toptermpaper.com

Media tends to use harsh words such as ‘psycho’ and ‘maniac’ as the headline when referring to people with mental health problem, which can influence the public perception. Previous research suggests that there is a strong rink between negative portray of mental health and public attitude towards people with those conditions (Rose, 1998). This essay, aims to examine negative representation of mental health problems in the media. It will be based on qualitative research method and will take a view of thematic analysis of the sun newspaper. Result indicated that media tends to focus on the negative news as it is more news worthy, exaggerate and generalising people with mental health problems. Recommendations suggested; media should stick to facts in relation to mental health and should stop producing negative information in this field.

Introduction and aims

Data from 2010 survey by the UK Office of National Statistics showed that 1 in 6 adult experience at least one diagnosable mental health problem at any given time and that severity will vary from mild anxiety to conditions such as bipolar disorder (http://www.guardian.co.uk). Previous studies in this area found that people perception were influenced by media negative representation of mental health disorders (Rose,1998), this was supported by philo (1993) who found that public attitude towards crime and mental health was based on what was presented in the media. Media representation of mental health problems tends to be shadowed with negative comments and always emphasises on the link between people with mental health and violent crimes.

A study by Cutcliffe and Hannigan (2001) examined media reporting of people with mental health problems and concluded that media stories tends to be focused on ‘violence’ ‘dangerousness’ and ‘criminality’ toward others in relation to a person with a mental illness. Anderson (2003) also suggest that the media only focus on reporting negative events such as murder committed by those with mental health problems more than then the awareness of mental health. Yet there is evident that people with mental health problems do not commit more crimes than the rest of the population. According to large et al (2008) study on homicides due to mental health between 1950-200, they suggested that only a small proportion of people with mental health do commit violent crimes compared to those with no mental health problems. The relationship between mental health problems and violent crimes are mostly linked to alcohol and substance abuse and not just mental health condition. Although a small proportion of people with mental health problems tends to be violent, the majority are victims of violent attacks and the media seems to forget produce this (www.guardian.co.uk).

Furthermore, Edney (2004) Argue that even though media always features stories relating to mental health, those stories tend to be exaggerated and negative in torn. Anderson (2003) claimed that media stories which portray people with mental health negatively tend to gain more publicity than those which don’t. The purpose of this essay is to examine the impact of portraying people with mental health negatively in the media which will be achieved by thematically analysing article from the sun newspaper. Studies such as that of Stuart (2006) claimed that, media negative presentation on mental health does have a significant effect on people with mental health problems.

Analytic approach

Article on coverage story of Raoul moat 37 was chosen from the sun newspaper from the internet dated (10th July, 2010), who shoot his ex-lover through the window of her house and killed her then boyfriend while trying to protect her as well as living a police officer blind after gunning him down while on duty. Before going on a run for almost a week and turning the gun on himself after a police standoff. The sampling method used was probability sampling. Thematic analysis was employed In order to explore how people with mental health problems are portrayed by the media.

Thematic analysis procedure involves different stages. First stage involved; Students being instructed to develop a research question which related to the representation of mental health illness. Stage two; students had to read the article which was based on a story of Raoul Moat in order to be familiar with the data. Stage three; here students had to transcribe data from the article into text stage four is coding for themes; this involves organizing words which relate to similar topics into categories which requires reading text and note down words of interest for the chosen research question, Text needs to be examined closely, line by line. Stage five includes; Text being re-examined to see if all the information is relevant to themes. The final stage is reporting each theme by writing its description and illustrating it with a few quotations from the original text. This will be coved in the findings section. (Boyatzis, 1998).

Findings and discussion

The following themes where identified within the text.

Theme 1: Paranoid about the cops.

Moat hated the police whom he called animals, “He hated the policeaˆ¦.called them pigs”. He believed that they had something against him due to the amount of time he had been stopped before going to prison, “They harassed him on the outside by pulling him over in his car every five minutes for no reason”. More crucially, having being dumped over the phone by his then lover while saving time in prison for attacking a relative left him convinced that she had left him for a cop. “he was fixated on the other man being a police officeraˆ¦.. She’s dumped me for a fucking pig”.

Theme 2: Emotional meltdown.

Prior to calling Samantha from the prison phone booth, moat was in good mood “he was fine beforeaˆ¦..he said he was going to ring Samantha”. But after making that call he came back a different person, the colour of his skin had changed to red and he was in ties. “He completely changedaˆ¦His neck and face had turned red”. “He was crying like a baby”. Moat took all the feeling of being rejected on the fellow prisoners ‘fuck off scam- get out of my face’. “he went mental one time because Eric had stuck out the place”.

the articles looked at referred to mental health in general and exaggerate on the actual information. Most of the information reported was descriptive e.g. media called him “psycho” even though there was no evidence to support that he was suffering from psychosis.These articles where published by journalist who may have little or no back ground knowledge on mental health, they are business driven and therefore look for news worth in order to sell the papers instead of focusing on the actual facts.

Media create a label for people with mental health problems such as mentally ill, and psycho.

Character of information

Most publications relating to mental health problems tend to be exaggerated. Media we use one particular incidence (e.g. how moat had mental health) to generalised everyone with mental health condition.

Most of the information the media report tends to be descriptive (e.g. how person with mental illness has committed murder). Very little place is devoted to explanatory information example, about causes or symptoms of mental illnesses)

recommendations for good practice when reporting on violent crime stories which may be linked to mental illness: Media should Avoid using offensive words like ‘psycho’ and ‘nutter’, be certain about the information they report instead of speculating news. They should make it clear to the reader that only a very few people with mental health problems are violent.

Conclusions

Publications in media relating to people with mental health problems are negatively which paints a picture of people with mental health problems as dangerous criminals which can live them being labelled and stereotypes with society.

In order to remove this stigma, journalists should be provided with some guidelines where they can find information on mental health problems

In general media coverage of mental health problems tends to be negative, Media uses harsh words such as ‘crazed’, ‘maniac’ or ‘monster’ to referrer to people with mental health problems. Specific conditions were less likely to be mentioned in headlines than general references like ‘mental illness’. Media representation of mental health tends to be more sensational headlines than sensational stories.

Finding out solutions to problems has been an integral part of human life. It has been a process related to evolution of human life which has grown through ages.

We in Maharshi Patanjali Vidya Mandir, Allahabad, strongly believe that every problem has a solution. The path may be different, in different cases but if we relentlessly try to find out the solution, the solution will itself find us out.

Keeping in mind the present scenario of problems in our country, especially the unfortunate incident of Delhi, we have made efforts to spread awareness amongst students of our school. These students are going to be the torch bearers of our traditions in future. Therefore, it becomes essential for them to know about the value of our traditions and the culturally rich way of living, that India has practiced through centuries.

Gender sensitization is a major issue in today’s world. In order to spread gender sensitization in our school, we had given an assignment to the students of standard X as one of the activities of the fourth Formative Assessment Examination. The assignment was to carry out a field survey on the topic Gender Bias. Gender Bias was chosen as the topic because we feel it is high time that this major issue be taken up by the society. The society must think and contribute towards the solutions to grievances of half of our population, that is the girls/women. This was given as an activity in standard X because we feel that this is the actual age when the students should start getting aware of the problems related to gender bias. The girls should be aware of their position in the society and boys should be taught to honour the position of girls. Usually the boys are brought up in a carefree manner, which gives them an impression from the beginning, that they have an upper hand over the girls. On the other hand, girls are taught to be docile and submissive which inculcates a feeling of inferiority in them. It has been an observation of a general study that girls have excelled in their respective fields, for example, Kiran Bedi, Lata Mangeshkar, Mother Teresa, Kalpana Chawla, to name a few.

The objective of the activity was to make the students understand the fact that equality is the essence of democracy. Democracy becomes hollow in the absence of equality. Gender equality should be the battle cry of today’s democratic India.

Through the activity, the students touched many issues related to gender equality, like education of girls and boys, equal voting rights, honouring the space of both the genders, to be sensitive towards the problems faced by them etc. The students enthusiastically carried out the survey. They had prepared ten questions each. Full freedom was given to the students to frame their own questions. There was no guideline given by the teachers as to what type of questions should be framed by the students. This was to ensure that whatever questions from whichever area, related to gender equality come in the students’ minds, they should feel free to put up that question to the society. These students have to fend for themselves in the future. Therefore they must be given full freedom to think, ask and clear their queries and doubts. Their thoughts should have a natural flow. It should neither be directed nor diverted by anyone.

The students took those ten questions to various people in the society like parents, siblings, neighbours, teachers, peer group etc. The students had gone even to people like the local shopkeepers, labourers at construction sites and domestic helps. It was a survey that was carried out in the society as a whole which included not only the educated elites but also the uneducated and illiterate people. The survey could only then be complete in the real sense when it had a balanced participation of all the sections of the society irrespective of class, creed, age or gender. The students were told to go to anybody they felt like going to, except the very young children below the age of 8-10 years, as that is not the age when one really thinks seriously about these issues. More importance was given to the questions framed by the students than the answers. The answers were important as a participation of the society at large, whereas the questions projected the actual thinking process of the students.

The activity was announced in the class whereafter ample time was given to the students so that they could really think over the matter, prepare questions and then go and talk to various people, gather their answers and give the presentation its final shape.

The activeness and awareness of the students was evident in the work done by them. It was reported by the students that in some cases they found the people taking very active part and giving sensible responses; in some cases the responses were not up to the expected mark; there were also some people who had never thought about certain situations. But the fact that everybody was aware – may be different people at different levels – was very encouraging for the students. This gave them a hope and incentive to carry forward their assignment with a lot of enthusiasm. The recent mishap of Delhi has created a storm in the minds and hearts of the people and it was writ large on everybody’s responses. Some responses were in favour of a law that would bring about a change; yet some other responses highlighted the fact that a law alone cannot bring about the required change, unless the social setup, especially the mindset of the people is changed. In a country where gender discrimination has been a deep rooted practice, gender equality becomes an issue which should be taken up very cautiously. One wrong step may kick the whole thing off in an altogether wayward and disastrous direction. It would take a lot of time and efforts, but can be finally achieved through a change in the thinking of the people. The overall study revealed that a law and its proper enactment- both are necessary in the process.

This was, may be a small step taken by our school, towards the sensitive issue of gender sensitization, but a beginning, howsoever small, has to be brought about somewhere, somehow. The society has to change. The change cannot be expected to be a sudden one, falling out of the blues like a fairy tale. It has to be a long drawn out process which would require patience, practice, understanding, compassion and it would require the involvement of one and all, in this entire population of India, that runs into crores.

(19)

Gender Sensitization in Schools

Gender sensitization and respect towards woman will soon be taught in schools. Union human resource development minister M M Pallam Raju said (on Sunday 13th January 2013 Kochi) that he would talk to NCERT to include these aspects in the national curriculum framework.

This comes amid rising concern that the crimes against women are increasing in the country due to lack of respect for women.

When we were growing up, our role models were our parents and teachers. But today children are exposed to television, their peers and technology and so there are multiple inputs infringing on a child’s mind. So it becomes all the more important to focus on gender awareness and values through the school system.

Education plays an important role in addressing child marriage. If the girl is educated, she knows what is wrong and right for her and her family. The girl should be engaged in education till graduation. Right to Education ( RTE) gives this right to each girl. This will help her in becoming a good human resource.

Sanjay Mishra, member of State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (CPCR), said there are many girls who are married off at a tender age and then sold to people in different states. Haryana tops the list as far as the number of girls being sold from Jharkhand is concerned. These girls mostly come from Dumka, Deogarh, Jamtara and West Singbhum and are school dropouts.”

RTE will prove to be beneficial in making their life meaningful. “We have also recommended the opening up of two Kasturba Gandhi Schools in each block to the SCPCR,” he said.

With child marriage comes the issue of bigamy which is also widespread here. There are many cases where the girl is not able to conceive and the husband marries other women. Child marriage is thus not an isolated issue.

It also affects the health of the girl child. She suffers from sexually transmitted diseases and is not able to handle the situation. “It’s important to sensitize people rather than criticizing the government. Premature pregnancy is risky for the health of both the mother and child.

The mental make-up of the mother gets affected, which passes on to the child. Every individual is unique and have unique qualities, which should be taught in the schools. This is called ‘positive psychology’. A positive self image is the need of the hour. Gender sensitization is needed in schools where the kids can be taught to become compassionate and good human beings.

A training manual of the following nature may be conceived as a future possibility for Gender Sensitization Exercises in classroom context:

A User’s Manual: —
Exercise
Discussion Topics
Required Time
Demystifying Gender:
Introductory Exercises
Exercise 1

What defines a man? What

defines a woman?

Form the class into groups of 6-8 and conduct an Open House discussion.

Take two flip-chart sheets of paper and put them up side-by-side in front of the

participants. On the top of one flip chart, write the word “women” and on the other,

“men”. Ask the question: “What are the characteristics of women and men?” Write down everything that is mentioned. Do not discuss anything at this point.

After the lists are completed, go through each chart item by item. For example,

under the heading of “women”, ask if men too can be patient, sensitive, caringaˆ¦?

If so, mark that characteristic with a “yes” or with a “+” sign. Characteristics that

cannot be changed, such as, getting pregnant, growing a moustache etc., should be marked with a “no” or a “-” sign.

Go through the chart entitled “men” and a similar process of questioning as above.

Ask if women can talk loudly, be strong, etcaˆ¦Continue to mark the characteristics

as above.

