toptermpaper.com

This assignment is going to discuss the role of religion in the contemporary society according to Weber and examine the views of two other classic theorists, like Karl Marx, and Emile Durkheim. Finally it will address other main views from some other sociologists who took different approaches to this area.

There are various definitions of religion, in writings of Weber (cited in Brubaker, 1989); he defines religion as a change promoting social change. Weber was much more concerned on world religion which he believes that it has attracted the majority of believers and certainly affected the cause of global history. In contrast Marx defines religion as an economic justice and material realities which cause problems in society. He also believes that religion stresses the society which appears as a symptom rather than a disease which is used by oppressors to treat those who are poor and exploited. Marx commented that “religion is opium of masses” which shows that he was more economic than religious theory. Marx did not look much into religion and he thought that everything was economics. Although, both Marx and Durkheim believed that religion is a change promoting social change but Durkheim also have his own views about it. He believes that religion is a social function with systems of rituals and believes with indication to the scared which bring society close into social groups Durkheim (1976, cited in Marshall, 1982). Despite, all these views Durkheim views religion as a nature of institutionalisation which has nothing to do with social inequalities or power in the modern society. In contrast to other two theorists, Durkheim from his survey in Australian Aboriginal society, he believes that the practice of totemism Aboriginal practice was a norm which was comparable to religion. He claims that norm is seen as an “object” or “symbol” which is scared as it present various ritual activities. In addition, Durkheim in this survey, he sees totemism as symbol or object which Aborigines used to exclude some other animals to be hunted. Durkheim used all these as reference which are derived in respect of some social values. Moreover, in view of all of these it absolutely mean that religion was taken as an object in relationship to worship in modern societies.

Max Weber was a theorist who studied massive religious worldwide and it was on the centre of his heart (Giddens 2009). In Weber’s book “The Protestant work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, (1904) he identifies that a number of protestant religion which developed in the 16th century, Europe has created the ideas which were necessary for the growth of capitalism. He gave some examples that religion had promoted values such as condemnation of time-wasting, hard work, self -discipline and laziness which affect people in the modern society. According to Weber 1904, he argues that religion in some other cases shapes the entire economic systems and conveys some fundamental changes to the society. In contrast, Marx views religion as dominantly shaped by economic factors. Max Weber’s book “From History To modernity” p 8 cited in Turner (1992) argues that religion is a conservative force which can influence an individual’s behaviour and forces which are produced in a social context. Max Weber argues that religion is a conservative force but it can perform a radical force which leads to social change. For Max Weber to illustrate his point of view, he used the inspiration of protestant ethic as a hypothesis. Max Weber defines the meaning of this term as beliefs of religion which their main aspects are viewed as wasting time, food and resources, which is also measured as sin (Giddens, 2006). He also believes that in order for a society to live in a good life it has to fear God.

However, according to Weber all of those aspects were ideally the key catalysts in creation of industrialisation, which mean that if this concept is true this also applies to religion that it plays a major part in social change. Therefore, Marx claims that religion was an effective agent of social control and as an opiate of the masses. He went on to explain that religion is not a promoter of social change in the modern world but it only lead to the reduction of individual’s hostility towards to unequal and exploitation of the society. In contrast Marx argues that religion has a strong ideological influence due its values and religious beliefs which present justifications of inequalities of power and wealth (Sharrock et. al, 2003).In addition, Marx views religion as a traditional form with idealistic which has positive values guiding to improve a lot of humanity of earth. Weber argues

According to Hughes et .al (1995) they argued about Weber’s believes in the idea of the Calvinism that whether a person is born among the elect or not they all allowed to enter heaven. Weber claims that the challenge of sanctions and discipline of the protestant ethic encouraged men rationally to acquire wealth. Weber (1905, cited in Marsh et al, 1998) believes that religious beliefs of the Calvinism have leaded the growth of capitalism in the modern society. In his point of view, Weber claims that attitudes and beliefs overlap the religious behaviour of the Calvinism and the notion of capitalism. Weber believes that this relationship was only found in the Western Europe. Marx claims that Weber was to deny the idea that Calvinism has caused capitalism as Weber was fully aware that there was a strong interlinkage between beliefs and ideals of the Calvinism which their behaviours encourages the raise of capitalism,(Cuff et al,1998). Furthermore, (Giddens, 2009) Weber in his writings he claims protestant ethic as way of life which has been selected by the Calvinists with some guidance of rules and directions which a human being should behave. Weber claims that there are some duties and obligations which give roles to individual. Weber believes in the principles of the Calvinists which promote individualism in defined careers, which he sees himself a calling from God in life. From this point of view Weber defines a career as value determined single-minded fashion which God has commanded for individual to work in glory and succession in material things is a divine favour from God. In conclusive example of the Calvinists, Weber wanted to prove that Calvinists succession has contributed in the Western economic development as they have been promoted by the desire to serve god. From this idea of the Calvinism, Weber thought that making money was a tangible evidence from a succession calling from God.

From the idea of Calvinism, Marx argues about Weber’s idea of religion ideologies which dominant the society. He claims that such ideologies have some implications that save to justify the interest of the ruling groups at the expenses of others. For Weber, the dominant of religious values break a strong commitment in the economic development (Sharrock at el, 2003). To emphasis this point of view, Weber gave an example of countries like China, the most powerful developed cultural country which is dominate in religious values. In (Cuff at el, 1998) Weber claims that religion is a dominant significant which influence the development of urbanism, commerce and manufactures in the China and India in the 19th century which give a raise in capitalism rather the radical patterns of social change. Weber views religion as denomination which influences such an inhibiting change in these industrialised countries which lead to the development of capitalism. In contrast Feuerbach (1957) in his book called “The Essence of Christianity”, he claims that religion involves ideas of values which are primarily produced by human beings in the event of their cultural development in setting the structure and order of the society. He went on argue that values and norms of human beings are socially constructed and not created through the activities of God.

However,

Max Weber

Like Marx, Weber subscribed to the idea that religion could be ideological in two ways;

It gave assurance to the most fortunate, .i.e. the powerful and wealthy, by stressing that their position was natural or god-given

It offered religious reasons for poverty and suffering in term s of themes such as wickedness, sins committed in former lives. Weber argued, like Marx, that both these themes legitimate status quo.

However Weber believed that some religious ideas specifically protestant beliefs, had initiated the economic and social conditions in which capitalism emerged.

From his comparative studies, Weber noted that while similar economic conditions prevailed in china, India and Europe, capitalism only developed in the latter. He noted that capitalism had developed in those parts of Europe where a particular set of protestant beliefs known as Calvinism were dominant. He concluded that Calvinism had brought about the right cultural climate for capitalist ideas practices to develop in two ways.

Weber noted that;

Calvinists believed in predestination =, i.e. that they were chosen by god for salvation. They were taught to believe that righteous living was all important and that their reward for sticking to such religious principles would be economic success.

Consequently Calvinism encouraged values such as self-discipline, hard work, thrift, modesty and the rejection of self-indulgence, pleasure, idleness and lavish spending; the protestant work ethic. The adoption of these ideas, Weber argues, led to the rapid accumulation of capital which was invested in industrialisation and the emergence of a Calvinist capitalist class at the end of feudal era.

Weber did not say Calvinism caused capitalism; he only suggested that it was the major contribute to a climate of change. Many other pre-conditions needed to be in place. For example, Calvinist beliefs had to be supplemented by a certain level of technology, a skilled and mobile workforce and rational modes of law and bureaucracy. These latter pre-conditions were also present in china and India but Weber claimed that eastern religions emphasised the spiritual rather than the rational or material – in other words, ideas which were not conductive to sustained economic activity.

Criticms of Weber

o Sombart suggests that Weber was mistaken about the beliefs held by Calvinists. Calvinism was against greed and the pursuit of money for its own sake.

o Some countries with large Calvinist populations did not industrialise and this is cited as evidence that Weber’s thesis is wrong. However marshal points out that Weber did not claim Calvinism was the sole pre-condition for the emergence of capitalism. For example, Scotland lacked a skilled technical labour force and capital investment.

o Some commentators have suggested that slavery, colonialism and piracy were more influential than Calvinist beliefs in accumulating the capital required for industrialisation.

o Marxists have also been critical of Weber. Kautsky suggested that capitalism pre-dated Calvinism. Bourgeoisie capitalists were attracted to it because it offered convenient justification for the pursuit of economic interests. Thus the protestant religion was an ideology used to legitimate capitalist interests.

Despite some empirical difficulties in testing Weber’s thesis, his ideas remain important because he highlighted the relationship between social structure (i.e. the economic and social system) and social action (i.e. interaction and interpretation). His point was that if certain structural factors are present, people may choose to act upon religious ideas and bring about change.

Functionalism is the most widely-used theory in modern sociology. In general, functionalism uses a systematical approach to any given object, asserting that each element of this object fulfills a necessary role, which is vital either to keep the balance of the system or for its survival. Any change in the state of any of the elements influences the whole system. Functionalism focuses on society as a unity of individuals and the way they, as part of this whole, are affected by various social institutions. It explores religion at the macro-level, analyzing the effect its practices and symbols have on different aspects of society as a whole as well as the harmony between its elements and/or its endurance. According to the functional approach, religion can fulfill different tasks, for example, establish unity, explain and introduce various norms to society, teach people to deal with probable unpredictable outcomes of certain events; it aims at simplifying the ideas or events that are difficult to understand. Extreme modern functionalists even argue that religion is vital for the survival of the human race and that it is the only means to enable the transition from selfishness to altruism.

Another outstanding theorist of functionalism, Bronislaw Malinowski, also examined small groups to define the social role of religion (“Sociology of Religion,” 2003). His studies led him to a conclusion that religion had a calming effect on the people, especially in stressful environment. This result was based on the fact that religion had penetrated into fundamental but extremely tense for humans events, such as marriage or burial, for example. For Malinowski, death had a special significance as it meant that society lost one of its members. Nevertheless, he found religion very useful in this instance, as it proposed consolation in the form of life after death. By conducting a funeral, religion eased pain and stress, preventing possible social outbursts. Among others, Malinowski studied some tribes from the Trobriand Islands, who had a special ceremony performed before going fishing, which was their only occupation. This ritual helped them overcome fear about what might happen (as the sea was an unpredictable environment), and also built solidarity. The researcher came to a conclusion that religion helped people face the unknown future.

In general, functionalism sees religion as a positive element of society, as it unites people, helps maintain social balance and prevents disorder. Functionalists accept that it is important as religious institutions fulfill functions that society needs for survival, creating individual models of behavior that are beneficial for the social balance. Religion is also viewed as a reconciling measure between an individual as an element of society and society as a whole. Functional approach allows individuals to have different levels of religious involvement. Contemporary functionalists, like J. Milton Yinger, also note that in modern society religion has expanded its influence from the church surroundings to everyday life, which means that activities previously unrelated to religion suddenly become associated with it in the people’s minds (Blasi, n.d.). Religion helps individuals to define their role in society, giving them the feeling of safety and familiarity with other individuals in a certain group.

Machiavelli and Hobbes were the first scientists who introduced the concept of conflict into sociological theories. They applied the term of “cynical realism” to the description of society: motifs of individual behavior were based solely on self-interest. Each society has a certain ideology, represented in a system of beliefs (religion), which is often used according to the interests of the parties involved. But the core of conflict theory lies in the ideas of Karl Marx (McClelland, 2000). According to Marx, the driving force of social existence is labor, which provides people with means to satisfy their basic needs (e.g. food, shelter). The way this labor is organized from a social point of view determines the essential social characteristics, making those who carry out the production the constructors of society. Marx believed that economy was the basis for creating different social institutions that determined the form of social consciousness of each individual.

In order to define the role of religion as it is seen in conflict theory, we need to understand Marx’s view on society. He saw capitalism as the dominant structure of contemporary economical interactions, in which capital belonged to a small group of individuals, who employed workers. The latter used capital to produce different goods, but in order for that small group of individuals to receive profit, the workers were paid less than they actually had produced. So there was a conflict: those two classes needed each other, as they provided each other with what the other one did not have, but their interests had different vectors. In order to keep the workers (who outnumbered the bourgeois class) under control, different measures were taken: politics, police institution, religion. Conflict theory sees religion as a tool used to prevent the majority from acting on their own, to make them accept the established way of life in society. Marx believed that eventually the workers would take over (through growing consciousness), and a new model of economic relations – socialism – would be established.

