toptermpaper.com

Education is a significant institution in our society as it serves to fulfil many functions and provide opportunities for children. One important role that education plays is carrying out the process of secondary socialization where the education system teaches children the norms and values of society in a way that the family cannot. Education performs certain functions such as providing children with skills needed for work, learning about religious and moral beliefs, national languages and also about the history of the nation. Therefore it can be seen that education performs an important role in children’s lives by socializing them into the future members of society and teaching them about the values of success and achievement which enables them to be open to many opportunities in society (Fulcher & Scott, 2007).

However education combined with social class can create inequalities for children in their lives and this study of inequality within education remains a key area of study in the sociology of education and is also of great importance in shaping educational policies in Britain. Research has shown that inequalities in the education system do still exist in Britain where it has been shown that the higher a person’s social class the higher the levels of achievement an individual is more likely to achieve. It is these types of findings which have led to a large array of study about educational inequalities and why they still persist in Britain’s education system. These inequalities can affect children from lower classes and their life chances through a variety of ways such as through micro and macro causes in society which will be analysed in turn (Haralambos & Holborn, 2007)

Macro Causes

We will first look at the various macro causes in the wider structures of society which causes educational inequalities for children. These include material deprivation.

1. Material Deprivation

This theory highlights the importance of material goods and resources needed for educational achievement. Material deprivation has been defined as including ‘poverty, overcrowding, ill health in parents,child neglect and lack of basic amenities in the home and neighbourhood’ (Silver,1980,p40). It is these factors which seem to affect children from working class backgrounds due to low incomes in the family which prevents them from achieving at school as they lack the basic resources such as books, correct diet and study space in the home needed to succeed in their studies. Also as many of these lower working class families are seen to be in poverty as evidence shows that a high percentage of children participate in part time employment after school hours to improve their situation at home and to relieve some of the financial pressure off their parents . This leads to children aiming to cope with earning money through paid work but also finding the time to study for their school work and gain qualifications (Heaton & Lawson,1996).

Furthermore Halsey Heath and Ridge (1980)examined reasons for inequalities existing in education for the working class and found that middle class children were more likely to go to school and continue on to higher education than the working class and this was partly due to lack of money and income in these households causing differential educational achievement compared to children from affluent backgrounds. However they did argue that material factors was not the only primary factor causing underachievement as children from materially deprived backgrounds have succeeded, they believed that cultural factors such as parental attitudes and encouragement played a key role in children’s educational attainment at school ( Abercombie, Warde & Deem,2001).

We will now look at how cultural factors can have an impact in creating inequalities for children.

2. Cultural Deprivation

Cultural deprivation has been defined ‘as a situation in which parents provide a child with little in the way of linguistic stimulation and take minimal interest in their education and when they have limited opportunity for play or other experiences which are helpful to their intellectual development- in short when their environment is barren and unstimulating ( Silver,1980,p40). This theory recognises that instead of material factors causing inequalities it is the cultural factors in fact that causes working class children to perform differently in schools compared to their middle class peers. It is argued that working class children are disadvantaged because working class subculture fails to transmit the correct norms, values and skills needed for high achievement in education (Fulcher & Scott,2007,p323).

Also low value is placed is placed on educational achievement and working class subculture focuses on immediate gratification where they are encouraged to leave school early and earn money rather than opting for deferred gratification which middle class adopt where education is seen as a path for success later on in life where they can enjoy the benefits of having a high paid job and high statuses (Henslin, 1996,p 190).

J W B Douglas study of ‘ The home and the school’ (1962) supports the cultural deprivation theory. Douglas conducted a longitudinal study in 1962 of 5,362 British children and followed their educational careers up to the age of 16. He divided the students into different social class groupings and found that there was different variations in educational achievement between students who had similar academic ability but came from different social classes. He found that within the ‘high ability group’ the majority of the lower working class children left school in the fifth year compared to only 10 percent from the upper middle class. Douglas argued that the single most important factor causing these differences in achievement between middle and working class children is the level of parental interest and encouragement for their children’s education. He argues that working class parents showed little interest in childrens progress at school whereas middleclass parents encouraged children to do well at school, continue in further education and also paid more attention to their childrens progress through frequent meeting s with teachers.

However overall although we can see that parental interest can effect childrens attainment it cannot be viewed as the only factor in explaining class differences in educational achievement. Blackstone & Mortimore (1994) argued that working class parents were unable to attend parents meetings due to demands of their manual jobs and also working class parents try to encourage their children in education but they lack the certain social skills that middle class parents occupy in order for their children to gain advantages from the school system. So therefore it is important to note that many other factors play a role in creating inequalities for working class children and also that many culturally deprived behaviours could also be due to a lack of money (Haralambos & Holborn, 2006, p737-739).

Economic mobility essentially describes what most people in the US would call the American dream. The ability to make it to the top as long as a person puts in the work is a dearly held American ideal. But is it true? American folklore glorifies the Lois and Clarks, the pioneers, those who forge their own way. But, does 21st century America provide the same opportunities to set out and make it if one puts in the work? Research and statistics show that the American dream, rags to riches, still happens for some but not everyone has an equal chance of bettering their economic positions and their lives.

Economic mobility can be described in several different ways. One can talk about a person’s economic mobility in terms of absolute dollars – how much they were able to surpass or fall behind the income of the generation before them – or in relative terms. Often, economists divide the population into quintiles based on income ranges. Economic mobility then is used to describe the likelihood of a child born in one quintile to move up or down into another quintile in their life. The Brookings institute explained economic mobility as, “The ability of people to move up or down the economic ladder within a lifetime or from one generation to the next.”

A person’s economic mobility is often seen as an indicator of the fairness of a society. It seems fair that people should not be determined by their economic situation at birth, the standard of living that they will have the rest of their life. Americans in very large numbers believe that a person’s economic outlook is determined by the choices they make and the work the put in. When discussing economic mobility it is also important to consider economic inequality in a society. High inequality is less worrisome if people are moving in and out of these classes. However, if you have a society that has increasing inequality and limited mobility, there are reasons for concern. This would mean that “the rungs of the ladder” of economic success are getting farther and farther apart and people have less of a chance to move up the ladder. Statistics show that the US may be in such a position. In the US inequality has been steadily growing since the 1960’s. The prizes for being successful in today’s economy are larger than ever before, but the likelihood of the average American attaining these rewards is decreasing. Income is increasingly focused at the top of the economy, and fewer opportunities exist for people to get there.

During this time of growing inequality a new force has transformed the US economy: globalization. Globalization is a term used to describe the interconnectedness of the world largely as a result of advancements in technology relating to telecommunications and travel. In the past 100 years, the world has changed from being a place where it takes weeks to travel overseas, to a place where even the farthest spot away on the globe could be reached within 24 hours. The world has changed from a place where communication could take weeks in the form of written letters, to a place where words can be written and words spoken and be heard or read instantaneously the world around.

