accessed on 11:52 am 03 June 2015

Question 3

Boundless. “Levels of Analysis: Micro and Macro.” Boundless Sociology. Boundless, Assessed on 14:29 pm 27 Jun. 2015.

Mondal Puja 02 June 2015 https://www.google.com/search?q=One+way+of+using+sociology+to+understand+the+relationship+between+the+individual+and+society+is+to+use+different+perspectives+and+models+of+society&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Assessed on 09:00 am 26 June, 2015

www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=107262 Assessed on 10:15 am 26 June, 2015

www.ukessays.com › Essays › Sociology Assessed on 11:00 am 26 June, 2015

Question 4

Durkheim, Emile, and Lewis A. Coser. 1997. The Division of Labor in Society. Free Press.

Mondal Puja 02 June 2015 https://www.google.com/search?q=One+way+of+using+sociology+to+understand+the+relationship+between+the+individual+and+society+is+to+use+different+perspectives+and+models+of+society&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Assessed on 09:00 am 26 June, 2015

Putnam, Robert D. 2001. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. 1st ed. Simon & Schuster.

Merton, Robert (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure, revised and enlarged. London: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Smith, Christian. 2003. The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and Conflict in the Secularization of American Public Life. 1st ed. University of California Press.

Biological determinism is a theory that tries to explain a person’s behaviour and other aspects of life in relation to his or her genetic makeup. This theory was encompasses the work of various prominent scientists such as Mendel, Charles Darwin and Francis Galton. Biological determinism abnegates the idea of the surrounding influencing the characteristics and behavioural aspects of an individual. For decades, this theory has been expounded in order to explain human behaviour comprehensively. Charles Darwin proposed heritable characteristics are determined through natural selection. Darwin was of the opinion that an individual would inherit the optimal characteristics that would ensure his survival or have a reproductive advantage. However, sociologists have strongly criticized the biological determinism theory because it does not take into account the environmental factors that affect behaviour (Banyard and Grayson, 2000). This article aims to discuss the concept of biological determinism and the opinion of sociologists on this concept.

Discussion

Biologists, when referring to different behaviours and roles of individual in the society, agree that a set of predetermined biological process determine these behaviours. Therefore, people think and act in different manner because they have different development in their brains (Velden, 2010). Biological theorists are of the opinion that the chromosomes and hormones in his body control brain cell formation. For example, the male in the society are equipped with both the Y and X chromosomes whereas the women only have the X chromosome. The Y chromosome in men leads to production of testosterone and other male hormones. Therefore, the male brain develops differently from that of a woman due to the difference in genetic material in the sexes. Biologists have gone further to use the differences in male and female brain to explain the difference in behaviours between the sexes (Kronfeldner, 2009).

Biological determinism operates on the assumption that all behaviours have particular causes, which are mainly genetic or related to biological functions and processes. Experiments done by Raine et al (1997) focused in the abnormalities found in the brain of murderers. Raine et al (1997) tried to find determine the common factor in murderers who had put a plea of not guilty by virtue of insanity. In the experiments, Raine et al (1997) looked at the PET scans of murderers and observed their cortical and sub-cortical brains. This experiment aimed to determine whether having brain dysfunction and abnormalities like schizophrenia are linked to the violent behaviours exhibited by the murderers. Raine’s experiment only focused on the innate factors while it ignored the external factors such as the environments that may control the behaviours of an individual.

Biological determinism also focuses on reductionism. Reductionism views individuals as divided into hierarchical groups. Therefore, the biological determinists view the inequalities between sexes, nations, classes as intrinsic rather than extrinsic (Carolan, 2005). Therefore, this theory portrays the picture that if one person is less successful than the other is, it is s not because of the contributing factors in the environment, but because the other person is intrinsically incapable of being successful. Biological determinists therefore believe that men in the society are dominant because they are intrinsically more aggressive and rational than women. According to this theory, biologically inheritable material and not the surrounding environment determine division in the society (Carolan, 2005).

It is the opinion of most sociologist that it is irrational to consider social classification as a genetic factor. This is because human from different divides and social backgrounds have been known to interact and live in similar classes. It is also logical to assume that the environment and the surrounding enforces some traits and leads success or failure of an individual in a society. It is from this mode of thinking that sociologists have formulated their theories on human behaviour and societal interaction. The external environment contributes greatly to the behaviour of a person in the society. In fact, according to sociologist the surrounding environment solely regulates behaviour.

Although biologists believe that only biological processes influence behaviours, there are various flaws in this perspective. Biologists tend to ignore cognitive behaviours exhibited by individuals in their theory of biological determinism. This is where sociologist criticizes the biological determinism theory. Sociologists believe that people exhibit different behaviours depending on the surrounding environment. For decades, the sociologists view on biological determinism has been that of disapproval. Most sociologists are uneasy with the biological determinism theory because it does not fully explain behavioural exhibition in people (Carolan, 2005). Sociologists’ disapproval of determinism is justifiable to a given extend especially when such disapproval is guided by ideologues that seek to validate, and rectify, the status quo of the biological determinism. The argument advanced by sociologist is based on the fact biological determinists have a fear that there is a probability of losing the genic capacity. Therefore, sociologists believe that looking very deep into the realm bio physiology to explain social phenomenon is irrational and rather irresponsible.

Social scientists such Skinner believe that all behavioural aspects of a person are determined by the external stimuli (Boeree, 2006). Skinner in his theory concluded that the concept of free will is just an illusion and a person’s behaviour will usually conform to his surrounding rather than be genetically determined. Skinner’s theory on behaviour was majorly based on operant conditioning. Skinner believed that an organism or a person operated in a specific environment with various stimuli that contributed towards specific behaviours. Therefore, skinner believed that when a person or organism is exposed to certain environment a stimulus known as the reinforcer contributed towards his repeated behavioural exhibition (Boeree, 2006).

From Skinner’s theory, we can deduce that a behaviour followed by a reinforcing stimulus has a higher likelihood of being repeated or not. Skinner used the example of a rat in a cage with a bar or pedal. In case the rat presses the pedal or the bar, it leads to release of food pellet. Assume the rat is bouncing in the cage and accidentally presses the bar then the food pellet is released. Therefore, this rat will tend to repeat this behaviour not because it inherited such traits but because it there is a reinforcing stimulus in the environment (Boeree, 2006).

