toptermpaper.com

There can be no doubt over the wide-ranging influence of Karl Marx’s theories on sociology and political thought. His concept of communism overcoming the socioeconomic pitfalls of capitalism has not been a theory that has seen the light of day in the way that he may have hypothesized. There have been many throughout history that have misrepresented Marx’s writing, which begs the question, if pure communism in the original Marxist sense is at all possible given that humanity appears to have an innate ‘need’ for hierarchy and a thirst for power.

Capitalism appears to satisfy the ‘need’ for power and acquisition above all else, and the evidence is seen in the growth of global wealth, which certainly does not amount to equal wealth. The gap between affluent and poor is ever increasing, which includes inequalities of life chances and participation in mainstream society. However, harsh evidence does not appear to change or transform capitalism, hence, Marx’s concept of economic class struggle remains a contested issue.

This essay will explain and explore the concept of capitalism and how Marx believed that the origins and the dynamics of capitalism were intricately woven into the fabric of class struggles throughout history. In fact, this notion opens the first part of the Communist Manifesto with the now famous quote, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx and Engels 1967, p 79).

An understanding of the historical basis of capitalism is essential given that Marx based his work around the concept of historical materialism, originally derived from his development of Feuerbach’s “Hegelian inversion”. Historical materialism is a concept explaining the vital function of human production for the sole purpose of basic subsistence. Without the means of subsistence, humanity would fail in all other activities and functions. Marx rejected Hegel’s dialectics based on a movement of human thought and ideas, and argued that dialectics involved contradictions based on an economic system, otherwise known as dialectical materialism. Therefore, the dynamic for change eventually created by a process of dialectics lies in the conflict between two opposing factors (Lee and Newby 2000, pp. 114 – 119).

Marx conceived the base and superstructure approach that defines capitalist society. The base relates to all that is a function of production in society and conversely, the superstructure, which can be said to be derived from the base, relates to the values, culture, ideology and the governing bodies of society. The former creates and supports the latter by a process of legitimization of the economic activities, and in turn, the superstructure ensures the processes remain in place. Class domination plays a large part in this process of organization; for example, private education providing better opportunities for advancement and primary socialization into the higher echelons of society. However, a counter argument claims that the state is just as involved in the stresses and “struggles of civil society” as opposed to being a mere extension of it for the pure benefit of a particular class interest (Held 2001, in Hall and Gieben 2001, p 113).

According to Marx, the act of production and means of organization thereof, including the relationship between members of the opposing classes, is key to society and social development and this can be supported with analysis of per-industrial societies.

Feudal societies organized production based on the relationship between the ruling class, the nobility and the subject class, the serfs. The monarchy ruled by divine right and a strict system of traditions commanding complete faithfulness and honor. Church involvement supported and emphasized this early form of social organization and any deviation from accepted behavior would amount to blasphemy. Social hierarchies were fixed and generally as immovable as the land owned by the nobility. Society consisted of small groups living in small agricultural communities. In the absence of an organized economy and bureaucracy, surplus production was seen by the landowners as theirs by right. The serfs were dependent on the grace of the landowners for their means of subsistence, which created a dominance and dependency relationship. As such, Marx asserted that conflict is inevitable in any society based on class (Bradley 2001, in Hall and Gieben 2001, pp. 188-189)

A shift in modes of production was gradual and evolved over hundreds of years of activity, which saw the creation of the stock-holding East India Company (circa 1600) and British colonization of the Americas in the late sixteenth century. Later, Adam Smith (1723-1790) in his work, The Wealth of Nations, created a theory in favor of a free market in direct opposition to mercantilism and the monopoly of land ownership. In contrast to ‘tied’ labor, a free labor would benefit all members of society. Smith believed that all individuals were “profit-seeking” but this created “harmony” in the interests of society as a whole. A free market and free trade would require a division of labor, which ultimately meant a more economically efficient mode of production in a competitive market (Brown 2001, in Hall and Gieben 2001 pp. 145 -149). As such, mercantilism saw the accumulation of capital that gave rise to Capitalism.

Industrialization was not solely responsible for capitalism but most certainly provided the impetus for it to become more widespread (Lee and Newby 2000, pp. 79 – 80). The industrial revolution saw the emergence of a new ruling class, the bourgeoisie, and following in the hierarchical traditions constructed by previous societies, the proletariat found their place at the lower end of the social scale.

For Marx, the idea of class struggle is based on the antagonisms present in the differences between the classes and he considered the emergence of the new ruling class, with its “new conditions of oppression” as being the catalyst for greater divide in society than had gone before (Marx and Engels 1967, p 80). The industrial revolution changed the reasons for work and the meaning of the act of labor, which demanded the sale of personal time and effort in exchange for wages, otherwise known as the communication of labor power. In contrast to feudal times, which existed on a form of agricultural ‘economy’, the conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat, was based on the intensity of production for profit, which led to the ultimate exploitation of the workers. Production shifted from the feudal privately owned land to the industrial private ownership of capital. Given the proletariat’s exclusion from ownership of the means of production, they had no choice but to sell their ability to produce in exchange for tightly controlled wage labor, in order to survive. The conflict created by such an antagonistic system could only be resolved through transformation brought on by revolution.

Conflict must also be understood in context of the social relationships, which became based on a wages versus labor dichotomy. During the Victorian era, the term ‘class’ created social realities that ensured members of society ‘knew their place’ according to their economic health. For Marx, the term ‘class’ defined individuals and groups based on objective principles. Marx believed that consciousness, rather than being a determinant of social being was actually determined by social being. “The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life processes”(Marx 1975 in Lee and Newby 2000, p.115).

According to Marx, a revolution to transform capitalism into socialism could only take place once class consciousness replaced false consciousness. Class consciousness is defined as comprehension and awareness of the true situation of inequality brought on by exploitation, which ultimately leads to proletariat solidarity. An alternate viewpoint, based on consensus rather than conflict, would argue that a collective conscience derived from shared moral and ethical values is required to achieve solidarity. Durkheim’s (1858-1917) functionalist perspective claims that the different levels of society operating in the name of shared interests can fulfill the needs of the social system (Giddens 1971). However, poverty does not contribute to functional unity because of the existence of inequalities. This is most certainly evident in contemporary society, even if we consider the buffer in place through the welfare state; the poor are far from integrated into the rest of society.

The bourgeoisie, in the name of profit, demanded a high intensity of production, which was possible through a division of labor. This in turn created tedious, repetitive work, which amounted to the oppression and exploitation of the workers. The working class were ‘free’ to sell their labor to the highest bidder, but the ruling class benefited through economic supremacy. It would have been impossible for the working class to transcend their lowly position on the economic social scale as long as the ruling class owned the modes of production. In contrast to Adam Smith’s idea that competition and profit would be a benefit to all of society, the capitalist dream is to own the monopoly leading to ever increasing profit and personal wealth. The workers become totally dependent on the smaller unfair ‘share’ through wages that do not recompense the reality of their efforts. Furthermore, Marx highlighted that rather than being ‘free’ to sell their labor, laborers are a “commodity exposed to the vicissitudes of competition, and as such, to the highs and lows expected from an economic market” (Marx and Engels 1967, p 87). However, Max Weber (1864-1920) conceived another dimension to ruthless accumulation of wealth, which he termed ‘rationalization’. Rationalization underpinned the spirit of capitalism. Weber theorized that greed and profit was intricately woven into a deep sense of “disciplined obligation of work as a duty”. This ‘irrational’ duty is the objective of the rational organization of capitalist activity. It is worth noting that Weber wrote of this dimension as only one of many possible components that contributed to capitalism in industrial Europe (Giddens 1971, pp.125-127).

Surplus value, a result of surplus labour, leads to products ‘surplus to requirement’, specifically in terms of basic need for subsistence. The high intensity of production leads to the inevitable alienation of the worker. Alienation can be defined as a state of detachment that relates to two areas of production. The first is the alienation of the worker to the actual product created through his or her labor. The second refers to alienation from the actual task of production; a complex division of labor creates standardized processes and simplification of labor tasks for the ultimate end of increased production. The presence of alienation suppresses individuality and the process of creativity through monotony. Whereas once skill and craftsmanship gave credence to a certain sense of fulfillment, in contrast labor under capitalism, divorces the self from the powers of creation that exist within. Furthermore, Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism supports alienation in the sense that as workers labor under tedious conditions, with no opportunity for creative expression they find new ways of satisfying a sense of expression and this is through the accumulation of commodities. This serves and strengthens the power and drive of capitalism (Lee and Newby 2000, p.117). Bythell (1983) goes as far as claiming that the “common man of the relatively classless world of the cottage industry was certainly happier” (p.18).

If mass production “brutally displaced” an earlier, kinder, more family orientated organization of production (Bythell 1983 p.18), then according to Marx and a theory of dialectics, communism would eventually displace capitalism. The process of dynamic change would take place because of the contradictions created by capitalism and this would be an inevitable process. Capitalism would always strive to maximize profit through the process of exploitation of the working class. An over production of goods would eventually lack movement on the economic market owing to increased competition of market forces which drive down exchange value. Marx asserted that “too much” of all that drives capitalism is the crisis that will see its downfall (Marx and Engels 1967, p 84). Marx claimed that each economic crisis that takes place would ultimately lead to weakening of the hold of capitalism. A combination of bourgeoisie activity, the inevitable compounding effect of further poverty of the working class and a process of development of a class consciousness, helped in part by the gathering of large numbers of workers under one roof, gives rise to a revolutionary movement towards a socialist society (Giddens 1971, pp. 58 -60).

The transcendence of capitalism to socialism has not happened. Large organizations have increased in power and capitalists have found new ways of driving down costs, for example relocating production to countries where lower wages, longer working hours and questionable work practices are a relative norm. In addition, economic lows receive the involvement of the state as a means of protection from failure. This is evident in recent months with the government subsidizing Northern Rock.

Furthermore, Weber observed noteworthy reasons why a revolution did not take place. Complex capitalist function required bureaucratic systems, which saw the emergence of the office worker, who commanded higher salaries than their working class cousins. Although the petite bourgeoisie could not lay claim to ownership, they added a further dimension to class structure through competitive activity towards a rewarding social status. Weber believed this situation powerful enough to prevent the downfall of capitalism (Bradley 2001, in Hall and Gieben 2001, pp. 196 -197).

It is impossible to do justice to the work of Karl Marx without years of concrete research, yet this essay has attempted to outline the process of theories that led Marx to assert that capitalism was based on a system of class struggles. There has been reference to important historical developments, which laid the foundations for capitalism and its inevitable rise through the industrial revolution. We have seen a shift in modes of production from the means of subsistence to the means of production in the name of profit and desire.

Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism would hold true in current productive activities and society’s relentless demands for consumer products. The relationship between consumer and rates of production is symbiotic in the negative sense; as society produces, society wants what it doesn’t need, therein lays the irony. Observation suggests that alienation has taken hold of humanity; acquisition has transformed social interactions, which support a ‘live to work’ ethos. Relations within a capitalist society are stitched together with fiscal threads of steel. Proliferation of constant media images desensitizes society to the poverty-wealth divide and individualism aids us in justifying its existence. The collective human soul appears to be numb to an innate creative ability. Perhaps it is too much to ask for all that is egalitarian in Marx’s theories to become widely accepted for the good of all, given that the power and prestige of economic status is deeply embedded in the psyche. The Communist Manifesto acknowledges the immense influence of economic power “aˆ¦..is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world” (Marx and Engels 1967, pp. 85 – 86 ).

A hugely influential revolutionary thinker and philosopher, Marx did not live to see his ideas carried out in his own lifetime, but his writings formed the theoretical base for modern international communism. Karl Marx (1818-1883), was a German economist, philosopher, and revolutionist whose writings form the basis of the body of ideas known as Marxism. One of Marx’s most important intellectual influences was the philosophy of George Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). Hegel’s signature concept was that of the dialectic, a word that originally referred to the process of logical argumentation and refutation. Hegel’s influence on Marx is evident in Marx’s belief that history is evolving through a series of conflicts in a predictable, unavoidable direction. Hegel also influenced Marx in his characterization of the modern age. Marx’s theory, which he called “historical materialism” is based on Hegel’s. Hegel claims that history occurs through a dialectic, or clash, of opposing forces. Hegel was a philosophical idealist who believed that we live in a world of appearances, and true reality is an ideal. Marx accepted this notion of the dialectic, but rejected Hegel’s idealism because he did not accept that the material world hides from us. With the aid of Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) he produced much of the theory of modern Socialism and Communism. Marxism is the political philosophy and practice derived from the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxism holds at its core a critical analysis of capitalism and a theory of social change. The powerful and innovative methods of analysis introduced by Marx have been very influential in a broad range of disciplines. The economic and political theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that hold that human actions and institutions are economically determined and that class struggle is needed to create historical change and that capitalism will ultimately be superseded by communism. A Marxist’s thought is based on this daily practice, a philosophy called dialectics Thus, Marxism is both a theory and a practice. The theories of Marxism are sometimes called dialectical materialism; theory is based on a particular set of conditions that are always finite, and thus, any theory is necessarily limited. To test the validity of theory, Marxists rely on practice as the criteria of truth. Using such a methodology Marx and Engels examined history, which lead them to elaborate theories of the class struggle, the basis of social relations through economics, and the form of society that could follow capitalism.