The world suddenly thrust into an unprecedented age of connectedness. Never before had the world and everything in it – people, business, nations – been so interconnected. As we progress in an age of mobile internet access, the ability to travel anywhere in the world within 24 hours, and ever-increasing economic ties between nations, the effects of globalization are everywhere. Thomas Friedman described this new era saying “the world is flat.” As a result of advancements in technology, everyone is on a level playing field. A business in Anderson must compete with a business in China and a student in Carmel must compete with a student in India. This new global economy is and will shape the economic mobility of people in the US.

US mobility

Research has shown that nearly two-thirds of Americans are economically mobile in absolute terms, meaning they make more than their parents in absolute dollars. However, half of them remain on the same rung of the income ladder. Unfortunately, this is even more often true for children at the bottom of the ladder. For children born at the bottom, 80 percent will go on to make more than their parents in real dollars, but 42 percent stay at the bottom of the income ladder. For children born at the top, 39 percent remain there. If economic mobility had nothing to do with where a person is born in society, this number would be 20%. This is twice as high as would be expected by chance, so family income does have a significant effect on a child’s mobility in the US.

Gender

The rates of mobility are not equal across genders and races in the US Men tend to experience much higher rates of upward economic mobility than women do. For children who start out in the bottom quintile, 41 percent of women will stay there, while only 27 percent of men will. The mobility outlook for black people is also less “American Dream” like. Blacks in the United States experience dramatically less upward economic mobility than whites. 44 percent of blacks will remain in the bottom income quintile in adulthood compared with only 25 percent of whites who will remain stuck at the bottom. The majority of blacks in the bottom half of the income distribution will still exceed their parent’s place in the distribution, but their movement is much less than is typical of their white peers. Research by Mazumbder found that rates of upward economic mobility are highest for white men, followed by white women, black men and, finally, black women.

Other research found that not only are black children less mobile than white children, but that the majority of black children born to middle-income parents in the late 1960s have been downwardly mobile, meaning that they have less family income than their parents did. At that same time, only 16 percent of white children fell down the economic ladder. Some might attribute the lesser economic mobility of blacks to differences in family structure. Black children are more likely to be raised in single parent homes than their white peers. However, when controlling for single and two-parent families, the gap in mobility between the races still remains.

There is also a significant difference in the extent to which black and white parents pass their economic advantages onto their children. Isaacs found that white children are more likely to surpass their parents’ income than black children at a similar point in the income distribution, but they are also more likely to move up the ladder, while black children are more susceptible to falling down. In the 1960’s almost half of black children whose parents were middle class ended up falling to the bottom of the income distribution. Only 16 percent of white children in the same situation fell to the bottom. Black children from poorer families also are more likely to stay at the bottom. 54 percent of black children born in the bottom income quintile stayed there, but only 31 percent of white children remained stuck.

Factors influencing mobility

Even though gender and race are strong predictors of a child’s economic mobility, there are other factors that greatly impact a child’s chances at moving up. Studies have found that both black and white children who score higher on academic tests are more likely to move up and out of the bottom quintile. Both black and white children at the bottom who achieve average academic test scores are two times as likely to move up and out of the bottom quintile than children who score in the bottom percentiles on academic tests.

Many other studies have placed education at the top of the list in terms of what determines a person’s mobility. Haskins found that attaining a college degree quadruples the likelihood that a child born to parents at the bottom of the income ladder will make it to the top. Because of this, many people point to education as the most effective tool our nation has for improving the upward mobility of those at the bottom of the economic ladder. The problem is that those who would most benefit from receiving a college degree, are the ones least likely to receive it. Only one-third of children from families at the bottom quintile of the income ladder enroll in college, and of those students, only a small portion will go on to graduate.pg2 Pg 12 Children from this background have only a 34 percent chance of enrolling in college, compared to an 80 percent chance of enrolling for children from the top quintile. Children who start out at the bottom are only 20 percent as likely to earn a college degree as children from the top quintile.14

There are various reasons why children from poor families are less likely to enroll in and graduate from college. Financial reasons, obviously, are a major obstacle. Even though there are Pell grants and various opportunities for financial aid, a person who has not come from a family whose parent’s went to college, may not have the information they need to access these resources. Haskins argues that improving the equality of educational opportunity-a traditional American value-is one key to promoting economic mobility for disadvantaged students.

The impact on education on a person’s earning potential clearly demonstrate the importance of education for moving up the economic ladder. Over the last four decades, adults who have degrees from either two or four year colleges have much higher family incomes than other adults who only completed high school, or who dropped out. During this time, the income of those with degrees has been growing steadily, while the income for those without a college degree has become stagnant or declined. The impact of having a college degree on the mobility of a person at the bottom is huge. Adult children from families in the bottom fifth of the income distributionare four times as likely to reach the top fifth if they achieve a four-year college degree, increasing their likelihood of doing so from 5 to 19 percent. Pg. 3 Nearly half the adult children with parents in the bottom quintile stay in the bottom unless they get a college degree. 10

Every poor and low-income child who achieves a four-year college degree can dramatically increase her chances of moving into the middle class. This is also likely true of those who get a two-year degree, since the rates of return per year of education are roughly the same for two-year and four-year colleges Importance of finding the right fitaˆ¦ finishing.

12

Regardless of a person’s family background, getting a college boosts that person’s prospects of being upwardly mobile. However, this does not erase the impact of the family situation a person is born into. Children from low-income families with a college education are in fact no more likely to reach the top of the income ladder than children from high income families without a college education. Education is critical to success in today’s economy and an important explanation of why some groups get ahead while others are left behind, but it cannot completely erase the effects of family background on one’s ultimate success.

Children born to parents in the top quintile have the highest likelihood of attaining the top, and children born to parents in the bottom quintile have the highest likelihood of being in the bottom themselves.

This phenomenon is referred to as “stickiness” at the ends of the income distribution. As shown in Figure 4, it is fairly hard for children born in the bottom fifth to escape from the bottom: 42 percent remain there and another 42 percent end up in either the lower-middle or middle fifth.

Only 17 percent of those born to parents in the bottom quintile climb to one of the top two income groups. At the other end of the distribution, 39 percent of children born to parents in the top fifth attain the top themselves with an additional 23 percent landing in the fourth highest quintile. Surprisingly, American children from low-income families appear to have less relative mobility than their counterparts in five northern European countries, according to a recent international study of earnings of fathers and sons. Whereas 42 percent of American sons whose fathers had earnings in the bottom quintile had low earningsthemselves, the comparable percentages ranged from 25 to 30 percent in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and the United Kingdom (see Chapter III, “International Comparisons of Economic Mobility”).

One measure of “stickiness” is the measure intergenerational income elasticity. This figure would be 0.0 in a hypothetical society where a parent’s income has no effect on a child’s economic prospects and 1.0 where there is a one-to-one correspondence between parental income and adult child income. Recent estimates of the intergenerational income elasticity in the United States range from about 0.4 to 0.6, meaning that about half of the difference in income between families in one generation persists into the next generation.