Watson John supports Skinner’s opinion by also showing that the surrounding environment governs an individual’s behaviour. Watson assumes that behaviour exhibited by an individual can be correlated to other observable occurrences in the environment. In Watson’s opinion, there are usually definite occurrences that precede and follow exhibition of certain behaviours. Watson’s behaviourism theory attempts to explain the relation between stimuli in the environment and an individual’s response (behaviour). Watson like Skinner borrowed his idea on behaviour from Pavlov’s conditioning experiments. Watson believed that individual learned through stimuli substitution and similarly behaviours in individual are exhibited according to change in stimuli rather than genetic predispositions (Winfred, 2010).

Watson became one of the many sociologists to oppose the mentalist concept. He believed that the early neuroscientists were very ignorant on how the nervous system and the brain functioned. At that time, biological determinism was widely accepted as an explanation to behavioural exhibitions. However, Watson changed this opinion by using contiguity to explain how organisms learned. Watson’s theory assumed that emotions were complex expression of classical conditioning and therefore complex behaviours only came about due to combination of recognisable reflexes (Winfred, 2010). Like Skinner, Watson believed that repeated activity strengthened the learning process and the learning process is what creates the difference between human behaviour. Despite the fact that Watson’s position did not explain the concept of human learning, his theory is currently considered as one of the pioneers to learning sciences.

Conclusion

In the society, the most obvious feature is inequality. It is obvious that some individuals have great wealth while others are poor Different groups explain these inequalities according t their preferred theory. Biological determinists believe that inequality in the society is as a result of the intrinsic factors. Sociologists on the other hand believe that social differences are as a result of extrinsic factors. Both these arguments are passionate and provide interesting view into the human behaviour and social organization.Sociologists try explaining the relation between human beings and their surrounding while neglecting the concept of biological determinism. However, socialism alone cannot explain some behavioural patterns neither can biological determinism. It is necessary for both the sociologist and biologists to move towards a relatively dynamic theory, which is open to interrelation of theories from both sides of the divide. No matter how much the sociologist may wish to stick to their theory, they cannot evade the complex nature of biological organisms. As much as the environment influences the behaviour, it is necessary to note that chemical reactions and hormonal changes also influence how organisms and human behave. Currently, it would be absurd to support only one theory due to the evidence available. Social theories provide their arguments, which are as compelling as the arguments provided by the biological determinists. It is therefore irrelevant for sociologist to wage war against biologists since booth theories have weaknesses, which can be augmented if the theories are combined to form a grand theory that explains human behaviour.

Discuss: Work is a big portion of a person’s life.

To say that work is a big portion of a person’s life is a understatement of large proportions. Children are raised with one or both parents who make it a priority. They are raised to make it a priority. They work virtually all their lives. They retire from it. It can be intrusive and ubiquitous and the fact that it is both a noun and a verb does not begin to hint at the complexity of it.

In beginning to consider it, a nature path would be to define its nature. Is it feathered or scaled, or more accurately, is it to be relegated as a science of economics, sociology or something else entirely? Many regard it as a pure function of applied economics (Block, Berg, & Belman 2004, p. 94). It seems right to regard it as such as at its most basic level it is a about an exchange relationship in which two parties trade something the one owns for something the other owns. Whether this exchange is of time, expertise, property, or ideas is irrelevant. The exchange takes place in a form of a market while both discrete and often not-so-discrete forces are at ‘work’ to set the value of the exchange. These forces, laws of supply and demand, invisible hands and the like seek to maximize the utility of the trade to both parties.

As a consequence of the nature of the relationship being able to be characterized by an ‘exchange’, work can also be considered by a legal or contractual basis. By virtue of this, there are certain very explicit rules that govern the conduct of either party with regard to the fulfillment of their respective duties. Such laws, as for example in the United States, often fall under a Department of Labor and generally includes such standards as a forty-hour work week, harassment and discrimination provisions, minimum pay and pay frequency specifications as well as provisions regarding collective bargaining. The goal of such a perspective is to serve as something of a bridge between not only the economic interests of both parties but the social impact of work to the workers.

In modern world, a typical exchange takes place between the individual and the organization. With this type of exchange, there are a number of additional concerns and issues that become relevant. In the first place there is generally an asymmetry of power in which the owners of capital employ individuals in masse to literally make up the corporate body and to wield profit maximizing power on employees. This imbalance is potentially offset by the previously mentioned ability of certain workers to partake in collective bargaining actions such as the formation of unions that ultimately can help to give the individual worker a larger voice. This power is wielded as a consequence of the corporation’s greater resources to enforce the often contractual nature of the exchange. Also, as corporate budgets generally exceed those of individuals the ration of the loss to the total ‘budget’ is greater. In addition, as a corporation does not have emotions, the consequences of a ‘failed agreement’ are often of significant magnitude to the individual. Though the worth of the individual worker is indeed significant to the corporation for, without him, the corporation would ‘die’, the time horizon of the two parties is vastly different. This idea is eloquently expressed by Adam Smith, “In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate” (Smith 1976, p.84).

As the nature of work is at least partly economic, to ignore the basic issues of business management would be unpardonable. From Taylor’s beginning of scientific management to the “high performance work systems” of today, the nature of managing the individual worker presents a range of methods devised in order to maximize the economic return of work. While Taylor’s command-and-control methods largely regarded the average laborer as incapable of being able to self-manage, they did nonetheless create vast increases in efficiency and paved the way for the development of very large organizations. Interestingly enough, these techniques, or at least, the implementation, of them has been supplanted by the like’s of Stanford’s Pfeffer is able to rigorously document the superlativity of a complete system of seven key human resource practices that, when fully integrated into an organization produce superior financial returns to the organization. In place of timed work, close supervision and continuous thrusts for greater efficiency through centralized decision-making, consider the characteristics of the ‘modern’ high performance organization (Taylor 1917; Pfeffer 1998, pp. 64-65):

Employment security
Selective hiring
Decentralized decision-making
Comparatively high compensation
Extensive training
Egalitarian work place
Extensive information sharing.