The bourgeoisie or capitalists are the owners of capital, purchasing and exploiting labour power, using the surplus value from employment of this labour power to accumulate or expand their capital. The proletariat are owners of labour power (the ability to work), and mere owners of labour power, with no resources other than the ability to work with their hands, bodies, and minds. Marx studied the differences arising between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. The bourgeoisie are interested mainly in developing a capitalist society, using advanced methods of production. The bourgeoisie are the capitalist who own the factories, the product made in the factories and controlled all the trade. The Proletariats have gained nothing in society but the thrill of their own labour. The proletariats feel that they are treated poorly from bourgeoisies; they receive only enough in life to survive and have no chance of achieving a higher, class status. The proletariats helped to improve production in society, which developed Capitalism and helped it to grow faster. The proletariats were not getting the wages they deserve for the labour that was accomplished. Marx wanted the proletariats to stand up to the bourgeoisie and cause a class conflict. The distribution of political power is determined by power over production (i.e., capital). Capital confers political power, which the bourgeois class uses to legitimatize and protect their property and consequent social relations. Class relations are political, and in the mature capitalist society, the state’s business is that of the bourgeoisie. Moreover, the intellectual basis of state rule, the ideas justifying the use of state power and its distribution, are those of the ruling class. The intellectual-social culture is merely a superstructure resting on the relation of production, on ownership of the means of production. Marx used the term mode of production to refer to the specific organization of economic production in a given society. A mode of production includes the means of production used by a given society, such as factories and other facilities, machines, and raw materials. It also includes labour and the organization of the labour force. The term relation of production refers to the relationship between those who own the means of production (the capitalists or bourgeoisie) and those who do not (the workers or the proletariat). According to Marx, history evolves through the interaction between the mode of production and the relations of production. The mode of production constantly evolves toward a realization of its fullest productive capacity, but this evolution creates antagonisms between the classes of people defined by the relations of production-owners and workers.

Capitalism is a mode of production based on private ownership of the means of production. Capitalists produce commodities for the exchange market and to stay competitive must extract as much labour from the workers as possible at the lowest possible cost. The economic interest of the capitalist is to pay the worker as little as possible, in fact just enough to keep the workers alive and productive. The workers, in turn, come to understand that their economic interest lies in preventing the capitalist from exploiting them in this way. As this example shows, the social relations of production are inherently antagonistic, giving rise to a class struggle that Marx believes will lead to the overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat. The proletariat will replace the capitalist mode of production with a mode of production based on the collective ownership of the means of production, which is called Communism. Marx describes how the worker under a capitalist mode of production becomes estranged from himself, from his work, and from other workers. Drawing on Hegel, Marx argues that labour is central to a human being’s self-conception and sense of well-being. By working on and transforming objective matter into sustenance and objects of use-value, human beings meet the needs of existence. Labour is as much an act of personal creation and a projection of one’s identity as it is a means of survival. However, capitalism, the system of private ownership of the means of production, deprives human beings of this essential source of self-worth and identity. The worker approaches work only as a means of survival and derives none of the other personal satisfactions of work because the products of his labour do not belong to him. These products are instead expropriated by capitalists and sold for profit. In capitalism, the worker, who is alienated or estranged from the products he creates, is also estranged from the process of production, which he regards only as a means of survival. Estranged from the production process, the worker is therefore also estranged from his or her own humanity, since the transformation of nature into useful objects is one of the fundamental facets of the human condition. The worker is thus alienated from his or her “species being”, from what it is to be human. Finally, the capitalist mode of production alienates human beings from other human beings. Deprived of the satisfaction that comes with owning the product of one’s labour, the worker regards the capitalist as external and hostile. The alienation of the worker from his work and of the worker from capitalists forms the basis of the antagonistic social relationship that will eventually lead to the overthrow of capitalism.

The labour theory of value states that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labour that went into producing it. Marx defines a commodity as an external object that satisfies wants or needs and distinguishes between two different kinds of value that can be attributed to it. Commodities have a use-value that consists of their capacity to satisfy such wants and needs. For the purposes of economic exchange, they have an exchange-value, their value in relation to other commodities on the market, which is measured in terms of money. Marx asserts that in order to determine the relative worth of extremely different commodities with different use-values, exchange-value, or monetary value, must be measurable in terms of a property common to all such commodities. The only thing that all commodities have in common is that they are a product of labour. Therefore, the value of a commodity in a market represents the amount of labour that went into its production. The labour theory is important in Marx’s work not because it gives special insight into the nature of prices but because it forms the foundation of Marx’s notion of exploitation. In the simplest form of exchange, people produce commodities and sell them so that they can buy other commodities to satisfy their own needs and wants. For Marx, the enterprise is the nucleus of class war both capital and labour are united by certain latent interests which, being contradictory, places them on the opposite sides of a conflict relation. Classes are conflict groups under conditions of absence of mobility, superimposition of authority, property, and general social status, superimposition of industrial and political conflict, and absence of effective conflict regulation.

For Marx alienation is a physical and psychological condition which arises out of the conditions of modern work. Since the worker does not own what he produces, since he lives as an extension of the machine, since he hates what he does, then the worker does not own his own life, he is in a basic sense simply a human machine. He exists to himself as an alien object; the reality of capitalism for Marx is that it is not free. For Marx the connections between the theory of capitalism and the conditions of modern life are all too clear.

Marx believed society was an evolving struggle. He believed Capitalism was an evolving structure. However, unlike Adam Smith, Marx did not believe this evolution was always smooth, nor did he believe it evolved for the best. In fact Marx, predicted the collapse of Capitalism. Marx placed great value on economic forces for explaining social structures. Marx examined society and argued that the wealth of capitalists was based on paying labour less than their true labour value (underpaid labour). This difference between the true labour value and the wages paid led to the accumulation of money capital. Workers were abused and disenfranchised. As capitalism developed, Marx predicted, workers would become increasingly alienated and seek to overthrow the capitalist class. Growth was not guaranteed but could become volatile leading to periods of economic slump. Marxists certainly point to the Great Depression of a vindication of how capitalism can fail.

Karl Marx is regarded as one of the classics of sociology. His social thought, considered one of the most important social theories, was a humanistic theory, concentrated on the condition of society and a place of individual in social structure. Marx is known as one of the greatest ideologists of the nineteen century. His political theory was revolutionary. As a sociologist though, he is regarded to be a “great heir of Enlightenment” [1] , using and developing key concepts of the eighteen century thinkers. This paper is aimed to discuss Karl Marx’ theory in comparison to the Enlightenment philosophy. I will try to answer a question: to what extend Marx’ work inherited from the Enlightenment thinkers? In order to that I will discuss the key concepts of the Enlightenment that were further developed in Marx’s works. In the following part of the paper I will compare the ideas of the eighteen century thinkers with Marx’ theory, in regard to notions of progress, social structure, religion, science, materialism, state and individualism.

Social development, progress and social change

The theory of social development and progress was the key concept of the Enlightenment [2] . The experience of Renaissance – recovery from the “dark ages”, rediscovery of antique philosophy, the expansion of colonialism and exploration of non-European cultures, violated established order and lead to expansion of new ideas doubting tradition. The Enlightenment recognized that human history changes and that societies experience material and mental, moral or philosophical progress. It became clear, that modernity is just another stage of development, that does not lead the end of history, but might be as well a beginning of some better, new society. Eighteen century thinkers considered reason as the leading force of change, believing, that human knowledge and consciousness may develop linearly. Since the Enlightenment was an age of science and reason, philosophers tend to classify and order possessed knowledge. That lead to a few theories of historical stages development of societies that arranged historical periods in progressive order [3] .

Marx inherited from the Enlightenment that linear and deterministic perspective on development of societies, building his theory on the idea of progress. In his works he wrote about successive stages of development of societies: primitive society, feudalism, capitalism (bourgeois formation), socialism and communism. He abandoned the concept of reason as the leading force of progress, though. For Marx’ the key force of development was ownership and mode of production emerging from it. HeEach of the stages presented different social relations, policies, politics and consciousness – all of which resulting from economic relations. The mode of production representing each of historical formation of society was regarded as a base, and resulted in different superstructures – culture, religion and politics. Every stage of history was more complex than another and lead to the next one. For Marx it meant that the history of all societies is inevitable and must lead through the same phases.

The Enlightenment’s attachment to the notion of progressive development of societies lead to the ideas of future utopia – final, goal stage of social evolution. It was a very optimistic concept of history, beginning in dark, oppressive periods of the past, through ambiguous and chaotic modernity, leading to some “enlighten”, better and just future. Such utopian vision was described by Condorcet, for whom future society would prevail tyranny by changing tradition and superstition into reason [4] . Delany wrote of the Enlightenment as “aˆ¦characterized by a certain utopianism, which was a reflection of the belief in the promises of modernity to bring about freedom. Unlike earlier social thought, it displayed a great belief in the power of human action to shape the future” [5] . The same was true for Marx, who saw communism as the perfect and most of all – just, social system. For Marx the end stage of human history – communism – represented the most desired and final phase of human development. As Sideman wrote: “Marx never gave up his Enlightenment faith in the coming of a new era” [6] .

But contrary to the Enlightenment philosophers, for Marx, the utopia was not to be obtained through evolution and development of reason, but through revolution of working class. The idea of revolution was not present in eighteen century before the experience of French revolution. Though it is sad, that the Enlightenment prepared the ground for the revolt in France, works of eighteen century thinkers did not appeal to force or violent change. Marx shared the romantic vision of revolution with socialist thinkers and activists supporting French strife. Moreover, unlike his eighteen century ancestors, Marx sought emancipation in proletariat – the working class of modernity. The Enlightenment was an age of intellectuals, giving special role to philosophers in the process of development of society [7] . In eighteen century thought, reason had the emancipatory force. Marx violent vision of revolution did not reserved place for intellectuals, though Marx was one of them.

Social structure

The Enlightenment was a period of a great expansion of egalitarian theories. The idea of natural laws developed and notion of equality had spread. Eighteen century philosophers attempted to find and describe origins of social order as well as discover best social conditions to maintain and expand individual freedom. Especially the latter – freedom, understood as unconstrained development and expansion of reason – was an important issue in the theory of state and governance. The Enlightenment cherished the idea of liberated individual in the society – free from state, church and other collective forms of organizations. To reconcile the concepts of state and freedom, the idea of civil society was developed. Individuals became citizens – residents of a state that had their natural, internal rights, individuals who through that civil rights gained freedom. Though human beings were not equal, especially because of different kinds and sizes of ownership, they had the potential of equality internalized through their natural, inalienable rights.

For Marx idea of equality was a goal of the development of societies. Contemporary social structure was far from egalitarian one. To describe social structure Marx used a concept of class as sets of people or parts of society that differ by the “effective control over the means of production and property ownership” [8] . The class designated people who lived in similar conditions. For bourgeois stage of development social structure was basically dichotomous, consisting of two classes – owners (capitalists) and workers. Since individuals within one class shared alike economic positions – they also shared the same interests. Individuals from different classes, on the other hand, remained in permanent conflict as they interests were opposite. For in Marx’ theory class structure is a structure of permanent class-conflict. As E.C. Cuff and others expressed it: “Since the inequality between the owning class and the labouring class is not simply an economic one, narrowly defined, but involves a social relationship of power and control, the difference of interest between these classes refers to freedom” and further: “The conflict of interest between owning and labouring classes is, then, a conflict over power and freedom.” [9] Once again Marx’ theory rejected peaceful and optimistic assumptions of the Enlightenment.

Ideologies and religion

The end of the Middle Ages ended the era of god’s laws and theological explanation of social order. The Enlightenment separated religion from politics. Eighteen century brought to life the concept of public – private spheres. Religion became private matter of citizens. God’s rights no longer decided on political questions and social relations. Secular society was based on secular rules. The Enlightenment believed in reason and science, and through them sought emancipation from religion and superstition. “Social change required that cultural traditions be weakened to allow for new ideas and attitudes favoring social progress” [10] . Religion and tradition constrained social change and overruled the utopian vision of future. It does not mean that the Enlightenment was a truly secular era. Rejection of religion covered only public, political sphere. None of the great philosophers of the period – Becon, Diderot, Locke – postulated atheism [11] . The issue was to separate religion from science, theology from logical reasoning. Religion intruded cognition, so had to be abandoned in the sphere of knowledge.