Max Weber is considered to be a uniting link between conflict theory and the interactionism. The scientist continued developing Marx’s views, and added new levels of conflict to his theory. Weber believed that there were more conflicts than just one-kind-of-property conflict, thus acknowledging that there were more resources to fight for and that society was a multiple-class structure, with each class playing a specific role in material economic interactions. Unlike Marx, Weber moved the focus of conflict to the control of means of violence that served to suppress the opposition. What is more important for us, Weber had clearly showed what role religion played in society. He saw religion as a way to emotionally unite people, and that function of religion was exploited by the state. Religion helped different groups acquire certain statuses or develop into certain communities (based on ethnicity, for example). Religious ceremonies built strong feelings of solidarity within the group, created emotional unity and bonds through application of symbols, techniques and various material aids. According to Weber, religion was not above the conflict or means of resolving it, it was another weapon. If some power incorporated itself into religious beliefs of people, it occupied the dominant position in society. Religion might also be used as a means of finding allies against a common enemy. It could be implemented to create a certain social hierocracy. Through this concept, Weber showed that religion was a manipulation tool, creating background for stratification of society (e.g. stratification in relations and established positions of religious leaders, member of the group and non-followers). In conflict theory, any conflict lies in the desire of one group to dominate the other or others, which can be most effectively achieved through violent constraint. One conflict arises when those who have the authority to coerce provide some groups with certain privileges and strip other groups of them. According to conflict theory, every individual acts in his own interests, having the ability to influence self-perception of others, which creates another conflict: different people having different resources available to them create the reality of others, which they use to their advantage. At a personal level, each individual’s self-consciousness is developed based on the way this individual comprehends the reality – that is through interpersonal communication – which brings us to the theory of interactionism.

Interactionism (short for symbolic interactionism) is another major theory in sociology, the most recently developed among the ones presented in this work. Some of its ideas were taken from Marx, Weber and further developed by George H. Mead and Herbert Blumer with the contribution of Charles Horton Cooley (McClelland, 2000). This theory concentrates on the subjective side of human behavior and social development. It focuses on individuals rather than society. According to interactionism, each person plays a certain role, being able to change his behavior if the behavior of others changes, too. This is because individuals are able to understand and read into the actions of others, which are perceived as symbols. Moreover, each individual perceives himself and his own actions as symbols as well. Interacting with one another, individuals are constantly in the process of interpreting the symbols that they exchange as well as the world around them. Interactionism recognizes individuals as active participants of social life and constructors of society. Its focus is on the individual interactions, diminishing the importance of established norms (like in functionalism and conflict theory). According to interactionism, the changeable nature of negotiation process between the society’s members forms the constantly changing social reality, which nevertheless stays in the frame of the stable set of rules regulating these interactions. It pays special attention to the roles that individuals play in social relations, believing that they can be either pre-defined or not. It is important to understand that individuals not just react, but evaluate the meaning of counteraction, and then decide on their reation.

According to interactionism, religion is a certain ideology (a system of symbols) that helps people understand and relate to things that are above understanding, and in a certain way to track their lives in the wake of this ideology. Religion creates an outline of appropriate behavior and incorporates it into people’s minds. Participation in religious ceremonies is a way to confirm the correctness of one’s course and to reinforce one’s beliefs, but also a means of imposing certain symbols. Interactionism recognizes religion as a very powerful social institution, because if it succeeds in establishing itself as a symbolic system of some individual, it becomes the only right way for this individual to interpret the world around him. Religious ceremonies are seen by this theory as very important for confirming people’s system of beliefs and reinforcing certain interpretation of the world. In general, interactionism is a very subjective sociological approach.

Conclusions

The three theories represented in this research paper see religion not as an essential truth but rather an illusion of the truth, as it is immensely influenced by different variables. Functionalists see religion as a uniting force bringing society’s members together through the feeling of solidarity. They assert that religious symbols are the representation of the values of people and give special meaning to the religious ceremonies and rituals, as they encourage stronger unity in social groups. Functionalism identifies religion as a positive element of the social system since it introduces another unearthly reality to people helping them forget the stress of everyday life. According to functionalism, religion is beneficial for health and is also an important condition for future survival of society. Conflict theory in a figurative meaning sees religion as a drug for certain social groups. It is one of the ways for the oppressed to feel united, though it is a cruel tool in the hands of the ruling class. They use it to enforce the difficult way of life, make the working class believe that it is their fate and there cannot be another. Religion refers only to the future, promising reward or better life in the distant future or even after death (in afterlife). For conflict theory, religion is at a stage of change, blocking the idea that the current way of life benefits only a few while the majority of society suffers from injustice. It is interesting to mention that both Durkheim and Marx predicted that religion will vanish from the social life being useless. Symbolic interactionism concentrates on the individuals and their interactions through which the way the society functions and the roles of its institutions are defined. This theory sees society as a constantly changeable symbolic organism. Importance of religion is in the first place defined by the meaning of religion for each separate individual. Being part of religion is a continuous and regular comparison and confirmation of one’s system of beliefs. The research shows that the role of religion can be explained from different points of view, and there is no right or wrong explanation.

This paper looks at the issue of women’s empowerment, the role of men in empowering women, women and feminist reaction to their involvement, their own reaction as men, how they can be efficiently and effectively involved and the way forward.

Until the 19th century, women accepted their mediocre status in society as they lacked the educational and economic resources that would enable them challenge the prevailing social order. Attempts to right the inequalities between men and women necessitate the empowerment of women economically, socially, politically and culturally. Women must be given the educational and economic resources that will free them from men’s domination, patriarch, oppression, violence and servitude. Like the case of vaccines where weakened or dead microbes of the kind that cause a disease is administered to stimulate immune system to produce antibodies against that disease, if men are seen as the perpetrators and the cause of women problems, then it is simply wise to effectively and efficiently involve them in solving societal inequalities that exist between men and women. Once feminists, advocates, activists and women in general view men everywhere as inherently part of the problem, efforts at empowering women must involve and engage men, hence the proliferation of an interest in men and masculinities in recent years.

The lives of men and women are interdependent and any benefit from women empowerment will go a long way to benefit both. Hence, there was a call on countries in 1994 at the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) to promote men’s support in the struggle for gender equality and encourage their involvement and shared responsibility in all areas of family life and reproductive health. Research has shown that, partnering with men is an important strategy for advancing women’s empowerment. Again, the need for the involvement of men has been precipitated by a series of global processes such as the 48th session of the United Nations Commission on the status of Women (CSW), which discussed the role of boys and men in achieving women’s empowerment and gender equality. This need for men’s involvement is underscored by the fact that men’s power over women in many contexts necessitates working with men to change the conditions of women’s life; for men’s power in society is exercised from personal decision regarding family size to the policy and programme decisions taken at all levels of government. Again, men as perpetrators arouses the need for their involvement, that is in treating the “disease” of women’s disempowerment, ignoring the cause will only make the fight, a back and forth unprogressive agenda and as such to remedy the situation , the real cause-men, must be involved in the whole process. Also empowering women, calls for the pulling together of many resources for its accomplishment and these resources unfortunately are largely controlled by men who determines it’s distribution, beneficiaries and accessibility and hence it makes greater sense to pull them along on the pathway of women’s empowerment to be able to assess and enjoy the resources needed in the process. Last but not the least, it is important to involve men due to the fact that, they are largely the leaders in society serving predominantly as decision makers, opinion makers as well as public figures who the younger generation both male and female emulate as part of their socialization and as such for women’s empowerment to be achieved, men as leaders must be reached, encouraged and mobilized to become committed to gender equality in all aspects of human interactions and relationships to serve as good examples to the younger generation to acquire a wholesome socialization that view both men and women as equal and not as one being superior and the other inferior. It is worth noting that the exemplary life of men as leaders in the socialization of boys and girls is very vital in achieving and ensuring gender equity on the backdrop that they (boys and girls) are more susceptible to change and mental restructuring. It is therefore against these backgrounds that men’s involvement in women’s empowerment is deemed as very crucial and influential.

On the assumption that humans in general are resistant to change, particularly to their norms values and belief systems, it is not surprising that some men have and are still fighting against the notion of women’s empowerment based on the hidden reason of trying to defend their privileges and power because of fear of the loss of authority and economic benefits that they perceive women’s empowerment would involve and also their resentment of what they see as attention and resources being given disproportionately to women. For some other men, the blame-game strategy of some feminists and seeing them as so evil deters them from changing their personal masculinities and also join in the struggle for women empowerment. On the other divide, the attention being paid to men on their involvement in addressing their superiority ideologies, over-emphasized masculinities, violent and abusive behavior in stimulating changes in their relationships with girls and women has been met with the feminist ideology of ” on our terms/conditions” indicating a limited space for men’s involvement and tangible participation. Although male involvement in women’s empowerment has been of recent concern, many women working in the field remain unconfident, uncertain, antagonistic and very hostile to the idea that men might be or are partners in the fight for gender equality. Thus the emergence of men as advocates for women’s empowerment has been received with a lot of suspicion, within some feminist circles; they are viewed as competitors for the limited funds available for women’s rights and not as a supporting initiative. Some argue that men were coming to take over with the aim of wiping out feminist movement whilst others see men as competitors in empowering women rather than complimentary to their efforts and advocacy. Interestingly, in the men’s fraternity, men working as aids to women’s empowerment are seen as betraying their fellow men and sometimes referred to as “men who are sat on by women” in their communities. Men’s role in the promotion of women’s empowerment has therefore become topical and yet contested in various quarters among feminist and women who work in the field.

Many feminist have viewed the involvement of men in women’s empowerment with so much suspicion emanating from the distrust for men and their fear that men will try to use subtle and deceptive means to defend and maintain their privileges and power because of fear of the loss of authority and economic benefits thereby undermining the fight for women’s empowerment. Men have been seen as the cause and perpetrators of the down trodden image of women and therefore it is quite uncomfortable for some feminist at involving them in their fight. Perhaps questions like why these men should be involved in the first place, how are they to be involved, whether they are willingly and will be truly committed to the fight, why on earth will men be interested in empowering women considering the superiority, power and autonomy they enjoy, and what solutions, measures and prescriptions do they have to offer in empowering them as women repeatedly clouds the minds of many feminist. This suspicion also arises from the issue of whether men will really welcome the idea and state of women being equal to them in terms of status, power, and leadership and decision-making, are men really determined to work with women without setting or prescribing boundaries and limitation to how, which form and the extent to which women can be empowered. It is therefore against this background that many if not all women view men’s involvement in their empowerment with much suspicion, hostility and hesitations. For some their hostility arises from the fear that the involvement of men in their empowerment would overshadow their efforts with them selling out to a watered down agenda. Again, in working with men to empower women, most development institutions lack the needed determination and focus of working towards a more equal world where men will not be seen as superior to women. “Certainly the way in which work with men has been taken up by development institutions has often been lacking in ambition and devoid of political intent, preoccupied with creating more equitable men, rather that galvanizing men’s activism for a more equal world”.( Cornwall et al, Dialogues on women’s empowerment). Gender equality work with men cannot expect to participate in efforts to secure gender justice simply on the basis of men being “the other half of gender” but an interdependent part.

Personally, for the empowerment of women to be achieved, the role of men can never be overemphasized due to the fact that the lives of men and women are intertwined such that whatever affects one directly or indirectly affects the other. It is worth noting that men even in the most traditional and patriarchal societies believe and support women’s empowerment and would want to see their mothers, sisters, daughters and wives live in a society where equity and justice is paramount. Many more men in our view are ready to lace with their women folk in their empowerment- this can clearly be seen around us with the increase in the number of feminist men who have joined in the battle. However if women and feminist want men to be truly committed and involved in their empowerment, then these men should be seen as allies and not competitors, thus men should be seen as complimentary to their efforts rather their challengers or rivals. Again, the tagging men as evil and destructive must stop; otherwise men will continue to be defensive and resistant to the changes that women desire in them for their empowerment. If we want to reach out to men to influence change, we cannot portray men as evil, since no man identifies himself as such Instead, non-judgmental messages which can provoke thinking and reflection among men for change must be employed. Also, feminist suspicion of men on their involvement in the fight for women’s empowerment must give way to trust through restructuring of their thought pattern and channeling their energies in reaching, encouraging, empowering and mobilizing men to become part of the movement which is committed to women’s empowerment. Furthermore it is important to educate and sensitize boys in their formative years through both formal educational system and in informal setting through peer programmes and also efforts must be made to incorporate attention of men and boys in legislation, policies and programmes on women’s empowerment and to develop ways to ensure active participation. Last but not the least, many more men can be brought on board if they are encouraged, expose and educated on the need to empower women by their peers. It will be an easier effort if men speak to men on women’s empowerment because men feel more comfortable discussing such issues with their peers and are more convince when their peers informs them on issues.