Despite the fundamental economic nature of work, there is another side that, were it go unmentioned, the discussion would utterly fail to consider the other perspective on work: that of the individual employee. Even as an economic premise entirely, the goal of which is to increase the profit and well-being of the individual, the sociological aspects of work merit full consideration (Stiglitz 2002, p. 1).

In consideration of the individual, it is reasonable that one might consider the very contractual nature of work to be akin to that of a “social exchange” process through which individuals and groups of individuals engage in transactions (Dreher & Dougherty 2002, p. 41). These exchanges are clearly governed first by applicable laws and regulations, perhaps secondly by organizational policies and procedures and thirdly and perhaps most notably, they are regulated by the very nature of individuals to ascribe to something that might resemble a common values system. In this system is the seemingly natural component of a sense of “fairness”. This guides innumerable behaviors as the individual inevitably seeks a form of “reciprocal altruism” in which, in addition to following self-serving fulfillment of their own needs, individuals appear to operate on the assumption that there is a bigger picture of morals and the “right thing” involved (Frederick & Wasieleski 2002, pp.284).

An additional consideration of the social nature of work and ensuing issues is the idea that, for many, work is the process by which “identity” is established. Consider the typical introduction at a party or other function… first, one gives their name and then, almost inevitably either their occupation or work relation status to the host (i.e., “I work with Ted”, “I am a client”, etc.). This phenomenon, Social Identity Theory, is quite relevant to the workplace in that it forces one to consider the psychological implications of doing business (Ashforth & Mael 1989, pp. 20-21; Stiglitz 2002, p. 1). Bridging this concept with the representation that work is fundamentally an exchange relationship is the idea of the psychological contract. Just as there are explicit rules governing work expectations, so too are there implicit rules. The rules are communicated by the culture of the firm, the seemingly accepted behaviors of others in a similar position and other verbal and non-verbal queues. The conditions of the contract are primarily mediated by the individual’s manager, the immediate representation of the organization in the mind of the individual (Rousseau 2000, February). Thus, it is through the social processes of work that an individual gains an understand of who they are but also gain particular knowledge of the mutual obligations of the economic exchange.

In summary, work is. It is: what, why, how, when. It is the noun and the verb, the result as well as the process. A discussion of which cannot omit the fundamental economic nature of it yet one cannot ignore the precepts of sociology and psychology woven into every single ‘unit of production’, the individual worker. Any discussion of work which does not give full deliberation the simultaneous dichotomy is to only give half the argument and less than that for the appreciation of what work represents, to the organization, the individual and to society.

Works Consulted

Ashforth, B. & F. Mael. (1989). “Social Identity Theory and the Organization”. Academy of Management Review (14), 1, pp. 20-39.

Block, R., Berg, P. and Belman, D. (2004). “The Economic Dimension of the Employment Relationship”, in Coyle –Shepard, J. Shore, L. Taylor, M. and Tetrick, L., (eds.). The Employment Relationship: Examining Psychological and Contextual Perspectives. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

Dreher, G. and Dougherty, T. (2002). Human Resource Strategy: A Behavioral Perspective for the General Manager. McGraw-Hill Irwin: Boston, Massachusetts.

Frederick, W. and Wasieleski, D. (2002). “Evolutionary Social Contracts”. Business and Society Review, (107), 3, pp. 283-308.

Pfeffer, J. (1998). The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Rosseau, D. (2000, February). Psychological Contract Inventory Technical Report. Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA .

Smith, A. (1976). An Inquiry into the Nature and the Causes of the Wealth of Nation., R.H. Campbell and A.S. Skinner, eds. Clarendon Press:. Oxford, UK

Stitlitz, J. (2002). “Employment, Social Justice and Societal Well-Being”. International Labour Review, (141), 1-2, pp. 9-29.

Taylor, F. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper: New York, New York.

Sociology and the family

Introduction

This essay will focus on two sociology theories, which are the family life cycle and the functionalist approach. It will give a brief overview of each theory. The essay will go on to apply theory to practice, as this essay will make reference to a service user with a “sudo name” known as “Sean”, to up hold confidentiality. While applying the family life cycle to the particular service user, this essay will critique the theories strengths and limitations.

In applying the functionalist approach, this essay will highlight how the family is seen as an institution in its self and how other institutions inter play in the service user’s life. The theories used in this essay will highlight areas which apply to the service user and areas in which the theory lacks understanding of the complex situations. Conclusion will be drawn.

Overview of each theory

According to Falicov (1988, p. 9) the family life cycle has been applied widely to social science, he explains that the ‘life course of families evolves through predictable stages which appear universal in spite of one’s culture or subculture’. Family transits to different stages as form of continuity and changes over the life cycle. Falicov identifies two main aspects to the family life cycle, which are cohesion and adaptability (Falicov1988, p. 9).

The cohesion relates to the interdependence parts of one’s life and adaptability refers to the flexibility of the family to change, in this the family cycle essentially focuses on a child’s transition into adulthood within a family setting (Falicov, C. 1988, p. 9). As family goes through its continuity phase and changes, there’s a need for the role of each member in the family to be recognised. Claveirole, A & Gaughan, M. (2011) defines the family life cycle as a developmental way of looking at families; it provided a framework for an individual’s development of family members and the cycle itself is influenced by socio – cultures developments outside the family.

Falicov, C. (1988, p. 13) says the family life cycle is a subject to mirror timing and coping strategies. Carter, E.A & McGoldrick, M. (1999) supports this concept as they stated the family cycle is really one’s individual life cycle, which changes and moves in a framework within the structure of a family. This theory takes into account that one’s framework is structured by the families past, present and future hopes for an individual introduced into the family life cycle. The family life cycle highlights the fact that one’s experiences within the family life cycle impacts on our sense of self, for example the values we produce and the development of our personalities. This applies to each individual despite the structure, qualities of relationships or genetics of one’s family. The family has a responsibility to provide what’s known as a natural baseline for an individual to grow physically, mentally, socially and emotionally, it also holds responsibility for the social institutions in which will affect the growth of the individual i.e. schools and church they may attend. The family life cycle it-self is broken into six parts, which are: Independence (second order changes), coupling (with or without marriage and synergy), parenting young children (participating in reproduction), parenting adolescents, launching adult children and retirement (facing senior years). Each stage contains mastering certain skills or milestones and once this is achieved it allows for the next stage to be developed.