Marx also shared with the Enlightenment the concept of secular society, though he brought the idea of secularization further. For Marx every ideology and meta-narration of society, in every stage of its development, was a product of current economic relations, and so was religion. Religion – internalized rules, regulations and prohibitions – served justification of the conditions of production and hence, the justification of exploitation. In this sense religion was a mechanism of oppression. It was no longer a private issue, but a political one, that justified bourgeois order. As in the eighteen century – religion obstructed change, but this time, though, it was not suppose to be withdraw from public life, but destroyed absolutely. That is why, according to Marx, emancipation not only required rejection of theological order of the world, but also complete rejection of religion. Once again this emancipation required revolution – dramatic and sudden change of economic conditions that would change social relations, including execution of religion.

The role of science

The Enlightenment was the era of development of sciences. A great expand of sciences such as mathematics, medicine, natural sciences changed the view of modern philosophers on the world and human kind. Science revealed mystery of existence and the order of nature. That is why science became one of the ways to obtain individual freedom. Eighteen century philosophers presumed that one day science will lead to discovery of logical, rational order of human and societal relations.

For Marx science also had an important role in revealing the rules of organization of society. Marx knew that “in order to change, it is necessary to understand the social forces – institutions, cultural traditions, social groups” [12] . In Marx’ theory science held the explanatory role by revealing the real nature of social order, gave information about social classes, modes of production and rules of historical development. According to Marx, science should be based on rational assumptions and logical laws, it should reject common sense and superstitions.

When discussing the role of science in Marx’ theory, his contribution to scientific methods is worth mention. The Enlightenment admired achievements of modern mathematics and physicists, especially those of Newton. Philosophers were dreaming of finding scientific method, similar to methods used in physics and mathematics, to investigate and describe social world. Modern thinkers presumed that since the complex world of nature can be characterized through clear rules and patterns of numbers, the same can be done with human environment.

Marx’ sought different path of inquiry. His scientific method characterized as “historicism” [13] postulated investigation on every social phenomena in their historical context. Marx claimed that all individuals and their actions are embedded in broader setting, since none human being exists separated from his environment. Moreover he posed the question of a researcher as a social actor, entangled in social reality beside investigated objects. Marx claimed that scientist shares common consciousness to the same degree as all other members of society. True scientific method required from the researcher detachment from false, superstition knowledge embedded on the surface of social life [14] . Here again Marx expressed belief in reason and logic, similarly to his eighteen century ancestors.

Economic perspective

Though Marx’ theory shares materialistic perspective, he was not the one to introduce economic interpretation of social life. Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson and others eighteen century thinkers saw the leading role of economy in social life. Those early economists wrote about dehumanization of work and disintegration of society through modern specialization of production and technical development of the production process [15] . Industrial revolution of eighteen century brought to light new phenomena that were not overlooked by present-day thinkers. Negative effects of industrialization, demographic explosion and urbanization were thoroughly discussed by that time.

As we can see, the importance of material conditions for human individual and collective life was not the Marx’ invention, though he also observed that technology destroys social relations. According to him, innovations, machines and devices used in the process of production serve the dominant class for exploitation of workers [16] . Nevertheless, with his materialistic view on society, Marx went further with the idea, claiming that: “the reproduction of material life precedes the production of culture” [17] . For Marx material conditions of existence were the basis for all other characteristics of life. In this concept, living conditions determined social structure, policies, rules and morality. Marx showed that certain social conditions shape certain forms of consciousness. That was a great contribution of Marx’ thought to social sciences. Since Marx, social scientists began research on the role of material conditions on human thoughts, believes and attitudes, giving a start to many disciplines of social sciences, as sociology of thought, sociology of knowledge or sociology of religion [18] . Moreover, since then, social scientists considered development process and ownership relations of societies as some of the most important criteria of social studies analysis.

The concept of state

Eighteen century philosophy was critical towards the old order or regime. The Enlightenment developed several state theories [19] , all connected with the concept of social contract. Hobbes, claimed that the states are made on the basis of common agreement in which citizens give their rights to absolute power. John Locke postulated conception of liberal state based on tolerance, private ownership and freedom of economic action. In this conception it was not the absolute ruler but society that hold the power. Kannt, on the other hand, proposed peaceful republican regime of federation of states. Finally Rousseau wrote about egalitarian regime of equal chances, conditions and rights of citizens. All the eighteen century concepts of authority were positive ones, assuming rationality of power and universality of interests.

Marx’ concept of the state was not the optimistic one. In his works state power had class character [20] . Regime authority served class interest of dominant group of society – capitalists, through organized violence towards the suppressed class. There was no possibility to gain freedom through or within the state. Unlike the eighteen century theories, Marx’ project of desirable future assumed abolishment of the bureaucratic, oppressive, class regime. Decomposition of the state should be accomplished through a proletariat revolution that would lead to class-free society of common owners.

Individualism and collective action

In earlier philosophy, the status of human being in society was constant and determined, not by human himself, but by external forces – the world order, god’s will, some kind of justice and internal sense of social existence. Enlightenment and especially the French revolution, brought the idea of civil society and civil rights [21] . The Enlightenment claimed that all human beings share some common characteristics that are independent of external, historical or natural conditions. It was the kind of individualism, that claimed that human nature in general have some common qualities inherited from the state of nature. That is what makes society egalitarian – differences between human status in society are merely secondary, in a sense that all (male) human beings are equal and share the same civic rights. Emancipation in this context was a political emancipation of citizens from feudal, traditional relations.

Marx connected human position in social structure with material conditions and idea of work and ownership. For him the idea of society was not based on the idea of civil rights, but on the idea of economic relations between different social groups – classes. It was dichotomous vision of society made of workers and capitalists – the owners of means of production. Emancipation was possible not on the basis of civil rights, but on the basis of changing economic relations. This was a revolutionary perspective, leading to turnover of social order. Unlike the Enlightenment, Marx’ did not perceived emancipation and concept of freedom in individual actions. He clearly rejected individualism – both in terms of individual social actions and as the method of inference about human conditions. Marx claimed that every individual is rooted in his collective history and society, and his consciousness, as well as beliefs, goals and needs are shaped through that heritage. That is why not only analysis of human conditions, but also the projected change of social relations, has to take into consideration collective baggage and collective effort.

Conclusions

As we can see, Marx benefited much from the Enlightenment philosophy, though we have to keep in mind, that issues presented in this paper are merely examples of eighteen century tradition in Marx’ thought. Marx indeed was “a child of the Enlightenment” in a sense, that he took form that tradition in different ways, sometimes directly, sometimes developing further ideas and sometimes criticizing and negating the eighteen century thought. This heritage however seems somehow natural, since we cannot abandon of our history and are always influenced by previous discourses. What we have to remember about is, that eighteen century tradition does not exhaust Marx’ thought but merely enriches and embeds it in historical context.

Karl Marx was born in Germany in 1818. His family was Jewish but converted to Protestantism. Marx rejected religion in his youth and made it very clear that he was an atheist. Marx studied under Georg Wilhelm Friedrich von Hegel. Hegel’s theories and philosophies influenced much of Marx’s thought and later, his theories. Hegel believed that mental concepts such as ideas and thoughts were the fundamental part of life and the universe, not matter. Material things, to Hegel, were just representations or expressions of the mental, of the Absolute or the Universal. Marx, along with other “Young Hegelians,” critiqued Hegel’s ideas as well as studying them. Marx and others argued that matter was of primary importance and that mental ideas were a reflection of material necessity. Marx is well known as a materialist and in the field of relgion, a functionalist reductionist. Marx also worked Friedrich Engels who also had similar beliefs about economic determinism.

Background and Biography of Friedrich Engels

Engels was born in Germany in 1820. In 1844, Engels met Marx when he was writing for a journal called “Franco-German Annals” in France. They had similar ideas about class struggle, economics, society, and capitalism, so it was a perfect union. Also because Marx was great at abstract thinking and Engels was a good communicator to the masses. Also, Engels supported Marx financially. They wrote many articles together, including the Communist Manifesto. After Marx died, Engels wrote many more articles and edited much of Marx’s writings and published them.

Book Information

This book is a compilation of articles, letters, journals, written by both Marx and Engels, some together and others independently. The layout of the articles and letters are based on chronology. Much of Marx’s works are well known, but was difficult for me to read. They were abstract and overall sarcastic and full of contempt for religion. Engels’ articles are much easier for me to read and although it is clear he was not a religious man, he did not seem to hate religion as much as Marx, although he thought it a tool to control people.

Economic and Social Theories

Marx and Engels postulated that in the primitive era of human life, people were not thinking of grand mental conceptions or thoughts, but more concerned with material needs such as eating and surviving. Unity and working together in this way was an important part of their lives. Marx thinks that this is something to work toward in today’s society. Once the concepts agriculture and private property arose, there resulted a division of labor and separation of classes based on wealth and power- thus, causing conflict. Capitalism increases the harm done by class struggle. It also causes surplus value, which is evil, in Marx’s point of view. Engels and Marx believed in an equal value system. Value is determined by the amount of work done to produce the product. Marx and Engels also believed that economics are the base of human life. Superstructures are the social institutions that are based in economics and completely dependent on it. Some examples are government, art, philosophy, and of course, religion. They are just expressions of class conflict.

Dialectics of Nature

Marx and Engels are materialists and they believe that science can discover everything about matter, so that matter can explain everything, or the essence or reality. In the “Dialectics of Nature,” (152-192) Engels and Marx try to answer three main questions:

What is the origin of energy or motion in nature?

What causes galaxies, solar systems, planets, and animals of nature to constantly increase in number?

What is the origin of life, species, and mind?

They answer this with three laws:

The Law of Opposites: The world is comprised of opposites which cause energy or motion. For example, electricity has a negative and positive charge. There is feminine and masculine qualities (gender) and biology (sex) in the world as well. This is not an original idea of Marx and Engels, but borrowed from Hegel who said: “Contradiction in nature is the root of all motion and life.”

Law of Negation: The idea is that in nature there is a tendency for the quantity of things to increase. Engels and Marx found that in order to reproduce in a larger amount, the entity will negate itself. For example, a plant such as the barley seed will germinate and when it dies (negation), a plant is produced. Nature is increasing due to death.

Law of Transformation: The fact that life increases by number, developments occur, thus making “leaps” in which a new form is created. This is a parallel to Darwin’s evolution theory.

Critique of Religion:

Marx states that “The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.” Since Marx and Engels are functionalists, they believe that religion is a tool to keep society running the way it is. Marx and Engels state that religion is irrational because it worships something not in reality, at least not material reality. Religion is the opposite of all that is dignified in a human being because it renders one as a servant and more docile to the status quo. Marx and Engels also criticize Christianity and Judaism as hypocritical die to its high moral values, but oppressive capability. For example, Jesus helps the poor, sick and lame, but the Church merged with Roman state which enslaved people. The most famous quote that Marx wrote about religion appeared in his “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.” The quote is as follows:

“Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless world, and just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions. The criticism of the religion is therefore in the embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which is religion” (41).

This quote means that the poor can use illusion of religion as comfort during their struggles. Since the poor cannot find happiness in this life, religion tells them that they can find it in the next life. Marx concludes that just as opiate based drugs, religion is only a temporary solution to suffering and can be extremely harmful because it helps one forget the real cause of the suffering. The enemy, the oppressors, are administering the drug and they are ultimately responsible for the pain.

John Stuart Mill has been regarded as an influential philosopher of the nineteenth century, as a result of his contributions to psychology. Though aspects of his early education and family life are noted as less than pleasant, he has been described as one of the great British liberal thinkers (King, Viney, & Woody, 2009). John Stuart Mill is the son of James Mill, a well-known philosopher, who subscribed to the fundamental mechanical method of association, founded by David Hartley (King et al., 2009). James Mill subscribed to the ideals of John Locke, suggesting that at birth, a child’s mind is without knowledge, which only experience would fulfill (Schultz & Schultz, 2011). As a result of his beliefs, John Mill ensured that his son was educated and provided with numerous experiences, neglecting other important aspects of his emotional and social growth (Schultz & Schultz, 2011).

John Stuart Mill was born in 1806 and was strictly and systematically educated by his father from an early age, failing to experience pleasures of childhood and emotional sanctity (King et al., 2009). It may be assumed that due to his intensive lifestyle and lack of emotional expression, Mill suffered from severe depression. In the midst of his depressive state, Mill began utilizing arts as a way to explore his feelings, before overcoming his state (King et al., 2009). After establishing a friendship with Harriet Taylor, Mill was able to express his emotions, while furthering his intellectual work (King et al., 2009). Eventually, they married and Mill attributes much of his philosophical work to Taylor (Schultz & Schultz, 2011). Though he felt strongly on aspects of gender equality, it was not until after her death, that he was inspired to write about the disparities experienced by women (Schultz & Schultz, 2011). The main themes of Mill’s philosophical life work, regarding the advancement of psychology, are centered on association and utilitarianism (King et al., 2009).