Despite all the drawbacks and challenges outlined above, no responsible man would love to see the children and wife become paupers or marginalized. Considering the important role women play in the development agenda, it is only proper men get involved irrespective of how some women activist view it. Women have the primary task of child rearing and therefore need all the resources to execute this task in other to break the cyclical transmission of poverty from generation to generation. Women transmit values to the next generation therefore, to make the biggest impact on development; society must empower and invest in its women. The lives of men and women are interdependent and any benefit from women empowerment will go a long way to benefit both. Hence, it is no wonder that when the call was made on countries in 1994 at the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) to promote men’s support in the struggle for gender equality and encourage their involvement and shared responsibility in all areas of family life and reproductive health many men accepted. With men’s power in public and private life, their cooperation is indispensable in the domestic and community spheres, national politics, finance and governance. Consequently, the empowerment of women is very crucial for the development of any society considering the roles they play in society and the fact they form more than half of the human resource of a nation but their empowerment cannot materialize without men being involved. Men have been at the centre stage of the issue of societal inequalities and hence remedying the situation requires their involvement. However, some feminist have met this development with much suspicion, hostility and distrust for these men. On the other hand, some feminist are advocating for the involvement of men as a way of addressing gender inequalities and mobilizing resource for women’s empowerment. Accordingly, there is the need for those who work in the field to reach, encourage, empower, and mobilize men to become part of the fight to achieve greater success.

Culture is defined as the dynamic system of rules established by groups (Matsumoto & Juang, p. 10). Marriage is one of the norms established by people, which reflect attitude, beliefs and behaviors. Marriage is an interpersonal relationship with communal or religious acknowledgment which is often created as an agreement. Marriage is rooted effectually in almost every society except where common law partners are recognized. It is the bond that exclusively consents a sexual relationship, especially in collectivist countries where sex before marriage is considered a sin, likewise some societies, especially collectivist countries also require official approval of religious or civil body. Across cultures, the anatomies of ancestral standards are different. Beliefs of what comprises a family are based on culture, dynamics, assets, and ethics. In many cultures, extended family which includes married couples staying in the home of their parents is a form of showing love and respect for example in Pakistan; marriage is also basis for having children in those societies. Since issues like fornication and having children outside of marriage is considered taboo so to grow a family in collectivist cultures getting married is must. Our attributions, interpersonal and romantic relationships and group behaviors are all influenced by the culture we live in thus resulting in the attitudes we have towards a specific actions we take.

Support gap, depression and illness including marital satisfaction, communication pattern and attitudes towards marriage, they all differ across cultures and will be discussed. Attitude towards marriage being the most important one, because the whole idea of relationship relies on the individual’s perspective and preferences. It depends on the individual to see it as a social foundation which administer structure, support, growth and stability or see it as an economic arrangement or as a part of religious institution. The western society might pay more importance to love whereas collectivist cultures might see as an obligatory and as a religious foundation to have family.

Spousal Social Support:

Social support for women is greatly reduced in machismo cultures (Matsumoto & Juang, p. 198). The conformity and obedience are expected by women and is related to traditional gender roles that females and males have occupied; with male traditionally being “in power”. Such differences result in loss of support especially in cultures where women tend to get married at a young age; since getting married at an early age is a form of economic survival it is also seen as a way to guard the female gender and to administer some adherence in settings where society is under pressure for example India. The support a married couple gets from their significant partner is substantial, because support from outside the marriage does not compensate for the lack of spousal support (Xu & Burleson). Belle (1982) termed “support gap hypothesis” which is that women receive less support from their husband compared to men even though the study Belle did was in 1980 and it has been almost a decade, the study done by Xu and Burleson indicates that “social change in sex role relations” has not changed. The different kinds of support received are emotional support, esteem support, network support, tangible support and informational support. Research indicates that men are less comfortable and less skilled in discussing distressed emotional state (Burda & Vaux 1987; Saurer & Eisler, 1990; Trobst, Collins & Embree, 1994). In Cross Cultural comparison of social support, Mortneson (1999) found that members of the American individualistic cultures viewed seeking of social support as more appropriate means of coping with problems than did members of the Chinese collectivist cultures. American individualists also rated the provision of emotional support as more appropriate form of emotional support than did Chinese Collectivists.

Study done by Xu and Burleson, included 100 native born Americans and 102 native born Chinese; 45% of the sample were between 18-24 yrs of age and not exceeding 33 years. All participants were recently married i.e. not more than 5 years. The study tried to obtain desired and experienced levels of spousal support for the five types of social support (emotional, esteem, network, informational and tangible). Participants also responded to demographic questions that provided information on age, sex, race, national origin, length of time they had known their spouse and the time they have been married. The results indicated a vast difference between Chinese support system vs. American support system; Chinese men reported getting more esteem and network support from their spouse than Chinese women versus American women who experienced higher level of support from their spouse than did men. Sex differences were found amongst Chinese and American women, both face a support gap but Chinese women face an additional gap with respect to network support. The results provided Cross-cultural corroboration for the existence of support gaps, i.e. the less network support for Chinese wives that is because Chinese wives were reliant on their husbands for social contacts outside their home.

Chinese also reported in getting more information support than did Americans, which could arise from Individualism-Collectivism; a cultural factor. Americans view intimate relationship in terms of personal affect changes whereas Chinese in terms of connection with community. American men reported getting low level of spousal support than Chinese men that is because in traditional value system, wives have an obligation to support the egos and social connections of their husbands and husbands have lesser responsibility. Results indicate that marriage remains more influenced by traditional values among Chinese men than Americans.

Depression and Illness including Marital Satisfaction across Cultures

In collectivist societies, marriage is the central reality of a woman’s life and the blue print on which her life depends. Epidemiological studies confirm the special vulnerability of women, especially married women, in South Asia (Johnson & Johnson, 2001). High rates of domestic violence (Jejeebhoy, 1998); female illiteracy, malnutrition, anemia and maternal mortality are major public health problems (Buckshee, 1997). Psychiatric epidemiological studies consistently identify high rates of depression and other neurotic illnesses in women and the gender ratio of these disorders on the subcontinent is higher than the gender ratio in the West (Mumford et al., 1996). Among married women in Pakistan, especially among newly married women, attempted suicide (Khan & Reza, 1998) and death rates from murder and suicide are higher than in are higher than in many other societies and are usually associated with in-law conflicts, especially dowry disputes (Kumar, 2004). Smaller scale studies of mental health and illness have found that a variety of disorders such as depression and post-partum depression were strongly associated with marital problems, particularly maltreatment by husband or in-laws (Patel et al., 2002; Ulrich, 1987). Women immigrants report higher rates of depression and dysphoria than Native American women (Karasz, 2005).

A study of traditional South Asian immigrant women and white European American women found that European American women viewed depressive symptoms as the result of personality structures shaped by childhood experiences, or by patho-physiological processes such as serotonin deficiency or hormonal imbalance. South Asian women, by contrast, viewed depressive illness as a normal emotional reaction to severe situational stress, especially marital distress, and to the vulnerabilities associated with women’s gender roles (Karasz, 2005). The present study by Karasz examines how women understand the link of marital family problems and a wide range of health problems by examining their conceptual representations of the causal relationship between marriage roles, health and illness. Using qualitative methods and a model of illness representation from health psychology literature, 35 traditional South Asian immigrant women living in New York City were interviewed. Results indicated that problems associated with marriage roles, including marital and marital family conflict, domestic overwork and isolation were viewed as extremely serious and were associated conceptually with a variety of health problems. In another study done by Qadir, De Silva, Prince and Khan, tested the applicability of marital satisfaction scales developed in the West for use in Pakistan. The results indicate that, contrary to cultural beliefs regarding marriage, most women expressed the need to be satisfied within marriage, which was found to be extremely low because of variety of reasons such as living in an extended family background and low spousal support.

Communication Patterns

Rehman and Munroe did a study and used cross-cultural methodology to examine the demand-withdraw pattern of marital communication. In Western countries, women make more demands, whereas men are more likely to withdraw. This advanced marital structure hypothesis suggests that this pattern can be altered by gender roles and beliefs, particularly in traditional marriages (Rehman & Munroe, 2006). To test such hypotheses, the authors conducted an observational study of marital communication across very different cultures, with varying levels of patriarchy (i.e., 50 White American couples, 52 Pakistani couples in Pakistan, and 48 immigrant Pakistani couples in America). A questionnaire was used to gather demographic information, such as age and education.

The Short Marital Adjustment Test (SMAT; Locke & Wallace, 1959); a standard measure of marital adjustment with well-established psychometric properties was the measure of marital satisfaction level. The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979); was used to screen out violent couples. Modified General Ethnicity Questionnaire (GEQ; Tsai, Ying, & Lee, 2000); only the immigrant couples completed this measure of acculturation to U.S. culture. Unable to find acculturation measures designed for The Desired Changes Questionnaire; the DCQ was used to choose topics for each couple to discuss during their marital interactions. Twenty areas are listed (e.g., “Get together with my friends”).3 For each area, spouses rated how much they wanted their partner to change (1- no change; 7- much more); they then listed at least two additional issues on which they wanted partner change and rank ordered their three most important issues. Each couple was also asked to discuss for 7.5 minutes, which were later coded.

Across cultures, demand-withdraw communication was related to marital distress, extending previous findings to new groups. The results for demanding behaviors showed that Pakistani wives were significantly more likely to engage in unassertive demands than were American wives, whereas American wives were significantly more likely to use aggressive demands than were Pakistani wives. In addition, among Pakistani and immigrant couples, husbands were significantly more likely than were wives to use aggressive demands, whereas American wives were significantly more likely to use aggressive demands than were American husbands. There was a trend for American husbands to be more likely to withdraw than their wives. In contrast, in the Pakistani group, wives were significantly more likely to withdraw than were husbands. In addition, Pakistani and immigrant wives were significantly more likely to withdraw than were American wives, whereas American husbands were significantly more likely to withdraw than were Pakistani husbands. Pakistani and immigrant wives showed increased withdrawal and made more unassertive demands, whereas Pakistani and immigrant husbands withdrew less and made more aggressive demands.

Attitudes towards Marriage

Attitude is one of the definitions in Jung’s Chapter XI of Psychological Types. Jung’s description of attitude is a “readiness of the psyche to act or react in a certain way” (Jung, [1921] 1971:par. 687). One of the types of attitudes Jung describes is, rational attitude, which is “reason as an attitude” (Jung, [1921] 1971: par. 785). Rational attitude is subdivided into thinking and feeling and irrational is subdivided into sensing and intuition. Attitude towards marriage involves, “readiness to act in a certain way”, whether you are capable of considering it rationally or irrationally. Why an individual chooses to get married? (voluntarily and involuntarily) differs across cultures. In collectivist cultures, it is seen as the only way of having family, fornication is not only considered a sin but also an individual can be severely punished which can lead to his/her death; some countries also have laws protecting it for example Saudi Arabia.

Higgins, Zheng, Liu and Sun did a study to compare the attitude towards marriage amongst people living in China (collective culture) and United Kingdom (individualistic culture). The British sample consisted of 338 students and the Chinese sample consisted of 505 students. A questionnaire was devised by Chinese and English researchers working together. Respondent cultural differences in response style were noted (Higgins, Zheng, Liu & Sun, 2002). According to Triandis, Brislin, and Hui (1988), people who belong to collectivist, group-oriented societies are more likely to value harmony, face-saving, modesty, and moderation and this may manifest itself in neutral answers to attitude scales. Respondents were asked for their opinion using a 5-point Likert scale. In this study, students were asked for their general attitude to sex before marriage. A total of 46.3% of Chinese men and 41.2% of Chinese women gave neutral answers, a higher percentage of Chinese female students (46.9%) were against sex before marriage than were Chinese male students (29.9%). The next statements concerned the connection between premarital sex and marriage. Most British students (85.2% men, 91.3% women) disagreed with “A couple who have had sexual intercourse before marriage ought to marry each other,” whereas only a few Chinese (12.9% men, 11.4% women) disagreed.

The belief that sex is designed for marriage is still firmly held by many Chinese people and exerts a strong influence on their attitudes (Higgins, Zheng, Liu & Sun, 2002). When asked about their willingness to marry a partner who had had sex with somebody else, over half of the British respondents (54.0% men, 50.6% women) did not seem to worry about their partners’ previous sexual experience whereas their Chinese counterparts (34.0% men, 36.5% women) appeared to be less agreeable to the idea. 87.1% male and female 94.3% students were against freedom to have lovers within marriage. This attitude was also prevalent among the Chinese sample, with 65.6% of men and 72.5% of women against extramarital lovers, this study showed that these “male-superior norms” still exist in the U.K. sample but are more prominent in the Chinese sample (Higgins, Zheng, Liu & Sun, 2002). Culture exerts a strong influence on people’s attitudes to love, marriage, and sex. People from a more traditional society (e.g. China) have more consensus about the gender roles of men and women; adhere more to traditional morality and values; and are less “open” about sexual freedom (Higgins, Zheng, Liu & Sun, 2002).

Hojat, Shapurian, Shafeyhain and Parsi conducted a study amongst 160 Iranian immigrants in the US in 2000. The immigrants were between 20 -50 years of age, questionnaires were given which included 25 questions regarding attitude towards marriage and relationship. Results showed that Iranian immigrant men were more likely than female partners to view premarital sex, marriage and family from a traditional point of view.