There are many ways to study the family which creates many different perspectives. One of these ways is through the functionalist approach. The functionalist approach focuses on the relationship between the family and society. When looking at the family the functionalist approach studies the function in which the family severs to society, such as reproduction and stabilization. Shaws 2002 explains the development of the functionalist approach stating that the perspective emerged as a leading theoretical model, mainly in the area of sociology as three well known sociologists influenced the model. Wallace and Wolf (1995, p.76) defines functionalism, as a whole theoretical perspective, which takes into account four main areas, which are ‘Functional Independence in maintaining social structure, Collective norms to maintain social order/ stability, Societal equilibrium in areas of conformity, adjustments and consensus, along with social constituents and finally Social Pathology and deviance which have resulted from maladjustments of social units’.

The functionalist perspective studies society on two levels called Macro and Micro. Macro focuses on society as a whole, polices, services and the community in general. Micro focuses on the individual, the family and reproduction system. The functionalist approach realizes society is broken into institutions. Institutions are defined by Giddens (1984, p.24) ‘as the more enduring social features in life’. The main institution in society is the family, O’Sullivan (2012, p.1) define the family as a natural, primary and fundamental unit group in society a ‘moral institution that possesses inalienable and imprescriptibly rights’. It is the nuclear family (a couple with a depended child or children) that’s a core unit in all types of society. The usefulness of a family in society is limitless in many ways, for example socialization and social order and so by seen the family as a whole in society, it provided changes in society as the needs of family changed, but creating change depends on how societies are governed/run. In support of this is Fletcher (1973) who states the role of the family in terms of socialization and social order falls into two categories which are satisfying human needs and purposes and providing a functional interconnection with the wider social networks of society (school, church).

Overview of the client & family circumstances

Sean is a male aged 27 years. He has an intellectual disability and has attended services for those who have an intellectual disability all his life. World Health Organisation (2014) define intellectual disability as extensively reduction on one’s capability to be aware of information and to learn and apply new skills, in this, individuals are affected to cope independently as the disability have affected their development. Sean is now in a service that promotes independence for those who have an intellectual disability. Sean lives in rural Dublin, a partly disadvantaged area. He lacks motivation and self confidence. He has the capacity to physically work in certain areas and has work for a short period of time. He had the capacity to write and read, but has never been assisted appropriately in the area and is now restricted to learn. He has a great knowledge about current affairs and enjoys talking about this with people he knows. He has a passion for music and one of his hobbies is listening to music. He grew up in a family of three boys who are younger than him, his mother and father. One of Sean brothers pasted away due to tragic accident. The family members are very supportive and its clear Sean has a strong attachment to them.

Critique of strengths & limitations of each theory in relation to the particular client & family

Limitations of the family life cycle

The family life cycle does not take into account the fact that an individual can “skip” or progress to another step without fulfilling each step as a sequence. For example in Sean’s case he hasn’t fully transitioned out of the independence stage but has committed to a new social system which is attending his work on a daily basis. He has also started at the independence stage and may skip past the coupling, parenting and launching children stages and still reach his senior years. The family life cycle can be studied and understood from two perspectives; a limitation to this is that in general it focused more on the family perspective. For example in Sean case he has an intellectual disability, but up until Sean started attending the service which promotes independence his perspective wasn’t accounted for. The independence stage highlights one gaining their identity within the family and outside the family unfortunately for Sean this transition has become difficult and is still a working progress, because in the area of gaining roles and learning the rules within the family Sean gain a role of depended, even in areas he had the capacity to be independent for example making a sandwich or buying himself new clothes. The rules underlining this depend behavior was never challenged and from a family perspective is understood as they wanted to care for Sean in the best way they taught. Caring for Sean in this way would have also become a norm for the family, as he is depended on the family for other things such as transport.

The family life cycle was limited as the understanding of the stages wasn’t promoted or applied specifically to Sean case (a person with an intellectual disability). In general the family life cycle is implemented as best practice, when really it should be implemented generally and globally for families as a clear outline of one’s transitions. In Sean’s case if the family understood when he was born that he needed to transition though these stages (for a positive/ practical future) to the best of his capacity even with an intellectual disability then he could have reached his full potential for example reading, writing living more independently which would benefit him and his family, as the family will reach their retirement and senior years and Sean would have learnt the basic life skills which he needs at a more practical time and he would have become less depended on the family and became more confident and motivated in his everyday life.

Strengths of the family life cycle

The family life cycle strength is that it highlights one’s life cycle in general. In Sean’s case he will reach his senior year, in this the life cycle insures that one builds on each stage to the best of their capacity so they reach their full potential as individuals. Working with Sean gives him the opportunity to develop as a person and live his life in the way in which he chooses. For example he acknowledges now that he want to become more independent and aspire to how his younger brothers are living and by applying the family life cycle to best practice and the family it gives him the opportunity to so accordingly.

The independence stage is defined by My Health Albert (2014) as the most critical stage of the family life cycle. It is a stage where one begins separate emotionally from the family and in Sean’s case he is doing by speaking out on how he feels and by participating in such activities as buying himself everything’s like food and treating himself to DVD’s. However, the family life cycle begins when a child is born; therefore the life cycle gave Sean the chance to be able to work on the stages even at a later stage in life. For example Sean is 27 years of age and its now he’s working intensely towards the other stages of the family life cycle and even though some stages may not apply to him its only a benefit for him to be able to work towards the ones he is capable of reaching with support from services and his family.

Limitations of the functionalist approach

A limitation to the functionalist approach is the ideal or overly harmonious image of the family, one in which is well integrated, holding social order and socialization. It doesn’t provide a practical image of the stresses and difficulties in which the traditional family go through. For example Sean was the first child born into the family and he had an intellectual disability. This could have distorted the ideal image/norm/traditional of what the couple had expected with the birth of their first child. The functionalist approach does not consider the alternatives ways for the couple to provide the basic care for a child with an intellectual disability. For example in Sean case, the functionalist approach doesn’t highlighted the importance of services provided for a couple with a child who has an intellectual disability, as the couple may need to depend earlier on services such as the health services to guide them in providing the best care for Sean.