Associationism

James Mill and John Stuart Mill have been noted as the founders of “associative psychology” by many (Shiraev, 2011, p. 99). John Stuart Mill maintained a similar belief as his father, regarding association as the principal law of human mind, but added an important distinction (Wertheimer, 2012). His father’s view of associationism centered on the premise that complex ideas are made up of simple ideas (Hergenhan, 2009). When those simple ideas repeatedly occur together, they come to be associated as one idea (Hergenhan, 2009). Hergenhan (2009) elaborates this view and notes that a complex idea can always be broken down into the simple ideas that comprise it.

John Stuart Mill modified his father’s mechanistic view, comparing it to a chemistry of the mind, where chemicals combine and result in a different element (Hergenhan, 2009). He viewed ones knowledge base, as a result of experience and in terms of calculations, emphasizing one’s ability to reason, as a result of making generalizations from experiences (Shiraev, 2011). Mill’s reformed view, focused on the notion that basic ideas could occur together, producing an idea that was vastly different from the components that originally were comprised of it (Hergenhan, 2009). Since ideas occurred together in the past, one idea could induce another and even enable one to have a belief about the connection, creating an association (Shiraev, 2011).

Furthermore, Mill argues that associationism can account for how humans learn. Mill compared causal relationships to the minds ability to expect what will happen in the world, enabling a basis for learning to anticipate events (Wilson, 2007). Additionally, Mill describes anticipation of pleasure as a motivating factor (Wilson, 2007). Through various instances of success at obtaining pleasure, individuals will seek pleasure because an association has already been established (Wilson, 2007). Mill’s philosophy that new ideas can result from combined experiences brought about changes in the field of psychology.

Utilitarianism

As a result of the work of Jeremy Bentham, utilitarianism is regarded as a principle of moral basis, which states that actions should provide the greatest good for the largest amount of people (King, et al., 2009). However, Mill differed in his views of utilitarianism, focusing on the consequences of an act and judging its worth based on the happiness it provides (Shiraev, 2011). Futhermore, Shiraev (2011) describes Mill’s view of utilitarianism as a basis for determining if an action is correct, and if and only if, it affords pleasure for all who are influenced by the event. Mill regarded only those individuals who were knowledgeable, as having the ability to decide whether an action is in the best interest of all (Shiraev, 2011). Progressivism has been largely impacted by the utilitarian principles, which have contributed to social equality.

The ideals of progressivism were becoming largely influenced by women’s role in the industrial realm. Nearing the twentieth century, large numbers of psychologists were recognizing similarities in their roles to social reformers, who were interested in the role of government in society (Shiraev, 2011). Mill was regarded as a scholar, whose role in progressivism was benefiting the greater good. His beliefs regarding feminism were comprised of empirical and utilitarian philosophy (King et al., 2009). Mill supported the equality of all women, declaring that the only differences that existed between men and women were those of social customs (Shiraev, 2011). Mill, alongside social scientists, challenged society’s view of women as singularly subservient (Shiraev, 2011). Mill focused on society’s view that women were deficient, by arguing that one is unable to have such a basis of knowledge, while women are unable to exert their abilities (King, et al., 2009). Though Mill demanded for changes in the view of women in society, inequalities remained prominent.

Epistemology

Mill’s belief regarding human understanding and the means by which information is acquired, is based on a posteriori knowledge (Wilson, 2007). Mill argued that the knowledge we acquire is based on experiences. He viewed human interaction in the environment as inductive, by which humans tend to make connections among features of unrelated experiences (Wilson, 2007). From those specific connections, humans begin to develop generalizations about their experience (Wilson, 2007). Mill uses his belief about induction, while working out the principles of investigative science, in the System of Logic, Book III (Wilson, 2007). Mill argues those generalizations about the world, as we come to understand, are used as a way to satisfy our needs; however some generalizations may be false (Wilson, 2007). Among the many different generalizations we maintain, patterns begin to develop. Mill declares that we begin to understand that among all the generalizations, are laws that describe various events and we modify our beliefs, in order to detect the actual cause about an event (Wilson, 2007). The process that Mill describes is the foundation of the experimental method of science, which begins with a few hypotheses and a search for data by experimentation, ultimately concluding one true hypothesis (Wilson, 2007).

Empiricism

Mill’s view of empiricism, places limits on what he thought humans were capable of thinking (Wilson, 2007). He placed great emphasis on consciousness, asserting that humans can have knowledge of things that they are not conscious of, as a result of not experiencing all parts of the world (Wilson, 2007). More specifically, he explained that there are some things that are too small to be observed, without assistance or deliberately attending to them (Wilson, 2007). Mill concluded that the knowledge we acquire is not always a result of direct experiences, but conclusions we make from direct experience (Wilson, 2007). Furthermore, Mill clarifies his philosophy, by stating that our beliefs about things we have not observed, are processed as similar to what we already are conscious of (Wilson, 2007).

Psychological Contributions

John Stuart Mill has contributed in numerous ways to the progression of psychology, as we know it today. The all-encompassing premise in his view of psychology is “association and the pleasure principle” (King et al., 2009, p. 139). Mill’s view on association can be applied to the principles of classical conditioning, clinical and applied psychology, cognitive-behavioral psychology, and experimental psychology. Similarly, his views on utilitarianism are related to the principles of social psychology. Though Mill’s considerable influence on philosophy has impacted various aspects of human knowledge, his contributions to psychology have been fundamental in the development of psychology as a science.

Associationism and Psychology

Mill’s philosophical ideals can be compared to the model of classical conditioning. More specifically, his belief in the basis of learning is centered on the idea that one stimulus can signal another stimulus or idea, after being paired together. Mill’s principle of association was based on the premise that ideas, which have occurred together in the past, have the ability to establish a relationship. As a result of his principle, he secondarily influenced other progressive thinkers, such as Ivan Pavlov, in regard to conditioned responses.

Mill’s view of scientific psychology not only included the influence of the mind-body relationship, but ethology as well (King et al., 2009). Mill’s new concept of ethology resembles the basis of clinical psychology studied today. Ethology was based on how individual personality traits among humans differ from one individual to another, enabling observation and experimental processes, to be utilized for study (King et al., 2009). As a result of Mill’s ethology, he supported the theory of an “applied psychology and a basic psychology” (King et al., 2009, p. 139). Also, Mill reasoned that science of the mind has the ability to be studied, enabling future changes in the field of psychology (Schultz & Schultz, 2011).

The fundamental aspects of associationism can be paralleled to the current study of cognitive-behavioral psychology. Though Mill provides little insight into his belief regarding the mind-body problem, it has been assumed that he believes the mind affects the body and vice-versa; however no causality is implied (Wilson, 2007). He regards these reciprocal events as practical, with no mystery to their actions (Wilson, 2007). Mill’s assumption can be compared to the modern view of cognitive-behavioral psychology, in which thoughts impact our feelings and behaviors. Alternatively, aspects of our bodies can influence the way we feel, as well as our mental processing of events.

Associationism has further contributed to learning, enabling experimental psychologists to apply the principles, while studying human processing. Investigations were conducted on the association of a stimulus and response in learning, thus testing the association of mental thinking (Singh, 1991). The philosophical ideas of earlier associationists, enabled modern thinkers such as Hermann Ebbinghaus to investigate and develop a theory of learning, which is regarded as prominent knowledge in psychology today (Singh, 1991).

Utilitarianism and Psychology

Mill’s utilitarian principles on gender equality suggested an early foundation of social psychology. His perspective and writings on feminism enabled a greater understanding of women and how their equal role in society, could provide benefits and new perspectives (King et al., 2009). He discussed society’s perception of women and how influences of greater society maintain the inequality experienced. He ascribed to the principle that improvements in society will augment the general good of many (Wilson, 2007). Furthermore, he asserts that each individual intends to make the most of his or her own happiness, subsequently increasing the happiness for all (Wilson, 2007). Among his many philosophical ideals, Mill supported various social agenda’s, including freedom of speech, worldwide education, and a women’s right to choice birth control (King et al., 2009). Each of Mill’s various ideals focused on the interaction of society and how negative social perceptions impact the morals of social order.

Summary

John Stuart Mill’s philosophical work contributed to various aspects in society, but none more than the field of psychology. It is apparent that his strict upbringing and education were crucial in developing his philosophy of human nature and social agendas. Many aspects of his liberal thinking and psychological principles were ahead of his time and became the foundation of other progressive theories. His philosophical work has impacted many more progressive thinkers throughout history. Mill’s philosophies remain engrained in the history of psychology, learning, and social thought, which continue to be debated today.

In his essay ‘Disneyworld Company’ (1996), Jean Baudrillard suggests that we are living within “an immediate synchronism of all the places and all the periods in a single a-temporal virtuality”. Please explain this statement, referencing at least two contemporary digital examples.

In his statement ‘an immediate synchronism of all the places and all the periods in a single a-temporal virtuality‘, Baudrillard is addressing the gap between what we can see as the known and the experienced (Baudrillard, 1996). It is in this sense that Baudrillard is writing against the notion of human nature and revealing only experience as the real and knowledge as merely the imagined. It is due to this gap that Baudrillard is then able to show that virtuality has begun to replace our real perceptions. To understand this in full we must investigate his and other philosopher’s thoughts regarding the digital age in greater detail.

Informed primarily by the role that intelligence and sensual perception plays as it is applied to experience and knowledge, Baudrillard looked at the role of subjectivity as it related to both the objective and the phenomenological world. Beginning his enquiry into humanity and reality and its relationship to the world, Baudrillard focused upon the condition of the free world and its growing technologies with an emphasis that its Medias had placed upon commercialisation, imagery and art consumption. Baudrillard spoke of the new emphasis on the philosophy of self fulfilment suggesting that,

‘Through planned motivation we find ourselves in an era where advertising takes over the moral responsibility for all of society and replaces a puritan morality with a hedonistic morality of pure satisfaction, like a new state of nature at the heart of hyper civilisation’ (Baudrillard, 1968, p.3)

After prescribing this current philosophical and moral reality that he believed informed the condition for humanity in the west, Baudrillard then turned to a notion of subject / object consciousness in an attempt to define a link between our knowledge and our experience. Detailing a consumer-able condition that pertained very strongly to post modern, capitalist living, Baudrillard concluded that the relationship between the subject and object now formed the living consciousness of an abstracted life between what he/she identifies with and what is signified in the actual consummation of any chosen object, such as an image, by stating that,

‘We can see that what is consumed are not objects but the relation itself – signified and absent, included and excluded at the same time – it is the idea of the relation that is consumed in the series of objects which manifests it.’ (Baudrillard, 1967, p.11)

What Baudrillard does here is implement the idea of a simulated code acting as our knowledge, rather like that of a robot with artificial intelligence, that works by replacing the old humanised ideological frameworks that once informed society and acted as the gel between experience and knowledge / subject and object. These driving forces once born of experience communicated through culture and language in the forms of social exchange and communal ideology were seen by Baudrillard as being the premise of the image. In this we see that Baudrillard is showing how this simulated code informs a new humanity, devoid of natural origin, that does not live out a life according to cultural meaning that is supported by a communal language, but instead acts out an imagined life that can be understood and identified by its relationship to the values apparent within the code or what Bakhtin called the ‘relationship of the other’ – essentially, placing life itself as a simulated relationship to a tructural code of knowledge. (Bakhtin, 1993). Writing on the subsequent implications of this reality that he defined as hyper-reality and documenting the cultural shift that supported the change from registering external behaviour of a subject as an indication of a subjective response to the recognition of the other as an objective image of simulated experience, Baudrillard suggested that,

‘A whole imagery based on contact, a sensory mimicry and a tactile mysticism, basically ecology in its entirety, comes to be grafted on to this universe of operational simulation, multi-stimulation and multi response. This incessant test of successful adaptation is naturalised by assimilating it to animal mimicry. , and even to the Indians with their innate sense of ecology tropisms, mimicry, and empathy: the ecological evangelism of open systems, with positive or negative feedback, will be engulfed in this breach, with an ideology of regulation with information that is only an avatar, in accordance of a more flexible patter.’ (Baudrillard, 1976, p.9)

With this we can see that all cultures have become divorced from a natural reality born of experience and that the ideas of a structured culture have become replaced by a gap that is filled with the virtual. In this sense, life, according to Baudrillard, is one of virtual imagery that is then rationalised against a simulated code rather than an intrinsic relationship with nature. Essentially, this ideological code acting as virtual knowledge informs us of linear time and space and so distorts our experience of life and existence. The virtual imagery presented to us via global technology and media, such as the internet, then reinforces our application to this reality and gives us our user identity that replaces the old systems devised of actual or phenomenological reality. Scepticism towards global medias, technologies and the growing dependency that humanity and society had begun placing upon the cultural apparatus of the globe was put forward by Marxist philosopher Seigfried Kracauers in his concerns about the mass consumption of art. This indicated that reality of the working masses was hidden under the illusion (or virtuality) of mass produced, distributed and unrelated art (Kracauer, 1963). Expanding upon the ideas of mass consumption and art put forward by Kracauer, contemporary Walter Benjamin introduced the notion of time and space to this idea. Focusing upon the history of technological progression and its relationship to art and social reality, Benjamin suggested that,