Another interesting study done by Wiesel and Krenawi consisted of 150 participants of different cultural backgrounds i.e. 29 were Druze, 32 were Muslims and 33 were Christians; 44 were women and 50 were men with a mean age of 34. The questionnaires were designed to reveal attitudes toward love, the marriage expectation scale, potency scale, which will reveal the control of things, and mate selection scale which revealed how the person took initiative in getting married (love or arranged). Results indicated Muslims saw love as less important for marital quality than did Druze and Christians, Muslims more than other groups correlated independent decision making with marital quality, attitude toward love and marital quality were weakly correlated among Muslims, the necessity to beget off spring and unity between families were high amongst Muslims than other groups suggesting what might keep the families together in the absence of love. The results also suggested that arranged marriages are negatively associated with marital satisfaction and low level of marital satisfaction was related with low level of education.

Discussion

Through a variety of perceptions, one develops an exclusive analogue of what marriage is; and the ancillary ideals concerning marriage. My mother always said that “successful marriage depends on two things: finding the right person and being the right person”. Since I am a Muslim, I will give several quotations from Quran; which I support as my belief and my idea of a perfect family and what a perfect husband and wife should be like. Though I must admit with time, I have come to realize that to be perfect; one must have to sacrifice a lot and since marriage is a two way street one has to give a lot in order to get anything. In Islam, marriage is treated as ‘half-faith’. “When a servant of Allah marries, he has completed half of his religious obligations, and he must fear Allah in order to complete the second half” (al-Baihaqi). Prophet Muhammad has also said, “Marriage is part of my *Sunnah, whoever runs away from my path is not from among us”. Husbands and wives are compared as garments to each other (al-Qur’an 2:187) Marriage gives tranquility (al-Qur’an 30:21) of mind in the spouses. Allah has prescribed marriage as the only way for conjugal relationship and family life in human society (al-Qur’an 2:221, 5:5, 24:33).

With enough being said of the significance of marriage in Islam, it’s a shame to see that Muslim women face higher suicidal rate than men in Pakistan (Khan & Reza, 1998). Most marriages in Pakistan are “arranged” by parents and other elders of family, with the woman having little or no say in the selection of her partner. Premarital meetings between couples are rare. Many couples meet each other for the first time on their wedding night. Newly married couples share the house with the groom’s family, having little time or space of their own. Once married, a woman is under increasing pressure from her in-laws as well as her own family to have children as soon as possible, preferably in the first year. If for some reason the woman cannot have children, the threat of divorce or the husband taking on a second wife (allowed in Islam) is not uncommon. The divorce rate in Pakistan is quite low 0.3 per 1000 population (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1996, p. 686) but this does not reflect the true state of marriages. There is considerable stigma to divorce, especially for the woman. In addition, few women work outside their homes or have jobs that give them economic independence. Because most of the South Asian and Middle Eastern countries give high power to men, the spousal support is something that men living in these countries expect from women. Being a housewife, taking care of kids and most of all thinking of women as inferior is something common amongst these men. Because the families live together, there is not privacy, which gives rise to poor communication amongst married couples.

My marriage was an arranged, it wasn’t that my parents didn’t ask me of my approval; or if I didn’t get a chance to talk to my husband, before getting married, that is something that a women in Islam has the right to do and people; who are uneducated living in impoverished societies, deprive women of these right which gives rise to many social and marital problems. I must admit though, that living in an extended joined family, gave my husband and me little or no time for us, our life was going around in circles to which I always thought was no ending. But, being educated and having a liberal thinking we always made sure there was at least if not all, some privacy left, some matters that only me and my husband would discuss behind closed doors. While doing research for this paper, I sadly have to confess that women living in Asian or Middle eastern countries do suffer more, which didn’t come to me as a surprise because I’ve lived in Pakistan and have seen it all, but my question and concern was who will ever put a stop to all this nonsense?. Sadly, women is a victim in these countries but women are also who are perpetuating these hatred and violence in the household. A woman can take many forms, she can be a daughter, a mother in law, a sister in law, a wife, an aunt etc. most importantly she is the one who raises a child to be the kind of person she wants to see him as; unfortunately in countries like Pakistan and India, it is the woman (mother in law) who forces their child to be stern and harsh to their wives, I think its because of the fact that they cant stand the undivided attention of their sons or maybe they think keeping a women under control will only bring out the best for their sons. Who will ever think of these women who are ignored?

Thailand is located in South East Asia where it is one of the oldest countries full of history and rich in culture and has been sustained for a long time, until the new globalization, it never has been colonized to other countries and has been affected by things such as religion, the senility system making younger people believe and listen to older people in the old principle and teachings. In the past Thai families have a lot of members and have very close relationships, most of the men are commonly known as a leader, working outside the home, but women are known as a follower, taking care of children and household chores. Even if nowadays the western culture makes Thai women have more freedom in human rights, working more outside the home and getting more opportunities in education, being more powerful and influential in politics and economics but because of the old cultures and Thai society men still have more effect and power and still have more advantages than women.

First of all, if mentioned in Thai society as Thailand still keeps old cultures and traditions from the ancient time men went out because of the war women would stay home look after their children and families, responsible for all kinds of work on the farm as Thailand mainly produces from Agriculture. Also the senility is very important in Thailand, younger people listen to older people, child listen to their parents. Thai women still listen and believe in old principles that make Thai women stereotypes, and are very good at motherhood, love to take care of their children and families, good manners and follow their husbands as an old Thai saying, men are the front legs of the Elephant and women are the back. But according to this reason and in wedding ceremonies, the groom needs to prepare a bride-price as a gift to the bride’s parents in the ceremony as it has been hard work for looking after his future wife and shows the parents he has a good financial life, and can take care of their daughter in the future. In my opinion it seems parents sell their daughters, Thai guys are more concerned about making money rather than taking care of his wife and end up with men who possibly have several wives and still believe they can support or take care of all their wives and according to Ane (2004, p..130) “The practice of keeping major wives (mia luang) and minor wife (mia noi) still exist today and – when it comes to the wealthy, powerful or famous.” On the other hand it will not be acceptable for women to have many husbands or even if some women remarried after divorce or the husband died, it is still unusual.

In religion, most of Thai are Buddhist, a temple is the center for all activities of the Thai communities, Buddhist is very influential and dharma principle is very strict in Thai society for example women are forbidden to touch and stay privately with a monk or even if standing higher. All Thai men need to be ordained to learn Bhuddhist as a monk from the belief that they will get good virtue and via it show gratitude to their parents as well, because of Buddhist principles as explained, almost all activities in the temple driven by men and women will be responsible only in preparing foods and some cleaning, same as if they are in the house. From these reasons it makes some Thai men still believe they are a higher level than Thai women in addition to Ane, (2004, p.130) who gave an opinion that “Buddhism is often blamed for inequalities women in Thailand endure. At the center of Thai culture, it is seen by some as a kind of framework for male domination.”

The Second mention in education. From the past, education begins from temples as there is a center of Thai culture and is taught by monks and Thai girls could not have education opportunities as boys because of the old culture and that Thai girls should learn households at home, but the system was changed after King Rama VI had studied from abroad and came up with the idea that Thai women should get education and human rights same as western women to help men develop the country. The king supported and built up schools and drove all issues necessary for example free education for children in primary schools both for male and female. Also the support from the government helps Thai people have free education in higher levels both in genders and Thai parents have more concern about the important things for getting good education as their children will get a good job and good life. Refer to Liza (2012, pp.54-55) have shown the figures from the world bank website, school enrolments for men and women in percentage, the gender gap in primary and secondary school is decreasing rapidly from the past year 1971 to 1978 and almost the same percentage in year 1991 to 2009. On the other hand the percentage of women in the tertiary school is higher than men between year 1993-2009, that means Thai women can get education equally with men and have abilities to study higher level same as men.

In the third mention in Economics and Careers, women become more influential in Economics and get more opportunities in the work place because they have more opportunities in education than they have more capacities and are able to work outside home higher than they would in the past, whereas men are more involved in the household chores and look after children instead. And also from the changing of Thai Economics, having more investments and industries effect to Thai people migrate to the big cities, women tend to work far from home than before, leaving their children with grandparents and believe they can better afford a life than staying home or working in upcountry.

The women roles in the past still occur in some areas of Thailand where as Western culture still is far away but controlling family business and finances is always the common roles for Thai women even from the past until now, big or small families and even in the big city through upcountry that means Thai women are very influential in Thai Economics, more than men.

In industry fields, Thai Men normally do more physical work or in heavier industries than women for example in construction, automotive and electronics but for Women more often work in the light industries for example in tourist, food production and textile industries.

Because of Thai culture, religion believes and practice and also the Physical human body make most of Thai men still believe that they are higher, has abilities and work harder than women. Discrimination in working place still appear in some career according to the website the Nation news (June 27, 2012) has comment on unequally system between Thai men and women in the police and military officer.

Thai women is still bad known in sex-trafficking even though it’s illegal in the country but still appear by some reasons such as from women immigration to the big city but too difficult to find normal job then it directs them get involved in this business. By another reason is some women go straight to do this business as they want to get easier money and Thai and Foreigner men still satisfy to pay. In my opinion, it same as normal market, it has demand and supply if don’t have both then business can’t be survive.

Final mention in Politics, Thailand is a Democracy country with strong believe in Royal family. Thai women can vote and get in a politics position same as men and nowadays from more opportunities in higher Education, Thai women have more space and powerful in politics roles. Thailand has changed politics history and will have changed in Thai women roles following to Yinglak Shinawat is the first women Prime Minister, boost government and create a lot of campaigns to support and develop Thai women roles all over Thailand for example setting up women fund to every cities to help any activities and improve women life especially women in South of Thailand where as more Muslim culture. But other point of view, Yinglak Shinawat still get some comments about her abilities and the way to get into this power as she is a sister of Taksin Shinawat, ex-prime minister of Thailand.

In conclusion, Thailand is still unequal between men and women from the reason of culture, religion and old practical, that make Thailand hard to change in the gender roles in short term. Also the new globalization effected to Thai women, need more education, more abilities and more responsibilities. It is hard thing for Thai women now that they need to be a good mother, good taking care of their family, working in households, control family financial and need to work outside home in the same time to be acceptable in Thai society and apply in new world effected from Western culture.

Before I begin on my analytical review of the selected article, I firstly, feel that it is crucial to outline and define what an analytical framework is and what it consists of. Due to the nature of the subject we are assessing, that being ‘social science’, it is clear that researchers have to contend with many different variables from different theoretical standpoints to the vast differing ideological paradigms of this subject. If a study does not possess a proposed analytical framework within its main body of writing, it will often be criticised for being overly descriptive and lacking a precise investigation, thus meaning the academic work will lack clear focus and suffer from being vague.

Secondly, analytical frameworks are many and varied, some utilise observable reality within society from institutions such as family, education and the state. These are ideal if the researcher intends on gathering evidence from that particular institution, allowing the researcher test their hypothesis of Y affects X etc. However many analytical frameworks within the social sciences are usually intertwined to key intellectual theories; these include areas such as Marxism, Rational choice and Network theory. Researchers using these types of framework allow for a focused document, which adopts a particular intellectual theory and systematically evaluates it to the chosen topic area from that standpoint.

All analytical frameworks do share one particular trend whether it is assessing ideologies or the various institutions, their first initial task is to mobilise the intellectual approach through the body of literature. Furthermore this analytical framework must be chosen with careful consideration by academics, as within their chosen framework there will consist of theorists who share similar views on that particular issue. E.g. Rational choice theorists believe that we make choices based upon our personal preference, having theorists support your argument increases validity and strengthens structure of your argument, thus allowing you to raise particular questions such as ‘is there rationality of radical Islam?’ In short these frameworks consist of a set of intellectual tools that guide the researcher through his/her research for example, how to collect, sort, and interpret the results found, obviously guiding is not the only application within the theoretical framework but it also has close links with the particular sub-questions asked within that theory.

Firstly, an important detail to reference about the particular article, is the title of the article itself ‘The Rationality of Radical Islam’ this shows a clear indication of the authors analytical standpoint The use of ‘Rationality’ within the title suggests that Wiktoro & Kaltenhaler are taking a Rational Choice perspective approach within the article. Before I begin on exploring how Wiktoros has employed this rational choice theory to terrorism, it is important to address what rational choice theory really is and its assumptions.

Throughout much of the western hemisphere in the early part of the 21st century, we have witnessed a shift in the way we analyse human behaviour. This shift was at large partly due to the emergence of RCT which has been dominant within economics but has spread to other disciplines. This Rational choice theory consists of three independent theories at its core including ‘social choice theory, game theory and economics. Essentially RCT is actually three things at the same time, because not only does it possess a logical structure to which many use it as a fundamental ideology to theorising. But it is both a normative & empirical method of investigation into the actions and behaviours of the individual.