The services would have to be integrated in Sean case at a earlier level which this approach does not highlight, for example they could provide information in the area of intellectual disabilities, enrolling him in appreciate school, integrating him into society. In the area of developing institutions functionalist says it’s developed out of satisfying the human needs through fulfilling and organizing various human social needs, in Sean case he hasn’t been fulfilled academically, such as reading and writing and his social needs also lack as the hasn’t intergraded or participated in areas of his choice. The various ways in which the functionalist approach organizes and institutionalizes the human needs is ultimately creating social structure in society, although it does create order it’s not the best approach to practice as it creates stigma around such areas as intellectual disability for example Sean had the capacity to attend mainstream school but due to the fact he had an intellectual disability he attended a special needs school. The stigma from institutionalizing those who have an intellectual disability promoted the idea they didn’t have the capacity to make decisions for themselves (social norm) or to participate in activities including intimate relationships, for example Sean has the capacity to make a decision for himself but due to the influence/ norms of the family and society he wasn’t given the opportunity.

Strengths of the functionalist approach

The strength of the functionalist approach is the fact it highlights the importance of services for families caring for children. In Sean case he was able to attend services in which provided the best care for those who have an intellectual disability at the time. It highlights the importance of family and even with the services interacting with the family; the family fundamentally provide the basic fundamental care. The family provide the values and norms for the individual and they take responsibility to intergraded their children into the community, for example Sean attend the service regularly as the family provide the transport for him, Sean father encourages Sean to go to the movies and participate in music as he has a passion for music. Sean own value shine through as he completes such things as spending money, a value in which relates to his home environment and where he was brought up. As society grows, the social needs become greater, which in turn gives minority groups a voice. The functionalist approach appreciates and highlights these changes. Once highlight the changes can be implemented into lawmaking systems, it can develop the political system and education system.

In the case of Sean he can voice his opinion and make decisions for himself, due to the rights provided by policies which have been amended. An example of this would be the work done around the issues of sexuality and relationships for those who have an intellectual disability. The Irish Sex Education Network has the primary aim to promote a high professional standard in the area of sex education for those who have an intellectual disability (Allen and Seery 2002, p.3)

Conclusion

In conclusion to this essay has given a brief over view of two sociological perspectives, which are the family life cycle and the functionalist approach. In reference to these theories it has applied a practice based example, in which it gives an in depth review of the strengths and limitations of the each theory.

In reference to the family life cycle, it highlights the different stages in which Sean has progressed through and ones he could work towards with support. The family life cycle helps predict stages in which the service user will not be able to transition into due to lack of support from family and the services provided and in general because their capacity won’t allow.

In applying the functionalist perspective, it highlights the interaction of the family and the services available for those who have an intellectual disability. It highlights how this interaction is of up most important to better the quality of life for service users.

Bibliography

Allen, M. & Seery, D. (2002) The Current Status of Sex Education Practice For People with an Intellectual Disability In Ireland, [Online] Dublin: Irish Sex Education Network. Available at:http://www.sexualhealthcentre.com/PUBLICATIONS/SHC%20Disability%20Report2.pdf [Accessed 27 January 2014]

American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (2013) Intellectual Disability [Online] Available at: http://aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition#.Ux9ntT9_sR8 [Accessed 1 February 2014]

Carter, E.A & McGoldrick, M (1999) The expanded family life cycle: individual, family, and social perspectives, Boston : Allyn and Bacon

Claveirole, A and Gaughan, M. (2011) Understanding Children and Young People’s Mental Health: United Kingdom:John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Falicov, C.J (1988) Family Transitions: Continuity and Change over the Life Cycle, New York: The Guilford Press

Fletcher, R (1978) The Family and Marriage in Britian: An analysis and moral assessment,Virgina: Penguin

Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, United States of America: The University of California Press

O’Sullivan, D. (2012) A Critical Analysis of the protection of families under the Irish Constitution of 1937 [Online] Dublin: Colr .Available at: http://corkonlinelawreview.com/editions/2012/ACriticalAnalysisOfTheProtectionOfFamiliesUnderTheIrishConstitutionOf1937.DonnachaOSullivan.pdf [Accessed 29 January 2014]

My Health Albert (2014) Family life cycle: Independence Stage [Online] available at https://myhealth.alberta.ca/health/pages/conditions.aspx?hwid=ty6171&#ty6174 Accessed 5 January 2014

Shaw V.N, (2002) Substance Use and Abuse: Sociological Perspectives United States of America: Greenwood Publishing Group Inc

Wallace, R. A and Wolf, A. (1995) Contemporary Sociological Theory: Continuing the Classical Tradition, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

World Health Organisation (2014) Intellectual Disability, [Online] Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/noncommunicable-diseases/mental-health/news/news/2010/15/childrens-right-to-family-life/definition-intellectual-disability [Accessed on 5th March 2014]

Describe, compare, contrast, and critically evaluate the effectiveness of both positivist and phenomenological methodology adopted when studying society.

Sociology is the study of human society, including both social action and organisation. Sociologists use scientific research methods and theories, and study social life in a wide variety of settings, this offers not only information but also a distinctive way of looking at the world and the position humans play in it. Whereas most people try to explain events by analyzing the motives of those involved, sociologists encourage a look beyond individual psychology to many recurring attitudes, actions and how these patterns vary across time, cultures and social groups. To look at the different ways people act and behave in society, it has to be seen from a sociological perspective. Within sociology there is no single method, but many. As stated by Haralambos and Holborn (1995) Science appeared to be capable of producing objective knowledge that could be used to solve human problems and increase human productive capacity in an unprecedented way. This assignment will look at the two main methodologies, used by sociologists, past and present, and compare the effectiveness of the two.

When the task of comparing and contrasting the two methodologies of positivism and phenomenology, adopted within the study of society, there are many things that leap to mind: Firstly, there is the factor of time or circa and secondly is the influence of certain acclaimed sociologists within the two different approaches. Methodology within sociology is the study of methods and deals with the philosophical assumptions underlying the research process, using scientific quantitative data collection under those philosophical assumptions. The broad methodology positions, positivism and phenomenology differ hugely. Positivism contains the underlying philosophical assumptions of research in the most pure and applied sciences, physics, chemistry and biology, based on ideas of the objective reality of the physical world, scientific method and empiricism. Just as positivism arose out of rejecting speculation an alternative view has arisen out of rejecting the view that scientific empiricism can be applied to the social world. There is no one philosophical basis, but phenomenology, which can be seen as the basis for what is the assumption that society can only really be understood through personal actions such as language, feelings and emotions. As stated by Kirby, Kidd, Koubel, Barter, Hope, Kirton, Madry, Manning and Triggs, (2000), that although not perfect the link between the methodologies is that the structuralist-minded sociologists tended to adopt a positivist approach and social action based sociologists tend to adopt a phenomenological approach.