Discussion of globalization

Globalization is a very broad term, so it can be hard to discuss how it affects economic mobility in the US, because has changed our world so much in a short time. However, a globalized economy in the US has led to significant changes in the demands of our economy that will shape the US’s economic mobility for years to come. The Hoosier economy has been the most heavily manufacturing based economy in the United States. The five US states that depend most on manufacturing are all in the Midwest.( Loc. 353) This statewide and even regional dependence on manufacturing has impacted the state’s culture and commitment to education.

Richard Longworth in his book “Caught in the Middle” describes the way that manufacturing enriched the region, but is now hampering their ability to adapt to a global world. He states that Indiana in particular is in denial about globalization, and instead of pursuing ways to reshape the economy, is pursuing losing efforts to keep businesses from moving out of the country.

Indiana held the crown as the state with the largest percent of jobs in the manufacturing sector. This led to significant growth and wealth in the past century, but it is apparent it will not have the same effects now that we are living in a globalized world. More and more manufacturing jobs are being shipped overseas, where labor can be had for a fraction of the cost. In the 20 years manufacturing output in the Midwest soared by 50 percent or more. But the number of jobs in manufacturing fell by about 20 percent. Over that same time, the unemployment rate in the state has grown from _ percent to over _ percent. Globalization is leading to a loss of jobs in Indiana, and the state has not kept up in creating jobs that are sustainable and profitable in a global economy. At least part of this is due to a mismatch in the skills employers have, and the skills possessed by Hoosiers. Indiana ranks _ in the number of adults with a bachelor’s degree or more. As technology and global labor competition continue to shape the way manufacturing is done, there will be less and less demand for unskilled, high wage labor that Indiana has a supply of and has lived off of in decades past.

It is apparent that for Hoosiers to get good jobs they must have the education and skills that make them competitive. Unfortunately, for many Midwest residents, there is not a strong commitment to education. Longworth linked this to the region’s past where high school drop outs could get a job in a factory and live well. This is obviously not the case now in a globalized Indiana, but many families continue to place little value on education. (loc 930)

In order to “move up the ladder” or be more well off than someone is raised, the single biggest factor is whether or not that person gets a good education. Unemployment rates by education level in the US make clear the impact that education can have (see figure b). As expected, states that depend heavily on manufacturing (which is demanding less labor, and often does not require college education) are suffering high unemployment rates during the current recession/recovery.

Unfortunately, even though education is so key to getting employed and being upwardly mobile, the current state of education has been found to reinforce family economic status more than to encourage upward movement. Figure b.

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

Globalization may be challenging Indiana to redefine its economy in order for Hoosier to be upwardly mobile, but it also allows us an opportunity to learn from other countries. Globalization has not only changed our economies, but has also changed our knowledge base. We now have the ability to look at other countries and see how they have dealt with or are dealing with similar situations that the IS is facing.

Economic mobility is essentially the American Dream, so it would be reasonable to assume that the US is a world leader in that respect. But reasonable assumptions aren’t always true, as in this case. Even though economic mobility characterizes the American dream, other countries do better at making it a reality for their residents. Studies routinely show that the US lags behind other nations in the economic mobility of its population. Again, there are differences in relative and absolute mobility. The US has led the pack in terms of absolute mobility due to rapid economic growth this century. As the saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats. As mentioned before, however, this tide is increasingly unevenly distributed, leading to tidal waves for some and droughts for others.

In terms of relative mobility the US lags behind many European nations, and our neighbor to the North Canada. Canada in particular is an interesting comparison because of how much it and the US share in common. According to research by Corak, Curtis, and Phipps; both the US and Canada value the ideal of equality of opportunity and define it in terms of individual freedoms but also individual responsibilities. One difference, however, was that Americans were more likely to view the government an obstacle to equality of opportunity rather than helpful in promoting it. Even though Americans were more reluctant to government intervention, residents of both countries recognized the need for public policy to contribute to reaching this ideal. Somewhat counter-intuitively, this study found that Americans believe more than Canadians that a host of interventions would be effective in improving the prospects for economic mobility. The authors of this study interpreted that as a possible sign that this need is going unmet in the US.

The study found that (4)On average Canada is up to three times more mobile than the United States. Stated another way, US citizens pass along three times as much inequality than do Canadians. They also found that not only does less mobility occur in the US, but that it is more heavily concentrated at the top and bottom of the economic ladder. Some of the reasons the authors point to as to why this may be the case are differences in health care, parental work leave laws, and tax transfer programs for poor families in Canada. The authors concluded that Mental and physical health, school readiness, and some education outcomes are all more developed in Canada, leading to better outcomes for children and increased economic mobility.

Despite American’s lesser likelihood of reaching the top compared to their counterparts in Canada and some European nations, Americans are far more optimistic about their ability to control their own economic destiny. They are far more likely to believe that people get rewarded for intelligence, skill, and effort and far less likely to believe that it’s the government’s responsibility to reduce differences in income. 4

In a comparison of mobility in the United States with mobility in several developed European nations, Miles Corak concluded that America is a low-mobility country in which about half of parental earnings advantages are passed onto sons. Canada, Norway, Finland, and Denmark are considered high-mobility countries, where less than 20 percent of income advantages are passed onto children. This would mean that in the US about half of parental earnings advantages are passed onto sons. If this trend holds steady, it would take an average of six generations for family economic advantage to disappear in the United States. While American’s seem to strongly believe that everyone has a shot to make it to the top, it is clear that people’s ability to do so is greatly shaped by the family they are born into. In the high mobility countries the effects of being born into a wealthy family would wear off in half the time – three generations instead of six. Contrary to American beliefs about equality of opportunity, a child’s economic position is heavily influenced by that of his or her parents. Forty-two percent of children born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution remain in the bottom, while 39 percent born to parents in the top fifth remain at the top. Children of middle-income parents have a near-equal likelihood of ending up in any other quintile, presenting equal promise and peril for those born to middle-class parents. Only 6 percent of children born to parents with family income at the very bottom move to the very top.

In another study,Markus Jantii looked at how the relationship between the earnings of parents and children varies for individuals who are on different rungs of the economic ladder. They find that starting at the bottom of the earnings ladder is more of a handicap in the United States than in other countries. Again, finding greater amounts of stickiness at the bottom of the economic ladder in America.

If it is obvious that education has great potential to boost the economic mobility of the less fortunate, it is important to ask whether the nation’s schools do enough to promote economic mobility. An examination of preschool, K-12, and undergraduate and graduate education in the United States reveals that the average effect of education at all levels is to reinforce rather than compensate for the differences associated with family background and the many home-based advantages and disadvantages that children and adolescents bring with them into the classroom. This may be due to achievement gaps that US continues to struggle with in education. The poor and minorities on average perform less well in school and are less likely to graduate. There is a cycle at play in the US – the poor and minorities are on average born to lower income families and as a result receive a poor education. These same students then are not able to move up the economic ladder, and pass the disadvantage onto their children who will be poor, likely receive a poor education, struggle with finding employment and repeat the cycle.