Discuss the contributions regarding the characteristics of women and men

Discussion Topics

1.5 hrs

Exercise 2

How do we learn to be

gendered?

Social Conditioning/

Gender Stereotypes

As you were growing up, what influences shaped your behaviour as expected of a boy/girl, man/woman? Can you give specific examples?

What factors have brought about the changes in successive generations?

1 hr

Exercise 3

What does gender mean in

your life? Given a chance, would you like to be born a woman or a

man?

Discuss specific roles people play in our home/family/society relating to gender. Note down key points on the BB in a tabular format.

1 hr

Gender and Power:
Exercise 4

If I could be a woman, I would

beaˆ¦ If I could be a man, I

would beaˆ¦

Let each student respond thinking own self, if they belonged to the opposite gender. Power over (forcing someone to do something through use of a position of authority or strength.)

Power with (doing things by combining your strength with the strengths of other

women and men.)

Power within (one’s personal inner strength.)

45 min

Exercise 5

Gender and Power

What is Power? What is Gender Power? Different types of Power?

Ask participants to respond quickly and without commenting on

contributions from others. It would be advisable to have a co-facilitator to assist with writing on the flip-chart sheets.

1 hr.

Exercise 6

Power between Women and Men.

In pairs, ask participants to think about the power that men have in relation to

women, and vice-versa, in the following areas:

At Home

Property Ownership

Paid Work

Management

Managing Money

Getting an Education

Also make your own list and decide how many topics you want to add on.

1 hr.

Exercise 7

Violence Against Women in

your City/country

Discuss issues of, violence against women.

Do you think violence against women is actually a show of power and dominance?

Split participants into two groups – men in one group, and women in another.

Inform participants that they have 45 minutes to answer the following 3 questions:

How often does violence against women occur in your city in public and private

spaces?

What percentage of women and girls are subject to violence?

What can local government do to support victims of this violence?

Group discussion for 30 minutes.

1.5 hrs

Fuljhuri Basu

School Counsellor

Army Public School

BMC,Ballugunje, Kolkata

We argue that it is possible to empirically test some of the postulates of the classical distinction between an intrinsic and an extrinsic religious orientation: we investigated how people perceive the difference between an individual and a social religious identity, between a central versus a peripheral religiosity, and which are the different motives effectively underlying these different forms of religious identity. Using an ecological measure based on four types of participants’ self-categorization, results from a longitudinal study across six countries provided a new framework for interpreting religious identity. In particular, religious identity was mainly categorized at a social level by European respondents, whereas nonwestern respondents mostly rated it at an individual level; religious identity was perceived as equally central at the individual and social levels of categorization. Last, we compared the strength of different identity motives underlying these different forms of religious identity. In the conclusions, we discuss the importance of investigating the different ways of being religious, and how they differ according to the specific experience of religiosity in a particular national context.

Keywords: religious identity; identity motives; religious orientation; cross-cultural.

The Categorization of Religious Identity in Different Cultures

“Is there a single form of the religious sentiment?” This question was the first interrogation of Allport’s seminal book The individual and his Religion (1950, p.3): it is clear even in everyday life experience that individuals differ radically from one another in their ways of being religious and that each person endorses the religious identity with a different accent. Some years later, Allport and Ross (1967) developed the well-known distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations. In this framework, the intrinsic orientation is typical of an individual who lives religiosity as something personal, mainly consisting of private expression, central in life and satisfying the individual need for meaning; on the other hand, the extrinsic oriented individual mainly lives the social aspect of religiosity, considering religion as something peripheral in his/her existence and that responds to social needs, such as the need for belonging or for high social status. Even if it has been widely used, many scholars pointed out the weakness if this definition and the debate on how to define religious identity is still open.

Here, we focus on two parts, which we investigated in a cross-cultural study of late adolescents. The first aspect concerns the level of categorization of religious identity: in the intrinsic orientation, religiosity is personal and endorsed at an individual level, whereas the extrinsic type is mainly associated with a social level and thus with group belonging. Does this distinction correspond to real life experience of religious identity? Is it possible to distinguish between an individual (or personal) versus a social (group belonging) religious identity?

The second aspect deals with the structure of identity: for an intrinsic orientated individual, religious identity is central and of primary importance, while it is peripheral and superficially endorsed in the extrinsic one. Does the distinction between individual and social religious identity entail a difference between a central versus a peripheral religious identity?

In sum, this empirical study investigated in an ecologic framework if some people perceive their own religious identity as an individual characteristic, whereas others as a group belonging, and the implications of this difference for the understanding of religious identity.

The Level of Categorization of Religious Identity: Individual and Social Religious Self

According to the delineation of the religious orientations provided by Allport and Ross (1967), some people live religiosity as something personally chosen and individually endorsed, whereas other people live religiosity mainly as a belonging to a social group. In the literature, research into religiosity sometimes consider the individual aspect of religion, for example solitary personal prayer (e.g. Fincham, Lambert, & Beach, 2010), while at other times consider the social side of religiosity, for example the feeling of belonging to a group and the commitment toward this group (e.g. Vekuyten & Yildiz, 2010).

Cohen, Hall, Koenig, and Meador (2005) argued that the importance of social aspects in religion can be viewed as a cultural characterization of certain religious denominations (see also Cohen, Siegel, & Rozin, 2003; Hall, Meador, Koenig, 2008); for example, the emphasis on communitarian aspects (praying together, feeling a sense of belonging) is stronger in certain denominations, whereas in other denominations the emphasis is more on individual religiosity (e.g. beliefs, conversion, personal prayer). Another possible explanation for the different emphasis put on the individual versus social side of religiosity can be found in general culture: the differences between individualistic and collectivistic cultures might also affect differences in religious identity (Triandis, 1995). The six countries included in the present study all have a Christian historical background (paired with Islam in Lebanon), but they differ in levels of individualism and collectivism (Triandis, 1995). Thus, we explored the question about the individual or social characterization of religious identity in a large sample of different cultures, allowing to compare between individualistic and collectivistic countries.

To our knowledge, no study to date has investigated with an ecologic approach what people actually feel about their religious identity. A first purpose in the present study is to look at what people say when they think about their religious identity. In particular, we proposed to look at four possible levels of categorization, drawing on self- categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987): an individual level, a relational level, a small group level and a large group level. We expected that some people perceive their own religious identity mainly as a personal characteristic, whereas others perceive it as a group belonging, etc. Therefore, we examined which level of categorization people associate their religious identity with if directly asked, without any sort of priming (e.g. without influence by instructions or by item formulation).

The Structure of Identity: Central and Peripheral Religious Self

The question about the centrality of religiosity in the individual self is assuming growing importance in the literature. In fact, it is argued that the individual differences in centrality of the religious self may also result in different degrees of integration of religion in life, and thus to different outcomes (Pargament, 2002). According to Allport and Ross’ (1967) theorization, intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity imply a different degree of centrality of religion in the individual’s life: the intrinsic orientation entails centrality in life, i.e. subjective importance of religion, and it is seen as a more mature form of religiosity, whereas in the extrinsic form religiosity is a more peripheral part of life. Given that the authors consider intrinsic form of religiosity mainly as individual religiosity, they also assume that the individual religious self is more central than the social (extrinsic) religious self, which is seen as more peripheral.

Nevertheless, this clear-cut opposition is questioned from many parts (e.g. Pargament, 1992; Burris, 1994). Flere and Lavric (2007) argued that intrinsic religious orientation is a culturally specific American Protestant concept and concluded that it is time for scholars to approach the question of the “authenticity [italics added] of non-intrinsic religious orientation, including social extrinsic orientation not just as sociability, but as a legitimate path for achieving grace and salvation” (p. 529).

Therefore, we argue that research into the perceived centrality of different types of religious selves would gain clarity by being investigated cross-culturally, comparing across cultures the perceived importance of religiosity in the individual, relational or social self.

In the present study, we investigated the centrality – measured as perceived subjective importance – of religious self in identity in a cross-cultural sample from six nations, including both western and nonwestern countries. We examined if people who define their religious identity more in terms of individual versus relational versus social self also show different degrees of centrality of that religious identity. According to the evidence provided by Cohen and colleagues (2005), and Flere and Lavric (2007), the social aspects of religiosity can be perceived equally important as the individual aspects by the person herself; thus, we expected to observe equivalent degrees of centrality at all levels of categorization.

The Present Study

This study is based on secondary analysis of a data set of a broader longitudinal study into culture and identity (Becker, Vignoles, Owe, Brown, Smith, Easterbrook, et al., 2012). For the purpose of the present research, we examined six different cultural contexts: three European countries from different parts of Europe (UK, Belgium, Italy) and three non European countries, specifically a Middle East country (Lebanon), one in East Asia (Philippines) and one in sub-Saharan Africa (Ethiopia). These countries represent six very different cultural contexts in which religious identity can develop, with varying levels of individualism and collectivism (Triandis, 1995): the UK, Italy and Belgium have similar high rates for individualism, while Lebanon, Philippines and Ethiopia are all collectivistic countries (Hofstede, 2001). We hypothesized that in all these contexts people can perceive their religious identity at different levels of categorization, with implications for the centrality of religious identity and for the motives underlying each type of religious self.

In the previous sections of this paper, we accounted for the distinction between individual and social religious self; then we exposed the centrality or non centrality of religious identity and the multiplicity of motives that can be at the basis of religious identity. The study reflects this pattern and provides answers to three research questions: (1) Are there individuals who categorize their religious identity as individual and others who categorize their identity as relational or social? Our hypothesis, following Cohen at al. (2005), was that participants define their religious identity both as individual and as social. (2) Is the individual religious self the most central religious identity? Our hypothesis, consistent with Cohen et al. (2005) and Flere and Lavric (2007) findings that both individual and social motives can have the same importance in religious identity, was that, irrespective of culture, the perceived centrality of religious identity is equivalent at the individual, relational and group level of identity.

Method

Participants. Participants were a subsample of the broader research project, constituted by secondary school students in the UK, Belgium, Italy, Lebanon, Philippines, and Ethiopia. A total of 1,793 participants took part in the study. The mean age was 17.5 (SD 1.1); 257 were residents in the UK, 194 in Belgium, 187 in Italy, 300 in Lebanon, 250 in Ethiopia, and 300 in the Philippines.

Demographic information regarding age, gender, general religiosity (mean rates for “How important is religion to you?”, from 1 “not at all” to 5 “extremely”) and religious belonging in each national sample are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participants Characteristics and Religious Belonging by Sample.

Sample

Belgium

Ethiopia

Italy

Lebanon

Philippines

UK

Mean Age (sd)

17.7(1.1)

18.1(1.0)

18.1(0.8)

17.3(0.5)

17.9(1.3)

17.1(0.8)

% Female

57

45

61

46

66

75

Religiosity (1-5)

2.14

4.77

2.69

3.73

4.03

1.92

% Christian

45.4

97.1

77.8

34

89.3

34.1

% Muslim

6.0

1.2

1.6

61.3

0.7

0.8

% Other

1.2

–

3.8

2.0

8.7

2.4

% no relig. belonging

46.6

1.6

16.8

2.7

1.3

61

Procedure. The research was introduced as a study about “opinions, thoughts and feelings”; participants were recruited through schools and were not compensated in any way. As the present study is based on secondary analysis, the research team members who supervised the completion of the questionnaire were unaware of the research’s aim, so participants were not influenced about religion/religiosity. A questionnaire was filled out at the beginning of the school year (time 1) and, after a period of approximately six months, another questionnaire was completed (time 2). In nations where this was an ethical requirement, parental consent was obtained in advance.

Measures. Measures were included within a larger questionnaire concerning identity construction and cultural orientation (see Becker et al, 2012; Owe et. al, 2012). The questionnaires were administered in English in UK and Philippines, and they were translated from English into French (Belgium), Italian (Italy), Arabic (Lebanon) and Amharic (Ethiopia) in each country. Independent back-translations were made by bilinguals who were not familiar with the research topic and hypotheses. Ambiguities and inconsistencies were identified and resolved by discussion, adjusting the translations. Only the measures relevant to this article are described here.

Generation of identity aspects. First, participants were asked to generate freely ten answers to the question “Who are you?” (hereafter, these answers will be referred to as identity aspects), using an adapted version of the Twenty Statements Test (TST, Kuhn & McPartland, 1954, see Becker et al., 2012). This part of the questionnaire was located at the very beginning of the questionnaire, so that responses would be constrained as little as possible by theoretical expectations or demand characteristics. The ten aspects generated by respondents at time 1 were re-presented at time 2 and participants re-evaluated them after the time lag.

Self-categorization of identity aspects. (Vignoles et al., 2006). Participants were asked to indicate for each identity aspect the category that best fitted their identity aspect, by circling a letter (possible choices: I, for individual characteristic, R, for relationship with someone, SM, for belonging to a small group, LG, for belonging to a large group). We adopted four categories in order to maximize the ecological approach and let respondents choose between more than a dichotomous alternative.

Identity centrality. (Vignoles et al. 2006). A question measured the perceived centrality of each identity aspect within participants’ subjective identity structures (How important is each of these things in defining who you are?; scale anchors were 0 = not at all important, 10 = extremely important). The same item was answered both at time 1 and at time 2.

Identity motives. (Vignoles et al., 2006). Participants were asked to rate each of their identity aspects on the six identity motives. The questions measured the association of each identity aspect with feelings of self-esteem (How much does each of these things make you see yourself positively?), distinctiveness (How much do you feel that each of these things distinguishes you-in any sense-from other people?), belonging (How much does each of these things make you feel you “belong”-that you are include among or accepted by people who matter for you?), efficacy (How much does each of these things make you feel competent and capable?), continuity (How much does each of these things give you a sense of continuity-between past, present and future-in your life?), meaning (How much does each of these things give you the sense that your life is meaningful?). Scale anchors were 0 = not at all, 10 = extremely.