The positivist versus the phenomenological approach to the study of man and society is considered in terms of one of the major debates in social science research. Many of the founding fathers of sociology such as Marx (1818-1883), Comte (1798-1857) and Durkheim (1858-1917) believed that it would be possible to create a science of society based on the same principles and procedures as natural sciences. Positivist theorists believed that this approach would reveal that the evolution of society followed invariable laws and that it would show that the behaviour of man was governed by principles of cause and effect which are just as invariable as the subject of natural sciences. Kirby et al, (2000) states that positivists believe that only by adopting a position of total objectivity towards the subject matter or phenomena can unbiased knowledge or theories be produced.

Comte believed in the hierarchy of science and that each study of science is dependent upon another. His theory ranged from the simplest to the more complex forms of science and that sciences above rely on sciences below stating that sociology was more abstract and difficult than other sciences. Originating from his hierarchy of science, as stated in Haralambos and Holborn, (2004), Comte widely believed that industrialization and the growth of scientific knowledge would lead to secularization, therefore devising his contribution to the study of social dynamics in that, the rule of societies passing through three stages defined by their social relationships. Theological law was a belief in superhuman or divine powers, Metaphysical, a belief in the powers of the individual human mind and the positive law was based on truth produced by collaborative, quantitative and scientific work. An appeal of the positivist approach is that scientific knowledge does not contradict or surprise the experience of the everyday world. It argues that factors, which are not directly observable, such as meanings feelings and purposes, are not particularly important and can be misleading, they therefore, form, reliable quantitative data.

Phenomenological theorists such as Simmel (1858-1918) and Weber (1864-1920) propose that the consciousness is the proper area of study, for its study will reveal meaning. They seek to sense reality and describe in words rather than numbers, trying to produce convincing descriptions of what they experience rather than explanations and causes. Weber disagreed with Comte’s theory, he believed there could be as many sciences as needed, Quantitative and empirical studies cannot tell people what to do, and it is important to go beyond simply recording events and to explain the reasons behind them. When referring to Weber’s idea of ‘puritanism’, a case study in the empirical construction of the protestant ethic, Weber, as cited by Ghosh (2003), clearly states that empirical sources are not tablets of stone, eternally available to the truth seeking historian; rather they have a history of their own. Weber believed that values play a crucial role before during and after research and that social action is governed by the dynamic of individual needs. Weber was committed to the study of causality, the probability that an event would be followed by another event not necessarily of a similar nature. In addition to this Weber also analysed the levels to which rationality was becoming institutionally embedded in modern industrialised societies. Marx’s view of bureaucracy was according to Weber a form of organisation superior to all others, Weber wrote in one of his many books, that without this form of social technology the industrialised countries could not have reached the wealth and extravagance that they currently enjoy, (Weber, 1928) as cited in Haralambos and Holborn, (2004). He believed that this capacity for social order would lead to the evolution of the iron cage, and as a result, a society that was technically ordered, rigid and dehumanized. As stated by Giddens (1997) Weber sought to understand social change. He was influenced by Marx but was also strongly critical of some of Marx’s major views, rejected the materialistic conception of history and saw class conflict as less significant than Marx. From a positivist stance, Marx believed that ideas were expressions of public interest and that they served as weapons in the struggle between classes and political parties. Class for Marx, is defined as a social relationship rather than a position or rank in society. Class struggle and owners of production determined economic order. In Marx’s view, classes are defined and structured by work, labour, possessions, production, and the class structures of capitalism consisted of class struggle, political power and the development of a classless society. Marx’s theory of society consisted of two categories of class and that economic order was determined by the two; Bourgeoisie, the capitalist class, the hierarchy, the wealthy, the employers and the Proletariat, who are the workers or the lower class. His view was that as the bourgeoisie employed the proletariat, who has to fulfill his basic needs, the capitalist class could not exist without them. As cited by Haralambos and Holborn (1995), Marxism has sometimes been regarded as a positivist approach since it can be argued that it sees human behaviour as a reaction to the stimulus of the economic infrastructure. Although Weber agreed with Marx in part, that as methods of the organisation increased efficiency and effectiveness of production, Marx’s theory threatened to dehumanise society. Weber’s theories, stratification and views on economic behaviour were rooted from Marx’s view on the economics of a society.

Another positivist view came from Emile Durkheim, whose impression of society was of structures that function apart from human purpose and will. While he considered society to be composed of individuals, his theory was that it is not individuals behaviours, thoughts and actions that construct society, but that society has a structure and existence of its own. His thought was, that society was to have developed from traditional to modern society, through the expansion and development of the division of labour, of course, it is individuals who act, but they do not act on a purely individual basis, they have obligations and duties and are strongly influenced by structure, tradition and the roles of our forefathers. Durkheim considered himself with the issue of social order and how modern society holds together, given that society is composed of many individuals each acting in an individual and autonomous manner. Durkheim’s classic study of suicide, (1970, first published in 1897), as cited in Haralambos and Holborn, (2004) is often seen as a model of positivist research and it does indeed follow many of the methodological procedures of positivism. Although supporting the two different methodologies of sociology, Durkheim was heavily influenced by Weber, who defined sociology as the study of social action between individuals. In contrast to Durkheim’s impression of society and view that society has an existence of its own apart from the individuals in it and so proceeds a proper object of study. As argued by Haralambos and Holborn (1995) where Marx was pessimistic about the division of labour in society, Durkheim was cautiously optimistic. Marx saw the specialised divisions of labour trapping workers in their occupational role, Durkheim saw problems arising from specialisation in industrial society, but believed the promise of the division of labour far outweighed the problems.