‘Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element its presence in time and space, its unique existence as the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of existence. This includes the charges which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes of its ownerships. The traces of the first can be revealed only by chemical or physical analysis which it is impossible to perform on a reproduction; changes of ownership are subject to a tradition which must be traced from the situation of the original’ (Benjamin, 1935, p.1)

Bringing the role of time and space into the capitalist reproduction of art, Benjamin was able to expand upon Kracauer’s notion that this art was resistant to nature, the individual, the nation and the community. What Benjamin was then able to suggest was that firstly, any one piece of culture belongs to the mass production of art that determines it, and that secondly, every cultural artefact cannot stand free of the time and space in which it was presented as without its mass, it has no meaning or cultural apparatus from which it can be signified or understood (Benjamin, 1935). We can see from this that both Kracauer and Benjamin devised a rationale that applied to the placing of the ideological and virtual conceptual framework within the technological reality of global production. More contemporary thinkers and writers that have concerned themselves with this role of global media and their advancing technologies in the current global condition, hae often supported these views providing evidence for the onus placed upon imagery in the process. For instance, in his text War and Peace in the Global Village writer Marshall McLuhan commented directly upon the growing dependency of western cultures mass media technologies. The global village mentioned in the title referred to the relationship between the people of the global cities and the mass culture that they consumed and were informed by. In particular, this text observed the actual impact that new technologies such as television and news had on cultural perception and indicated how it affected the perception of time within that perception, suggesting that it was being used to artificially construct a regional global identity based upon a virtual history and world based upon linear time and imagined geographies. For instance, information readily received from actual and real events in the world made the concept of a world and its state of being a direct part of one’s own naturalised condtion and experience. Essentially, as this mass of information could be freely accessed by anyone among the global village at any time, then the information could be seen as a virtual universalising reality. Furthermore, using an example of contemporary war coverage, McLuhan was able to demonstrate a clear biasness that was present in the then contemporary manipulation of mass technologies so that invading troops could be portrayed as ‘military contractors‘. He termed this as ’dichotomization’, which would offer two points of view both pertaining to the culture / counter culture of the presiding mass (McLuhan, 1963). This is the gap between knowledge and experience that Baudrillard was referring to, in which he believed synchronisation could flood the space now rendered free of actual time and actual space and portray the virtual as the real.

Although we can see that both Kracauer and Benjamin’s theories of mass reproduction and McLuhan’s findings on the perceptions of technological medias are still relevant and apply to the presentation of the global world that we now find ourselves deeply immersed in, other theorists have offered another approach, implying that Kracauer and Benjamin’s theories contained a fatalistic scepticism that was born of the early twentieth century western modernist perspective. For instance, concerned with the notion of technological expansion, mass culture and the effects of globalisation, contemporary cultural theorist Homi Bhabha engaged in a global perspective that aimed to critique the notion of mass reproduction and its over riding condition. Considering Kracauer and Benjamin’s conceptual analysis of the reproduction of the mass and observing the colonial effects placed upon other cultures, Bhabha positioned this dimension in the conemporary sense by emphasising that it also formed a part of the dichotomy of the mass. Having placed their theory of mass reproduction as one of global scepticism, that was bound by the cultural historicity of their western heritage as is represented by Baudrillard’s positioning of Disney Land as a producer of virtuality within the contemporary age, Bhabha then suggested a third way approach that stood outside of the virtual mass and could observe it organically, either as individual or as a community. Having positioned Kracauer and Benjamin’s theories as part of the dichotomy of the mass, Bhabha was then able to indicate that the essence of a true global perspective was born of organic community that could be found somewhere outside of the global mass; somewhere away from the ‘imaginary’ virtual debates of global inter-national territories and free of their dependencies upon linear and grand concepts of history and time elase (Bhabha, 1994). He suggested that the location of this elsewhere was within the unbound psychology of the individual and not in the construct of their ideological positioning within the virtual time and space created by global media, technology and information. Engaging with Benjamin’s notion of time and space in this cultural reproduction, Bhabha reasoned that,

‘The temporality of negotiation or translation has two main advantages. First, it acknowledges the historical connectedness between the subject and object of critique so that there can be no simplistic, essentialist opposition between ideological misrecognition and revolutionary truth. The progressive reading is crucially determined by the adversarial or agonistic situation itself; it is effective because it uses the subversive, messy mask of camouflage and does not come like a pure avenging angel speaking the truth of a radical historicity and pure oppositionality. If one is aware of this heterogeneous emergence (not origin) of radical critique, then – and this is my second point – function of theory within the political process becomes double edged. It makes us aware that our political references and priorities – the people, the community, class struggle, anti-racism, gender difference the assertion of an anti-imperialist, black or thir perspective – are not there in some primordial, naturalistic sense. They make sense [only] when they come to be constructed in the discourses of feminism, Marxism.’ (Bhabha, 1994, p.23)

It is from this idea of mass, global communication and its accessible depictions of regionalism and linear time that Baudrillard states that there is a synchronism. This synchronism is understood by Baudrillard as the thing that is manipulated by Disneyland to enforce and reinforce an idea of what is real and what is not that as part of the process negates the actual experience of the object itself. Essentially for Baudrillard, through image Disneyland is set within an ideological and conceptual framework reinforced by mass imagery and perceived as being real rather than being virtual. Through the mass image, the reality of Disneyland appears to us as real as it accords to the simulated code that acts and has replaced our naturalised and cultured knowledge structures, without the real experience itself being captured within an experiential temporality. Therefore, it is through the ideology of image that we view the notion of Disneyland as being fixed and constant and not in a transient state of natural and ultural change as pertains to objects of the organic or civilised worlds. Essentially, it is through a display of established imagery that Disneyland can synchronise all the places and all the periods of the virtually known globe, and its many cultures, in a single a-temporal virtuality and replace any reality in the process.

Bibliography

Bakhtin, M., (1993) Toward a Philosophy of the Act. Ed. Vadim Liapunov and Michael Holquist. Trans. Vadim Liapunov. Austin: University of Texas Press

Baudrillard, J., (1968) The System of Objects Taken from: The Order of Simulacra (1993) London: Sage.

Baudrillard, J., (1976) Symbolic Exchange and Death Taken from: The Order of Simulacra (1993) London: Sage.

Benjamin, W., (1935) The Work of Art in the Mechanical Age of Reproduction London: Harcourt.

Bhabha, H., (1994) The Location of Culture New York: Routledge

Kracauer, S., (1963) The Mass Ornament London: Harvard University Press.

McLuhan, M., (1968) War and Peace in the Global Village Washington: Washington Post.

Web Links

Baudrillard, J., (1996) Disneyworld Company Paris: Liberation. Taken from: www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=158 Jean Baudrillard

With the advent of civilization and ever improving societies, man has found the need for several constants. The needs for shelter, food and security have been just a few of these constantsaˆ¦as has the need for incarceration of some of those members of society that have chosen not to follow the rules that a particular society has deemed as necessary. For those members, jails and prisons were built to hold people before or after a conviction, it is not meant to be a permanent stop for those convicted, just a placeholder.

The first jail built was believed to be in 1166, ordered by King Henry II of England, from there jails spread throughout Europe but changed in scope and size over time. (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011) Workhouses and poorhouses were developed in the 15th and 16th centuries in England where sheriffs took the role of supervising vagrants, the poor and the mentally ill. (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011) These so-called jails were not sanitized and had unhealthy conditions for the prisoners. This caught the attention of 18th century reformers. One such reformer was English sheriff John Howard. In 1779, England’s Parliament passed the four jail reforms that Howard proposed: secure and sanitary structures, jail inspections, elimination of fees, and an emphasis on reforming prisoners. (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011)

The first jail in the United States was the Walnut Street Jail in Philadelphia, built in 1773; it housed offenders without regard to sex, age, or offense. The Philadelphia Quakers had wanted the Walnut Street Jail to be a place where inmates reformed themselves through reflection and remorse, but shortly after its opening, it turned into a “promiscuous scene of unrestricted intercourse, universal riot and debauchery”. (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011) On October 5, 1835, the Walnut Street Jail closed and those prisoners were transported to another facility. By the close of the 19th century, most cities across the United States had jails to hold persons awaiting trial and to punish convicted felons. (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011) So, what has changed in the jail population and structures since they were first built? Back in the day, prisoners were treated inhumane, beaten, flogged, and even hung for their crimes. In today’s jail society, those types of treatment are nothing but a moment in history. There are laws governing the treatment of prisoners and prisoners now have “rights” on how they are treated. The 8th Amendment, ratified in 1791, protects persons convicted of a crime to not have excessive bail or fines imposed, nor to have cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. (Head) I tend to somewhat disagree with this due to some persons crimes are so hideous that they deserve fines and/or cruel and unusual punishment, I mean look what some of those criminals do to their victims! I think they deserve the same treatment as they gave those victims, but that is just my personal opinion.

The design and structure of the jails have also changed. Jails have changed throughout history, and have been through four phases of design, First-Generation, Second-Generation, Third-Generation and Fourth-Generation.

First-Generation jails were designed back in the 18th century, and were called ‘linear design”. In this design, prisoners lived in cells or dormitories. The cells lined up in the corridors and the inmate supervision was minimal. Staff would walk the corridors and would not be able to see into the cell until they were right up on it. The idea of this type of design was to keep prevent inmates from trying to escape and to keep the staff safe. I would describe this type of jail setting as isolated. The downfall to this type of setting is no type of social contact with anyone unless a fight broke. This was not a solution to what needed to be done in order for the prisoners to “reform”. These types of jails were more like solitary confinement, which over time would literally drive a person insane.

The Second-Generation jails emerged in the 1960’s to replace old, rundown linear jails and provide staff officers to observe inmates in a central zone or better known as a control booth, of the jail. The conception of the second-generation jails was for staff to be centralized in one area, which was enclosed in glass for security, to overlook the “pods”. These jails have been termed “podular remote-supervision facilities”. (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011) This type of jail has its difficulties. The advantage for this type of jail is that the staff can see more of the inmates without having to walk down a corridor. The disadvantage for this type of jail is that the staff and inmates are still separated and with no social contact, much like the first-generation jails.

The Third-Generation jails, which are also known as direct-supervision jails, were introduced in the early 1970’s. The housing unit is podular. The cells are arranged around a common area or dayroom. There is not control booth and no physical barriers between the staff and the inmates. (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011) The first direct-supervision county jail in the United States was the Martinez Detention Facility in Contra Cost, California. (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011) With the direct-supervision jails come the principles of Direct Supervision: 1. Effective control, 2. Effective supervision, 3. Competent staff, 4. Staff and inmate safety, 5. Manageable and cost-effective operations, 6. Effective communication, 7. Classification and orientation, 8. Justice and fairness, and 9. Ownership of operations. (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011) Direct-supervision jails facilitate staff movement, interaction with inmates, and control and leadership over pods. (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011) With direct-supervision, staff and inmates intermingle and this is a positive movement towards the reformation of the inmates and their social skills. You cannot just put someone back into society if he/she has had no contact with other people over a certain amount of time. When you are alone, after a while you get use to the idea of being alone and you get “set in your ways” and adopt a certain way of doing things. Take my brother for example, no he was not in jail, but he had been living on his own after his divorce for about 10 years and when he recently remarried, it was difficult for him to adapt to new lifestyle that involved another person. He had to adjust his ways that he had been accustomed to and to accept new ideas and new “rules” for the house. This was very difficult for him and it goes along the same line for inmates. People need social interaction and with the third-generation jails they received it.

The Fourth-Generation jails brought improvements to the direct-supervision jails by adding “borrowed light” or natural sunlight into the day room. This improves the moral of the inmates and staff and saves on electricity bills when it is sunny outside. Along with the borrowed light concept, the fourth-generation jails also implemented program services, more staff, volunteers, and visitors to the jail, even vending machines to the day room. This reduces the feeling of isolation. This improvement adds to the staff the ability to carry out the nine principles of direct-supervision. (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011)

Along with these new generation jails requires new interpersonal skills. Officers and staff must have excellent interpersonal skills. They must be able to address minor and major conflicts within the pods, even though in the new generation jails, especially the fourth-generation jails, conflicts are at a minimal rate due to the improved conditions and the attitudes of both the inmates and the staff. Reports have shown that the staff “no longer saw themselves as mere guards or defined their jobs as simply to keep criminals locked up”. Among the positive impacts, the officers and staff tend to see the jails as “cleaner, less crowded, having fresher air, and being more temperate”. However, these same researches also showed, even with the improvements, that the staff was no more satisfied than with the new generation jails than the traditional jails. (Appegate & Paoline, 2007) I can see how the “cleaner” jails could be a positive effect on the staff and inmates. Take for example, you are invited over to a friends’ house and it is totally in chaos and messy. The friend might be comfortable in that type of environment, but you are not so comfortable. If the environment were cleaner and more organized, you would be more comfortable and able to relax and enjoy that visit. Same thing with jails, the cleaner and organized it is, the more positive the attitudes of the staff and inmates. They will be more prone to communicate and “follow the rules” than in a run-down, unstructured type of jail. Another point of view would be that if an inmate can see that the place he/she is housed and it is not being take care of properly, what makes them think that anyone cares to find ways of improving it, that the facility is complacent with the conditions? Not that I would want to experience jail life, I would prefer it to be clean, healthy and somewhat a positive environment.