Compared to other nations, the US is falling behind academically. The most recent results from the PISA test released in December of 2010 show that the US continues to trail other countries in education. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, said the findings show that “the United States needs to urgently accelerate student learning to remain competitive in the knowledge economy of the 21st century. The education American students are receiving would have been fine a few decades ago when low-skill manufacturing jobs were abundant. Today, however, these jobs continue to disappear or move overseas. Living in a global economy means that our students now must compete with students all over the world for employment. And in a knowledge economy where education is the essential component to getting a job, the US is failing its students.

The PISA results showed that US students are not among top performing OECD nations in any subject that was tested. However, US students did express the most self-confidence in their academic skills than did students in nearly all other OECD nations.

Trends in US education do not bode well for the economic mobility of children growing up in a globalized world. Perhaps even more worrisome are the achievement gaps for Latinos and Blacks in the US education system. In 2008, McKinsey & Company released a study on the economic costs of achievement gaps in US education, and found them to be the equivalent of “a permanent national recession.”

To fix education, and to improve economic mobility of those who are most likely to be at the bottom, the US must make some changes. The OECD found that “socioeconomic disadvantage leads more directly to poor educational performance in the United States than is the case in many other countries.” The US prides itself on being the land of opportunity, but with poor educational outcomes in a globalized world, there will be very little opportunity for this and future generations.

Seeing that other countries are more successful in education, we have the opportunity to learn from what they are doing that works. This opportunity seems to be ignored though. The US, Israel, and Turkey are the only OECD nations that do not devote as much or more funding for schools facing the biggest socioeconomic challenges as they do to schools with more privileged students. Directing resources towards youth who need it the most seems like a no-brainer, but due to the way schools are funded in the US, it doesn’t happen. Much of the debate around education-reform in the US and Indiana has revolved around teacher accountability. Proponents say that rewarding teachers based on student performance is the best way to improve educational outcomes. However, this is not what the top performing education countries do. Outside of the US, most high-performing educational countries prioritize high teacher salaries over small class sizes, and they professionalize the teaching profession. Compare this to the current education debate in Indiana where the Governor is essentially demonizing teachers as free-loaders. The US and Indiana don’t seem to be taking advantage of the global insight available for shaping education, and this will likely have consequences for the education and mobility of the nation’s youth.

Combatting economic immobility in the US in a globalized world

Research seems to pretty clearly state that education is the key for improving economic mobility in the US. However, studies also find that education currently is not helping students become mobile adults, but rather reinforcing their family background. Poor kids are more likely to go to poor schools which are more likely to produce poor, immobile adults. Reforming education and closing achievement gaps in education will likely be the action that can have the greatest effects on Hoosier economic mobility.

Conclusion

Economic mobility is essentially the American Dream. The idea that someone can be born without a dime to their name, but through hard work can reach the top, being limited by nothing. Globalization is making this more of a dream and less of a reality in Indiana each day.

Much has been said about the cycle of poverty, and how the lifestyle, ethics, and decay of poverty are passed on from one generation to the next. With globalization, Americans face an ever more urgent task of helping people escape this cycle. Globalization has no need for the uneducated and unskilled labor that has been the basis of American manufacturing. For every unskilled American worker there are hundreds in the developing world willing to do the same job at a fraction of the pay.

The poor in the US stand ready to conceivably be some of globalization’s biggest losers. The US, the most wealthy country in the world that prides itself on the rags to riches story of people rising up to reach the top, has failed to take the steps needed to close achievement gaps and give the poor the opportunities to better themselves that we as a nation misguidedly pride ourselves on so doing.

Globalization will likely decrease economic mobility in the US unless the US begins to better educate the nation’s youth. The US would be wise to take advantage of something else globalization provides – insight into other cultures and the opportunity to learn from other nations – in shaping its policies on education and efforts to improve mobility.

Once in a few hours we think of food and chances are that we at least eat once per day. In the family setting food is easily accessible and for others it may be scarce because of the economy or the geography (Fieldhouse, 2008). At least, a large portion of families can afford what they want whenever they want while others must carefully plan on what they purchase. Nonetheless, no one can escape the biological need of food. This is to say that, everyone must eat at regular intervals whether the food is more or less nutritious. It is true that eating is a necessity of life itself but food also forms a crucial part of the cultural rituals and social relationships. Most importantly this paper addresses the family meal tradition as a symbol and material means of bringing family members together (Fieldhouse, 2008). Across different cultures and time, the aspect of food sharing is a universal medium that expresses fellowship in regards to the values of duty, sacrifice, hospitality and compassion. Food sharing is a gesture of friendship also symbolizing trust and interdependency.

My family in particular views the Friday night dinner as a window into social bonding and relationship. As my father has always said, “people you eat with define the members of your social group and the kind of food you share is a clear indication of the closeness of the relationships”. For instance, there are coffee-breaks with colleagues, casual lunch or dinner with acquaintances, and of course informal dinner around the family table for family and friends. Perhaps a common picture that comes in our mind when it comes to the aspect of family dinner is a happy nuclear family with a mom, dad, and kids sitting in a nicely laid table. This is an image that perpetually describes my family’s Friday night dinner. This is a tradition that my great grandparents firmly inspired as a cultural idea to be emulated as ultimate symbol of family stability and unity. This paper will look at the different roles of family members in the sustainability of Friday night family dinner examining the tradition using the Freudian theory, the family theory, and ecological system theory. The paper also takes special considerations on the reflection of this tradition in regard to the influence on the future and its influence on the family.

Family Dinner And Family Members
The Purpose

As a tradition, the family meal symbolizes a shared family life. Family dinner on Friday’s in our family organizes the family bringing us together. This heavily contributes to our social well-being while providing predictable structure to our Fridays which is often psychologically reassuring. The success of family dinners depends on a number of factors such as the skills for preparing the food and food-buying (Fieldhouse, 2008). The appearance of the family table requires a lot of time and skilled activities that calls for both physical and mental decision making. In our family, everyone is involved in this activity; that applies to the food buying, preparations, laying the table, and serving. With our participation, it not surprising that the provision of this family meal is a symbolic demonstration that we care for our family unity and stability. This veers more on love, obedience, respect, and gratitude. From the shopping to table clearing, each family member participates in a responsible exercise that promotes solidarity in the family. For the longest time we haven’t experienced a family tension because we share a lot in our conversations at the dinner table.