RCTs primary underlying focus begins with the clear acknowledgment of the individual, not the interaction between several individuals. RCT would therefore advocate a minimalist state which is only used for preserving individual liberties and non invasive on the individual. Furthermore RCT is also concerned with the explanation of all social phenomenons within society whether it be conforming, or deviant acts, it views humans as ‘rational creatures’ meaning there are calculated mental process that exist within our choices. Because rational choice is derived from economics it acknowledges all social exchanges are like that of economic exchanges to which ‘an actor will choose an action rationally, based on a hierarchy of preferences, that promises to maximize benefits and minimize costs’ (Zey 1998 p.2) these basic premises of humans, portray that our decisions are reared towards the sole aim of profit or pleasure.

This article explores the ‘The Rationality of Radical Islam’ it specifically asks the question ‘Why do Islamist radicals engage in high-cost/risk activism’ (Wiktorowicz 2006 p.296) and the incentives behind it. This particular analytical framework is perfect to use as, terrorism throughout the general population is widely considered highly irrational, especially in the case of Jihadist terrorism, as how can you sacrifice yourself and others for a greater good? The reasons many see terrorists and their sympathizers as irrational is due to that their beliefs are so improbable and dogmatic, (Wiktorowicz, cited 2004 in Caplan, 2006 p.97) and what factual evidence do Jihadist terrorists have for gaining a place straight into paradise where they can enjoy the company of 72 virgins? We foresee this ‘certain’ approach as being nothing more than plain foolish, due to the dependency on belief. However Wiktrorowicz believes that we cannot judge an action such as this, as irrational simply because we don’t agree with it, and if the individual is optimizing their top preference then they are acting rationally (Wiktorowicz 2006 p.300).

The second major point tackled by these two authors, is the assessment on the various incentives terrorist organisations offer, as all groups ‘proffers its ideology as an efficient path to salvation, which serves as a heuristic device for in-doctrinal actors to weigh the costs & benefits of certain behaviour’ (Wiktorowicz 2006 p.301). In other words most organisations don’t offer ‘material or worldly goods’ which by western culture does not reflect economic or personal benefit for the individual, but it shows that spiritual good are more important to some. But there is evidence that those who joined Algeria’s armed Islamic groups chose to do so to benefit economically from insurgency, such as smuggling (wiktorowicz 2006 p.302).

Referring back to the previous point, a case study brought up in the article was on the ‘Al-Muhajiroun’ which proved to be a popular group throughout the UK, but after the attacks on 9/11 the British state condemned the group for expressing radical views. However during its time this case study provides a perfect example of payoffs, as the Al-Muhajiron only offered spiritual payoffs for such a high risk activity, many in this group ‘viewed activism and even risk itself as means to achieve salvation and entrance to paradise’ (Wiktorowicz 2006 p.302). These points articulate that RCT doesn’t provide an explanation of preference formation, but explains a strategy of choices under a set of ordered preferences (Wiktorowicz 2006 p.302) so RCT is not concerned with why individuals prioritise terrorism to the top of the list but it just wants to understand why we rationally choose to do something highly illegal and dangerous.

Lastly Bruce Hoffman in regards to rationality of terrorism defines ‘terrorism as the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change. All terrorist acts involve violence or the threat of violence.’ (Hoffman 1998) his use of literature such as ‘deliberate’ & ‘creation’ backs up the arguments of Wiktorowicz that terrorists pre-plan and prepare every step of terrorism, this could be in terms of signing up for Jihadist attacks or the preparation of bombs, the terrorists know what they are doing and gladly do it pursuing their own self interest at any cost.

Delving into the theoretical underpinnings of the article, I firstly, came across within the literature a reference to Mother Teresa in which she advocated that religion was self-sacrificial and wasn’t motivated by external rewards (Wiktorowicz 2006 p.302). This has one of two benefits; one the use of a similar theorist strengthens Wiktorowicz’s argument, as the author is acknowledging a rationale in the idea that material goods are not the only driving force of an individual. And secondly, within this article by Kwilecki & Wilson we can see a clear running theme for RCT as in the opening abstract they state that ‘this paper applies rational choice to the religion of Mother Teresa’ (Kwilecki 2000 p.205).

Lastly, upon viewing Wiktorowicz’s endnote system, we can see the material they used to reference and guide their analysis is heavily interlinked to the analytical framework of RCT, such as ‘the economic approach to human behaviour’ & ‘an introduction to rational choice’ by Jon Estler clearly shows that the theoretical underpinnings all point to a RCT perspective approach and has been applied to the topic of terrorism.

With RCT being a major ideological contender within the social science world over the past six decades, there is now a huge library of literature attacking and defending RCT and is currently still growing. To begin I want to discuss the advantages of this particular approach in general. Firstly, RCT has survived this long due to its genuine fundamental strengths e.g. ‘rationality accords with common sense in certain simple settings. For example, consider a choice between $5 and $10, no strings attached.’ (Herrnstein 1990 p.357) On this basis of behaviour, we would always choose the larger sum of money no matter what, so in a sense arguing against RCT is like arguing against the principal of indisputable truth and against common sense in general.

Second, the sheer power of this theory is an undisputable strength of its own, as it has manifested itself into all disciplines that examine behaviour from political philosophy to the behaviourism in psychology; it is hard to critique such a coherent framework. So it’s ‘generality’ in other words allows assumptions to be placed into a wide variety of topic areas, without them being splintered into a mix of complicated sub-theories. This common deductive base detaches them from other main theories as by reducing the area of disagreement it can work much more efficiently.

Before 9/11 investigations into terrorist cells were minimal, so too were activities regarding anti-terrorism. However after the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York, we witnessed a major influx with both participants in high risk activities as well as counter terrorism agencies investigating these radical motives. One thing is clear in terms of terrorism is the fact that RCT has opened up radical movements who were ‘previously described as unflappable, ideological zealots trapped by rigid adherence to dogma, are now regarded as strategic thinkers.'(Wiktorowicz 2005 p.13) This approach breathes life into the study of terrorist’s actions and how to counteract such activities e.g. ‘Deterrence’, there is little doubt that old-fashioned deterrence reduces the amount of terrorism, and in theory increasing the risk and severity of being caught should also continue to drop the amount of people who adopt radical beliefs.

Secondly moving on to the general criticisms of this theory, which has seen a wide range of claims made against it, for instance RCT cannot explain the existence of various social phenomenon’s such as trust, reciprocity and especially charity, as in such organisations the masses are the ones benefitting from the individuals actions, and the individual isn’t rationally choosing to maximise their personal benefits. Furthermore in terms of the individual’s choices, it is safe to say that individuals do not possess all knowledge and information on everything & anything, so essentially humans rely on heuristics to guide our thought processes which essentially intelligent guesswork.

This limitation can also go further into the fact that in society today and even in the past, people’s choices are constrained by the many social institutions of society ‘the modal individual will find his or her actions checked from birth to death by familial and school rules; laws and ordinances'(Freidman 1991 p.208) . Continuing on from the last point it’s seems clear that it’s not just institutions & structures holding individuals back, but the pressures of so called ‘acceptable’ behaviour as these social norms are essentially a barrier to the pursuit of self-interest. Lastly on the general criticisms towards RCT I’d like to discuss a point raised in the book by Paul Anard who wrote ‘if rationality is about consistency, including logical consistency, then human agents cannot be considered rational in a full sense.’ (Anard 2002 p.22) This quote articulates a very interesting standpoint against the fundamental underpinnings of this theory as if RCT states we are so rational in mind & body then why do we have inconsistencies of thoughts, and why are these behaviours such a common occurrence within our society.

A weakness RCT has in relation to terrorism is that RCT generally operates in a post-hoc manner where researchers usually examine past precedents to rationalise and predict similar event of the future, (Lindauer 2012 p.8) but in the area of terrorism this is not a good idea, as one terrorism is irrational that mathematically people cannot always predict events and secondly, if a mistake was to be made the consequences could be devastating and traumatic as people’s lives are at risk.

As discussed previously within this essay, RCT has a high number of loyal followers and a wide literature on all subjects, so as RCT is focused upon behaviour, it has made important inroads to other topic areas not just the study of terrorism. One key area RCT is dominant in, is the low turnout rate within elections. RCT states that ‘turnout is, for many people most of the time, a low-cost, low-benefit action.’ (Aldrich 1993 p.261) so will always suffer. This theory has been the backbone of reform and incentives to revert voter apathy and re-engage people back into politics. For example it is important for a political campaign to outline what benefits it will have on the individual causing it to be a high benefit action.

Secondly RCT is prominent within criminology and the rationality of criminals, this topic is similar to terrorism in respect that, RCT argues ‘the decision to commit an offense is negatively related to the perceived costs of crime and positively related to the perceived rewards of crime’ (Nagin 1993 p.479) thus meaning there is a rational mental process taking place within the individual before a crime is committed. Like petty crime is often committed at night or during quiet hours as criminals mentally calculate the benefits, such as they will be less likely to be disturbed or be seen committing a crime. RCT creates a wonderful overview to the behaviours of crime and the individuals within it.

In conclusion the analytical framework utilised within the article of terrorism allows for a detailed and unique perspective on why individuals choose to commit terrorist actions. The author’s use of case studies back up the RCT theory, adding not only depth but lying out clear empirical evidence of Rational choice for the reader to ponder. Because RCT is a ‘more coherent group defined by a very clear methodology (Burnham 2008 p.26) allows the theory to be implemented into other areas. To give an example, the rationality within committing crime can be directly compared and contrasted towards terrorism interlinking the mental process that go with it, thus in turn creating a powerful theory of analysis which has much literature and backing. Lastly, concluding with my thoughts on using an analytical framework within academic research. I feel using a framework is crucial in order obtain an essay that consists of structural rigour. Studying a topic area can be a daunting task especially a very broad topic like many in the social sciences, but using an analytical framework can help break down the topic of your choice helping you research, gather & present your findings into a coherent argument. Furthermore without a set framework the article will attempt to answer more questions than it can answer making it a weak descriptive academic piece of work.

Prejudice is an intriguing topic in social psychology. Most studies focus on its cognitive and social representations and rarely do people notice the significance of affect in prejudice. In this essay, the focus of interest is on affect and emotions as a theoretical base in understanding prejudice. The role of emotions in intergroup processes and prejudice is explored, coupled with the discussion on the antecedents, nature, and consequences of intergroup emotions, which is illustrated by the specificity of intergroup emotions and its resulting behavioral tendencies. The relationship between intergroup emotion and intergroup forgiveness also shed light on devising strategies to reduce prejudice.

Prejudice is a preconceived judgment towards a group and its members (Myers, 2010). This evaluation can be either positive or negative. In the intergroup context, prejudice is a group-based attitude elicited by intergroup interaction (Smith, 1993). According to ABCs of attitudes, Myers states that attitude is composed by affect (feelings), behavior tendency (inclination to act) and cognition (beliefs). Affect plays an important role in prejudice (attitude). To differentiate prejudice, discrimination and stereotype in simple terms, prejudice is an attitude, discrimination is a behavior, and stereotype is a belief towards a group and its individual members. They intertwine with one another. Prejudice and stereotype are neutral in comparison to discrimination which often refers to negative behavior attributed to prejudicial attitudes.

To study intergroup processes, emotion is narrowed down to intergroup emotion while groups are divided into ingroups and outrgoups. Intergroup emotion is an emotion in the intergroup context. It includes emotions felt towards one’s own group and emotions felt towards the outgroup. The role of emotions in intergroup processes lies in emotions provoking people’s reactions and responses to outgroups, which in turn affects intergroup relations.

The antecedents of intergroup emotions are (1) group membership, (2) intergroup interactions and (3) appraisals. Firstly, group membership can be explained by self-categorization theory, self-discrepancy theory and social identity theory. According to the self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987), people define themselves in personal terms and in terms of group memberships in the social context. When people identify themselves as group members, this ingroup membership becomes part of the self; this extended social self (group) makes group membership and intergroup interactions evoke emotional responses (Mackie & Smith, 2002). According to the self-discrepancy theory, people often match their actual self with their ideal self and ought self. The greater the discrepancy between the matches, the greater the psychological discomfort. This is an emotion felt towards one’s self and group. Mackie and Smith think that negative emotions are aroused when people perceive the attributes of their ingroup do not correspond to those they wish or believe their ingroup ought to possess. Mackie and Smith give examples of dejection-related emotions including dissatisfaction, disappointment, sadness and hopelessness while agitation-related emotions include apprehension, nervousness, tension, threatenedness and uneasiness. Social identity theory (Brown, 2000) proposes ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation. In other words, ingroup love may extend to outgroup hatred. Ingroup identification can give rise to hostile reactions to outgroups in forms of prejudice and discrimination. This illustrates an emotion one felt towards the outgroup. Social Identity Theory is an example of ingroup bias resulting from one’s purpose to enhance self-esteem by increasing the positivity of ingroups and the negativity of outgroups. Another manifestation of intergroup bias is realistic conflict theory, an ingroup bias which stems from hostility in response to a competitive and threatening outgroup (Shah, Brazy &Higgins, 2002). The regulatory and affective needs are fulfilled through ingroup bias.