With the improvements of the third and fourth generation jails brought, it also brought controversy and disadvantages. Results from studies show that few jails are strictly adhering to the new design techniques that have been recommended for the successful operations of these new generation jails. (Tartaro, 2002) Overcrowding is a popular problem in today’s jails and even thought the crime rate is down, there is still overcrowding. Another problem the new generation jails have is the age of the offenders has increased and having the necessary accommodations for these “elder” prisoners. In the traditional jails, there were no medical treatments available, in today’s jails, most jails offer medical treatment, but only on the same level as lower income families. Studies have also shown that inmates with disabilities are a growing problem in that they were discriminated against and most jails do not have the means to house inmates with disabilities, and I mentioned earlier, the 8th amendment protects this group of prisoners in today’s society. (Ginsberg, 2009)

In closing, the research I have done I have learned that the differences in the “old” jails and the “new” jails are similar in some ways and totally opposite in other ways. I believe that in the old jails and the way they were imprisoned were more likely not to repeat their offenses, and in the new jails, offenders are likely to repeat their offenses. In the old jails, inmates were brought into the public eye and were embarrassed by their actions. The old, traditional jails were not focused on reforming the prisoners; they were more focused on punishment to these criminals. In today’s jails, we are more focused on reformation of the prisoners and trying to help them merge back into the society from what they once came from, but as I have learned in class, some inmate repeat their offenses because the jail life is better life than what they had. They may have come from broken homes, life of poverty and the jails give them a place of security and more of a home life than what they had. As sad as this is, it is true and with the economy the way it is, this would seem like a better life. New generation emerged due to society to “stand against the inhumane treatment that convicts were submitted to and to require the transformation of detention places from excusive instruments of punishment into establishments of moral recuperation” (Merei, 2012) Merei also stated that “in the nineteenth century, it was developed the concept according to which jails could become, from the means of expiation of the evil committed, social sanctums for healing the soul of the one in conflict with the laws of society” . In Merei’s report, she mentioned that a man named Panait Mucoiu made a categorical statement, which sums it all up. Mucoiu stated, “As long as you take the men’s freedom, you will definitely not transform him into a better person. You will harvest relapse. By incarcerating him and by giving him, every moment, the conviction that everything that happens in detention is a punishment, the society proceeds with all its resources to make him an enemy”. (Merei, 2012)

Appegate, B. K., & Paoline, E. A. (2007, June). Jail Officer’s Perceptions of the Work Environment In Traditional Versus New Generation Facilities. Retrieved November 21, 2012, from ProQuest Criminal Justice: http:search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.uwf.edu/criminaljusticeperiod…

Ginsberg, B. (2009, June). Out with the new, in with the old: the importance of section 504 of the Rehabiliation Act to prisoners with disabilites. p. 713.

Head, T. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2012, from About.com Civil Liberties: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lawenforcementterrorism/p/8th_amendment.htm

Merei, L. E. (2012, January). The affirmation of the renewing current of prison reform in the 19th century Romanian thinking. p. 313.

Schmalleger, F., & Smykla, J. (2011). Corrections in the 21st Century. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tartaro, C. (2002, September ). Examining Implementation Issues with New Generation Jails. Retrieved November 21, 2012, from Sage Journals: http://cjp.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.uwf.edu/content/13/3/219

It has been a fact that one of the most exciting features movies posses is that they can boost motivation. They tend to act as a catalyst as some movies brought up the subject that drives the motivation one needs in life. Since the beginning of cinema and films it has been investigated that how the films or cinema affect the audiences by bringing inconspicuous changes in cultures, values and behavioral patterns in a society. It has been quested for years that how effectively a movie can convey a message. Several theories have also been developed and it has been contemplated that movies does leave an impact on the minds of audiences. The study of the effects of motion pictures or cinema has been one of the profound areas of research in the field of mass media. There is a lot more to movies besides the entertainment factor, it can create awareness, motivation or it can give you an incentive to follow. One way or the other, movies do influence our minds.

Keeping in view the above mentioned concern this study deals with the, “Effects of the movies based on IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) or ART (Assisted Reproductive Technique) on married couples”. There has been a unique trend seen in movies released during the past decade that rather than showing glamour, romance and shinning love stories, film makers are more interested in producing movies upon subjects that are closely related to actual reality or social taboos that are actually at hand in our society. There had been a great fillip to the subjects shown in movies recently and one of them is studied by the researcher that is the IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) based movies. Watching different kind of movies can enhance our understanding, and can provide us information and increase our awareness level.

There have been concerns since the beginning of media research that whether motion pictures do have direct and indirect effects on the minds of the viewers according to their needs and desires. And yet there has been such movies which carries a specific subject that targets the special audiences and have the desired influences. Any kind of visual stimulation unique to film provokes an emotive response that has therapeutic properties (S C Noah, 2005-14). Films are considered as a powerful tool in educating the audiences. “What is seeing is believing.” and movies are the one powerful medium that tell stories we understand.

Many a time’s people began to identify themselves as the part of movies and imagine the situation as it is happening to them. That is why one burst into tears sometimes. The conclusion of such movies can give them a lesson or such information they are looking for. IVF based movies have given hundreds of people either infertile couples or sperm donors a way to overcome their disability or a way to make money. Medical director of Delhi IVF and Fertility Research Centre also confirms that due to media attention and handful of movies based on IVF people are more aware of this technology now.

Infertility is a wide spread phenomena but with the technological advancements, medical treatments and techniques have been introduced such as the IVF or ART, most commonly known as the test tube babies. But people were not aware of this process until media gave attention to these subjects. A couple of movies have been released on this subject that spurt the interest of the audiences. Doctor Shahnaz Nadir Lakhani also confirms in an interview with a prestigious newspaper of Pakistan that media has played a vital role in changing the opinion and thinking of people towards IVF treatment as with more awareness people tends to develop faith to overcome their disability (Ilyas, 2009). The researcher here deals with the effects about the information disseminated by these movies particularly among the married couples. A women going through IVF treatment to overcome her infertility admits that she has come to know about this treatment from certain media programs (Ilyas, 2009).

In a Muslim country like Pakistan, where religious reserves and guidelines are put forth before going for any kind of reproductive treatment, confirmed by the global survey in which 26 Muslim countries including Pakistan strictly prohibits any kind of sperm Donation in IVF or gamete transfer (Marcia C Inhorn, 2005). Nevertheless IVF clinics flourished under private institutions and infertile couples consider this treatment as “marriage savior”. Dr Samrina Hashmi, Pakistan Medical Association (PMA) general-secretary remarked that this is important to bring private institutions under some regulations as the private institutions work only under their own ethical codes and government is under the influence of some quarters due to religious reserves.

During the past decade media and films have given this phenomenon a recognition, and awareness among people and different societies. The researcher through this study examines that what is the opinion of married couples after watching IVF based movies with respect to the level of awareness and acceptance of this IVF process.

Statement of Problem

Many research studies have been conducted to examine the impact of motion pictures or cinema on the society. There is an intense relationship between the motion pictures and the change of attitude and behaviors of the audiences (Fearing, 1947). F C Berlet confirms in his study entitled, remembering: A study of experimental and social psychology, that individuals respond to the situation which cognize with his remembering, perceiving and imagining about the situation. And motion pictures have their desired influences upon individuals because they let one to cognize with his world (Fearing, 1947). The idea or subject shown in movies does have a direct and indirect effect on the change of behavior in the audiences. Movies affect your brain in various undetected ways (Braff, 2011).

Movies based on the subject of IVF or ART treatment; most commonly known as the sperm donation or test tube babies has brought a spurt into audiences. People were not so well aware of this treatment or term IVF in the past few years or say five years before. But due to the media attention and movies being produced on such stories have brought awareness among the people that what it actually is (Mahajan, 2012). The Hollywood and Bollywood movies based on IVF depicts the increasing level of awareness and acceptance among their societies. But the question arises here is that no study previously has been conducted to examine the effects of these movies upon our society that what is the level of awareness and acceptance about the concerned issue and IVF treatment specifically on married couples. This research study investigates the effects of IVF based movies on married couples.

IVF treatment has been in practice in Pakistan since 1985 but most people do not have the knowledge of what is the actual treatment about and how it is undertaken. Due to religious reserves and high rate of illiteracy, most people were unaware and against the treatment. Unlike other countries of UK, USA and even India where this treatment is legalized under laws, Pakistan has no law stating this treatment as legal.

This treatment is practiced under private hospitals and IVF centers but government has not paid any attention towards this phenomenon while formulating their health policies. But the movies based on IVF have increased the awareness level to a good extent. A gynecologist and infertility specialist Kamini Rao confirms that there has been 30% increase in the queries about the treatment. However the researcher’s concern is carried from here that to what extent these movies have affected the married couples in Lahore Pakistan.

As mentioned above, it has been in practice in Pakistan from a long time as well but unlike some other certain countries there is no legal law under which it is practiced in private institutions. Few years before the terms of sperm donation and In Vitro Fertilization technique was not a common phenomenon. Most people were unaware of the process and even they do not know what sperm donation is or they were unaware and against any medical treatment for infertility and reproduction. In the past decade, there has been seen a growing trend in Hollywood and Bollywood movies to stimulate social taboos surrounding societies. There were produced message oriented movies on medical disorders and disseminated information on certain subjects that were not mostly spoken of, for instance, In Vitro Fertilization process.

Where in certain countries like USA, UK and India this technique of overcoming infertility or becoming single mothers has been a normal practice but in Pakistan where females are not as independent to take decisions in this regard, adding to this, infertile females are more likely to be seen as a victim of socio-cultural factors (Chandra, 2009; pg 228) and also keeping in mind the religious reserves and low literacy level of 40.3% (est. 2009, CIA), both male and female as married couples have been taken as a focus of this study in context of the society exist in Lahore Pakistan. Therefore, researcher has undertaken this study to determine that whether these movies have any effect in our society analyzing both females and males as married couples.

Objectives

Objectives are the focus of any study. They provide a definite aim to follow through the study. They offer a framework upon which the whole study is laid. The researcher has been studying the effects of IVF based movies on married couples. The researcher has been keen to observe that how the issues discussed in the IVF based movies have been affecting upon them.

Keeping in mind the above cited concerns, the researcher laid the following objectives to determine the frame work of the research study.

To analyze the level of awareness IVF movies are creating among married couples. (Knowing, understanding, sensitivity, alertness)

To explore the level of acceptance about the IVF technique among married couples after watching IVF movies. ( recognition, approval, endorsement, consent, support)

To analyze the opinion of married couples about IVF movies. ( view, outlook, attitude, belief)

Research Questions

Research questions provide a focused framework for a researcher to conduct the study. These questions define the whole process. For this purpose research questions were designed to set a focus for this study as:

Q1. Do the movies based on IVF are increasing the general level of awareness among the married couples?

Q2. To what extent these movies have impact upon the acceptance level among married couples?

Q3. Do these movies form the opinion of married couples regarding IVF treatment?

Q4. Do these movies change the opinion of married couples regarding IVF treatment?

Q5. Do these movies boost motivation among married couples?

Hypothesis:

The hypothesis designed for the study is as follows:

(A) Major Hypothesis
Greater exposure to movies based on IVF issues has increased the level of awareness among married couples

The major aim of this study is to dig out the effects of movies based on IVF on married couples. The researcher is keen to observe the level of awareness these movies based on IVF are creating specifically among females and males as married couples. Infertility has been a cause of mental distress and anxiety due to the socio cultural factors of a society, and females are more likely to fell as a victim of social blames and they want escape from these factors and social blames at any cost but in our present society without males it cannot be possible . And as cited before that motion pictures are a one of the major way to motivate or create awareness among the audiences. Therefore, the media attentions given in movies based on IVF are disseminating information that most people are not so well aware of. The researcher through this study wants to examine the effects of IVF based movies on married couples in Lahore Pakistan to investigate the level of awareness these movies are creating and to what extent.