To The Parents

During our family dinners my parents focuses on teaching us the way forward on behaviour and in particular civilized behaviour such as saying ‘thank you’ and ‘please’. Excusing yourself before you the table, placing your elbows on the table, and talking on mouth full is normally discouraged. At this time, my parents taught us developmental skills such as manipulating chopsticks, literacy skills through family conversations when exchanging stories. This may seem sheepish but these are the basic fundamentals toward life and social interactions. During conversations, my parents learn more on our interests and attitudes. From these meals, my mother in particular gauges our moods and needs in the end help us solve our problems. My parents monitor the family and ensure that everyone attends to maintain the stability and unity in the family.

To The children (Me)

For the children the dinner table is crucial place for socialization (Fieldhouse, 2008). This is a prime setting for socialization concerning the norms and rules on family values, accepted behaviour, and expectations. From a nutritional perspective, the children learn what is considered acceptable; basically the foods and non-food. From the family dinners my siblings and I have learned manners and restraints on behaviour that the wider world requires. Through family conversations we learned of our parents’ attitudes and interests in relations to the world. We always help our mother prepare for the family dinner. As the eldest, I helped my mother prepare the foods and especially the vegetables and desert while my younger siblings have always prepared the table.

Though a happy family, we have our setbacks. At the end of the day family members who are already tired after a busy day at work or school and probably maybe irritable meet for a family meal. Discord may arise perceived at the table maybe because of the unacceptable behaviour and injustices. Refusal to eat, complaint on bad cooking or lack of gratitude on what was served on the table are some of the things that can lead to these discord at the dining table. This can turn the peaceful mealtime into battlegrounds were verbal arguments are used as weapons which leads to a resentful silence. Therefore, family dinners have many positive virtues that are occasionally fought with difficulties and negative outcomes which greatly depend on the parenting styles.

The Examination
Freudian Theory Of Defense Mechanisms

In psychology, Freud’s input cannot be discredited in the psychodynamic theory. Even though people are no longer believing and utilizing many theories and conclusions, the basis of psychodynamic theory still form a role in theories in psychology. Fraud’s ‘ego defense’ is one of the last remaining theories. This is also known as ‘defense mechanism’ said to actively operate without the consent of the person. These defenses are significantly important when dealing with individuals’ inter threats. Typically, the ego defense pacts with the thoughts that are unconsciously threatening.

Denial. This is perhaps the best known defense mechanism that describes situations where individuals are unable to acknowledge the obvious or face reality. This is the outright refusal to recognize what had happened or what is currently occurring. There was a time my brother and I boycotted the Friday family night dinner and we were hit the movies instead. This started bothering us as we kept thinking of the freshly made lasagne and the family conversations. We were defending ourselves from the happening of our family tradition but the realty soon checked in and we were unable to hold it anymore.

Repression. On its basic form, this mechanism is self explanatory. The mechanism acts to keep the information away from the conscious awareness. Keep in mind that memories do not just disappear but they tend to continue influencing our behaviour in the future. For instance, my family and I have repressed memories of shared meals since my childhood which I intend to pass on to my kids.

Fixation. This is the stunted movement that individuals feel between psychosexual stages when they experience excessive anxiety and frustration in regards to the next stage of progression. The individual remains fixed on a particular stage. My family and I are fixed to our Friday night dinner and the values it carries. This is a legacy that has been there since the times of my great grandparents.

Displacement. This involves taking out the feelings, frustrations, and impulses on less threatening people and objects such as the spouse, pets, and children. A good example to this form of defense mechanism is displaced aggressive that would otherwise lead negative consequences such as urging with the supervisor and instead expressing the anger to people who are less threatening. I remember there was a time that my father had a bad day at work possibly from the pressures from the upper management passing this bitterness to us at the family table.

The Theories
Ecological Systems Theory (Human Ecology Theory)

This theory states that the development of the human beings is inclined to the various types of ecological systems. Urie Bronfenbrenner formulated this theory to explain why we normally behave differently comparatively to how we behave in the presence of our family, work or at school. The human ecology theory accounts that throughout our lifespan we encounter dissimilar environments therefore influencing the way we behave in degrees that vary. These environments are:

Micro system. This is the environment setting that we directly have in life such as the parents, friends, teachers, neighbours, and people who surrounds us. We directly have social interaction with these social agents in this setting. In this system, individuals are not passive recipients in regard to experiences, but interactive in the establishments of the social settings. In the course of the family dinner we interact with each other in the establishment of a harmonious family setting.

Mesosystem. This involves the interaction of Microsystems in an individual’s life. In other words, a work-related experience can be connected to the family experience. For instance, from the family dinners, my parents have taught me civilized manners and respect for others which have helped me establish positive attitude toward by siblings, peers, and teachers. This has also made me feel wanted by people who are actively involved in my life.

The exosystem

In this system there exists a link where an individual does not have any actively involving role and the context where he or she can actively participate. I am attached to my father than my mother and a few ago my father got a promotion and here and then he was travelling to Africa for a few months for work for several months. We all missed our father and during our Friday night dinner my mother spearheaded and listened to mealtime conversations sometimes she was supportive and sometimes she was not. In the end this made my bond with my even tighter because she was always there when my father was away.

The macrosystem

This is the actual culture of a person that involves the socioeconomic status of the individual, race, ethnicity, and most importantly the family. Being born in middle class family makes us hard workers and thus the reason why we meet as a family once in a week for dinner- Friday nights.

The chronosystem

This environment entails the shifts and transitions throughout our lifetime. This engages the socio-historical context influencing an individual. For instance, my great grandparents emphasized on family meals and culture that been passed over in different generations which has positively affected our lives, relationships and how we view the world.

The family system’s theory

This is a theory that considers family as an emotional unit integrating systems thinking when describing complex interaction. For instance if there is anxiety among family members, the anxiety may escalate infectiously affecting all of them. And if this anxiety goes up, the connectedness of the members become stressful than comforting eventually making them feel isolated, out of control, and overwhelmed.

Triangles

`These are the basic units of stable relationships. These are a system that entails three-person relationships which is seen as the smallest building block of a larger emotional pool. There is no stability in a two-person system and therefore calls for a third party. This is because the tension keeps on shifting between two people is higher than the one involving a third person. When there is too much tension to be contained in one triangle it spreads to a series of interlocking triangles. This is what happens in our family dinner conversations.

Sibling position

In every family each sibling has a certain position which defines how the children will interact. This influences the child’s behaviour and development which predictably have common characteristics. For instance, as the first born in my family i tend to gravitate the leadership position which makes my siblings the followers. During the family dinner meal, my siblings look at me to tell them what to do if i am the one preparing the meal.- who to prepare what or even shop.

Differencing

This is the capability of separating thinking and feelings. Undifferentiated individuals can separate the way of thinking and the feelings because their intellect is controlled by the way they feel. Thinks makes them not to think rationally while at the same time they are unable to differentiate their feelings form others. Therefore, differentiation is the abily to free yourself from the family, the realization of your involvement in a conflict and not blaming others, and being able to relate with others at emotionally. At times during our dinner times conflicts may arise but we have always solved it before it escalates. We admit to our faults and forgive each other which make us differential.