Secondly, intergroup interaction is antecedent to intergroup emotions. The nature of specific interactions between groups acts as a source of differentiated affective reactions (Mackie & Smith, 2002). For example, interactions that produce positive affect can promote the liking of further interaction with outgroup members. This shows the nature of interaction between groups as a determinant of emotions. This is further explored in the following discussion on intergroup relations.

Thirdly, appraisals are also antecedent to intergroup emotions. Devos, Silver, Mackie and Smith (2002) describe the appraisal theories of emotion as a situation or an event can bring about emotions when the individual concerns, goals and motives are favored or harmed. Appraisals are a configuration of cognitions or beliefs, which triggers emotions. Ingroup emotions are triggered by group-based appraisals. For instance, if the social identity or integrity of the ingroup is threatened by the outgroup, the ingroup members may experience fear and anxiety. Appraisals cause emotions, which in turn correspond to its specific action tendencies.

The nature of intergroup emotions lies in intergroup relations. Intergroup relations can be exemplified by integrated threat theory and image theory. Integrated threat theory reflects the role of threat in intergroup relations. Stephan and Renfro (2002) focus on four types of threat-realistic threats, symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety and negative stereotyping. Realistic threats are threats to the group welfare including threats to the ingroup wellbeing. Stephan and Renfro (2002) propose that the concept of realistic threats comes from realistic group conflict theory, which argues that competition for limited resources giving rise to outgroup prejudice so realistic threats can have a broader denotation meaning any threat to the group welfare, not just competition for limited resources. Symbolic threat is an intangible threat to the ingroup values and beliefs. According to Dovidio and Gaertner (1996), intergroup anxiety includes discomfort, apprehension, fear and disgust owing to the expectation of negative results in intergroup interactions. Stephan and Renfro (2002) believe that there are negative psychological outcomes (embarrassment), negative behavioral outcomes (exploitation or physical harm) and negative evaluations by the both ingroup and outgroup members. Negative stereotypes are simplifications and guidelines for social interactions leading people think the outgroup behaves detrimentally to the ingroup. In the integrated theory, the above four threats are considered to cause outgroup prejudice, which includes negative affect associated with outgroups arousing negative emotions like dislike, disapproval and hatred towards the outgroup. Stephan and Renfro (2002) believe that the antecedents of threats stem from strong identification with the ingroup, frequent negative contact with outgroup members, disparities in the status of the two groups and ignorance of the outgroup.

On the flip side, the image theory describes intergroup emotions on the basis of relationship patterns and outgroup images. Relationship pattern are described in terms of goal compatibility, status equality and power equality. Thus, an outgroup image is formed corresponding to the relationship pattern, thereby arousing specific intergroup emotions and behavioral orientation.

There are two symmetric images where the two groups involved perceive the intergroup relations in the same way. Brewer and Alexander (2002) describe enemy image as an intense competition between two groups similar in power and status with incompatible goals. This intergroup relationship produces a feeling of threat. This arouses an affect of anger and prompts a behavioral tendency to eradicate the threat by containment or attack. Ally image is characterized with goal compatibility, equal status and power between groups (Brewer & Alexander, 2002). This produces an image of nonthreatening with positive attributes. Hence, emotions like admiration and trust are generated and it facilitates the behavioral inclination of intergroup cooperation.

Apart from the aforesaid, there are asymmetric relationships having mutually incompatible intergroup goal interdependence and differing in power and status. Barbarian image arises when the relationship has incompatible goals with the ingroup having lower status but higher power. The outgroup is then seen as evil and destructive. Affects like fear and intimidation are likely to be experienced by the ingroup so its behavioral orientation tends to adopt a defensive protection. When the ingroup is weaker and lower in status, sentiments like jealousy and resentment towards the outgroup are elicited. Behavioral orientation like resistance or rebellion is expected. This associates with the imperialist image.

Expressing and decoding emotions also play a part in intergroup relations. Emotional interactions between people involve feeling, expressing and perceiving (Leyens, Demoulin, Desert, Vaes & Philipot, 2002). If one of the above goes wrong, intergroup relations is likely to be jeopardized and prejudice will arise. Inadequate expressions and decoding of emotions may harm the intergroup interaction, leading to reciprocal misunderstandings at the level of feeling, expressing and perceiving. Such misunderstanding makes ingroup members fear, prevent or reject subsequent encounters with outgroup members. Hence, a vicious cycle is formed and it reinforces existing prejudice and discrimination.

Based on the above discussion on the antecedents and nature of intergroup emotions, people experience emotions on behalf of their own group as they see themselves as a group member and others as fellow group members. These emotions make people manifest specific behavioral tendencies like collective action, effort in improvement of the intergroup relations and so on. Prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination are also consequences of intergroup emotions. Specific emotions also correspond to different patterns of behavioral tendencies. Action tendency refers to the impulses or inclinations toward a particular action. In the intergroup context, group-based appraisals of the situation or event often trigger specific intergroup emotions, which in turn trigger particular action tendencies and promote certain behaviors. According to Devos, Silver, Mackie and Smith (2002), fear and anxiety prompt ingroup members to keep away from the outgroup while anger generates a motivation to attack or aggress the outgroup; disgust and contempt trigger avoidance and separation while resentment and frustration spark off resistance and actions against the outgroup. These behavioral tendencies result from intergroup emotions.

The specificity of intergroup emotions and behavioral tendencies can be explained by Intergroup Emotions Theory (IET). IET is grounded on self-categorization-the mental representations of self and group. When group membership is rooted in the self-concept, individuals care about situations and events concerning the group. This demonstates the emotional significance in intergroup situations. According to Devos, Silver, Mackie and Smith (2002), ingroup members often develop fear towards a threatening and powerful outgroup; group conflicts generate anger; frustration shows up when the goals and actions of ingroup are blocked by outgroup. An outgroup violating moral standards breeds disgust. Resentment results on seeing outgroup enjoying underserved benefits. Specific inclinations of behavior t follow suit. Anger and frustration cause resistance and aggression. Fear can prompt ingroup protection and escape from the disadvantaged situation. Disgust and contempt deter interactions with an outgroup. Mackie and Smith (2002) believe that there is a limitation for predicting corresponding behaviors. The prediction can only be an action tendency rather than a concrete behavior because actual behaviors are constrained by situational factors and social norms. Action tendencies are deduced from affects and emotions so they can only represent an impulse or intention of actions. Mackie and Smith gave an example stating the constraint of situation factors concerning the presence of an outgroup or the means for the ingroup to act accordingly. Further example of social norms is that an ingroup having an inclination to attack and aggress the outgroup cannot display their aggression and act out due to social sanctions. Mackie and Smith suggest that an action tendency can be fulfilled by different concrete behaviors. For example, aggression can be elicited in terms of verbal aggression or physical aggression, which can prompt many other alternative concrete behaviors.

On the other hand, the correlation between intergroup emotions and intergroup forgiveness is worthy-of-note. Noor, Brown and Prentice (2008) define intergroup forgiveness as a process which involves making a decision to learn new aspects about one-self and one’s group-one’s emotions, thoughts, and capability to inflict harm on others. This reflection on intergroup emotions and intergroup relations does not mean to devalue the severity and consequences of misdeeds, but to reverse the negativity of affect between the groups. Intergroup emotions play an important role in the willingness to engage in forgiveness. Emotions like pity, guilt and sympathy can melt people’s heart of stone and motivate them to forgive. Experiencing empathy (compassion and sympathy) for an individual outgroup member can produce more positive attitudes towards the outgroup as a whole, thereby enabling forgiveness. Nevertheless, the willingness to forgive is difficult to achieve at the group level. Noor, Brown and Prentice (2008) illustrate that some group members may be willing to forgive the outgroup but they might withhold or withdraw their forgiveness in fear of shaking their ingroup loyalty.

The above correlation between intergroup emotions and intergroup forgiveness sheds light on devising strategies to reduce prejudice. Intergroup forgiveness can be seen as a crucial step towards reconciliation. Intergroup reconciliation is much more than conflict resolution and the cessation of conflict. Intergroup forgiveness can motivate the ingroup to view the world from the outgroup’s perspective and standpoint with the intention to clarify misunderstandings, address mutual concerns and eliminate prejudice.

The role of contact in reducing prejudice lies in promoting positive affects and intergroup friendship. Mackie and Smith (2002) discover that the number of acquaintances has an effect on prejudice, which is significantly mediated by prejudice. Their research analysis discovers that acquaintances reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions, both of which reduced prejudice. Mackie and Smith discover that the closeness of the relationship can significantly reduce prejudice when participants are aware of different group membership.

Oskamp (2000) proposes the motivational approach of reducing feelings of threat from an outgroup, demonstrating that the outcomes of ingroups and outgroups are interdependent, and accentuating that each individual is accountable for intergroup events. This strategy corresponds to the Integrated Threat Theory and tackles some of the antecedents of threat like disparities in the status of the two groups. An antecedent of threat like frequent negative contact with outgroup members can be tackled by promoting favorable and rewarding intergroup contact to reduce prejudice. Another antecedent of threat like ignorance of the outgroup can be compensated by eliminating misunderstandings. This involves the appropriate expression and decoding of emotions between groups. Due to the illusion of transparency, most people have an impression that their expression of emotions is especially transparent for outgroups, but they are in fact less accurately perceived. This communication gap hinders favorable intergroup contact and reinforces existing prejudice. Hence, ingroup members may need to pay extra efforts to show their emotions to outgroupers to prevent prejudice. Myers (2010) suggests we can use guilt to motivate ourselves to break the prejudice habit. It is applicable in terms of collective guilt which urges collective action serving to change existing intergroup relations, correct past injustices and reduce ongoing inequality. As unequal status breeds prejudice, seeking cooperative and equal-status relationships can help reduce prejudice (Myers, 2010). The antecedent of threat-strong identification with the ingroup leads to ingroup bias (intergroup bias). This bias can be reduced by fostering a sense of belonging with outgroup members to satisfy people’s affective needs. This corresponds to our understanding of the social identity theory that explains ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation. This sense of belonging arouses positive emotions of love, support and liking, in order to reduce negative prejudice.

To wrap up, the role of affect and emotions in prejudice cannot be underestimated. It is significant to grasp an understanding of correlations and causal relationships among affect, emotions, intergroup processes, intergroup emotions, behavioral tendencies, intergroup forgiveness and prejudice. With these understandings, affective aspect of prejudice can eventually be tackled and reduced.

(2500 words)

Q. “It’s not blatant sexism, it’s more like a sexual undercurrent” (Female Police Officer cited in Foster et al. 2005). From your reading of the broader research literature, how well does this statement describe police working culture? Review the implications of your answer for the role and status of women in the police.

“I do not wish them (women) to have power over men, but over themselves.” Women have historically played the role of the protected not the protector. The police force is historically a male orientated domain. Policing was seen as a job allocated to tough, manful acts of crime-fighting and thief-taking. This lent itself to a male, macho culture in which women played no part. As aptly put by Malcolm Young, “the opportunities for women are constrained by hierarchies of dominance in which the masculine view prioritizes”. For this reason gender is a difficult concept in the masculine culture it creates. For the few women who did enter into this male club they were assigned to station duties as opposed to pounding the street. The initial idea of policing was strongly linked to masculinity, historically males were responsible for physical labour and protection of the family. Women have had to fight hard against this stereotype and it is an uphill struggle they seem still to be fighting today, however with the emergence of this discrimination brought forth by the Stephen Lawrence tragedy, policing has come under tight scrutiny. In order to fully examine whether there is discrimination towards women in the police force there needs to be a discussion on women’s history, outlining any progress over the years, and experience in modern day policing. This will uncover the dominance of any discrimination and the steps taken to counter it.

Before any such analysis can take place there must be analysis into what constitutes an “undercurrent”. Is it present if one officer said something weekly, should it be rather a group of officers and what is the frequency of this behaviour? conversely what is the definition of “blatant” sexism. Is it blatant if the comment is directed straight to a women about an issue solely related to women, “quote about period”. Also can this be said to be “sexism” as a concept or simply miss placed humour? “Blatant” is defined as, “without any attempt at concealment; completely obvious”. These two ideas are not easily categorised, they appear to have a fluid quality rather than definite perimeters. In order to understand these things as a concept there needs to be an examination of modern and past policing and the resulting experiences.

Women being fully integrated into the police force is a recent development. Previously women police officers were a separate part of the police. Margaret Damer Dawson, an anti-white slavery campaigner, and Nina Boyle, a militant suffragette journalist founded the Women Police Service in 1914. This was made up of women volunteers and it was not until 1930, women police were fully attested and given limited powers of arrest. In 1969 the women’s branch of officers was dissolved in anticipation of the Equal Pay Act. Despite this women police were still treated as a separate section of the service. Women were not completely integrated into the police force until 1973. This suggests any discrimination faced by women may not be direct as could be seen towards women in the army, where women are excluded from positions which require face-to-face combat with the enemy. There has been legislation put in place to help with this integration but despite the apparent willingness to treat women as equals there may still be an undercurrent of sexism throughout the force.