The researcher has reviewed the literature upon these variables and analyzed that infertile couples are more likely to be affected psychologically and socially and they want to go through every process to overcome their inability. Message given in the IVF movies are a way to motivate the audiences and to make them aware of the medical treatment that is becoming popular in the meantime. The researcher wants to examine the effects of IVF based movies upon the married couples of Lahore, Pakistan that whether they get awareness from these movies and to what extent they accept this procedure according to the society we live in.

(B) Sub-Hypothesis
Greater the exposure of married couples to IVF based movies tends to change their acceptance level about the IVF treatment.

The researcher is keen to observe that how the IVF based movies tend to increase the acceptance level among married couples in terms of their family and social interactions. We live in a society of religious reserves and the IVF procedure is not yet legalized under any laws, but it is practiced under private institutions and is acceptable in a limited circle of society. The researcher through this study wants to examine that how the media attention and movies based on the IVF treatment shapes the acceptance level among the married couples of Lahore, Pakistan.

Rationale of the Study

We live in a society where technology has greatly influenced the lives of people. This study is focused to determine the effects of movies based upon the IVF reproductive technology on the married couples. This study is aimed at finding out the effects in terms of awareness and acceptance level and how it has shaped the opinion of married couples of Lahore, Pakistan. This study is important because there have been reserves about the reproductive technologies but media has generated spurt into the audiences through movies. There is not been given much attention previously to this subject in regards of how these movies have affected upon the married couples.

Rationale for selecting movies based on IVF

In words of Marshall McLuhan, movies influence the general understanding of the world as the viewers began to see the world through the prism of images persistently shown in the movies. More evidently films are recognized as the most powerful medium of mass education, entertainment and propaganda and it has great psychological and emotional effects upon the audiences.

People have emotional attachments to certain subjects for instance one that is studied under this research that is IVF reproductive treatment. The powerful visual images enhance the emotional stimulation and affect the minds, opinion and attitude towards a certain phenomena. There have been given much attention to IVF treatment and procedure in the movies of past decade. It has been seen that there has been a rise in the level of awareness due to these movies in different societies but in Pakistan there has not been given much or little attention in this regard to determine the effects upon the society particularly on married couples.

The concern of the researcher drives from here that everywhere in the world media has been able to educate and motivate the audiences, for instance, in Bangalore (India) there has been 30% more increase in the queries about the procedure and treatment after watching Vicky Donor released in 2012. The IVF has been practiced in Pakistan since 1985 under private institutions and has been successfully implemented among a limited circle of a society that has knowledge about the treatment. However during the past five years the movies by bringing up the stories based on IVF treatment and procedure has created a general understanding and awareness among the people.

The researcher through this study analyzes the effects of these movies on married couples of Lahore Pakistan to determine the extent of awareness these movies have created and the level of acceptance that has shaped the opinion of females by watching these IVF based movies.

Rationale for Selecting Married Couples

The study aims at finding out the effects of IVF based movies upon married couples of Lahore, Pakistan. There had been several studies conducted to examine the relation between infertility and females, concluding that females react more strongly to their infertility than the man that is they have a strong desire to have a child (Bergh, T., Boivin, J., & Collins, A , 1999, 78(1):42-48). However, keeping in mind the socio-cultural factors that women belonging to a society like ours where she is not independent to make any decisions regarding reproductive techniques. Therefore, this study aims at determining the effects of IVF based movies on married couples in Lahore Pakistan.

Keeping in mind the religious reserves and misconceptions about the treatment that are high lightened by the movies, this study aims to investigates that whether the married couples are getting awareness from these movies and to what extent and how these movies shape their opinion regarding the acceptance of this treatment in our society.

Significance of the Study

This study is beneficial in terms of examining the present and future scenario of the IVF treatment in Muslim world that how the movies are creating general awareness and increasing the acceptance level among the married couples living in Muslim societies. These movies based on IVF are an excellent tool for social education but in Muslim countries these subjects are sensitive. This phenomenon has its root from the western societies where it has been a common practice to be a single mother or a way to overcome infertility among couples. However, this study will help to explore the level of acceptance in Muslim societies like Pakistan where IVF is not yet legalized but has been under practice privately.

It is important for the readers of international community to note the status of IVF treatment and the media attention given to this subject through movies that how it is influencing Pakistani society particularly married couples that to what degree they are getting general awareness to accept and change their opinion.

Since the British Welfare state materialized in 1945, the debate on how to reform it has never ceased. In the first 25 years after it was introduced, the debate concerned how to increase its scope and abolish means-tested benefits. Then, after the economic crisis in the 1970s, the aim was on how to trim it back. Now, the future of the welfare state itself it the subject of fierce debate.

In this essay I will begin with a history of the UK Welfare State and how it came about, before analysing a few of the key elements of the welfare state which will help me decide whether the welfare state is in crisis. I will then finish with a conclusion with my thoughts and views, verbalised.

The narrow definition of the welfare state comprises two types of government spending; (1) cash benefits to households such as transfers and income insurance and (2) subsidies or direct government provision of human services such as pre-schooling, education, child care, health care and old age care. The broader definition of welfare state includes housing policies, price regulation, job security legislation and environmental policies1. The purpose of the welfare state is to create economic equality or to assure equitable standards of living for all2, to protect British people from unemployment3, and to encourage the provision of the social services on the same basis as the public services such as roads and libraries4. However, there are differing opinions as to whether the objective of the welfare state is a simple one, as John G. Francis states the purpose is to ‘allocate public funds In order to secure certain minimum life support services for those most in need’ and to ”construct a comprehensive set of social and economic policies designed to realize a certain vision of society”.5 Morris Janowitz, on the other hand, paints a more minimal portrait of the welfare state: “the welfare state rests on the political assumption that the well-being of its citizens is enhanced not only by allocations derived from their occupations and the marketplace but also grants regulated by the central government.” He explains that in addition to the government provisions of benefits for its citizens, there are two further elements in his conception of a welfare state: (1) “parliamentary regime determination of resource allocation” and (2) “the recognition of the state’s right to intervene in order to create the conditions under which citizens can pursue their goals.”

The welfare state was developed primarily by William Beveridge. In 1941, the British government commissioned a report into the ways Britain should be rebuilt after the Second World War, mainly how improvements could be made to the system of providing sickness and unemployment insurance. Beveridge was the obvious candidate to compile the blueprints for the welfare state due to his book on ‘Unemployment: A Problem of Industry’ in 1909, in which he argued that full employment could be obtained if industry was not constrained by over regulation.7 In 1942 as the war reached its height, he produced his report ‘The Report on Social Insurance’ and proposed that all people of working age should pay a weekly national insurance contribution where benefits would be paid to the sick, unemployed and retired and thus provide a minimum standard of living for all citizens.8 He also identified five ‘giant evils’ that plagued society and could be tackled:

Want (today we call it poverty) by establishing a comprehensive social security system

Disease by establishing a new health service

Idleness by the state aiming for full employment

Ignorance by reforming the education system

Squalor by a new house building and slum clearance programme9

The first of Beveridge’s proposals came into effect before WW2 ended. In 1944 the Ministry of National Insurance was set up before the Family Allowances Act was passed a year later.11 Reactions to the report were positive:

‘It gave me a feeling there was something to work for and fight for after all and that our efforts might be rewarded by some real social improvement, giving means to the phrase “winning the peace”. (Royal Artillery, male, 29)

‘It’s the goods! All the yearnings, hopes, dreams and theories of socialists for the past half century have been crystallized into a practical economic formula. Equity for the “lowest common denominator” I was staggered by its comprehension’. (Insurance clerk, male, 39, Newport)

‘I am aware of a new feeling of confidence in myself as a member of a democratic society when I see those social reforms which I have considered necessary for such long time actually taking shape’. (Accountant, male, 40, Prestwick) 12

Such positive reaction, though not all positive, led to a landslide victory for Clement Attlee and his Labour Party and he decided to seize upon Beveridge’s proposals as a basis for radical action, and proceeded to implement many social policies, which became known as the Welfare State. Attlee’s hope was to have Beveridge’s plan in force by 1948, but in a time when Britain was suffering from the severe conditions of post-war Britain, it did not have the money to pay flat rate benefits that would keep people out of poverty.13 The National Assistance act which was passed in 1948 played a bigger role in improving poverty than Beveridge had planned and because the idea of basing entitlement on contributions through national insurance was flawed, it meant many people, in particular women, were excluded from the system. Another act which passed was the National Health Service Act 1946, which came into effect on 5th of July 1948 and created the National Health Service in England and Wales.14 After the landslide victory for Labour in 1945, Aneurin Bevan was appointed minister of health, responsible for establishing the National Health Service. Since there was already a free, compulsory state education service, the people of Britain now probably had the most comprehensive Welfare State system in the world.15

The question of whether the UK welfare is in crisis is one that has been asked before. The welfare state in the 1970s was claimed to be in crisis with oil price shocks and increasing food prices adding pressure on the economy and leading to a rise in unemployment. Though the causes – sharp reductions in output by OPEC and exchange rate fluctuations – were said to be ‘external to the welfare state’ 16, there still continues to be a debate over not just whether the welfare state is in crisis but also if it is sustainable. The first area I will tackle is state benefits. As of September 2009, there were 2.7million people claiming incapacity benefits in the UK17 and with reports stating that ‘less than a third of’ these ‘claimants are legitimate’18, it begs the question that are the standards of the UK health service so inadequate that more people than ever are ‘incapacitated’? The simple answer is the majority of these people are simply work-shy19. Michael Portillo of the Sunday Times pointed out the intentions of the Welfare Stare was to prevent this abuse of the system by the work shy20:

The state “should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility”, wrote Sir William Beveridge in the 1942 report that inspired the post-war welfare state. “In establishing a national minimum it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family.

These work shy people are forcing the tax burden on the hard working families and “as a result, taxpayers have spent ?346bn on payments to those out work since Tony Blair entered Downing Street”. He goes onto say “It might have been possible for the state to fine tune benefits when every claimant was known to the local poor law guardians. It is much more difficult today in systems that are nationalised and standardised”, before concluding, “we ought to assume that fit young people are not entitled to anything. If a few young men from sink estates are now heroes in Afghanistan, why should we presume that all the others are capable of nothing useful at all?” Some believe such a centrally planned benefits system is bound to fail because it is not feasible for a planning body to know all the circumstances and facts to able to assess who is in an incapacitated state21.

Another area of benefits that has come under scrutiny is child benefits. This has long been considered untouchable as it has high take-up rates and passionate support across the political sector. However, new goals such as reducing child poverty whilst at the same time cutting spending, it is time the state challenged its status as the sacred cow of the welfare state22. Between 1999 and 2004, 600,000 children managed to escape poverty as result of their guardians/parents finding work. However, this trend reversed when the recession hit when between 2008 and 2009, 160,000 more children were in workless households and, inevitably, in poverty. Kate Stanley of the Institute for Public Policy Research makes the point that the welfare state “must become much more efficient in reaching poor children and child benefit is one of government’s primary tools in ending poverty.”23 She goes onto explain that ”we need to bite the bullet and make it progressively universal so that everyone gets something but poorer families get most”, adding further, ” one option would be to tax child benefit and use the tax to increase the rate of benefit paid to second and subsequent children”. As with any policy change, putting forward such change is unquestionably controversial. However, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that yes, while there is a need for a benefit reform in the UK, does it necessarily mean the welfare state as a whole is in crisis? On this evidence, I can conclude with a wholehearted, no.

British schools have somewhat of a mixed reputation. Quality of state education is known to vary whilst universities and other higher education institutions garner an excellent reputation internationally and take in thousands of foreign students. The state education system in the UK has been changing at a hectic pace in recent decades which has led to a generation of curriculum chaos and crisis caused by a lack of funding, crumbling infrastructure and shortages of books and other equipment24. Many schools have been forced to cut their teaching budgets at a time when they should have been increasing them, and some have had insufficient funds to buy books for the revised national curriculum and other essentials. This is only going to get worse with the recent spending review by The Coalition hinting there may be ‘savage cutsaˆ¦in the education budget’25. The budget for the Department of Education last year was ?66.7bn, rising to an estimated ?68.7bn this year. While Chancellor George Osborne has pledged to protect Sure Start, the government scheme where children’s centres have been built by Labour to provide nursery care, it means other areas such as school buildings and support services are likely to be even harder hit. And it only gets worse: the Audit Commission claims that ‘millions of pounds are still being misspent’. A report last year found ‘schools were sitting on excessive cash reserves of almost ?2bn and ?400m a year could be saved if schools bought desks, equipment and services more sensibly’26. However, it is easy to criticise and easy to forget the positives. The last government claimed the increase in funding produced key successes, including rises in primary and secondary school exam results, a drop in the number of failing schools, an increase in the number of children staying on in education beyond the leaving age and improvements to early years care with the establishment of a network of Sure Start children’s centres. However, this all happened during the last government. With ever more bleak and worrying headlines such as ‘Students to face unlimited fees’, ‘Nearly one in five children aged 16-19 is ‘functionally illiterate” and ‘Schools prepare to cut frontline services’, it is not surprising why many are saying the education system in the UK is in trouble.