The Reflection On The Tradition (1 page)
Is it positive or negative?

As a socially integrative function, a share meal brings people together in a web of reciprocal obligations and shared social relationships. Well, we suppose can say that one important aspect that brings people together is a family meal and if people do not gather for this family meal then the crucial weft of the family is sent to abyss (Fieldhouse, 2008). As a routine tradition, Friday family dinner has been most frequent planned ritual in our family which normally take place in our family house.

The understanding over time

The family meal and dinner in particular has come to represent the dynamics of the family and overtime generations are lamenting on its demise. As early as the 1920’s, people were expressing worries on how the leisure activities such as the invention of the car came undermine the value of the family meals (Fieldhouse, 2008). In the times of change, family meals represented stability and perhaps the lament of the lost family may actually be the reactions to feared change in the arrangements and structures of families.

The influence and the future

In the olden days, dinner was seldom as a ceremonial event (Nancy, Carolina, & Time, 2006).

Durkheim was a sociologist of French origin born in year 1958 and died on the November of 1917. He instituted various academic disciplines and is considered as the current social science principal architect. He actually maintained dominancy in the field of social sciences until the time of his death. Durkheim also presented several sociological knowledge papers alongside religion. His studies such as the suicide study have actually picked a popular discourse. Most of Durkheim’s work involved social facts’ study, term which he developed so as to depict phenomena that is self-existent and which cannot be affected by individuals’ actions (Lukes, 1985).

Durkheim considered social facts to possess sui generis, which is a self-sufficient existence which is greater as well as more objective when compared to the individuals’ actions which make up the society (Martin & Lee, 1994). Contrary to the facts covered under natural sciences, “social” facts thereby refer to particular phenomena category and they as well exist independently, free from individual manifestations (Durkheim, 1951). Social facts of this kind are actually endowed with coercion power due to their capability to take control of personal behaviors (Martin & Lee, 1994). In accordance to Durkheim, these types of phenomena should neither be condensed to psychological nor biological grounds (Martin & Lee, 1994). Therefore, the phenomena which is considered as most “individualistic”, for instance suicide, would end up been classified as a fact which is socially objective. Durkheim further argued that the persons who compose the society do not cause suicide directly (Ritzer, 1992). He based his argument on the fact that suicide being a social fact, its presence in the society is independent in spite of the prevailing desires of the individuals forming the society (Ritzer, 1992). Consequently, the departure of any individual from the society will have no effect on the suicide fact as the society which the individual leaves behind still contains suicide. Sociological tasks entail the discovery of various social facts characteristics which can only be revealed by the means of either experimental or quantitative approach (Hassard, 1995). For the case of the suicide study conducted by Durkheim, he particularly depended on statistics (Bellah, 1973).

Durkheim is considered to be amongst the initial structural functionalism founders. In general, Durkheim discarded reductionist arguments (Durkheim, 1951). Instead, he focused on the cultural values and norms, social structures alongside social facts; which he considered as being external to every human being. Durkheim’s study classified suicide into four categories and provided evidence to one of his theories which states that suicide rate differences are as a resultant of changes in the immaterial social facts (Thompson, 2002). Durkheim is famous due to his social reality macro-level views and its relationship at individual level. Actually, Durkheim managed to make major contribution on the structural functionalism development alongside sociology in general (Durkheim, 1951).

Basically, Durkheim explored the various suicide rates amongst different religious groups and specifically between the Catholics alongside the Protestants. He discovered that the suicide rates were lower amongst the Catholics when compared to the Protestants (Stark & William, 1996). Durkheim believed that the low rates of suicide among the Catholic were a result of the religion’s vibrant social control mechanisms (Stark &William, 1996). Consequently, he attributed the escalated suicide frequencies among the Protestants to the region’s big freedom space. In Durkheim’s perspective, the catholic society integration level was normal but the Protestant’s integration levels were low (Stark &William, 1996). However, this interpretation was faced by two major problems. First, Durkheim had relied on earlier researchers’ data, specifically Wagner, A. and Morselli, H (Stark &William, 1996) who had basically generalized their individual data. Secondly, succeeding researchers discovered that the suicide rates differences amongst the Protestants and Catholics tended to be prominent in the German-Speaking European part and thereby may only have been other factors’ spurious reflection (Pope & Danigelis, 1981). In spite of its limitations, Durkheim’s suicide study has really influenced the control theory proponents (Pope & Danigelis, 1981).

Durkheim came up with four categories of suicide which included Egoist suicide, Fatalistic suicides, Altruist suicide alongside Anomic suicide (Thompson, 2002). Durkheim considered Egoistic suicides as those that result from the weakening of individual bonds that naturally integrate collectivity (Thompson, 2002). In different words, Egoistic suicides are caused by the social integration breakdown or even decrease. Durkheim associated this suicide type to “excessive individuation” implying that most victims initially become more detached from the other community members (Thompson, 2002). Generally, the individuals who are insufficiently committed to specific social groups: – end up with minimal social support and hence the likelihood of them committing suicide is high (Thompson, 2002). For instance, Durkheim revealed that the unmarried people, specifically males, committed suicide more often than their married counterparts due to their less bondage with the established social norms’ goals. Apparently, similar problems affected the widows. Among 1Million widows aged 65 years, 628 of them committed suicide while amongst I million men aged 65 years, only 461 did commit suicide (Lukes, 1985). The sample composition was appropriate as the age bracket comprised of married men to the large extend (Almost 90%) (Lukes, 1985). Durkheim’s analysis however indicated that despite the fact that the widows had a higher likelihood of committing suicide than married persons, their suicide rate was lower when compared to that of single individuals (Ritzer, 1992). Durkheim linked the figures to the family factor as he was of the view that a simpler conclusion would turn out as problematic (Ritzer, 1992). It would be problematic due to the changes in the marriages numbers that occurred during this period as the suicide rates tripled. Significantly, Durkheim was quick to note that the factor was not simply marriage but a marriage that had children (Ritzer, 1992). This is because marriages with children had lower suicide rates when compared to infertile families (Thompson, 2002). Thus, the main factor was considering family like a basic social unit but not marriage. Additionally, Durkheim further studied the wars and crises roles on suicide rates. He discovered during the course of social crises (for instance, revolutions) alongside wars; the suicide rates dropped remarkably (Bellah, 1973). In overall, he found out a more religious society had lower suicide rates and also the strength of family relationships determined the magnitude of suicide rate (Thompson, 2002).

Moreover, the society integration greatly affected the suicide rate.