The first step seen to integrate women in the UK was the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. This Act made it unlawful to discriminate against women, either directly or indirectly, in the field of employment. It seemed optimistic at best to think that one act of parliament could change a history of discrimination and ingrained ideas about gender. The male culture was not keen for radical change from their conservative origins. This prevalent masculine culture is shown from a quote taken after the legislation was passed from sergeant Sheena Thomas, “before I was promoted, a senior officer told me that once I remembered I was a “mere” woman and not police officer, I would get on far better.” A challenge to the male dominated structure was not welcome making application not openly enforced. The history of policing is important in discussing modern policing as it allows for a better understanding of society ideals, as Reiner said, “An understanding of how police officers see the social world and their role in it – ‘cop culture’ – is crucial to an analysis of what they do and their broad political function”. In recent statistics a division between women and male officers is prominent in not only the amount of female officers but also in promotional positions.

According to the official statistics dated 31st March 2009 across England and Wales, women are not a particularly well represented group in the police force. The number of full time officers reached 141,647, out of these 32.8% were female police officers. This illustrates how women are still a minority group in the police force however there is further data that may give more weight to a claim of sexism in police practice. Women, in the same year of statistical data, were also shown to be under represented in positions of authority in the police. Examples are as follows;

Male Female Total percentage

Chief superintendent 448 60 508 12%

Superintendent 938 120 1,058 11%

However at the lowest position there is a greater equality in distribution;

Male Female Total percentage

Constable 79,430 30,801 110,231 28%

The difference in numbers between women and men in the powerful positions could relate to the lower numbers of women applying to the police force. The question has to be asked is why are so few women applying to the force?

There could be many reasons why women do not apply to the force, the obvious issue which stands out when thinking about police work and the gender divide is the nature of the work. This is generally thought to be male orientated due to the notion of the physical aspect attached to the job and the danger involved in it. Women’s bodies have become a way of defining their readiness for the job. The idea of women as weak creatures is reflected in the police force, mainly in regard to physical strength. This presumed weakness reflects both physical and mental readiness, for the ‘crime fighting’ nature of the job. In reality however this stereotypical idea of what police work involves may not be representative of reality. Much of police work involves administration and petty crime prevention, it is not the fast pace, dangerous profession TV may imply. For this reason it is hard to see why any physical differences between male and females should make a real difference in the active duty of a police officer, “self image of the police is that of ‘crime-fighters’ and this is not just a distortion of what they do, it is virtually a collective delusion”

Another aspect that leads the police to a more male orientated idea is the offenders with which they deal. As the majority of crimes are committed by men the job lends itself to male officers. This is to do with matching strength, males are seen as the stronger of the two and viewed as better equipped to deal with male offenders.

The above statistics show that women are under represented in the police force, but what of the distribution of males and females in positions of power, does the unequal distribution reflect the smaller numbers of women in the force or sexual discrimination? The ratio of men to women in the constable role almost parallels the percentage of the overall police force between women and men, at 28%. This cannot be said of the higher positions. For example the total number of superintendents is merely 11%. This percentage discrepancy between males and females in positions of authority does not match that of the lower ranks, making me more inclined to agree with Sandra and her opinion of women’s promotional opportunities: “once recruited, their road to the top is certainly a ‘greasy pole’”.

Research which supports this claim is evident over the years. Kinsey (1985) took empirical evidence in Merseyside that showed 43% of officers under 30 on station duty (least prestigious job) were women. Coffey, Brown and Savage (1992) showed findings that women were under represented in many special departments and totally absent from others. Brown, Maidment and Bull (1992) researched deployment patterns of women police officers which showed that they gravitated towards “low frequency labour intensive specialised tasks”. An example given for such tasks was supporting rape victims. Anderson, Brown and Campbell said “women officers are limited in the amount and type of experiences they are able to gain. This in turn affects their job satisfaction and may inhibit their promotion prospects. That fewer women than men achieve promotion in turn can reinforce male stereotype about women’s abilities”

Research had shown that women feel “undermined and undervalued” by the predominantly male, heterosexual culture. They felt that their roles in the team were often restricted and that they had to work a great deal harder than their male counterparts to “prove themselves”. As one officer said, “the only thing I can do is just put my head down, work hard and prove myself. Which is depressing, but it’s reality isn’t it. The only way I can earn respect is to work harder than everybody else.”

This apparent sexual discrimination has not managed to escape the courts when in 1992 Alison Halford, who was the highest ranked serving female officer with the position of assistant chief constable, pursued a sexual discrimination case against Merseyside police Authority. This was a high profile case widely reported in the media about Alison not getting a promotion she felt she deserved after nine attempts to secure the job. The case resulted in a victory and subsequently encouraged other women to take action and in that same year a number of other cases were reported in the media. . However for some it was seen as a step backwards when one senior female police officer said, “It has not improved the image of the police and for that reason I wonder whether it has not ultimately damaged the cause of equal opportunities”. The case did not go unnoticed with three female duty Chief Constables being appointed by 1994 and the first women Chief Constable, Pauline Clare, who headed the Lancashire Police

Having analysed the recruitment of women into the police and some of the reasons why fewer women go on to join the force than men it leads us to discuss the experiences of women who become policewomen. The police are nested in society so it could be said the female role in society, reflects their role in the police. By this I refer to women not being allow to join the front line of the army or other protective stances society takes towards women. In the research by Wersch it was found that women were associated with “suspect” specialisms which was known as “warm, fuzzy policing”. This reflects the idea of protecting women from the harder crimes, which involved more danger, by limiting their roles within the force. So does this mean that roles in the police force are “gendered” or simply that women find this sort of work easier than their male counterparts? In a US study by Miller it was concluded that women find it not only more comfortable to deal with the “image of social work, the “touchy-feely” type tasks it involved”, but were also better at that particular type of job. However it appears that a general statement such as this is sweeping in its assumption that all women as a category find this work “comfortable”. Many women in the police force feel there is no choice being assigned duties based on their gender and however hard they “tried to be just “one of the boys” all had to face questions about their role and status”.

The aforementioned need to be “one of the boys” has been researched as a coping mechanism in order to be treated on a equal footing as their male counter parts. Women feel pressure by the macho culture to either get on with the job given or take on the characteristics of their male counterparts, “macho characteristics”. Both this idea and that of promotional opportunities are seen in the writing on Malcolm Young, “Women who do breach the boundary to penetrate this masculine world can only ever be partially successful and will often have to subsume “male characteristics” to achieve even limited social acceptability”. This apparent adoption of masculine qualities make women who stay in the force, “tolerated almost as honorary men”. The idea was excellently summarised by Ehrlich-Martin (1980) by identifying strategies of POLICEwomen or policeWOMEN, the choice between fulfilling their traditional role associated with women in society or adopting the male culture. However even women who do not adopt these characteristics and instead opt for traditionally female posts have a hard time. A male officer described a female officers work in the schools liaison department, “No cold Saturday nights working the town and lots of school holidays – what does she do when the kids are off?” (male PC 1994). Women appear to be at a disadvantage no matter what road they choose.

Discrimination within the police force came to a head with the tragedy of Steven Lawrence sparking great debate about discrimination within society. Steven was a young black youth who was killed by a group of white youths. The police inquiry was said to be led by racial discrimination and initiated an inquiry. The Stephen Lawrence inquiry led to an exclusion of racial language in the force. For many this was reduced through risk of being disciplined rather than a change in attitude. It was said by a “PC in site 7 that officers did not use racist language because it was too risky: “Too many people are scared of not grassing you up”. This would suggest that without changing attitude through education and understanding the once “canteen culture” will be driven under ground and “felt in less overt forms of discrimination”.

This infamous inquiry led to a close scrutiny of the force and a home Officer research project entitled “Assessing the impact of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry” . The main aim of which was to evaluate the impact of the inquiry, examining the changes it made and the relationships within the force. While it recognised progress made such as “the recording, monitoring and responses to hate crime” and “the general excision of racist language from the police service”, there was evidence that these developments were not employed uniformly across the force. The inquiry drew out, not only the structural dimensions of the police in relation to women, but also their treatment day to day through the observational nature of the research.

Its clear that structurally the force is kinder to the male in terms of numbers and promotional opportunities but what of the day to day treatment women face. The Stephen Lawrence inquiry was said by many police officers to have removed the workplace “banter” with one officer saying, “you can’t have a laugh and a joke like you could” However for many minority groups and women this was not a negative thing as they often found themselves on the end of such “banter”. One female officer stated she, “developed quite a hard skin”. The issue relating to the women’s responses to the question, in my option, lies in the question itself. So what is this “banter” and does it in fact reflect a sexism undertone. This idea of humiliation was identified in Chaplin’s work by saying that with pre-existing social structures, defining women as domestic beings and men in the public sphere is enhanced in the police force creating social conflict and humiliation. Policewomen are often on the end of so called “banter” which reflects their body or that of women around them. The body of women are discussed, measured and laughed at. It is ogled and lusted over, sneered at, ridiculed, drooled over and constrained into a repressed form. Women are seen as over sensitive creatures meaning women feel to complain about this “banter” between work colleagues would be to reaffirm the male suspicion. Evidence of this is shown in Malcolm Young’s research when he states that, “In the 300 nicknames in my fieldname collection, those relating to women almost always symbolize size and ugliness or fasten onto an allegedly sexual potency.”

Much of the research on this subject agree that there is sexism in the police with the discussion centring around the degree of its prominence however this is not a completely accepted view. Criticism has been made of some literature based on their assumption that police sub-culture is the “principal guide to action” Waddington argues that this overlooks wider culture, which in turn makes “police culture” not an insular idea, but a reflection of “stories, myths and anecdotes of their wider culture” Although much of his other arguments appear unfounded this does strike a cord concerning what annotation the term brings up. Perhaps as Janet Chan said, “police culture has become a convenient label for a range of negative values, attitudes and practice norms among officers”. This term, by way of its implied expectations of behaviour, causes people who have had no experience with the police to become “armchair critics”, overlooking the “honest, polite, non-violent, non-racist and non-sexist” officers evidently in the force.

Any marginalisation in the police appears to stem from societies traditional role of women. With the police being nested in society and many of the officers being working class males from lower class backgrounds it appears less of a blatant sexism and more of a lack of education and social upbringing. Sexism cannot be said to be blatant due to the progress of women’s integration into the police force. However there is clearly some form of sexual undercurrent stemming from promotional opportunities available to female officers and the “banter” they experience in everyday work. With society changing there is a new perception as to a women and their place and abilities, so as to women’s future in the police I would be inclined to look on it favourably recognising a better understanding in society as a whole. With the emergence of new police officers there will hopefully be a change in stereotypical views of women, through better education and understanding. Throughout this analysis “women” have been seen as a category and not individuals, perhaps it is in this generalisation that the problem finds it routes, “Because I am a woman, I must make unusual efforts to succeed. If I fail, no one will say, “She doesn’t have what it takes.” They will say, “Women don’t have what it takes.”

Risk Society Theory

What are the main features of Ulrich Beck’s ‘Risk Society’ theory? To what extent does it challenge the explanations of inequality based upon class, gender and race?

This essay will give brief context to the term coined by Ulrich Beck (1992), ‘risk society’, before it discusses the main characteristics of Beck’s theory; risk, individualisation and reflexive modernity, characteristics that all intertwine with one another. Demonstrates a realist approach to risk, throughout some of his writings however he demonstrates a weak version f social constructionalizm. (lupton)

“Society is increasingly preoccupied with the future (and also with safety), which generates the notion of risk” (Giddens 1999: 3). Ulrich Beck (1992) coined the term ‘risk society’, which is used to describe the type of risks that have primarily been created as a result of the industrialisation and modernisation processes. Beck (1992) examined the hazards of pre-industrial society to see whether they are just as damaging as the risks that we are facing in modernity.

He concludes that we are not progressing towards a post-modern society as Baudrillard and Lyotard argue, but instead we are moving into an era that he calls ‘the second modernity’. He continues to say that ‘manufactured risks’ (Giddens, 1999), which are products of human activity, have possibly become more ‘deadlier,’ than the epidemics which plagued our society in the pre-modern epoch. However it is Elliot (2002) who states that Beck is not implying that we now live in a more hazardous society, but that he acknowledges the types of risks in society have altered.

Beck et al (2003) states that modernity has not been replaced but that it has become more problematic. Beck (1992) however is not as pessimistic as other theorists such as Weber, Foucault or Adorno; he states that for society to evolve then modernisation must become ‘reflexive’. Therefore introducing ‘Reflexive modernity’ as a central feature of Beck’s ‘risk theory’, which is a process whereby development is attained through reform.