Results

After collecting data, we read all the identity aspects and selected the identity aspects referring to religion, coding them as 1 and all other aspects as 0. All the aspects that mentioned God, Religion, belonging to religious organizations, etc. were coded as religious identity aspects. Examples are: Christian, Religious, God fearing, Member of the Church, etc. The percentage of people who mentioned at least one religious identity aspect in each country were: Ethiopia 47%, Philippines 33%, Italy 13%, Belgium 9%, Lebanon 7%, UK 6%. Most of the following analyses, except where indicated, were conducted selecting only participants’ religious identity aspects.

Self-categorization of religious identity aspects. The questionnaire item, as described before, allowed to choose between individual characteristic, relationship with someone, belonging to a small group and belonging to a large group. The percentages of selected categories differed in each country sample. As we can see in Figure 1, European participants mainly categorized their religious identity aspects as ‘group belonging’, while non-European participants labeled their religious identity aspects as ‘individual characteristic’ in the majority of cases; ‘relationship with someone’ and ‘small group’ were chosen by a minority of respondents. A Chi-square test indicated significant differences between countries, I‡2 (15, 232) = 47.981, p <.001, Cramer's V = .263.

We then checked if the differences in categorization were connected to general culture. We tested if it was a general tendency of western respondents to define all their identity aspects as “group belongings”, but we found that this categorization is specific to religious identity aspects: a Chi-square test conducted on all identity aspects of the European samples indicated a significant difference of categorization between religious and non religious identity aspects, I‡2 (3, 1) = 33.645, p <.001, Cramer's V = . 320. Conversely, the same Chi-square test indicated no significant differences of categorization between religious and non religious identity aspects in the nonwestern samples, I‡2 (3, 1) = 665, p =.881.

Figure1.

Figure 1. Percentages of self-categorization of religious identity aspects in each sample.

Centrality of religious identity in the different levels of categorization. We tested the hypothesis that religious identity aspects would be perceived as more central (i.e. rated as more important) in an individual religious self (aspects labeled as individual characteristic) than in a relational (aspects labeled as relation with someone) or social religious self (aspects labeled as small group belonging or large group belonging). However, the ANOVA comparing the means of the four groups revealed no significant differences in the centrality of the religious identity aspects (F (3,202) = 1.61, p = .189). Mean centrality for each level of categorization is reported in Figure 2. Thus, all levels of categorization of religious identity are associated to the same degree of importance for the person who endorses one of them.

Figure 2. Mean identity centrality of the religious self by level of categorization. Numbers in parentheses report standard deviations.

Centrality was significantly different between countries (F (5,202) = 6.40, p < .001; I·2p = .14). However, the Category X Country interaction was non-significant (F (14,202) = 1.01, p = .447), meaning that, even if participants from different countries perceive different mean levels of centrality, the differences in perceived centrality between categories are not affected by the cultural aspects of each national sample.

Discussion

Our aim was to explore different forms of religious identity in different countries. The study measured the occurrence of religious identity with an ecological procedure, where participants freely generated aspects of their identities. In countries with a higher mean religiosity, a higher number of participants listed a religious identity aspect in their identity. We first investigated the level of self-categorization (Turner et al., 1987) that participants choose for the religious aspects of their identity. Interesting between-country differences were observed: most Western participants rated their religious identity as group belonging, whereas nonwestern participants rated it as individual characteristic. This pattern does not match the traditional individualist-collectivist distinction (Triandis, 1995), and it cannot be explained by general culture (as tested by the comparison with other, non-religious, identity aspects of the same participants), but probably reflects something more specifically connected with religious traditions and habits. These results are in line with Cohen et al. (2005) and add to the existing theory the specification that the importance of social versus individual aspects of religious identity varies not only by religious denomination but also by the specific experience of religiosity in a specific national context. It could be, for example, that in Western countries, where religion is not so widespread, people who experience religiosity necessarily have this experience by means of affiliation with a particular group. On the contrary, in countries in which religion is more widespread, individuals can live a religious experience individually and without entering a specific group.

The second aim of our study was to compare religious identity centrality at different levels of categorization: literature about intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation suggests that a more personal level of categorization would coincide with a more central (i.e. perceived as important) religious identity (Allport & Ross, 1967). However, we predicted, following Cohen et al. (2005) and Flere and Lavric (2007) that the perceived importance of religious identity should be the same for individual, relational, and social religious identity. In support of this hypothesis, there were no significant differences in the mean rates of identity centrality at the four levels of self-categorization. Thus, this disconfirms the distinction between an extrinsic religiosity that is peripheral and based on group belonging, and an intrinsic religiosity that is central and pertains to an individual level. In fact, both individual level and group level religious identity have the characteristic of centrality that was a prerogative of the sole intrinsic orientation.

Conclusions and Implications

A first implication of these findings is the irrelevance of a distinction between a ‘first class’ (‘real’, authentic, aˆ¦) and a ‘second class’ (peripheral, instrumental,aˆ¦) religious identity reflecting the personal-social distinction. In fact, even if it is possible to differentiate between different levels of religious identity and to distinguish between a more personal religious identity associated with sense of meaning and a more social religious identity associated with need for belonging (as can be predicted by the traditional intrinsic-extrinsic distinction), each type of religious identity is central for the individual who lives it. Thus, we agree with Flere and Lavric (2007) that the authentic religious expression cannot be confined into the intrinsic-individual orientation but should also include the importance, for the individual, of social and relational aspects of religious identity.

A limitation of this study lays in the theoretical opposition between individual and social self: even if it was a necessary option for a first disentanglement of the different ways of being religious, we think that the two selves are not alternative and that an individual could have both a salient individual religious self and a salient social religious self. Indeed, some recent studies combining the two levels – measuring at the same time the individual and social side of religious identity – show promising findings (see for example, Brambilla, Manzi, Regalia, 2011; Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2010).

What should also be further explored, is the impact of the minority or majority status of religious groups in a given country on the individual perception of religious identity. In fact, the unexpected observation, in our sample, of the prevalence of self-categorization of religious identity as a “group level identity” among the western participants, elicits new questions. The impact of different denominations has already been investigated (e.g. Toosi, & Ambady, 2010), but less is known about the influence of religious history of each country: it could be the case that in more secularized countries the religious identity is connected to belonging to a specific group, whereas in more religious nations individuals can practice their religion as something ordinary, pertaining to the majority of people (see also Gebauer et al, 2012; Sedikides & Gebauer, 2010). Another aspect of possible influence is the interconnection between people’s religious identity and the way in which they enter in contact with a religious tradition, for example their religious group/community and its specific practices (attendance of services, solitary prayer, volunteering for an association, etc.) and, before, the transmission of faith within family (see for example Assor, Cohen-Malayev, Kaplan, & Friedman, 2005).

This research paper will look at how religious, mainly Christian, practitioners and studiers of science or psychology have influenced society’s view of homosexuality. The Gay Rights Movement has been and is the longest fight for rights in history due to the fervent and persistent opposition put up by fundamentalist Christian leaders and scientists trying to prove homosexuality is a disability, which combined lead to society in general to ostracizing anyone of a different sexual orientation than heterosexual. The pressure that stems from religion is the long-standing belief that homosexuality is a sin. The bible, which to this day remains the best-selling book in the world, quite clearly condemns homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22. The majority of Christian followers interpret this verse literally, condemning anyone of non-heterosexual orientation. A large portion of today’s society is overwhelmingly homophobic, and a lot of this has to do with Christianity being the largest religion in the world, and it has been around for nearly 2000 years. Religion has always offered a ‘why’ in life, meaning an explanation for why people exist, and science became a rational alternate option. Religion is based entirely on worshipping a deity or higher being that was responsible for the creation of humankind and life in general, whereas science is based on the physical evidence that is interpreted into the scientific version of creation and becoming how humanity is today (evolution). Religion and science, as a general rule, refute each other and constantly campaign to prove the other wrong. Despite this, however, for a very long time they agreed on one thing: homosexuality is bad. Science, for a while professed that homosexuality was one of two things: one it didn’t really exist and was a life choice that people made themselves, or two that it was a treatable disorder. Eventually the science community reneged this opinion, after maintaining it for years. Today, groups like the American Psychiatric Association (APA), who are considered the world experts on the human brain, now have officially declared that homosexuality is not a disorder, syndrome, or any form of mental disease, and cannot be changed by the individual. They also strongly oppose things like anti-gay ministries, where religious organizations will try to ‘fix’ or ‘save’ gays. Science became an alternate belief system to religion in the early 1600s. The Catholic church often ostracized members of the church for being scientists, and anyone who believed in something that wasn’t Creationism. Christianity became all about tradition and science became all about discovery and changing. The two began a continuous struggle for society to follow one and not the other, and to force society to conform. The vast majority of the human race follows one or the other or both: science and/or religion.

Christianity generally condemns homosexuality, and almost always has. This total damnation eventually lead to largely Christian values becoming an intrinsic norm in society as a whole, as demonstrated by the attitude of the public. Christianity remains the root of this hatred, as perpetrated by religious denominations in the world, and by the largely Christian dominated governments in many industrialized countries. The Holy Roman Catholic church was the first established Christian church, and since several hundred denominations have split off from it and each other, producing many different takes on the bible and religious morals. Nearly every culture in the world has or has had religion and now Christianity is the most dominant religion in the world with 1.9 to 2.1 billion believers (all denominations of Christianity). Christianity started with turn of the millennium roughly 2011 years ago. The writing of the New Testament in the bible happened shortly after Jesus was crucified, which religious historians estimate was around 40 AD. Thus Christianity was born. The Old Testament, which Judaism also follows, was written a long time before Jesus came. This is where the book of Leviticus is. “22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus 18:22) is the bible verse that is used to justify religious homophobia (notice that it has nothing about gay women). Many millions of Christians depend on one man to tell them what the bible means and what they should do to follow it and this man is the Pope. He is the leader of the Holy Roman Catholic church. The current one is Pope Benedict XVI. “It is a tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorderaˆ¦a person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally” (Benedict XVI) is Pope Benedict’s official stance on homosexuality. He does call for more compassion, but maintains that homosexuality is a sin and thinks that sex should occur only between a married man and woman. Many Christian leaders agree with him and have more to add, like Reverend Albert Mohler Jr.

“There is no conclusive research that indicates any biological basis for sexual orientation. But — and this is a big “if” here — if science were ever to discover a correlation or causation with biological factors, Christians should not be surprised. We believe in the catastrophic and comprehensive effects of the Fall and God’s judgment upon sinaˆ¦such a discovery, if it were to be accepted, would not change God’s condemnation of all forms of homosexual behavior, nor would it mean that this represents the inviolable “identity” of any individual. As I argued previously, moral responsibility does not require absolute moral choice. A soldier in battle may not have chosen to be in a situation of moral anguish, but he is still absolutely responsible for his decisions and actions. Those who commit homosexual acts, whoever they are and whatever their biological profile, are absolutely responsible for their sin. Regardless of any actual or hypothetical orientation, those who commit same-sex acts are responsible for the choice to commit the sinful act. Those who claim that they did not choose their sexual attraction are nevertheless fully responsible for choosing to perform sexual acts the Bible condemns as sin — period.” (Mohler 2007).

This is the opinion R. Albert Mohler Jr. provides for his public in the online newspaper he writes for frequently. He says that homosexuals can’t change from being homosexual, but it is acting on it that is a sin. This is a used justification for the persecution of homosexuals. However, some differ from this belief that homosexuality is something that can’t be changed just the actions. Many churches believe that therapy can cure homosexuality. This therapy ranges from gay-bashing seminars to shock treatment to gang-rape. There are facilities that use things like seminars on how to become heterosexual, or even shock treatment. These methods are supposed to cure an individual of homosexuality by showing them that being heterosexual is advantageous because it is holy and will get one to heaven. These seminars also tell all the disadvantages of being gay, using the inability to have children between same-sex couples and the bible as justification to become heterosexual. Some people who have exited these programs say that they work, and now claim that they are heterosexual. Although the vast majority of religion resoundingly condemns homosexuality, there are some Christians that don’t. For example, a book called Homosexuality and the Christian Faith, which was written by several ministers and church-associated people, says that

“Efforts to change one’s sexual orientation usually (some say always) fail. People who have experimented with homosexual behavior (as many heterosexual people do) can turn away from it. And homosexuals, like heterosexuals, can become celibate. But a recent review of research on efforts to help people change their sexual orientation concludes that there is ‘no evidence indicating that such treatments are effective’. Christian ex-gay organizations have had a go at this. But now are most are now either defunct or abandoned by their ex-gay founders. Reading their literature, one is struck by the admitted homosexual temptations many ‘ex-gays’ struggle with” (Wink 68).

This is the opinion of David G Myers who is a social psychologist and contributed to this book on Accepting What Cannot Be Changed, in Chapter 7. Decidedly, not all Christians are homophobic, in fact there are many who aren’t and completely reject the policies put out by ministries like the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Denominations like the United Church of Christ (UCC) have earned nicknames like ‘the gay ministry’ because they were revolutionary in their thinking. The UCC was the first Christian denomination to ordain and hire an out gay minister, as well as the first woman minister and the first black minster. All together, Christianity largely doesn’t accept homosexuality and wields a significant influence over society as they have 2.1 billion members.