On the other hand, Durkheim classified Altruistic suicides as those which occur in highly integrated societies in which the whole society’s needs are more prioritized than individual needs (Thompson, 2002). Altruistic suicides therefore come about on a integration scale which is contrary to that of egoistic suicide (Thompson, 2002). Durkheim stated that the suicide rate in altruistic societies was generally low as personal interests were not viewed as important (Thompson, 2002). Durkheim viewed the armed forces with this perspective and was really surprising to find out that suicide rates occurred at a high rate within the military service (Thompson, 2002). It was startling due to the fact that the military, just like religions as well as cohesive societies should exhibit strong solidarity and moreover the people in the military are usually the most physically fit in the society (Durkheim, 1951).Besides, it was not right to attribute the suicide causes to either the military service hatred or even the failure to get used to military service routines (Durkheim, 1951).This was because it was evident that suicide rates were directly proportional to the military service length (Durkheim, 1951). Additionally, senior officers committed suicide at a higher rate than their juniors (Bellah, 1973). Moreover, the elite units were affected by higher suicide rates than the normal units (Bellah, 1973). Finally, the suicide rate was low in the units which demonstrated weaker military spirit (Bellah, 1973). Therefore, Durkheim stated that the senior military officers had to abandon the personal individuality to cope with the service requirements as it increased their risk of committing suicide (Lukes, 1985).

Durkheim classified Anomic suicides as those which arise due to moral deregulation alongside the absence of legitimate aspirations definition through restrictive social ethic, which has the potential of imposing a different individual conscience meaning as well as order (Ritzer, 1992). This is indicative of economic development failure as well as the labor division to result to the organic solidarity of Durkheim (Ritzer, 1992). In this situation, people fail to recognize their appropriate positions in the society. Durkheim explained this moral disorder state as that which the desires of the individuals are limitless, thereby resulting to personal infinite disappointments (Ritzer, 1992).

Lastly, Durkheim suggested that Fatalistic suicides mainly occur in the exceedingly oppressive societies which make people to opt for death other than continue living in such societies (Durkheim, 1951). Generally, this is one of the rarest reasons which can push an individual to committing suicide (Durkheim, 1951). However, fatalistic suicides are common features in prisons as individuals choose to die other than going on with the abusive, excessively regulated prison life which denies them the opportunity to fulfill their desires (Durkheim, 1951).

The Durkheim’s suicide types had their basis on the twin social forces imbalance degrees which are the moral regulation alongside the social integration. Durkheim revealed how impacts on the social aggregate aspects such as; war can lead to increased altruism, booms in economy or catastrophe contribute to anomie. Durkheim’s suicide analysis indicates the way in which social facts on the contrary to biological as well as psychological facts can be stressed upon, and bring about constructive methods of examining individuals’ actions. Besides, suicide rates are considered as social facts as they express social currents that affect people and the society as whole. Despite the fact that psychology study is also essential in resolving individual motives and the process through which certain circumstances push people to committing suicide; it is equally important to undertake circumstances analysis within the prevailing individual’s social currents (Durkheim, 1951).

Durkheim as a matter of fact established that the suicide rates in males were higher than in females; the singles had a higher rate of committing suicide than the married; suicide rates were also higher in the infertile couples than the fertile ones; protestants committed more suicide incidences as compared to the Catholics alongside Jews; Soldiers were more vulnerable to suicide than Civilians; there were more suicide incidences in the peaceful times than in war periods; Scandinavian countries exhibited higher suicide rates and lastly the people who had accomplished higher education level were at a higher risk of committing suicide.

However, the Durkheim suicide study has received a wide range of criticism from various sources. It has actually been criticized as the perfect example of logical error which is commonly termed as ecological fallacy (Freedman, 2002). Durkheim’s conclusions on personal behavior on the basis of aggregate statistics have been termed as misleading (Freedman, 2002). This is because the Simpson’s (1987) paradox has revealed how erroneous it is to analyze micro events in macro properties terms. Nevertheless, diverging views have arisen on whether Durkheim’s work should actually be classified as ecological fallacy. Researchers such as Van Poppel (1996) alongside Day (1996) have proposed that suicide rates differences between different religious groups (such as the Catholics alongside the Protestants) could be entirely explained in terms of how the social groups categorized deaths. For example, while the protestants recorded “sudden deaths” alongside “deaths resulting from unspecified causes” as suicides, this was not the case on the Catholics side (Thompson, 2002). Thereby, Durkheim error would be considered as empirical other than logical. Other researchers such as Gibbs, Inkeles, alongside Johnson have alleged that the main intention of Durkheim was to socially analyze suicide on the holistic perspective with the intention of expounding social environments variation within suicide incidences but not specific individuals’ suicides. In addition, researchers of the recent times like Berk (2006) have also queried the Durkheim’s work micro-macro linkages. Berk (2006) particularly noted that Durkheim spoke of “collective current” reflecting the joint inclination going down the social organization channels (Freedman, 2002). However, the current intensity is the determinant factor of the suicides’ volume thereby bringing about psychological variables like depression which could be viewed as independent or non-social suicide cause (Freedman, 2002). This thereby, ignores Durkheim’s conception of considering these variables as the mostly influenced by the wider social forces and the notion that suicide can not affect such individuals in the absence of these forces (Martin & Lee, 1994).

Apparently, Durkheim brings out issues that affect people directly. In addition, he tends to possess vibrant structural society view, as well as the mode in which everyone within the society is affected by various social facts and how it is a must for each to comply with them. Durkheim indeed tried to have the situation where the social roles are distinguished from psychological, economical alongside biological roles. This is actually be observed within his social influences view on the rate of suicides, in which he studies several factors and determines their effect on the propensity to commit suicide (Ritzer, 1992).

Durkheim’s notion of the movement from mechanical to organic solidarity more accurately describes the nature of different forms of social order than does Weber’s description of different types of authority (Discuss).

Introduction:

Emile Durkheim has none other than been recognised by many great philosophers to be truly one of the fore fathers of Sociology. As well as being one of the first great theorists to discover the science of society within the field SociologyLaw. In some of Durkheim’s work his greatest concerns evolves around the concept of ‘social solidarity’. His work involved trying to answer the theory of what ‘social solidarity’ actually is and how it holds society together? Durkheim’s discovery consisted of two main key stages of focus in order to be able to characterise society. The stages consisted of recognising the importance of appreciating a terminology he called ‘social facts’. “Durkheim defined social facts as things external to, and coercive of, the actor. These are created from collective forces and do not derive from the individual. While they may not seem to be observable, social facts are things, and are to be studied empirically, not philosophically” (Ritzer, 1992: p.78). This consisted in the ways of thinking and acting, as well as being external too, but constraining on the individual that reflects social reality. This Second stage consisted on how he managed to utilise law as an external index, which ultimately lead him to believe that it was the dominant social fact; in order to explain the character as well as the properties of modern society.

Within his newly discovered methodology, Durkheim was able to explain how modern western societies had surfaced by solely discovering the development of social solidarity from a mechanical to an organic state. With his theory consisting of law as the external index, he provided the understanding that social development is reflected in the legal development from repressive to restitutive law. Durkheim regards both criminal and civil law as the core of each field, thought his concept of discovering society. Further down the line of his theories he discovers the real place and function for the two types of law.