At this point questions begin to arise because the concepts of post-modernity and reflexive modernity tend to overlap and thus it is necessary to explain the differences between postmodernism and second-modernity. Although post-modernity and second-modernity share some similarities, they have one clear distinction; second-modernity is focused more on evolutionary advances, thus reforming the society; rather than the radical idea that postmodernist put forward, the idea of revolution.

‘Risk’ itself, Beck argues has become increasingly central to our global society:

“Indeed, in a world that could literally destroy itself, risk managing and risk monitoring increasingly influence both constitutions and calculations of social action”

(Elliot, 2002: 8)

He, like most of society uses the term ‘risk’ as a synonym for danger, a danger that is caused through the need of ‘controlling’ certain aspects of society, in aid of heightening social security (Elliot, 2002). However Beck (1999) had previously stated that ‘ultimate security’ is unattainable to human beings. This ‘new risk’ according to Beck differs from the ‘risk’ experience by pre-modern society; instead of ‘risk’ being generated by natural disasters, which were seen as a ‘stoke of fate’, it has derived through the evolution of technology, and individual choice. The latter is seen as crucial to Beck’s debate, as it “is societal intervention, in the form of decision-making that transforms incalculable hazards into calculable risks” (Elliot, 2002: 3) thus Beck’s theory of risk society has become a political debate.

For Beck the “production of risk has become more important than the production of wealth” (Albrow, 1996: 9). Here Beck introduces another key element to his debate, the idea of ‘globalisation’. He argues that the risk of nuclear radiation, many modern technologies, the greater mobility of diseases, global warming, and invasive species affects everyone, globally. Supported by Elliot (2002) who points out; that Beck mention even; the rich and powerful are unable to avoid hazards such as global warming. Thus creating what Beck (1992) describes as the ‘boomerang effect’, which simple means that even those who produced or once profited from certain risks, will sooner or later be effected by them, thus, in effect, eliminating the element of class inequalities.

Bringing the essay back to a more political content; class, race and gender have conventionally been seen as the main political conflicts within society; however Beck argues that this has been replaced with ‘new globalising conflicts’ (Elliot, 2002: 11). This universal theory that Beck has created states that no one is safe from the harmful risk that new-modernity predicted, it has emerged on a global scale, making boundaries seem irrelevant, and for Beck this global scale was a by-product of ‘reflexive modernisation’. Thus seen as a positive step forward on dissolving social inequalities, however with globalisation occurring, and the blurring of boundaries it led to social agents becoming more individualised.

In pre-modern society it was stated that our lives were pre-destined, based on the chances given at birth. However under the notion of Beck’s ‘risk society’, he argues that society is reshaping its social structure and thus creating more individualised social agents, as he concludes: “individuals must then, free of these structures, reflexivity construct their own biographies”(Beck, 1992: 3), making individualisation another main feature of Beck’s theory. Individualisation, as Lupton mentions is the ‘private side of globalisation’ (2002: 83).

Individualisation was seen as a positive step forward into post-modernity. However it is Elliot (2002) who states that individualisation itself has become problematic because what may be seen as beneficial to individuals today, can become problematic tomorrow. This is supported by advance technology being able to test the genetic health of the unborn, seen as a positive advancement, however it was argued by Beck and Beck-Gernsheim that it became problematic for the parents, as they saw it as a compulsory to use ‘such technologies’ in order to give their offspring the best possible start in life (1995).

Individualisation leads to an increasing demand upon individuals, as well as increasing choice, especially as there has been a breakdown of traditional certainties that were originally structured through age, gender and social class, enabling society to be set free from the social forms of industrial society. Generating more risk including “unemployment or underemployment, marital instability and family breakdown, accompanied by high levels of anxiety and insecurity.” (pg 85).

Therefore beginning to answer the second part of this question ‘…to what extent does it challenge the explanations of inequalities…?’ Inequality within society has always been a widely controversial issue; for Beck it is part of every day society, and thus is a feature for his theory of risk. As questions have been raised such as; are certain types/groups of people more affected by these ‘new risks’? Does that differ from the inequality found in pre-modernity?

Beck does state that certain groups of people are affected more than others by the distribution and growth of risk. However ‘risk’ has not surpassed problems of inequality and distribution of goods, it has intensified them. For Marxist theoreticians the situation has became ambivalent; on the one hand income inequalities have remained unaltered, however the importance of the social class system seems to have been significantly reduced.

He spoke of a new kind of capitalism; ‘capitalism without class,’ focusing more on the capitalism of the individual, the result is the problems of the system have lessened politically and transformed into a ‘novel of personal experimentation’ (Elliot, 2002: 7) allowing the ‘risk’ personal failure.

Gender, Beck (1992) argued has also altered within society, there has been a breakdown of the strict stereotypical ideologies. This is primarily reflected through the increasing acceptance of divorce within society, which Beck argues is the ‘trap door’ through which women fall into ‘new poverty’ as their support and in essence stability is being reduced, and as a result; ‘risk’ has become part of ‘family life’.

Equality therefore, is challenged by ‘risk’ because as a result of more decision making within the family, there has become more of a need for the correct balance of their desires of autonomy and self-expression, with their need for dependence and emotional stability that is established through the dependence of a secure relationship. For Beck refers to the ‘omni-dimensional’ (1992: 103) inequality of genders; arguing that the ‘epochal changes’ that we have encountered regarding law and education, are more apparent ‘on paper’ than the behaviour and beliefs of society, and rather than increasing equality, the paradoxical effect has intensified inequalities, with that new ‘personal risks’, like that of the insecurities related to employment and economy within new modernity.

Individualization is therefore burdened with risk (ibid.).With the breakdown of many of the traditional certainties structured through age, gender and social class, a plurality of new risks are generated, including unemployment or underemployment, marital instability and family breakdown, accompanied by high levels of anxiety and insecurity. Life becomes less certain even while it is placed more under one’s control.

This move towards individualization does not mean that social inequalities or structuring of opportunities through such attributes asclass, gender or ethnicity have disappeared. Rather, in the face of individualization the influence of these structures have become less obvious and acknowledged as affecting life chances. Inequalities have become primarily viewed as individualized, perceived as ‘psychological dispositions: as personal inadequacies, guilt feelings, anxieties, conflicts, and neuroses’ (Beck 1992b:100).

Outline the main social theories of risk and uncertainty using at least one example as illustration.

One of the most lively areas of theoretical debate in social and cultural theory in recent times is that addressing the phenomenon of risk and the role it plays in contemporary social life and subjectivities. Three major theoretical perspectives on risk emerging since the early 1980s and gaining momentum in the 1990s may be distinguished. The first is offered by the work of Mary Douglas, who Began in the early 1980s setting forth an influential perspective on risk, one that adopts a cultural anthropological approach (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982; Douglas, 1985, 1990, 1992). The German sociologist Ulrich Beck’s book ‘Risk society’, published in English in 1992, has provided a major impetus to recent sociological examination of risk ( for some of his other writing on risk in English see also Beck, (1992a; Beck and Gernsheim, 1995). The English sociologist Anthony Giddens (1990,1991,1994,1998), adopting a similar perspective to that of Beck, has also influenced sociological diagnoses of the role of role in society. A third perspective is offered by the several theorist who have taken up Michel Foucault’s writings on governmentality ( For example, Foucault, 1991) to explore the ways in which the state and other governmental apparatuses work together to govern – that is, manage and regulate – populations via risk discourses and strategies (Castel, 1991; Ewald, 1991; O’Malley, 1996; Dean, 1997).

These major theories are identified respectively as the ‘cultural/symbolic’, the ‘risk society’ and the governmentality perspectives.

Michel Foucault

Michel Foucault was a French philosopher, sociologist and historian. In his book Security, Territory, Population, Foucault outlines his theory of governmentality, and demonstrates the distinction between sovereignty, discipline, and governmentality as distinct modalities of state power. [1] The concept of risk, employed to address governmental concerns, has contributed to the production of certain kinds of rationalities, strategies and subjectivities. According to the Foucauldian perspective, risk strategies and discourses are means of ordering the social and material worlds through methods of rationalization and calculation, attempts to render disorder and uncertainty more controllable. It is these strategies and discourses that bring risk into being, that select certain phenomena as being ‘risky’ and therefore requiring management, either by institutions or individuals. This is an outcome of the emergence of the modern system of liberal government, with its emphasis on rule and the maintenance of order through voluntary self-discipline rather than via violent means. Risk is understood as one of the heterogeneous governmental strategies of disciplinary power by which populations and individuals are monitored and managed so as to best meet the goals of democratic humanism. Normalization, or the method by which norms of behaviour or health status are identified in populations and by which individuals are the compared to determine how best they fit the norm, is a central aspect of liberal government. Those who are determined to deviate from the norm significantly are typically identified as being ‘at risk’. To be designated as ‘at risk’, therefore, is to be positioned within a network of factors drawn from the observation of others. The implication of this rationalized discourse is that risk is ultimately controllable, as long as expert knowledge can be properly brought to bear upon it.

Some of those taking up a Foucauldian perspective have remarked upon recent change in the governance of risk, in which there is far less reliance upon social insurance and far more upon individual self-management and self-protection from risk. This is an outcome of the political ethos of neo-liberalism, which emphasizes minimal intervention on the part of the state and emphasizes ‘self-help’ and individual autonomy for citizens. [2]Foucault himself and those taking up his perspectives on the regulation of subjects via the discourses of governmentality may be criticized for devoting too much attention to the discourses and strategies and not enough to how people actually respond to them as part of their everyday lives.

Mary Douglas

The authors suggest, reasonably enough, that one’s personal political and cultural predispositions affect how one assess the risk of different possible social dangers. If this were the only factor affecting people’s risk assessment, it would be quite difficult to generate an informed social policy in a democratic society, and research in to actual risk levels associated with different degrees of social damage would be worthless, since people simply listen to the gurus that support their personal positions.

The authors present no data. Why is data important? Because if 90% of voters fit their description, we are in a much different situation that if 10% do. My best guess is that people systematically underestimate most social risks (e.g. accidental nuclear war, deadly SARS-type plagues) and overestimate a few (riskiness of air travel, danger of poisons in food). Most people, however, are willing to let the ideologues battle it out, and are strongly affected by the way the journalistic accounts of the battle portrays the cogencies of different positions. If I am right, the extremists on either side of positions, of the sort depicted by the authors, perform a valuable function but do not determine the outcome for the purposes of social policy. For instance, there are vehement supporters of gun control and equally vehement supporters of the rights of gun owners. Most voters, however, lie somewhere in the middle and are swayed both by events and scientific evidence. If that is so, the possibility of effective social policy is possible in a democracy. But, some say, the extremists are willing to put in time and money to sway the public, so ideology wins the day in this manner. I respond that it is wise for voters to take the strength of preferences into account in making social policy decisions. At any rate, no balanced discussion of these issues will be found in this volume.

According to the NYT review “Offering what they call a cultural theory of risk perception, the authors suggest that peoples complaints about hazards should never be taken at face value. One must look further to discover what forms of social organization are being defended or attacked.”

Applying this logic, we have to ask what Mary Douglas and Wildavsky have to gain from advancing this argument…and their consistently dismissive and condescending attitude toward environmentalists makes this fairly clear. If your unenlightened opposition INSISTS on talking about certain risks AS IF that was what REALLY mattered then you are, of course, completely justified in disregarding their point of view, (and for that matter them) entirely.

Cultural Theory, as developed by Mary Douglas, argues that differing risk perceptions can be explained by reference to four distinct cultural biases: hierarchy, egalitarianism, individualism, and fatalism.

Ulrich Beck

Central to Beck’s and Giddens’ writing on risk society is the concept of reflexive modernity. This concept incorporates the notion that late modernity is characterized by a critique of the processes of modernity, which no longer unproblematically viewed as producing ‘goods’ (such as wealth and employment) but are now seen to produce many of the dangers or ‘bads’ from which we feel threatened (such as environmental pollution, unemployment and family breakdown). The central institutions of late modernity – government, industry and science – are singles out as the main producers of risk. An emphasis on risk, Beck and Giddens assert, is thus an integral feature of a society which has come to reflect upon itself, to critique itself.

Exponents of the ‘risk society’ thesis also argue that in late modernity there is a trend towards individualization, or the progressive loss of tradition and social bonds as a means of structuring the life-course and forming personal identity. A major difference, they argue, in the ways in which we conceptualize and deal with dangers compared with individuals in earlier eras is the extent to which individuals are positioned as choosing agents. We now think of ourselves as exercising a high level of control over the extent to which we expose ourselves to danger and therefore as culpable for becoming prey to risk. Risk is primarily understood as a human responsibility, both in its production and management, rather than the outcome of fate or destiny, as was the case in pre-modern times.

[1] · ^ Hansen, Thomas (2001). States of Imagination. Durham: Duke University Press. p.43. ISBN 0822327988.

[2] Dean, M. (1999) Governmentality, Sage, London