Science is the careful study of physical evidence to find reasoning for life and its many components. It is the way many people rationalize the existence of consciousness and being. Science is anything from the study of insects to the study of the human brain. The human brain has been a source of fascination for hundreds of years. Psychology is not an exact study, which makes it hard to pinpoint. However, people have been trying for years. Famous psychologists like Sigmund Freud had many theories on mental disorders, and homosexuality was counted among these for many years. Starting around 1867, a scientist named Karl Heinrich Ulrichs began publishing his findings on homosexuality and the human brain. He was the first pioneer in the field of homosexuality scientifically. He theorized that gays and lesbians were created during the incubation period, that the external gender was one and the internal gender was the opposite (internal woman, external man or vice versa). He also coined his own terms fro gays. An ‘urning’ was a gay man, an ‘urningin’ was a lesbian, a ‘dioning’ was a straight person and a ‘urano-dioning’ was a bisexual person. ‘Urning’ meant follower or descencent of Uranus, ‘urningin’ meant heavenly Aphrodite daughter of Uranus, ‘dioning’ meant common Aphrodite daughter of Zeus by mortal Dione, and urano-dioning was a combination (Uranus or Ouranus was the Greek god of the sky, who married the earth god, Gaia, and their children were the Titans, who emasculated Uranus for Gaia, and then were imprisoned themselves by their children who were the Greek gods Zeus, Posiedon and Hades). Ulrichs claimed that urnings and urningins were the ‘third sex’. He also believed that there was a scale of being gay. Homosexuals were a ‘wiebling’ or a ‘mannling’. Wieblings were the female-type, or receptive, meaning the played the role of a woman during sex, and were also feminine in every other manner. Mannlings were the male-type or insertive, meaning the played the role of a man during sex, and were masculine in every other way. Ulrichs was the very first to ever research homosexuality, and using his studies he advocated for gay rights for his entire career. Magnus Hirschfeld was the second real pioneer in this field of study. His theories were more widely disputed, mostly to the inconsistencies of his theories and his tendency to disagree with himself later on. He was the first scientist in this field to advocate against gay marriage. He theorized that homosexuality was invented by Nature to prevent from producing degenerate offspring. He claimed that homosexual individuals would produce disabled or handicapped children and were also produced by degenerate families, but later refuted this theory when he considered that he himself was gay and could find no fault with his family to use as justification. He did, however, believe that homosexuality was largely dependent on environment. Hirschfeld interpreted masculinity and femininity as abstractions and speculated that sexual orientation was intrinsic with male and female characteristics, of the mental and physical levels. Thus people who were more androgynous in appearance and mental make-up were more likely to be gay. He even went as far as speculating about potential spermatozoa in vaginal secretions on women and menstrual blood in the urine of men. The next scientist in this field was named Steinach and was the first to perform any physical surgery to try and cure homosexuality. He performed testicle transplants between heterosexual and homosexual males. He took the testicles of a heterosexual man and placed them in a gay man. This failed to cure the gay men of their homosexuality and actually caused many health problems, like hair loss and the loss of the ability to have an erection. Then came Sigmund Freud. Freud theorized on various matters of psychoanalysis, and did many studies on homosexual men (there weren’t many studies on lesbians ever). He dealt mainy with the sexual drive area of the brain, called the Libido. He maintained one solid reasoning for men being gay:

“‘In their earliest childhood, later forgotten’, they had’ an intense erotic attachment to a female person, as a rule their mother, provoked and fostered by the excessive tenderness of the mother herself, further buttressed by recessiveness of the father in the child’s life’ at a later stage’ the boy represses his love for his mother by putting himself in her place, identifies himself with her, and takes his own person as a model in whose likeness he chooses his new love objects’” (LeVay 33).

In short, Freud believed that a smothering mother and a recessive father made a gay man. A follower of Freud named Ovesey took these theories further

“According to Ovesey, a gay man is often fearful of female genitalia because they remind him of the danger castration. Therefore he represses his attraction to women and the Libido associated with that attraction finds another channel for expression namely in attraction to men. Thus, for many ‘homosexual’ men homosexuality is not their authentic orientation but merely a displaced route for sexual release” (LeVay 75)

The only theories he offered on lesbians were that he thought they were upset with ‘only’ having a clitoris and this made them jealous of the male genitalia. He thought that this shouldn’t be used as justification to take rights however “‘Psychoanalytic research,’ wrote Sigmund Freud in 1915, ‘is most decidedly opposed to any attempt at separating off homosexuals from the rest of mankind as a group of special character’” (LeVay 67). Many psychology associations included homosexuality in their list of disorders due to Freud. Later in 1957, The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality for its book of disorders, declaring that homosexuality was not a curable problem in the brain. Further scientific research was in the 1900s with genetic research. Many believed for a long time that their might be a ‘gay gene’ but this theory has been disproved.

“Most of the major science journals reported on progress in the field of genetics, but also speculated on how the information would now be used. The one piece of information that ever materialized in form the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so called ‘gay-gene’” (Harrub and Thompson 1).

This was the result of the Human Genome Project, which many people hoped would come with a scientific justification for homosexuality. When it didn’t, many still insisted that there was a genetic reason. Science has always existed but people didn’t start really studying it until after Christianity was firmly established. There were even some original Christian scientists like Galileo Galeli, who discovered that the solar system is heliocentric instead of geocentric and was ostracized from the Catholic Church because of it. Science is based off of logic and physical evidence, whereas religion is based on faith. Science, because of this, has even influenced religion, because some Christians accept both. Many Christians also believe that homosexuality is a disorder, even though the APA declared it isn’t. This is the reasoning behind many ex-gay ministries, even though psychologists overwhelmingly agree that they are extremely harmful to the individual and are not a psychological institution by any means. Science, therefore, wields an incredible influence over society due to some religious acceptance and those who don’t have a religion who are largely accepting of scientific fact.

Society is a complex place. It is so layered with culture and ways of life that it is hard to analyze and make generalizations about. Luckily there are many consistencies and commonalities in cultures. Homosexuality has been around for centuries, around 26 centuries in fact. There is even evidence pre-dating 600 BC, but its accuracy is questionable, so everything after is what is included below:

aˆ? 600 BC- Island of Lesbos was later the inspiration for the word lesbian

aˆ? 27 BC- first recorded same-sex marriages

aˆ? 244-249 AD- Emperor Phillip the Arab tries to outlaw homosexual prostitution and fails

aˆ? 342- First law against same-sex marriage, promulgated by Christian Emperors

aˆ? 390- Homosexuality declared illegal by Christian emperors, and the punishment would be publicly burned alive

aˆ? 484- Christian emperors still collect taxes on male prostitutes

aˆ? 529- Homosexuals made scapegoat by Christian emperors for things like flooding and storms

aˆ? 1102- Council of London ensures English public knows homosexuality is sinful

aˆ? 1260- France places genital mutilation as punishment for homosexuality

aˆ? 1321- Dante’s Inferno places sodomites in the 7th circle of hell

aˆ? 1476- Leonardo Da Vinci charged with sodomy, no verdict

aˆ? 1532- Holy Roman Empire makes sodomy death sentence

aˆ? 1533- King Henry VIII makes male sex death sentence

aˆ? 1553- Mary Tudor removes King Henry VIII’s laws

aˆ? 1558- Elizabeth I reinstates Henry VIII’s laws

aˆ? 1620- Prussia makes sodomy punishable by death

aˆ? 1649- 1st known conviction for lesbianism (USA)

aˆ? 1721- Execution for female sodomy in Germany

aˆ? 1791- France decriminalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1794- Prussia abolishes death penalty for sodomy

aˆ? 1811- Netherlands and Indonesia decriminalize homosexuality

aˆ? 1828- “crime against nature” is first used in the criminal code in the US

aˆ? 1830- Brazil decriminalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1832- Russia criminalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1835- Russia forces Poland to criminalize homosexuality

aˆ? 1836- last Great Britain execution for homosexuality

aˆ? 1852- Portugal decriminalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1858- Ottoman Empire (Turkey) decriminalizes sodomy; Timor-Leste legalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1865- San Marino decriminalizes sodomy

aˆ? 1867- Karl Heinrich Ulrichs speaks for homosexual rights in Munich

aˆ? 1871- German Empire criminalizes homosexuality; Guatemala and Mexico decriminalize homosexuality

aˆ? 1880- Empire of Japan decriminalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1886- England decriminalizes homosexuality in men, but not women; Argentina and Portugal decriminalize homosexuality

aˆ? 1889- Italy decriminalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1895- Earl Lind starts first political party with gay rights in the policy agenda

aˆ? 1903- New York has 1st raid on gay bathhouse, 12 went to trial on sodomy charges

aˆ? 1910- Emma Goldman fights for homosexual rights

aˆ? 1913- ‘faggot’ is used in literature for the first time in France

aˆ? 1917- Russia repeals previous ruling

aˆ? 1920- “gay” is used for the first time referencing homosexuals

aˆ? 1921- England tries to make lesbianism illegal and fails

aˆ? 1924- 1st gay rights organization in the USA; Panama, Paraguay and Peru legalize homosexuality

aˆ? 1933- Denmark decriminalizes homosexuality; National Socialist German Workers Party bans homosexuals; homosexuals are sent to Nazi concentration camps

aˆ? 1934- Uruguay decriminalizes homosexuality; USSR criminalizes gay men

aˆ? 1937- Pink Triangle is means gay men for Nazi party

aˆ? 1940- Iceland decriminalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1942- Switzerland decriminalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1944- Sweden decriminalizes homosexuality; Suriname legalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1945- Allies liberate concentration camps, but homosexuals have to serve full term

aˆ? 1950- 190 US government employees dismissed for being gay

aˆ? 1952- Christine Jorgenson is the 1st transgender (Male to Female, MTF)

aˆ? 1954- Alan Turning commits suicide after being given a choice between prison or hormone treatment for being gay

aˆ? 1956- Thailand decriminalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1957- American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality from its disorders handbook

aˆ? 1958- US Supreme Court has a 1st case involving gay rights

aˆ? 1961- Czechoslovakia and Hungary decriminalize sodomy; Vatican declares gays banned from the Catholic church; Illinois 1st US state to decriminalize sodomy

aˆ? 1963- Israel (De Facto) decriminalize sodomy between men

aˆ? 1965- 1st gay rights demonstration in Canada

aˆ? 1967- Chad decriminalizes homosexuality; England and Wales decriminalize homosexuality between men

aˆ? 1968- East Germany decriminalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1969- Canada decriminalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1971- Austria, Costa Rica, Finland, Colorado, Oregon, and Idaho repeal sodomy laws; Idaho reinstates because of religious outrage

aˆ? 1972- Sweden allows legal sex changes; Hawaii legalizes homosexuality; East Lansing (MI), Ann Arbor (MC), and Sam Francisco (CA) are the first cities to pass homosexual rights ordinance

aˆ? 1973- Malta legalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1974- Kathy Kozachenko is the 1st openly gay American elected to public office

aˆ? 1975- California legalizes homosexuality; South Australia 1st state in Australia to legalize homosexuality; Panama allows legal sex change

aˆ? 1976- Christian Voice is founded, first anti-gay group

aˆ? 1977- Harvey Milk is the third out elected offcial; Quebec prohibits discrmination based on sexual orientation; Croatia, Montenegro and Slovenia decriminalize homosexuality

aˆ? 1978- Harvey Milk is assassinated; rainbow flag is first used as gay pride symbol; IGLA forms

aˆ? 1979- Spain and Cuba decriminalize homosexuality

aˆ? 1980- Scotland decriminalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1981- Northern Ireland, Victoria (Aus), and Colombia decriminalize homosexuality

aˆ? 1982- California has 1st gay mayor; AIDS acquires many homophobic nicknames

aˆ? 1983- Portugal re-legalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1985- France prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation

aˆ? 1986- Haiti decriminalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1987- Homomonument founded in Amsterdam (memorial to persecuted homosexuals)

aˆ? 1988- Belize and Israel (De Jure) decriminalize sodomy and sex between men

aˆ? 1989- Western Australia decriminalizes homosexuality between men; Liechtenstein legalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1990- UK Crown Dependency of Jersey and Queensland decriminalize homosexuality; Justin Fashanu is the 1st out football player

aˆ? 1991- Bahamas, Hong Kong and Ukraine decriminalize homosexuality

aˆ? 1992- Estonia and Latvia decriminalize homosexuality; World Health Organization declares homosexuality is not an illness; Australia lets gays in the military; Nicaragua recriminalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 1993- Norfolk Island (Aus) repeals sodomy laws; Belarus, UK Crown Dependency of Gilbraltar, Iceland, Lithuania and Russia decriminalize homosexuality; USA instates Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy; New Zealand lets gays in the military

aˆ? 1994- Bermuda, Germany, UK Crown Dependency Isle of Man, Serbia and South Africa decriminalize homosexuality; Canada grants sanctuary to gays fearing persecution

aˆ? 1995- Canada passes anti-discrimination law based on sexual orientation

aˆ? 1996- Romania and Macedonia decriminalize homosexuality

aˆ? 1997- Ecuador and Tasmania decriminalize homosexuality; Fiji and South Africa pass anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation

aˆ? 1998- Bosnia, Herzegovina, Chile, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Southern Cyprus and Tajikistan decriminalize homosexuality; Matthew Shepard is brutally murdered; Ecuador, Ireland and Alberta pass anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation

aˆ? 2000- Azerbaijan, Gabon and Georgia decriminalize homosexuality; UK lets gays in the military; Nazis officially apologize to gays and lesbians for harm and persecution up to 1969

aˆ? 2001- UK Territories decriminalize homosexuality; Rhode Island and Maryland pass anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation; Netherlands allows same-sex marriage

aˆ? 2002- China and Mongolia decriminalize homosexuality; Romania, Costa Rica and Arkansas repeal sodomy laws; Alaska and New York pass anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation

aˆ? 2003- Iraq decriminalizes homosexuality; Belgium, Ontario and British Colombia allow same-sex marriage; Bulgaria, UK, Arizona, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, and Pennslyvania pass anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation; Armenia and USA repeal sodomy laws; Belize recriminalizes homosexuality

aˆ? 2004- Cape Verde, Marshall Islands decriminalize homosexuality; Manitoba, Newfoundland, Labrador, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Yukon and Massachusetts allow gay marriage; Australia , Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Virginia and Wisconsin ban same-sex marriage; Portugal, Indiana, Louisiana and Maine pass anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation

aˆ? 2005- Canada and Spain allow same-sex marriage; Latvia, Uganda, Kansas and Texas ban same-sex marriage; Illinois passes anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation, Puerto Rico repeals sodomy laws

aˆ? 2006- South Africa allows same-sex marriage; Tennessee, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia and Wisconsin ban same-sex marriage; Faroe Islands, Germany, New Zealand, Illinois, New Jersey, Washington, DC pass anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation, Kentucky voids anti-discrimination laws

aˆ? 2007- Nepal and New Zealand territories decriminalize homosexuality; UK Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, and Vermont pass anti discrimination legislation

aˆ? 2008- Nicaragua and Panama decriminalize homosexuality; Connecticut allows gay marriage; Arizona, California and Florida ban same-sex marriage

aˆ? 2009- India decriminalizes homosexuality; Argentina, Phillipines and Uruguay end ban on gays in the military; Serbia, Delaware, and the USA Matthew Shepard Act, pass anti-discrimination legislation; Iceland has the first gay head of government

aˆ? 2010- Fiji decriminalizes homosexuality; Australia lets transgendered people in the military; Serbia lets gays in the military; Australia recognizes non-gender specific people; USA repeals Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; Portugal, Iceland, Agentina, Mexico City, new Hampshire and DC pass same-sex marriage

As shown, religious persecution dates all the way back to the very beginning of the millennium. This shows that religion is the longest-standing resistance to acceptance of all peoples. Christianity has been trying to outlaw and even execute homosexuals for hundreds of years. Bans on gay marriage, the criminalizing of sodomy or homosexuality, or any other anti-gay legislation is almost guaranteed to be religiously based.

In conclusion, the gay rights movement is the longest rights struggle in history. It has not really had any specific leaders, but rather a mish-mash of like-minded people. This has lead to there being much progress, but in many ways there has been recession as well. In the late BC, homosexuality was very much a norm in extremely developed societies like the Greek or Roman Empires. With the rise of Christianity however, this norm became an abnormality, and religion very slowly took over and outlawed homosexuality, putting severe penalties on it, such as death. This continued all over the world for many centuries. Science, in its beginning, did not really make anything better, but instead provided another rational for homosexuality being bad by calling it a disorder.

Is religion a good force for the society?

The role of religion in our society has always been debated. Some people are of the view that, religion helps in bringing about a change in society, while other believe it does the very opposite. However, sociologists have a different view on this. They say that religion adopts a middle path. It brings about change and also acts as a conservative force.

The notion that religion can help bring about a change is rejected by many theories, including the theory of functionalism and Marxism. It is the effect of such theories which have given birth to the view that religion is a force of conservatism. However, there is still difference between these two theories as well. Functionalists say that, the norms and values on which our society has been built are reinforced by religion. According to Durkheim, religion performs many functions. One of these functions is to ensure that there is harmony and stability in the society. For instance, functionalists say that, when people of the society pray together, it helps in making the society into a single unit. When people become a single unit, the unity of the group increases the bond between the society members is strengthened. Religion in other words is a kind of glue. In fact, it’s “social glue”, one that enables solidarity to prevail in society. For instance, Durkheim studied a society of traditional Aboriginal people. In his study, he got to know that totems are the main focus of this particular type of society, through which they show their solidarity towards the values that they have learnt. This is one form of solidarity and integration of people into the society.

On the other hand, Marxists have a different take on religion. According to them religion brings about conservatism. They say that this is because, religion seeks to make sure that one class is superior and dominant over the other. Marxists have the view point that, the current inequalities in our social surrounding is due to the fact that religion makes one class dominant over the other. The inequalities are mainly due to two things. First and foremost, it is due to the ownership of the means to produce things and secondly, the people who act as employers are easily able to exploit the working class. Marx famous lines on this believe is, “Religion is the opium of the masses”. He connect the drug opium to religion saying, just like opium, religion makes sure that people who are suffering can bear the pain and it takes them into a dream where they feel happy, when in fact the reality is quite the opposite. Religion is able to do this by, telling people that in the next life they will be given eternal bliss. This promise of bliss makes it easier for people to bear the current suffering and in this way religion justifies the inequality that prevails in society. Class consciousness is stopped from growing by religion. When there is no class consciousness, it is not possible to bring about a revolution. Thus in this way, religion prevents any kind of change in society.

Those who are Feminists also agree with the theory, that religion is conservative force. They say the system of patriarchal is also a part and parcel of this conservatism. For example, the fact that in many religions women are not allowed to be religious leaders and the fact that religions endorse the idea that women should stay and take care of the family and that is what their role should be after marriage, also shows that there is some kind of conservatism prevailing, which wishes that the role of women should be subservient and this stance is endorsed by many religions.

The above theories can be supported by many real life examples, which show that religion acts as a force of conservatism. One of the best examples, which support the view that Marxists have adopted is the Caste System in India. This cast system is fully supported by the Hindu religion. One more glaring example is the Medieval Europe Monarchs. Their right to rule was said to be their divine right. Their right to be the rulers was believed by the people of those times to be God-given. They had all the power and there was no one who could challenge them or any decision made by them. The above examples show the conservative force of religion. However, the problem is that these theories entirely reject the fact that religion can bring about change in society. Therefore the statement is not supported in entirety.

Even though both Marxism as well Functionalism gives an account of religion which is plausible, but their views are criticized by other sociologists, who argue that religion is not a conservative force at all. In fact, they say, religion is a force, a radical force which helps to bring about a change in society. The one who holds this view that, religion can bring about a revolution is Neo-Marxist Otto Maduro. He points to the catholic priests of the 1960’s in Latin America, who used to criticize the bourgeoisie. These priests used to teach the Theology of Liberation. It means to free people from their oppression using religion. In both social actions as well as political actions there was collaboration between the Marxists and the Catholics. This was the main catalyst which gave birth to resistance and then led to social change. Consequently in 1979 the Somoza regime in Nicaragua was overthrown from power. This was due to the resistance and change in which the Catholics revolutionaries played a huge part.

Some more instances which show that religion was responsible for bringing about social change are also present. Another example of this can be seen during the time period of 1978 to 1985. During this time, Desmond Tutu who was the Archbishop during that time played a very important role in South Africa, when he opposed apartheid. What resulted from his efforts was that, he was the first black person who became Cape Town’s Archbishop and led the Anglican Church. Other examples seen by Nelson (1986) include the opposition to communism by the Catholic Church in Poland, as well as in America, where there was a black civil-rights movement. These examples show how authority was undermined and a change was brought in.

Weber, one of the most influential classical sociologists also supports the view, that religion is a force which can bring about change. He strongly believed that religion can bring about change and from this belief he came up with his famous theory which said that, Capitalism developed due to Protestantism. There are many types of Protestantism, but Weber has focused on Calvinism. This is because the skilled workers as well as the entrepreneurs were Calvinists, in all the countries where, Western Capitalism prevailed. Weber talks about, how social change was brought about by Calvinism, in his book titled, “The Protestant Work Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism”. “Ascetic ideal” was a very important factor in Calvinism, according to Weber. The ethic of hard work with lots of discipline is the basis of capitalism. In the early times, Calvinists followed the bible, their pleasures and entertainments were very simple and they lived a simple life, which was much disciplined. This led to the proper and correct ethics of work being developed, besides capital. In other words, the right conditions of the economy and the religious belief in Protestantism was mainly responsible for the building of the system of Capitalism.

But this theory that Weber came up with has been criticized as well. It was claimed by Eisenstadt (1967), that the development of the system of capitalism has nothing to do with the idea of Calvin. This is because, in countries like Italy, which were catholic, Protestant Reformation came out after Capitalism. Other people, who criticize Weber, talk about the fact that there are many other economic factors which helped to develop capitalism. Some of these factors include, democracy, the influence that immigrants have on the economy and people as well as freedom of religion. Many other critics have disagreed with Weber and said he was wrong because he did not interpret Protestantism properly, he did not locate capitalism properly and last but not the least and he did not understand Catholicism. However, Weber had his share of supporters as well. Marshall (1982) says that people criticized Weber, because they were never able to understand his work. For instance, Weber simply demonstrated how Calvinism and Catholicism were related and how religion can bring change. He never said that there was any kind of casual relationship between the two.

The good thing about the work that Weber did is that, his work is able to show us clearly how religion has the power to change the society. The problem with his view is that, it completely ignores the simple fact that, it is possible for religion to be conservative in some cases and thus the statement put forward in the question is not fully supported.

Most of the sociologists believe in the middle path. They believe that religion has both sides. Religion can be a radical force which can bring about change and a conservative force which can stop the change from coming. It all depends on which religion it is and the circumstances that are prevailing in the country in which the change is coming. Thompson came out in support of this view. He identified the factors which are responsible for the role that religion will play in bringing change. For instance, he says that if there are no avenues which can bring change, like no political will to change then religion can step in to do so. Likewise, when such avenues are available (example economy), then religion will play a limited role and will have a more conservative nature.

In the end we can say that, religion is indeed a conservative force as well as a force which brings about change. This position is supported by the evidence which has been put forward in support of both views. It shows that religion has the capacity to take on both roles, the role of acting as a radical force as well as a conservative force. The thing that will determine what role religion takes will depend on two things, the religion and the society in question. Even though both the conservative side and the radical side have their supports and arguments, it is better to have a wider view if this, in contrast to a single view.

As difficult as it can get to define religion, it gets even harder to explain its parameters. There has not been a general consensus on the definition of religion although social scientists have long tried to provide clarity to the definition of religion as it fits best to justify their work. Belief is at the core of Religion (Jeff Haynes, 1997). According to Jeff, Bellah termed religion as, “a set of symbolic forms and acts which relate man [sic] to the ultimate conditions of his existence”. Jeff interprets these ultimate conditions of existence in two ways, in material and spiritual sense. I will be modifying the material sense of conditions as those pertaining to the political, social and economic factors defining the sophistication of modern world. Empirical and theoretical researchers have long stressed on only the instrumental factors affecting the development of society. It is important to understand that these instrumental factors are insufficient to reflect true results without the inclusion of qualitative factors such as religion. The effect of religion on the economic development of an economy cannot be fairly established without defining economic development. This concept has been a popular one among the economic and social scientists throughout the history of economics. However, the inclusion of terms to define this concept has varied. The concept of economic development lies beyond the conventional boundaries. It is not just a mere calculation of income levels per person in an economy. As noted by Amartya Sen in his book Development as Freedom, “it is not simply adequate to take the maximization of income or wealth as our basic objective. Rather than quantifying economic development as a function of wealth or income it should be more focused with its relevance in enhancing the lives being lead and the freedoms being enjoyed”.

The concept of economic development is far younger than that of religion. Religion and prosperity have often been seen essential to exist side by side. The presence of one has serious implications on the other. The inclusion of religion in economics was first introduced by Adam Smith, who is also known as the Economist of Religion. He viewed religion from a public finance perspective. Adam Smith argues about the idea of increased competitiveness under the presence of different religious institutions in an economy. His approach towards religion and its role in economics was rather a neglected one but he raised some broader questions that have been centre of research by many contemporary economists. These questions pertain to whether competitive religions or established (state) monopoly churches or both are a fundamental requirement in achieving “optimality” in religious markets. Many economists have worked on making a statement about Adam Smith’s stance on religion in economics. Gary Anderson (1988) extended the argument to the farthest reach. According to him, Smith argues in favor of free-market anarchism stronger than in any of his works. Adam Smith regarded the notion of moral sense as tied with the concept of self-love, altruism and the right to interact with others on a contractual basis.

It was Max Weber who dealt with the impact of religion on economic forces by stressing the effect of religion on economy through its direct influence on the individual traits of the economic agents. According to Weber, religion affected individuals by making them more or less productive hence indirectly effecting the operation of an economy. Robert Barro and Rachel McCleary were the ones who found religion to have a positive effect on economic development. The parameters defining development were cooperation, government, working women, legal rules, thriftiness and per capita income levels. The effects of religion differ between and across religious denominations, but overall, their studies found that Christianity based on the attendance level in churches and belief in life after death is associated positively with attitudes conducive to economic growth. However, there have been economists like John L. Perkins who have criticized the existence of religion as a sole determinant of economic retardation in the developing country. He is one of the few contemporary western economists that have tried capturing the effects of religion particularly Islam on the socio-economic evolution of a society. However, there has not been much work done on Pakistan and its development in the context of religion.