While Simmel is generally not regarded as being as influential in sociology as were Marx, Weber and Durkheim, Simmel’s theories, had some similarities to Durkheim’s theory of problems of individuality and society, Weber’s dynamic of individual interests and Marx’s theory of class structure. Simmel considered society to be an association of free individuals and that society could not be studied in the same way as the physical world for example, sociology is more than the discovery of natural laws that govern human interaction. His theory was that society is made up of the interactions between and among individuals and that, sociologists should study the patterns and forms of these associations rather that look for social laws. By defining sociology in this way, Simmel avoids the conflict about the nature of science – whether it should be concerned with timeless, universal laws, instead, there are always multiple ways in which we can look at things. He argued that society was made up of “social facts”, and these social facts coerce and shape the actions of individuals. He argued that in traditional societies, ‘solidarity’ binds together individuals in order to allow society to operate. Social facts only come into being in an interaction, and do not exist within an individual consciousness. Durkheim (1970) as cited in Haralambos and Holborn (2004), stated that the determining cause of a social fact should be sought among the social facts preceding it and not among the states of individual consciousness, the causes of variations in suicide rates were to be found in social facts and in society rather than the individual. Therefore, social groups represent. He argued that societies that functioned well were societies that held a consensus sway over individuals; society, therefore, was something outside and inside individuals.

As stated by Haralambos and Holborn (1995) to phenomenology, it is impossible to measure objectively any aspect of human behaviour, through language humans distinguish between different types of events, actions, objects and people. The process of categorisation is subjective; it depends upon the opinions of the observer. Statistics are simply the product of the opinions of those who produce them. The distinction between positivist and phenomenological approaches is not as clear-cut as this assignment implies. There is a considerable debate over whether or not a particular theory should be labelled positivist or phenomenological. Often many of the theorists lie somewhere in between, some taking views from either side. Haralambos and Holborn (1995) argue that in terms of sociology, the positivist approach makes the following assumptions; the behaviour of humans, like the behaviour of matter, can be objectively measured, just as the behaviour of matter can be quantified by measures such as weight, temperature and pressure. Methods of objective measurement can be devised for human behaviour, such measurement is essential to explain behaviour. Early Positivists such as Comte, and Durkheim argued that objectivity was attainable by adopting a scientific methodology. Marx also believed that his sociology was objective and scientific, although he saw society very differently. Weber did not think complete value freedom was possible, but he did believe that once a topic for research had been chosen, the researcher could be objective. He argued that sociologists should not make value judgments, that is, they should not state what aspects of society they found desirable or undesirable.

“It is plainly nonsensical to throw into one big pot labelled “sociology” all those researches which could have been satisfactorily conducted by national economy, history of civilisation, philosophy, political science, statistics, demography and ethics. That gives us a new name, but no new knowledge”. Simmel, G (1858), cited in American Journal of Sociology [online]) (1898)

Reference List
Ghosh, P, (2003), Max Weber’s Idea of ‘Puritanism’: A Case Study In The Empirical Construction Of The Protestant Ethic, History of European Ideas, [online], 29;2, 183-221, Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9C-48D2RD7-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=10803212fe05d9a06d9a7ce5cfaec919 [Accessed November 21, 2008]
Giddens, A, (1997) Sociology, 3rd Edition, Polity Press, Cambridge
Haralambos, M, Holborn, M, (1995), Sociology, Themes and Perspectives, 4th Edition, Collins Educational, London
Haralambos, M, Holborn, M, (2004), Sociology, Themes and Perspectives, 6th Edition, Collins Educational, London
Kirby, M, Kidd, W, Koubel, F, Barter, J, Hope, T, Kirton, A, Madry, N, Manning, P, Triggs, K, (2000), Sociology in Perspective, Heinemann Educational, Oxford
Simmel, G (1898) The Persistence of Social Groups, American Journal of Sociology, [online], 5; 3, 662-663. Available at: http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Simmel/Simmel_1897a.html [Accessed November 11th 2008]

Even tough sociologists don’t have a true definition of religion, they all generally believe that it is a belief in some sort of supernatural.

Sociologists such as Functionalists, Marxists & Feminists believe that religion is a conservative force, meaning that it inhibits changes within society and maintains the status quo. However, where Functionalists see this as a ‘good’ thing, Marxists look at it from a more negative aspect.

Other sociologists like Neo-Marxists, Marx Weber, and McGuire & .. believe religion to be a source of change….

The functionalist Emile Durkheim (1912) believed that religion is central to the reproduction & maintenance of social order in societies.

He argued that the main function of religion is to socialize societies’ members into a value consensus, by setting shared beliefs, rituals and sacred objects apart.

He did an investigation on the role of religion, in a small tribal community in Australia; The Aborigines. He found that the members of this community worshipped sacred objects; objects that are things that are set apart & forbidden, which evoke feelings of awe, respect & deference, holy things. These objects, called Totems, were a symbol, -usually a plant or animal-, by which the tribes distinguished themselves from one another. In worshiping these sacred objects, individuals would obtain an identity and social membership (or collective consciousness), because they shared the same beliefs, values, traditions & norms, that make social life possible. Durkheim stated that in worshipping a society’s symbols, its members are unconsciously worshipping their society of which they are a part.

According to Durkheim, these unifying practices and beliefs bind people closely together because it forms a balanced and solid moral community, which is a means of protecting individuals from anomie, alienation and other threats. This solidarity also gives individuals the confidence & continuing motivation to face up life and ask for social support from other members whenever needed. This strengthens social solidarity, or collective consciousness in society- the sense of belonging somewhere.

This is why Durkheim sees religion as conservative and inhibiting social change, which is desirable because its ‘functional’ and people don’t want to change anything about their ways of life.

Durkheim was praised a lot for the ways he had done his research because he managed to keep an objective distance of a sociologist, and therefore made it his task to understand the functions of religion, and not to pass his judgements. Also, his argument that the ‘sacred’ is a symbol of group values has been recognized by many, as in history, people have rallied to flags, crucifixes and holy scriptures.

However, his research might be said to be somewhat out of date, as he took his analysis from pre modern societies, and it has to be asked how relevant his theory is in today’s western societies.

Also, because Durkheim never visited the aboriginal society himself, his methodology was said to be flawed. Some say that he misunderstood Totemism, ad generalized about other societies based on one small Aboriginal society.

Durkheim’s theory on religion was ground breaking and very influential, inspiring much further research.