A recent programme on BBC illustrated how Toby Young struggled to set up a new school within the state system. The pressing concern was the campaign to stop these schools was endorsed by the National Union of Teachers. The reason why Mr Young was trying to set up these schools was because they were wanted by parents not happy with the existing state schools. There is mass evidence to support their views with reports year on year showing dwindling numbers on the number of pupils that achieve 5 A-C GCSEs. It is about time students are able to realise their full potential instead of facing silly obstacles. It is no wonder private schools attain far higher grades and pass rates than public schools as they receive much more attention in their small class setting. I see no reason at this stage to go against what many people are saying: the UK welfare state is very much in crisis.

The last area I cover is pensions. In the UK there are three major pension routes; (1) occupational final salary pension plans from your employer: (2) the state pension where you may have entitlement to a top-up plan as well as the basic state pension. Those who are not well off may have their retirement earnings boosted by a pension credit: and (3) the money purchase pension scheme either from your employer or from other earnings such as self-employment (these are called personal pensions)27. There are three problems in pension reforms in the UK. The first being whether to continue with the PAYG system or switch to a saving system, though this fight seems to be over as many academics and politicians accept the need to move to a saving or funded system. The second problem is whether, if you opt for the saving system, to make savings voluntary or compulsory, and if compulsory whether or not to give savers a choice of pension providers. The move to a saving or funded system has a great economic advantage in that it builds compound interest into the entitlement. In other words, you invest in the economy and you get the benefit when you retire. Many would like to return to the ideal situation of not wanting to be a burden on your family and the next generation, but as that family obligation ‘myth’ still continues, it is too high a price to pay for the economic costs of the current system29. The question that leads from this is whether to make saving voluntary or compulsory. I would suggest setting a minimum for compulsory savings and let people saving voluntarily for larger pensions. Indeed the government introduced voluntary pension saving in the new world of pensions, but being auto-enrolled into a pension scheme will be compulsory.

The high level of state pension from the age of 65 has been found to cost too much and has steadily declined in relation to average incomes and been replaced by what many call the disastrous means-tested pension credit. With the pension age to rise to 68, this will be a long overdue acceptance of vastly increased longevity30. This demonstrates the slow pace to which the UK responds to changes in reality. The Beveridge report laid the foundations of the post-war welfare state, declaring every citizen who paid his or her contributions should be able to claim “an adequate pension worth more than any means tested benefit”31. As Philip Johnston of the Telegraph puts it, ‘after 100 years in which living standards have quadrupled, a pension designed to prevent the poorest in society enduring a penurious old age has failed in its purpose’. James Bartholomew, in his book ‘The Welfare State We’re In’, posed the question if we would have been better off without the state pension. He answered,

“It seems likely that if the state pension had not been introduced, British people would have saved a great deal more and, overall, would probably now be wealthier in their old age. The late 19th century trend for people to become less benefit dependent would have continued, and it would be normal to have very substantial savings. Old people would have more independence and dignity in retirement”.

In conclusion, I agree with the claim that the UK welfare state is in crisis. During the research for this essay, I found almost no evidence to say otherwise, which was a surprise. I have discovered the welfare state has been a failure and I believe the state should stop funding anything beyond a minimum safety net. As stated before, money is being wasted due to recklessness in its spending and rather than divert (even more) resources from social security to health and education, as the government plans, it should slash taxes and let people pay for their own welfare services. The demand for these two categories rises faster than national income and public spending is unlikely to be able to keep up, thus bringing us back to the perpetual perception that they are “underfunded”. I read an interesting post made by a member of the public on an online forum that made the following comment:

Whenever all of part of the NHS runs out of money, wards are closed or operations are delayed or a cost saving measure is taken, but never are salaries cut back. 154

This illustrates how the government have a strong inclination to protect their staff first, instead of their customers who receive the service. But of course the nurses and doctors and administrators feel like they are under paid and endure difficult conditions, and this is often too. It bottles down to the point that their pay and their pensions are not damaged which otherwise would be if they were not working for the government.

The future on the welfare state itself is uncertain at this point in time. The right are in agreement that unwarranted spending on the welfare state has weakened economic growth and reduced incentives, while the left feel the traditional welfare state has not paid enough attention to significant groups like women and ethnic minorities. Policy reforms have strengthened not just in the UK but also in the continental Europe and the US. The government often deliberates and avoids making tough decisions, such as introducing a compulsory savings scheme or increasing state pensions, which have been needed to deal with the crisis. As Steve Schifferes of the BBC puts it, “though the government wants to seek a political consensus before proceeding with radical reform, time may be running out!”

Introduction & history of the family

“Most people’s idea of a normal household is a married couple with children. Does this longer correspond with the reality of people’s lives? In 2005 only 22 per cent of British households consisted of a couple with dependant children, compared with 35 per cent in 1971.” (Fulcher J, Scott J, 2004 pg 446).

Over several decades, Britain and other Western societies have seen a shift in family patterns and diverse roles, also divorce rate have risen significantly and there has been an increase in ‘Reconstituted families’ formed from second marriages

The family is often regarded as the basis of society; in pre-modern and modern societies alike is seen as the basis in which social organization takes place, for example socialising children, in the 1960’s there was not discussion about the importance of family, at that family life was merely evolving with the modern times, the ‘nuclear family’ which consist of a two generation household of parent and their children, was seen as well adapted to the demands of modern society. A classic definition of the family by George Peter Murdock (1949) “The family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic co-operation and reproduction. This includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially-approved sexual relationships, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults”.

Another type of family is the extended family, which includes the family members which extends ‘vertically’ that would include three generations for example; grandparent and grandchildren, it also extends ‘horizontally’ to include at least ‘in laws’ cousins, aunts and uncles, and dependant on the perceptions and the boundaries of the family; determines how far this extends.

From a functional perspective the family purpose is to work as a social institute, and according to (Haralambos & Holborn 2008) the family performs four basic functions in all societies which are termed the ‘sexual’, ‘reproductive’ ‘economic’ and ‘educational’ these are deemed essential for social life because without reproduction there would be no members of society, also without economics there would no provisions for providing food and therefore life would cease to exist, and without education as suggested by George Murdock there would be no culture and he suggests therefore that human society could not function.

However according to Parson (in Parsons & Bales 1956) the family social institution developed to meet two such needs that the family, and only the family, met: the needs for primary socialization and personality stabilization Primary socialisation was the process through which children obtain the basic values of society from the family from an early age.

And adult personality is stabilized through the family to give emotional support through marriage, and to create an opportunity for adults to satisfy childish impulses that they could not do in public, for example playing games with their children.

Parsons suggested that the nuclear family was particularly suited the ‘nuclear family’ because the nuclear family roles were specialized due to one adult earning money through paid work, and the other adult bringing up the children, therefore with there being one ‘breadwinner’ this was quite important factor in the industrial society due to high rates of change, this meant that this type of family were more ‘geographically mobile’ and they would also keep the world of work and family separate, as industrial societies were concerned with ‘achievement ‘and ‘universalism’; this meant that people were rewarded according to achievements and judged according to universal standards of qualifications, and competence, the family however operated on a opposite basis; where the values of ‘ascription’ and ‘particularism; thus, status was ascribed on who one was, for example, husband of, wife of, parents would do their best to advance their children, therefore if this overlapped into the workforce this cause conflict.

Marxist perspective states the capitalist system exploits the free domestic labour of the ‘housewife’ through domestic labour, and that child rearing should be considered as family activities ‘outside’ the operation of the capitalist economy but instead an essential part of it.

This view is taken because the ‘male breadwinner’ can then do longer hours, because the wife is at home tending to children and the domestic work; children were seen as the process of reproduction of ‘labour’ by creating submissive workers.

Due to the male bread winner being put under pressure from the work place to work much harder and faster, and quite often carrying out tedious and repetitive work in very poor conditions, which they would have very little control therefore the family was seen as an outlet for the tension and frustration, and the bullied worker may restore their self-esteem by bullying their family. Although the wife play’s a significant role in the capitalist economy, she would get no pay. Some housewives worked in paid employment at a low wage, and acted as a ‘reserve army’ which could be drawn into work when there was a shortage of labour, and returned back home when demand was low, therefore the nuclear family created an additional supply of ‘cheap labour’.

Some sociologist argue that the family has lost certain functions in modern industrial society, and they suggest that institutions such as political parties and school, and welfare organisations are performing functions of the family, Talcott Parson’s argues that the family has become functionless on the ‘macroscopic’ levels. However not all sociologist agree with this idea, and they actually think the opposite, according to Ronald Fletcher, a British sociologist stated in ‘The Family and Marriage in Britain’ (1966)that the family has retained its functions but also those functions have ‘increased in detail and importance’ and specialised institutions such as schools and hospitals have added to and improved the family functions, rather than suspended them, some example of these changes are the expectations of the parenting role; they are expected to do their best to guide, encourage and support their children through education and their.

Young and Wilmott (1973) claim that the ‘symmetrical family is developing where spouses are sharing domestic, work and leisure activities; these types of relationships are called ‘joint conjugal’ roles as opposed to ‘segregated roles’ which previously meant the marital roles of husband and wife were largely segregated. In the symmetrical family, conjugal roles have become more joined, the wife still has primary responsibility for housework and child rearing, however husbands have become more involved with domestic chores like doing the washing and ironing, and share the decisions that affect the family

The structure of the British family has shifted significantly over the last 50 years, a major influence of this is through the decline of marriage and the rise in cohabitation according to the ‘Office of National statistics 2008’

Due to the changes in marriages, divorce and cohabitation to the growing number of new types of families Two in five of all marriages are now remarriages, which makes step families one of the fastest growing family forms in Britain, currently making up one, in the decade to 2006, the number of single parent families also increased to 2.3 million, making up 14% of all families in ten of all families.18.

Ethnic diversity is on the increase due to the increase of international migration is another source of diversity, for example the structure of Afro-Caribbean and Asian families; looking at the diversity in relation to origin and considerations of how these have changed in the context of British society.

According to (Elliot 1966; Berthound 2000) the lower-class Afro-Caribbean family is centred on the role of the women, and marriages are weakly institutive and low due to the men ‘wandering’; therefore the women commonly head the households, and relationships between mothers and children are much stronger than those between fathers and children, and family life tends to be supported by other women other than the biological mother. African-Caribbean women have been more economically active than women from other ethnic groups, and see paid work as a basis fro financial independence and are more likely to control the use of their earnings than Asian or White women, however this is only made possible by the sharing of the mothering role with other women.

There are considerable cultural difference between south Asian nationalities that have come to Britain, however there are similarities, for instance families from rural areas in South Asia typically have extended forms of family, that include three generations in one household and are organized through a network of males, are bound together through religious beliefs in ‘brotherhood’ and family loyalty. Marriages are arranged and seen as a contrast of two families.

According to young and Willmott the home centred symmetrical family is more typical of the working class than the middle class, they suggest that ‘the working class’ are more fully home-centred because they are less fully work-centred’; and this is due to compensating for uninvolved and boring work, and because little interest is expected at work, and manual workers tend to focus more attention on family life, therefore according to Young and Wilmott see work as a major influence on family

Migration to Britain severely disrupted extended families of this kind and for many women this has left them socially isolated at home and unsupported by the kin. Sikh household have become more focused on couples and women have renegotiated traditional patterns, through greater independence through paid work, however in contrast Pakistani and Bangladeshi cultures have been limited to homework or family business by Islamic prohibition of contact with unrelated men, this has lead to women being exploited as cheap labour and confined to the home.

Many sociologists are concerned about what they see as the decline in marriage and family life, and they see this as a threat to the family, for example Brenda Almond (2006) believes that the family is fragmenting, there is also an increase in the legal and social acceptance of marital breakdown, cohabitation, gay and lesbian relationships and so on.

Colin Gibson (1994) claims through the development of modernity this has increased the likelihood of conflict between spouses due to much emphasis upon the desirability of individual achievement, Gibson believes that people now live in an ‘enterprise and free-market culture of individualism in which the licence of choice dominates

The last 100 years have seen changes in legislation, technology, attitudes and expectations that’ have led to a massive feminisation of the workforce since the second world war, also widespread contraception leading to deferred decisions about the start of families; and divorce, remarriage and cohabitation becoming much more acceptable. A relaxation of societal attitudes towards marriage means it is no longer seen as unusual to be involved in a ‘complicated’ family structure. Families are no longer just made up of married parents living with their children. Although seven in ten households are still headed up by married couples, this proportion has been declining for some time. Families are now a mix of cohabiting parents, stepfamilies, single parent families, those living apart together and civil partnerships, as well as the traditional nuclear family.