Thesis Statement

The main hypothesis is to find if the economic failure of Pakistan is self inflicted or caused by political and socio economic forces beyond control. Is it the growing religious fanaticism that is hindering the growth and development of Pakistani society as projected by the world nowadays?

Approach and Development

The paper addresses some crucial questions that need to be answered in the wake of the past decade’s events. There is a growing dissent towards the role of Pakistan in the modern world. The concerns are not only raised by international community but also by the moderate citizens within the country. The cries to bring about a change have been raised by people who are being victimized by the internal situation of the country, majority of them being women, minorities and the educated middle class. The paper intends to focus on addressing a vital question. Can religion play a role in the retardation of the economic development or wellbeing of the society? How have the so called Islamic laws such as Hudood Ordinance left a devastating impact on women and minorities? What is the future of Pakistan in terms of its economy and the level of prosperity? Is it time to review the extent of religious interference with the matters of the government? These questions will be addressed by conducting a research and analyzing the influence of religion on economic progress and development. Religion and economic development will both be defined in terms of certain factors based on the amended definitions presented in the early part of the proposal.

The paper will focus on religiosity as an empirical determinant of economic development in Pakistan. Robert R. Barro and Rachel M. McCleary in their working paper, “Religion and Economic growth” captured the effect of religion by considering the effect of church attendance and religious beliefs. This paper will provide as a starting point for this research paper. The empirical model used in their paper can be amended and adopted to cater to the needs of a developing country, in this case Pakistan. However it is important to note that the motive here is not to capture the effect of the typical dictionary term ‘religion’ on economic development of a society. The events happening around us do not require an answer to this question anymore. It is the extent of the adoption of religion resulting in religious extremism that requires the attention of economists. The data used by Barro in his paper has a few drawbacks when modified for the case of Pakistan. As the approach to assessing the possible effects of Islam on the economic growth of Pakistan has to cater for the changes in the way religion is defined nowadays, the two fundamental variables used in his work are not applicable here any more. The inclusion of attendance to church (mosques in this case) does not signify anything about the evident ‘extremism’ in the country. It is therefore important to base the research on the right questions. These sample questions are compiled from a variety of questions pooled in for ‘The measurement of Family Religiosity and Spirituality’ for Indicators for Child, Family and Community Connections. These will help answer the vital questions presented earlier. Variables that can define religiosity in Pakistan better can possibly include like:

Religious school enrollment in Pakistan. These schools are the madrassahs that focus on the religion as mode of teaching. There is a clear distinction between private and public schools which follow a regular curriculum with the inclusion of knowledge of religion only.

Level of religious communication at home. This includes the frequency with which religion is preached at home.

The nature of religious beliefs. This focuses on distinguishing if the person is just spiritual and not religious.

Desire, willingness or involvement in religious training camps and activities.

Similarity in religious beliefs to one’s parents and partner. How comfortable does the person feel to be around people sharing strong beliefs?

Religion through media. To what extent are people trying to explore more of their religion through the use of different religious web-sites, chat rooms and religious programming on television?

The willingness to find opportunities to learn more about religion.

The willingness towards women achieving higher education.

The level of tolerance towards a secular state rather than a religious monopoly. Does the person view complete Shariah rule as a necessary step.

The paper will use survey data based on questions designed to capture the level of extremism prevailing in the society. Individual data will be collected for the survey applying to 1000-2000 respondents. The survey data will be used to form country-wide average of data which will be based on questions pertaining to the data compiled for Pakistan. The result of this research would help in highlighting the partial correlation between measures of religiosity and indicators of economic development. These indicators might be the women representation in the country, GDP per capita, percentage of people living under poverty line, capital and investment inflow, freedom to minorities, literacy rate and level of migration etc.

In compiling research data it has to be kept in mind that there are certain problems associated with the empirical data of this nature. A main limitation of this research is the possible reversibility of the causation effect of the data. This pertains to the problem of determining if economic growth is affected by increased religiosity or is this extremism an outcome of vicious economic traps faced by developing economies. Another limitation is the inability of economic development to take into account just the economic factors. Religion influences the development of not only the economic forces but also has serious political and social implications. Similarly there are other determinants such as culture that are closely linked with religion in countries with strong historical background. These determinants tend to create a bias towards the findings of how religiosity can influence development. This problem has to be dealt with very carefully when analyzing empirical work.

Implications of Research

The area of religion and economic development is a very sensitive and dangerous one to handle. It has been analyzed for years by social scientists but there has not been much done on Islam and its effect on Pakistan over the decade when it was much needed. There is a need for new set of parameters defining religion as there is a fine line between spirituality and religious extremism which has to be revealed in order to understand the mechanisms of a developing country with religious monopoly. This study will help overcome this gap and will assist in finding answers about the future of Pakistan and its role in the modern world.

The topic I have chosen to discuss is religion, as theorised by Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. Religion can be recognised in every culture around the world. Therefore, sociologists examine it in order to understand why religion and the beliefs and practices associated with religion, are so significant and the position they play within society (Macionis & Plummer, 2008, p610).

Durkheim and Weber both carried out their work around the turn of the 19th century. Both were gripped by the religion and its role in society (Nisbet, 1975). However, the both studied religion form two very different perspectives, although both thought in evolutionary terms (Parsons, 1964, p xxvii). Durkheim holds a collectivist view of society, exploring it from the perspective that religion has a cohesive effect on people through sharing values, symbols and social norms (Macionis and Plummer, 2008, p611).

Weber on the other hand, has a more individualist perspective. He focused on the sociology of religion, such as the relationship between religious ideas and commitments, with other sociological aspects, such as human behaviour in relation to economics Parsons, 1964, p xx).

Durkheim was born in 1958 in France. His work, centred around social change and industrial society, however, he became focused on social and moral order and how it was achieved and maintained in society. In particular, the transition between traditional society and modern society, and how this influences how social structures and relationships are adapted and maintained (Dillon, 2010 p79). Durkheim was interested in providing a scientific basis for sociology and defining sociology as field of study which he discusses in “The Rules of Sociological Method” (Calhoun, et, al., 2007, p 135). During his lifetime, he published extensively. “The Division of Labour”, where he examined social cohesion within the modern industrialise society. “Suicide” discussed diminishing social bonds in modern society, and this influences patterns of suicide. “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life” examines how the social origins and function of religion and beliefs associated with it, and how they are reinforced by rituals and ceremonies (Calhoun, 2007, p136). Durkheim, along with Marx and Weber, is now seen as an extremely significant classical theorist, and has had an influence across many areas, such as education, religion, and health (Calhoun, 2007, p 133).

Durkheim wrote extensively in the area of religion. He recognised that religion was a social concept that needed to be explored in and of itself, as a primitive and simple level. He looked to define religion which he concluded was “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them” (Durkheim, 1976, p47). This definition suggests that religion is collective within society and should be examined in this way. He identified the functions of religion in society. According to Durkheim, religion is a social cohesive. If people share a religion, the shared beliefs values and symbols, they are united by these, therefore it religion as a cohesive among these people. He suggests that as a result of this, religion underlies our moral and emotional links with others. (Macionis & Plummer, 2008, p611).

He claimed that religion does not conflict with science. It is not there to enhance our knowledge, instead it is there in order to provide a guide for the way we act and live (Durkheim, 1976, p416). The primary intention of religion is to influence the moral of life (Durkheim, 1976, p420). Fundamentally, the task of religion is preserving a normal, positive life (Durkheim, 1976, p29). Durkheim also claims that we organize life into the sacred and the profane, and neither can exist without the other (Durkheim, 1976, p308). The sacred is defined as anything that is extraordinary and instils a sense of reverence and sometimes fear (Macionis & Plummer, 2008, p611).

Another function of religion, according to Durkheim, is that religion provides a sense of purpose, meaning and comfort (Macionis and Plummer, 2008, p612). Durkheim suggests it strengthens a person’s moral and feeing of “guardian support”. It allows people to rise out of themselves, which then helps mould their action and behaviour, which results in the collective cohesive affect on society. This, he says, is how the social institution of religion works, therefore it is society itself that is the source of the action guided by religion (Durkheim, 1976, p418). He proposes that the dream of an ideal society, an idealistic society that would eliminate evil and sufferings, suggest religion, as this is what religion aims for. This indicates that religion suggests the ideals of society, instead of explaining it (Durkheim, 1976, p420).

Durkheim studied religion from a collectivist perspective. He recognised that society was becoming more individualist, however he believed that this collectivist society still existed but in another form. He believed that the new individualist forms of religion were simply another form of collectivist forms in society (Durkheim, 1976, p425). He claimed that religious beliefs were not the individual, but were common beliefs belonging to a group united by these beliefs (Durkheim, 1976, p43).

Durkheim also studied the social phenomena of religion in relation to how it constrains social behaviour (Dillon, 2010, p118). His view was that the religious symbols and imagery are used by society to encourage conformity, and instil these into cultural norms. Religion is used in order to justify these cultural norms, for example, norms surrounding marriage and reproduction (Macionis & Plummer, 2008, p612).

Max Weber was born in Germany in 1964 to a Protestant family. Despite being a trained as a lawyer and historian, he became interested in the social sciences, in particular economics. His research was halted by a period of serious depression, however, most of his prominent work was carried out after his breakdown, such as “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” (Calhoun, et al., 2007, p206). Weber was particularly interested in the cultural and non-economic sources related to social action. He investigates the sources of social phenomena from a historical and cultural perspective and how they influenced the practices within social institutions. He was a moderate left supporter of German nationalism, and helped found the German Democratic Party, as well as playing a part in the Treaty of Versailles and the Weimar Constitution, before he died in 1920 (Dillon, 2010, pp117-118).

Like Durkheim, Weber recognised that there is not a known society, that doesn’t include something that can be classified as religion (Parson, 1964, p xxvii). Although he also thought in evolutionary terms, he was more engaged by systems of meaning, which can be interpreted (Parsons, 1964, xxvii). He studied the subjective meaning and views of religion, and its cultural and historical origins, as well as how these produce institutional practices (Dillon, 2010, p117). He investigated the religious and cultural beliefs that are at the source of religious and social structures (Dillon, 2010, p119). He believed that these beliefs and values are worthy of investigation as they are what shape social institutions (Dillon, 2010, p125). He believed that religion played a role of stereotyping within society, as it structures and preserves social groups and relationship and provides a social identity for groups. He maintained that religion interacted with other social and cultural aspects (Harrington, 2005, p67). Weber’s most prominent work, “The Protestant ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, discussed the interaction between religion and economic aspects.

Weber introduced the “ideal type” in order to measure and compare social phenomenon. They are used in the quest to explain different social relationship and actions (Dillon, 2010, p126). As regards religion, an ideal type is the distinctive characteristics of a religion. Weber discusses Protestantism in is ideal form, and how the characteristics of this religion affect everyday life (Dillon, 2010, p127). He examines how different religious traditions and their structures influence society, particularly in relation to the economy and capitalism

The links between taste, consumption, social class and power
Introduction

The renowned French sociologist and philosopher Pierre-Felix Bourdieu believed that taste and cultural consumption was inextricably linked to social class, which in itself is determined by those with power and position (Bourdieu’s 1994). His detailed research on the subject concluded that the pressures of the society that we live in thus bring about all human acts and, to this extent are not governed by decisions made by solely by the individual. In his view the society in which we live, together with our standing individual standing within that culture will have considerable influence upon both our particular tastes and the choices of taste that we make. Furthermore, Bourdieu finds that those in a position of power, such as the media and government, by virtue of their position, are consistently using the power that they possess to create and feed the social distinctions that we see about us, and therefore manipulating the consumption pattern. The conclusion of Bourdieu’s research therefore is that the individual does not act autonomously from the dictates of his or her society, but rather reacts to patterns of social distinction that are being presented to them.

To assess the validity of this theory, it is the intention of this research to identify, examine and evaluate the potential links that exist between “taste” and cultural consumption and social class. The research will be segmented in an attempt to first of all provide an understanding of consumption and its cultural relevance and how this can be manipulated by those with the power to do so, before examining the relevant aspects of social class. This process will enable us then to reflect upon taste and reach a conclusion as to whether the hypothesis outlined above is still as relevant in modern society as it was when Bourdieu (1994) conducted his research into the subject.

Consumption

In the context of this research, the term consumption is not simply being examined in relation to the goods or services that we purchase with the purpose to consume, for example grocery items, although that is an integral element of the purchasing act. However, it also is relevant to the purpose and reasoning that lies behind the consumption process itself.

The basic concept of consumption is that we make a choice of purchase based upon a number of factors, for example because we like the taste of the content in the case of food products or we are attracted to the look of the item, as would be the case in the decision for non foodstuff, such as furniture, automobiles, homes and a host of other goods. Irrespective of the validity of these determinates of choice consumption is not “merely the recognition or miss-recognition of the aesthetic intention” (Storey, 2003, p.48).

When we make a product choice we are also, either making a statement about our social position, and ourselves, or reacting to a statement that has been placed before us by others. Furthermore, as is reflected in the term “keeping up with the Joneses,” an element of our buying patterns will be made in relation to what others, our peers, might have that we do not. In terms of the influence of others, be the media or peers, this may be perceived as a guide to move us in a certain direction or to give us a distinction that we previously did not have. Therefore, it is true to say that the way in which we exercise our right to consumption is determined by the social structure that surrounds us (Mackay 1997, p.255).