The functionalist Bronislav Malinowski (1954) agreed with Durkheim on all the points he made about the role of religion. However, he focussed on the specific areas of social life with which religion is concerned, and managed to point out that another function of religion is to provide support for society’s members in situations of social stress, like birth, death, marriage, divorce etc., where religion serves to reduce anxiety & tension resulting, which threaten to disrupt social life. In this sense, religion keeps society stable at times of individual and societal confusion and disorder and makes sure that people don’t reject the shared norms, values and traditions due to times of hardship.

An example would be after the 2004 Great Indian Ocean Tsunami, where most of the world’s religions sent support teams to the disaster area & helped to rebuild the place. They wanted to rebuild schools as fast as possible in particular, to maintain the important link between society, education & religion.

Unlike Durkheim, Malinowski actually went and lived in the society where his work was based on, gaining primary data. This is seen as a very positive thing, because no accusations of his work being ‘flawed’ could be made.

Also, his idea about how religion helps in time of crisis & uncertainty can be seen in today’s society e.g. the funeral of Princess Diana, where people gathered together & expressed their grievance.

However, like Durkheim, he makes broad generalizations based on his study of just one small scaled society, which obviously does not represent life in modern western society.

The functionalist sociologist Talcott Parson (1965) believed that religion was a conservative force, because it’s the primary source of meaning for members of society.

It provides answers to eternal questions dealing with death, the evil, suffering and justice. Often these questions appear to be unjustified, and therefore they might threaten to undermine people’s faith. However, religion provides answers; e.g. for the question ‘why do evil people prosper’ religion might give the answer that these evil people will get punished for their deeds in the afterlife etc.

By providing these answers, religion helps to make sense of all experiences, which keeps society in order and stable, therefore inhibiting changes.

So, religion promotes social stability rather than change, by relieving tension & frustration that could disrupt social order.

However, Marxists would strongly disagree with this idea, as they believe that by focussing on the afterlife, people passively accept exploitation.

Marxism is a conflict theory. Like functionalist, they believe that religion is a conservative force, but they don’t see it from a positive view. According to these sociologists, religion is an institution of domination & oppression, and a means of social control, inhibiting changes in the social class inequalities in society. They argue that religion legitimizes social inequality, keeping the working classes in a state of false consciousness, not being aware of the true nature of their exploitation & passively accepting their lower status.

This is because, according to Marx, religion acts as the ‘opium’ of the people -it works as a pacifying drug-, as it doesn’t solve any problems that people may have, but only dulls the pain, as people inactively put up with their sufferings, believing its ‘God’s will’ and so unchangeable, remaining in a state of false consciousness, thinking they will be rewarded in heaven.

Marxists on the whole believe religion creates passive individuals, who do not attempt to change the world for the better, but simply accept spiritual alternatives.

The fact that Marxists believe that ‘man makes religion, religion does not make men’ sums up their ideas. In other words, if an individual is alienated & exploited, he or she is likely to turn to religion and find the answers there.

This is the reason why most religions originate in the oppressed classes (the working classes), as they have a need in religion, to gain a sense of renewed strength and confidence to move on with life.

According to Marxists, the ruling classes are using religion as a ‘tool’ to maintain ideological control, making it less likely that the members of the working class will recognize the fact that they are being exploited & therefore revolt in this way, religion is seen as a conservative force.

Marxist have gained theoretical support from feminists because they agree with Marxists about the fact that religion causes conflict, passing on negative norms and values to members of society, although they believe these deal with gender inequality rather than class inequality.

However, a negative aspect of the Marxist view is that they ignore secularization, as the ideological power of religion has been undermined by the fact that people in society tend to be less religious today than in the past.

Also, they are too deterministic in saying that religion is a conservative force for social class inequalities. Religion can be a force for social change, and it has done so in the past, improving the lives of millions of oppressed working class people. E.g. the Civil Rights Movement (USA) where South African churches played a major role in changing white supremacist society. Also, the levellers in the English Civil War wanted a communistic society, basing their ideas on Christianity & the Bible.

Like Marxists, Feminists believe that religion is a means of social control, oppressing women and keeping men in power. They argue that religious beliefs are merely a patriarchal ideology, restricting social change and justifying social inequality.

Feminist believe that through secondary socialization, religion teaches & preaches the norms & values of the men, helping to legitimize the suppression of women.

Much evidence is given to support their view. Feminists argue that religion is seen from a male point of view; holy texts are all written & interpreted by men, reference to male characters is a lot more than women in these texts, and Gods tend to be men in almost all major world religions. This gives men the feeling of being ‘holier’ and gives a justification to see women as ‘second hand citizens’ & therefore, as I said, legitimizes gender inequality.

Also, where there is reference to female characters in holy texts, a passive and nurturing gender role is attached to them.. ADAM & EVE..

Gender role ideas are also reinforced in religious texts. Men are portrayed as being strong and insuperable

Women on the other hand, are portrayed to be passive,

unintelligent

They argue that religion is a conservative force, as it reproduces, maintains & legitimizes gender inequality.

However, there are also sociologists who believe religion to be a source for social change.

Firstly, Neo-Marxist,

However, not all Marxists agree that religion is purely ‘the opium of the people’.

Neo-Marxists, who are writers that have tried to update the writings of Karl Marx to suit new developments in society, have rejected the view that religion is merely a conservative force. They believe that religion can be a force for social change, being used by the working class’ to bring about social change.

Antonio Gramsci (1971), who wrote his ideas about religion around the 1920s, was aware of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church had shaped the minds of its followers over centuries, supporting ruling class interest, by making the poor & oppressed focus on the afterlife rather than this life.

However, he believed that the working class could revolt to the class inequalities, by producing their own intellectuals, who represent working class experience & therefore help to shape working class consciousness. Gramsci argued that religious beliefs and practices could develop that would support & guide challenges to the ruling class because the church was not directly under their control.

Otto Madurdo argued that social liberation could occur, (freedom through religion) but he believed this could only happen If the oppressed masses were not to produce their own intellectuals, but if they were go to their religious leader, taking their discontent to the churches and let them decide a plan of action bringing about changes as happened in Poland, South Africa and South America. This is called the liberation theology- freedom through religion.

Father Camillo

Marx Weber was another sociologist who believed that religion could be a source for change

Strengths of his theory were that