This can perhaps be better seen when viewed in a historical context. In the Victorian era, when the class situation within UK society was more pronounced, the patterns of consumption were seen as an inherent part of that system, in that the purchase should match the social position. A typical example of this process was obvious in the clothing industry, In those days one purchased clothing, that was considered to be commensurate with one’s standing in society, be that class or professional position. It would have been considered “an offence to dress above one’s station” (Corrigan 1997, p.6). The theory of consumption being relative to position, and objected too if it does not maintain that distinction has been seen more recently in research conducted by Radway (1990, p.705 and p.710). The case being studied here was the emergence of book clubs and the controversial reaction to this in some areas of society. These book clubs were offering products that ranged from the mass-market romantic and detective novels through to the classics and “highbrow” products. The controversy arose because many believed that this was an unacceptable intrusion into the considered norm of social culture and distinction.

Despite the fact that the social strata and distinction has been blurred to some extent in modern times, to a great degree the cultural habits of consumption still exist and operate in society. Irrespective of the wide variety of goods and products available, the patterns of individual purchase are still determined by the social and cultural position. For example, when faced with a choice for holidays, the general perception is still that the package tour and coastal seaside two-week summer break is mainly the domain of the working class element of society. Similarly, purchasing a Ford car instead of the more expensive Mercedes will automatically make a statement about the buyers standing, therefore producing a social distinction in consumption (Miller 2002, p.275).

However, nowadays this pattern is tempered with consumption for the purpose of aspiration. Today the objective of bettering oneself is an integral part of the social culture. Peer pressure has also become more intense. People are concerned with being seen to either maintain their status by ensuring that they have the latest product, as may be the case with their neighbour, or wishing to use consumption and purchase as a way of moving up a position in the social ladder. They use consumption to make a statement to this effect (Brewer 1994, p.275). Furthermore, the availability of the product, in terms of price, model and novelty is also important. Consumption will change as a product becomes more popular. For example, a person of high social standing seeks a product that is not generally available to the masses. This can be seen in the case of the Mercedes car, once solely affordable by the few. As it became more popular and therefore more affordable, the novelty and distinction it gave to the wealthier elements of society wore off (Miller 2002, p.180), and they sought to re-establish their position by transferring their consumption to more distinction and expensive automobile ranges.

Typically, the peer-generated influence can be seen occurring with the “new rich,” such as footballers, corporate moguls and celebrities. Having achieved a position of wealth such people will use the purchasing process to acquire products that make a conspicuous statement about the new position they have achieved within society (Featherstone 2000, p.20).

In terms of other influences on consumption, the advertising and marketing media have played a pivotal role. This has become particularly apparent during the period of rapid developments in technological and digital advances being made in the media. Marketers distinguish their target markets by demographic segments, and therefore operate on the basis of class distinction when determining “consumption criteria” (Miller 2002, p.112). These organisations will use the segment analysis for a number of reasons. In terms of mass marketing, for instance with grocery and low cost household products, the intention will be too attract the working classes to consume their products in preference. Similarly, this system will be used to drive the “peer-pressure” determinant, using the subconscious cultural message that to maintain one’s individual standing, these products are culturally essential. At the other end of the scale, Marketers will use their message to accentuate the difference in social standing that can be achieved by purchasing their product. Again this can be aptly seen with motor vehicles, where the promoter might use the vision of ownership of a 4?4, or top of the range vehicle as an indication of higher social standing.

From this analysis it can be seen that consumption when viewed on a number of levels does reflect, either directly or indirectly, a social struggle to achieve a certain level of distinction. Consciously or sub-consciously it will affect the consumers position and social standing (Corrigan 1997, p.32).

Taste

Taste in dictionary terms, is defined as being the manifestation of an individual’s particular preference. This will extend beyond the simple food connotation of the word to all aspects of life, including all of the goods, services and activities they purchase or use. In his research Bordieu (1994, p.42) rightly identifies taste as being a matter of choice, which varies from individual to individual. Therefore, by definition taste has both a positive and negative reaction. For example, one chooses a particular food because of the preference to its taste or conversely rejects of food because of individual’s dislike of its taste. In the same way, similar decisions are made about other goods. Furthermore the levels of taste are varied. For example, one may react on a low level of negatively to something simply on a matter of ascetic taste, as in not being keen on the colour, or the level of taste dislike can reveal itself in the emotion of disgust, which in the case of food can even lead to sickness. From the individual point of view taste can therefore be attributable as an indications of the specific preferences of a particular person (Featherstone 2000, p.83).

However, having previously stated that taste is a matter of choice, a rider should be added to this. Choice in taste is not always a decision that is taken freely. In most areas of life there is limitations and taste is often one such area. As Bordieu (1994) pointed out in his research, often in our daily lives and decision-making processes our taste decisions are restricted by a choice being forced upon us. For example, to return once again to an automobile comparison, it is often the case when faced with a choice of vehicles to purchase, that one’s deep routed preference would be for a Mercedes. However if the income level of the purchaser is only say $10,000 per annum, this vehicle is clearly out of an acceptable price range. In such a situation one has to make a taste decision based upon an affordable, or forced, range of lower standard vehicles. Therefore taste is tempered by the social and economic position that the individual is situated within.

Taste can also be applicable in a cultural sense and in this respect Bourdieu (1984, p.56), states that it can act as a class barrier. As with consumption, again this can be seen as more pronounced in historical times, although it still exists. By nature, the individual will aspire to a certain social level and consequently they will have an aversion to a life-style that does not match with their expectations. In respect of society itself, there are two levels of taste that can be deemed to play both an interactive and exclusive role. These are common taste and class taste respectively.

In addition to individual taste, the format of society also dictates that there will be a common taste. This is an element that is shared within the specific culture to which one belongs. For example, within the UK there will be commonly accepted tastes in terms of the way that people should behave, and where the limits of acceptable common legislation should be drawn, although this is by no means the only area of taste that would be considered to be common. However, as Bordieu (1994), this common taste scenario produces a dichotomy. Achieving a balance between the common taste and the taste of individual classes of society is often difficulty. By the simple distinction of their class, there will be those elements of society that will wish at least part of their taste to be separate from those of other classes. For instance, the upper class will have a distinct taste that they would perceive to set them apart from the working class (Bucholtz and Sutton 1999, p.355).

Taste and choice is another are where those with power, such as the media, can exercise significant influence. One only has to look at the television to notice the wide range of new products and designs that are constantly being promoted. This can serve to create movement in the individual and social taste requirements (Miller 2002, p.216). Whilst consumers demands and tastes for new products may change, as has been demonstrated this is not always as a result of their own changing tastes (Brewer and Porter 1994, p.601). Similarly, as with consumption, often these taste determinants will be directed at particular demographic segments of the community. A typical example of this occurred when “Wedgewood Potteries, in north Staffordshire, deliberately tried to direct upper-class taste” through design and promotional efforts (Corrigan 1997. p.9).

Taste therefore is influenced by a number of factors, not the least of which is the relative position of the individual “in the social structure” (Mackay 1997, p.230) of their own culture. Similarly, taste can be distinct between the relative class structures and also can create a tension when seen not to be achieving the correct values (Corrigan 1997, p.100).

Social Class

What is social class and how does it manifest itself? As will be seen within this section there are many aspects to class and numerous influences attached to its creation and maintenance of the class system. The class system in the UK has been in existence for countless centuries and, despite the moves during the last century to achieve equality is has still managed to survive, particularly, as Bordieu (1994) points in his research, within the higher intellectual and ruling class level. Indeed, as Brewer (1994, p.128), points out, in Wigston Magna, an old village, which is now a part of an expanded city called Leicester, social differences were being created as the village grew.

Much of the creation of class Bordieu (1994) puts down to education and language. Success in education is achieve not simply by the act of learning, but also as a result of behaviour and even language, which in turn is a reflection of upbringing. Those students from privileged backgrounds will have learnt how to present themselves physically, in speech and their attitude, whereas the less privileged will not, precisely as a result of the way they have been brought up. Language is also important, not simply because it is a way of communication, but because it is seen as an indicator of position within society. To evidence this one only has to look at the immediate perception that is formed in the mind as a result of the “mannerism of speech of different social groups” (Bucholtz and Sutton 1999, p.101). Automatically, the subconscious seeks to identify not simply the geographical background, but also their position within society. The way that people speak does therefore tend to create an immediate recognition of class.

There is a natural tendency for people to segregate themselves into groups where they feel comfortable, and an equal tendency to reject or distance themselves from those who do not fit into their own “circle.” This phenomenon is known as social distinction. Social distinction is what creates the various classes. It is defined by different values, tastes and consumption activity. Furthermore, its occupants rigorously protect it. For example, when describing ourselves to others we tend to refer to the social category that we belong to as a way of distinguishing ourselves from others (Mackay 1997, p.68). Mackay (1997, p.205) further evidences this by explaining how the middle classes, in an attempt to maintain their distinctive class, will put “geographical distance between itself and manual labour” or working classes.

Even within classes that can be demonstrated by economic advantage, there still remains a distinction that is closely protected. The latter half of the last century saw a significant increase of wealth created and attracted to people who previously would have been considered to be working or middle class. As the wealth accumulation continued, these people began to acquire the trappings of the upper classes, such as large land estates, international residences and the like. This situation threatened the existence and position that was previously the domain of the nobility and aristocrats. As Bourdieu (1994) explains, the nobility were not prepared to lose their standing within society, based upon position and breeding, nor would they settle for it being diluted by invasion from individuals who they considered to be of a lower class, irrespective of wealth. Thus they encapsulated the retention of their previous distinction by use of the terms “old money” and “new money,”

Individuals and groups within society use numerous ways to distinguish themselves from other classes. For example, the amount of leisure time that is available to an individual is often used as an example of their social standing (Storey 2003, p.37), as might be their house style where a detached property is viewed a social standing distinct from a terraced. Similarly, ones work position can be used to reinforce the social distinction. Subconsciously, when the terms blue-collar worker, white-collar worker and professional are used in relation to the employment of the individual, there is an automatic social and class distinction attributed to them.

Power also helps to maintain the social distinction and class. By its terminology, the government is as guilty of this as any other sector of society. For example, consistent references to being a party of the “working class” by Labour is intended to distinguish them from the more affluent reaches of the conservatives. Similarly, the media makes use of class distinction in promotional strategy. For example, if a retailer wishes to appeal to the masses, for example with cosmetics, its promotion will lead with the term “Lower-priced cosmetics” Corrigan 1997, 87. Conversely, if it wishes to appeal to affluent classes it will use quality and aspirations as its message.

Conclusion

From the research that has been studied during the preparation of this paper, it is concluded that there are numerous and significant links between consumption, taste and social class and power. Despite the fact that the modern trend is towards a more deregulated and less controlled society (Featherstone 2000, p.15), these links still exist, although they manifest themselves in different ways to those that were used in the past.

Consumption is still driven by an individual’s desire to better themselves, which is deemed to be achieved by improving ones class or standing in society. Taste is still governed by ones upbringing and changed by both peer pressure and a desire to changes ones position in society, and the various social classes still endeavour to maintain their individuality and distinction from other classes.

The major difference in the modern world when compared with the historical structure of society is the manner in which all of these links and distinctions are maintained. Today, the concentration is upon the use of signs and images as a method of promoting ones position in society (Featherstone 2000, p.85). Material possessions, together with the work position are used, consciously or subconsciously, to denote where the individual stands in society in terms of their class.

Encompassing all of these aspects in the manipulative forces of those with power, such as the media and government. The government, by attributing demographic segmentation to the population, maintains the concept of different social classes with varying tastes and consumption needs. The media, whilst in many ways performing the same social distinction role as government, also use the individual’s distinctive position to create situations that convey how these positions should be maintained and, in addition, provide a perceived path for the individual to exchange the class and position they are currently in for one that would improve their standing in the community.

References

Bourdieu, Pierre and Nice, Richard (Translator) (1994). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press. Massachusetts, US.

Brewer, J., and Porter, R. (eds.) 1994. Consumption and the World of Goods. Routledge. London, UK.

Bucholtz, M., Laing, A.C and Sutton (eds.) (1999). Reinventing Identities. Oxford University Press. New York, US.

Corrigan, Peter (1998). The Sociology of Consumption: An Introduction. Sage Publications. London, UK.

Featherstone, Mike (2000). Consumer Culture and Post-modernism. Sage Publications. London, UK.

Mackay, H (ed.) (1997). Consumption and Everyday Life. The Open University. Milton Keynes, London, UK.

Miller. D (2002). Acknowledging Consumption: A Review of New Studies. Routledge. London, UK.

Moran, Joe (2005). Hum, ping. rip: the sounds of cooking. The New Statesman. London, UK.

Radway, J. (1990). “The scandal of the middlebrow: the Book-of-the-Month Club, class fracture, and cultural authority”. South Atlantic Quarterly. Fall, pp. 703-7.

Storey, J. (2003). Cultural Consumption and Everyday Life. Arnold. London, UK.

How are Changes in Knowledge Connected to Social Change?
Introduction

Knowledge and society have a reciprocal relationship. Religious and scientific ideas bring changes to the social order, likewise changes in society help to shape knowledge. This has been most evident since the time of the Enlightenment. From earliest times philosophers had concerned themselves with questions about God and about the human condition, what are sometimes called timeless truths. Sociology, on the other hand was more contextual and historical in that theorists were concerned with the historical emergence of all aspects of human social life.

Sociology emerged through the conditions of modernity, which began in Europe in the 17^th Century but later spread to become worldwide. The new scientific view questioned previously held ways of knowing and thinking about the world. Religious doctrine and teachings that had been seen as authoritative and objective truths which dictated the way most people lived their lives were called into question by advances in science. At the same time modernity engendered huge technological and social change that led to a break with what had gone before. The French revolution, and in England, the Industrial revolution, which dramatically changed the face of the social world, were decisive elements in the emergence of a theory of society that was distinct from other branches of philosophy (Giddens, 2001).

The revolution was based on notions of individual freedom and human rights; it shook the social and political foundations of France and had repercussions across Europe. It also contained within it economic consequences that destroyed the foundations of feudal society. It questioned the idealized and inward looking existence of philosophy (see Morrison, 1995). Historical development’s impact on philosophy was most evident in Hegel’s work which had profound implications for the development of social theory. Hegel took the view that the revolution had not just influenced the way philosophy saw itself; it fundamentally changed the way philosophers dealt with reality and history. History and the social order had been seen as fixed, the revolution changed that and Hegel observed that as one form of social and political existence ended so another took its place.. Hegel viewed the individual as a subject within history and history as developmental and thus liberative. This was the first time that history and humanity’s role within it had been recognised as an ongoing and changing process. Other 19^th century thinkers sought to understand the changing world in which they lived.

Knowledge and Social Science

Auguste Comte is sometimes called the founder of sociology as he coined the term. Comte was influenced by the way scientists investigated the physical world and he sought to create a science of society which would explain the social world in a similar manner. He believed that the scientific method allowed us to uncover universal laws. Comte’s thinking developed into what is known as positivism. This holds that science should be concerned with observable facts thus knowledge about society had to be based on empirical evidence i.e. observation and experiment (Callincos).

Comte was followed by Durkheim who also took the view that social life should be studied in the same way that scientists studied the physical world. He and other positivists believed that social facts about the world could be established through the collection of statistical data. In this way sociologists could study cause and effect in society. For Durkheim sociology was about the discovery of social facts, sociologists should study aspects of life that shape individuals such as religion and economics. Because social change is so rapid the modern world presents us with difficulties that affect our lifestyles and cause human beings to feel unsettled. Durkheim described this process as anomie, a feeling of despair that was a result of modern life.

The ideas of Karl Marx contrast with those of Comte and Durkheim who were interested in the structure of society.He also sought to explain the changes that were taking place in society. Marx said that the philosophers had only interpreted the world when it needed to be changed. Drawing on Hegel’s idea of the development of history Marx developed what he called a materialist conception of history (Morris, 1995). Social change, he argued is not the result of ideas, but of economic processes. Historical development is the result of class conflict. Religion was a false ideology that upheld the interests of the ruling class and kept the working classes in submission. Max Weber also wanted to understand social change but was critical of some of Marx’s views. Weber believed that ideas and values were just as important as economic processes and he felt that sociology should focus on action not structure (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000). Weber maintained that capitalism was not simply the result of class conflict, what he termed the ‘spirit;’ of capitalism was the result of a particular view of the world. He maintained that capitalism was the direct result of a particular religious view of the world, that of Calvinism. They worked hard^[1]because that was what God wanted and this resulted in the accumulation of capital. Their success was, for them, a sign of God’s grace. Thus, for Weber, rather than study society as a set of social facts, we need to try to understand the meanings that human beings give to their actions. This brought about a continuing divide in sociology between positivism and interpretavism, social structure versus human action. Those who follow an interpretative view of studying society argue that no causal explanation of human behaviour is possible without some understanding of the meanings that individuals give to their actions (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000).^[2] Weber believed that human action was creative whereas Durkheim believed that our actions were limited by social structures.

Later Developments

Marx, Durkheim and Weber, are known as the founding fathers of sociology who although divided in their accounts of society all sought to make sense of the changing societies that they lived in (Morrison, 1995). Their thought influenced later sociologists. Functionalism developed out of Durkheim’s thinking. Its most prominent thinkers are the American sociologists Robert Merton and Talcott Parsons. Functionalism holds that society is a system whose various parts work together and this produces social solidarity and cohesion (Giddens, 2001).^[3] Thus functionalists examined the institutions of society, the family and education to show how they worked in the development of society and promoted social cohesion.

Marx’s thinking developed largely through conflict theories. Inherent in Marx’s thought was the idea that one set of people in society were in conflict with another (the class divide) this has been most obvious in the development of feminist theories. Feminists such as Walby (1990) have used Marx’s analysis of class in the analysis of the rise of patriarchy and the struggle between the sexes. These relationships are characterised by the fact that one group has power and authority while another does not. Weber’s thought has been seen as important to the development of symbolic interactionism as found in the work of George Herbert Mead an American anthropologist. This view holds that individuals have an image of themselves that is reinforced by their interactions with others. Phenomenology is a further development of interactionism but it goes further than interactionists in that they focus solely on the subjective aspects of social life.

The ideas of the founding fathers have been termed ‘grand theories’ but with the demise of modernity the idea that history is progressive has been called into question. Society is not a seamless whole but plural and diverse, it has thus been described as post-modern (Lyotard, 1989).

Postmodernists argue that objective knowledge of the world is not possible because knowledge reflects the interests of its producers. Michel Foucault (1975) was a French sociologist who argued that knowledge was a result of the power relations that exist in society. Power works through discourse^[4] and shapes our attitudes towards sexuality, crime and criminals and madness. Foucault, through his ‘archeology’ of knowledge^[5] Foucault argued that what we understand of say mental illness or sexuality is a result of social development.

Conclusion

Clearly knowledge and social change are very closely linked. The immense changes in society over the past three hundred years have resulted in philosophers and social scientists attempting to understand the world, why things happen the way they do, why we do what we do. They also look at the development of social institutions, and in Foucault’s case^[6] the development of knowledge itself through discourse. The emergence of sociology is directly related to social change and sociologists attempts to understand such changes have resulted in the production of knowledge. At the same time new knowledge about the world we live in helps to facilitate social change, e.g. feminist perspectives have resulted in huge changes in women’s status in today’s society.

Bibliography

Callinicos, A 1999 Social Theory New York, New York University Press

Foucault, M 1991 (1975) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison Harmondsworth, Penguin

Giddens, 2001 4^th ed. Sociology Cambridge, Polity

Haralambos and Holborn 2000 Sociology: Themes and Perspectives Collins, London

Morrison, K 1995 Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought

1

How important is the relationship between a person’s occupation and his or her identity?

Within human social contact, many of the interactions we have presume a link between paid occupation and identity. Such a presumption extends not only to the identity of the individual in question but also to the notion of a collective identity: an identity shared by the individual and his or her co-workers. The income generated from our work and the way in which we distribute it – the lifestyle it affords us – all help to shape our identity. However, there are other things which influence our identity; work being only one of them, and so establishing a causal link between occupation and identity can sometimes be difficult. When thinking about our identity within the economic framework of employment we must also consider the notion of representation: our feelings about our occupation and the money and lifestyle it affords us are shaped by the way others see us, and what they have.^[1]

Our identity is an encompassing concept that influences and is influenced by our relationships with other people. This logic dictates that our identities must be closely tied, in some way, to what we do, and how we interpret what we do in the context of our relationships. There is a close connection between doing and identity and the use of language in the creation of meaning and understanding of this^[2]. Piaget^[3] and Kagan^[4] illustrate how children learn about the world through doing; how the realisation that we can act upon the environment contributes to our sense of self, and the realisation that we are separate from our environment. Children, therefore, come to realise that their actions have social meaning and that their approval as individuals is in direct correlation to what they do: we begin to learn about ourselves as individuals and as members of social groups. As we develop our identity is shaped by our competencies, especially in comparison with others, as well as our social standing and the expectations placed upon us^[5]. As adults, our identity becomes goal-oriented and this is largely influenced by society^[6].

Occupation is a goal-oriented life activity. Goals are motivators because we view them in terms of the effect of goals met or unmet. Working late, volunteering, taking on extra responsibility allows us the opportunity to imagine praise, promotion, recognition because of our virtue. This imagining shapes our views of our future self and motivates us to further goal-directed action. Motivating images are often called possible selves^[7] and they represent what we like might like to become or are afraid of becoming. Possible selves are useful for providing the catalyst to transfer thought to action and as we shape our own identity in a positive manner, our satisfaction increases. Our occupation is the vehicle through which we can develop and express our identities and in order for us to do so within our occupations we must demonstrate to others that we are competent to gain approval and avoid rejection. If we are competent it suggests that we are able to deal effectively with challenges that come our way; the more successful we are at dealing with challenges, the higher our self-confidence. Self-confidence highlights a clear link between our identity and a belief in the things that we are able to do.

If our identities are crafted by our occupation and the way in which we perform within that sphere, then a threat to our ability to engage in an occupation becomes almost a threat to our identity. Disabilities often threaten the establishment of an identity based on competence.^[8] Redundancy, for example, or unemployment can erode the shared experience of the labour process which can act as the basis for group identity^[9] as well as the benchmark that enable us to sustain and articulate our individual identity.^[10] For men, unemployment or redundancy can undermine their masculine identity as the traditional male-breadwinner and relegate them to the private rather than the public sphere, and for those used to employment, a lack of occupation can lead to identities becoming more privatised.^[11] Turnbull argues that an occupational based identity may offer the individual the highest status and most positive self-image available to them.^[12] In this way, those without an occupation, or whose occupation affords them only the most basic living have identities defined by the notion of falling into a particular class, e.g. working class – here an identity is defined by subsistence. Poverty becomes a marker of status and position and can almost be a deprivation of identity.

It is clear that an occupation is central to a sense of who we are and our worth which in turn influences how others see us and how we see other people, and since we spend most of our lives working this provides us with a sense of coherence which helps plays an important role in the shaping of both our individual and collective identity. It is important to note though, that occupation is only one factor amongst many which impacts upon our identity and its relative importance must be viewed alongside that of other social factors.

In what ways do social factors shape our identities?

It is true to suggest that our identity is made up of individual traits and interpersonal relationships as well as ideas and beliefs we derive from belonging to different groups. Every one of us has a number of different identities open to us and these identities tell us who we are and what each particular identity might involve. Social contexts will generally indicate which identity is most pertinent at any given time. Tajfel argues that there are times when our ‘group’ identity or social identity is more important to us than our personal identity and this decision is particularly dependent upon social factors.^[13]

Categorisation shapes our identities – when we categorise someone or something we do so in an attempt to understand them and their social environment. So labelling someone as a Muslim, or a Jew, or a football fan or black or white, unemployed or employed allows us to define the kinds of behaviour that are appropriate or even expected of that category. There are a number of different categories which bring with them their own factors which help to shape our identity and the behaviour that is expected of individuals who fall within a particular category. Perhaps some of the most obvious categories are those of race, gender, nationalism and class. When we talk about categorisation by gender, for example, it is often assumed that the role of an individual is defined by their genitalia and that there are social roles for males and social roles for females. This categorisation can be something against which individuals may rebel, but this can also be a group to which they belong that brings with it negative aspects, too. For example, a sub-category for women is often that of the victim; such groupings can have a substantial impact upon the identity of the individual. In everyday speech, we often use the word race to denote a group of individuals who have a particular way of talking about themselves and others – and again we often expect of these people particular types of behaviour, some of which can reinforce stereotypes and contribute to prejudice: social factors which can all affect the identity both of the individual themselves and the identity of the group itself.^[14]

We identify with groups we perceive that we belong to. This has two ramifications: part of what make me ‘me’ is my membership of a particular group, so sometimes there are in-groups and sometimes out-groups (us vs. them) but my identity is also shaped by the fact that I am truly a unique individual. My membership of a particular category or group is just as real to me as the fact that I know that I am unique. A further ramification of this concept is the notion that despite the fact that I am unique, my group self also makes me the same as others within my group. There will be some occasions when I will treat members of my group as being the same as me in some important and pertinent way. For example, I may believe that although I am different to the members of my group, in that I am ‘me’, I am also the same in that I believe that my nation is superior and more deserving of respect than yours (nationalism).

Within individual groups Tajfel argues that group members compare themselves with each other, because this comparison allows them to define their group as positive (or negative) and therefore by default, see themselves in a positive (or negative) light. People are generally motivated to see their group as better than other similar groups, but often groups might try to belittle differences between groups in order to be able to view their own group favourably. For example, people from developing countries might regards their country as inferior technologically or economically but might believe that they live a morally much superior way of life. ^[15]

Social factors, therefore, shape our identity in a variety of ways: they influence the way we view ourselves and others, the people we feel that we belong to and identify with, the behaviour we feel is expected of us, and of others and the worth we attribute to other individuals and groups, as well as to ourselves and the groups we feel we belong to.

Bibliography

Christiansen, C H. Defining Lives: Occupation as Identity: An Essay on Competence, Coherence and the Creation of Meaning. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 1999

Cooley, C.H. Human nature and the social order. New York. Scribner. 1902

Kagan, J. The Second Year: the emergence of self-awareness. Cambridge, MA. HUP. 1981

MacKenzie, R. Stuart, M. Forde, C. Greenwood, E. Perrett, R. Gardiner, J. All that is Solid? Class Identity and the Maintenance of a Collective Orientation amongst Redundant Steel Workers. Sociology 2006.

Piaget. J. The construction of reality in the child. 1954. Basic. New York.

Ruble, D. Social Cognition and Social Behaviour: developmental perspectives. New York. CUP. 1983

Tajfel, H. Social identity and intergroup behavior. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 1982

Vygotsky, LS. The instrumental method in Psychology. P134-143. 1981.

Woodward, K. ed. An introduction to the Social Sciences: Understanding Social Change: questioning identity: gender, class, nation. Routledge. London. 2002

1