Where as Max Weber’s study of bureaucracy looks for developing a historical and sociological account of the rise of modern organizations. (Linstead, Fulop & Lilley, 2004: p130). He used an ideal type to analysis the appearance of the bureaucracy form of organization. The ideal type, according to Weber, is a tool used to identify the characteristics of social phenomena such as bureaucracies. Weber used the term ‘ideal type’ in order to make a distinction from other forms of organization (Linstead, Fulop & Lilley, 2004: p130). Weber defined the Prussian Church, Army and Civil Services as all being examples of this bureaucratic form. He also saw a powerful instrument of the first order, and considered bureaucracy as embodying a powerful combination of knowledgeable calculable basis, and the power case would dare the bases of democracy (Nicos, 1975: p38). It is definitely a great idea to explore Weber’s theories; in conjunction to Durkheim’s as this essays main purpose is to investigate why Durkheim’s theory more accurately describes the nature of different forms of social order, more so over than Weber’s theory of bureaucracy.

This comparative analysis of both sociologists will help to describe the principal characteristics of the Weber “Ideal Type” bureaucracy, by discussing Weber’s concept and ideas about the roles of power and authority within the bureaucratic form of organization. In order to achieve this within the topic of discussion, certain objectives need to be addressed. Firstly, by giving a brief introduction to what Weber believed to be the ideal type of bureaucracy. Secondly, by understanding the relationship between power and authority, Weber believed in a theory that consisted of three major kinds of different authorities within power that need to be studied correctly to understand the module of Bureaucracy.

Max Webber made excellent contributions to the field of sociology by his ability to witness and analyse various patterns which were quickly altering the standard way of life. His ability to find hidden patterns which the general person could not discover through observation, gave him the ability to discover new theories. These involved the ability of understanding new markets and businesses evolving worldwide by observing them in action. In his main observations and analysis he noticed the markets and businesses were actually unifying people together. His theories and concepts through observation described the way he witnessed how modern science was becoming the new method of conducting business. Through his observations he compared the different societies he witnessed, which gave him the ability to analyse how the forms of government were beginning to evolve. As one of his main theories he believed sociology had to apply scientific methods that would elevate sociology to level of social science instead of just a being another branch of philosophy (Hughes & Kroehler & Vander Zanden, 2002).

Discussion:

According to the fact of Durkheim’s distinctive approach in explaining the theory of social solidarity and the reason why society has been made possible. Has ultimately given, Durkheim the recognition as being regarded as the first social theorists to truly discover the meaning of society. His persistence involved scientifically studying society through the means of observation and measurement rather than the general approach of focusing on one individual at a time. As introduced above, the concept of social facts play an important role in Durkheim’s analysis as they epitomise an impartial account of the beliefs and values of society taken cooperatively. The mere theory that ‘social fact’ is irrepressible to alteration makes it an exceptional tool to clarify the concept of social solidarity.

Within Durkheim’s work he identifies two types of solidarity, mechanical and organic. He claims that mechanical solidarity will ‘progressively loses ground’ as society develops and becomes more complex such that organic solidarity will emerge as the preponderant form of solidarity. Hence in order to be able to understand how modern western societies have evolved over the years, we need to appreciate this advancement of mechanical to organic solidarity, as well as the characteristics and in addition the properties associated among each state.

Mechanical solidarity was discovered by Durkheim to exist in more primitive, pre-industrial societies, where division of labour is largely undifferentiated and there is little interdependence between its members (Clarke, 1976: pp. 246-255). The ‘social glue’ that holds society together is the homogeneity between its members, which Durkheim termed as the ‘horde’ (Emirbayer & Cohen, 2003). This is generally characterised by the dominant concept of the ‘collective consciousness’, which is a form of social fact that represents ‘the totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society’ (Horowitz, 1982). This collective consciousness provides the moral basis for which members within society must be judged upon according to their actions and beliefs. Individualism is virtually non-existent and not tolerated as it represents a stray from the common bond.

However, Organic solidarity has still been proclaimed by Durkheim’s theory to exist in more progressive and industrial societies that happen to have an extensive and highly distinguished division of labour. Organic solidarity is classed as the best form of solidarity that characterises the western modern society. The collective realisation under mechanical solidarity weakens due to the reason that greater emphasis is placed on individualism as portrayed by society being viewed as ‘a system of different organs each of which has a special role, and which are themselves formed of differentiated parts’ (Barnes, 1966). This type of solidarity has the characteristic ability of increasing interdependence between members as a result of the phenomenon of complementary differentiation. This refers to the need for members to ‘depend more upon one another’ as each have differentiated roles from the division of labour, which if separated will result in the crumble of society. Therefore it is clearly visible that interdependence is the key that forms the ‘social glue’ in an organic society.

The decisive factor which implements the movement from mechanical to organic solidarity is principally the concept of social density. This refers to the increased amount of interaction, an in turn interdependence, between members of society as a result of changes within an organisational structure of societies in a longer period of time. This is according to an increase in population growth, advancement in technology, the rapid developments of towns and their growth in geographical concentration. It is this ‘condensation of the social mass’ which characterises modern western societies and enables them to surface.

Despite being able to identify the two types of solidarities, Durkheim finds himself faced with the most difficult obstacles to his science of ethics that is, since social solidarity is a ‘wholly moral phenomenon’ , it is not capable of being exactly observed and measured (Barnes, 1966) . Therefore Durkheim substitutes law as the external index, a ‘visible symbol’, to measure and reflect ‘all the essential varieties of social solidarity’ (Elwell & Frank, 2003). Carrying with it the characteristics of being coercive, real, objective and observable, while also being the most stable and precise element in society, the law is the pre-eminent choice for an external index (Barnes, 1966).

Max Weber’s concept and ideal theory to make bureaucratic control work relied on the focus that managers must have complete authority to dominate control of power over the organization, as well as being the centre focal point of the larger society. Weber summarized three main types of authority which in-depth explain the management and control in a large organization.

The first type was known as Charismatic authority, which applied to organisation whose foundation is the dedication to the worthy character or the courageous of an individual and the command which defined by her or he. Political leaders have been able to get this kind of response too. For example, former US President Bill Clinton has often referred to as having charisma and charisma can be often found in revolutionary military organizations. The most advantage of charisma is its great power, which is rest on the intensity and strength of the force which lie absent-minded in the goal of every human (Kieran 2004 p55). On the other hand, charisma, in order to transform the environment of social life, thus in this way changing people’s attitudes toward them, then the greatest change of central views and directions of individual action would appear which with completely new intentional and controversial bias of the whole attitudes toward diverse problems of the “world” (Weber 1968 p977).

The second type is Traditional authority; this is based on the cases that occurred before, also means the precedent or custom. It is always more or less mixed with magical elements, Weber persist in that authority involves legitimacy in the sense of duty to obey indicates that we are dealing with an aspect of superego functioning. Church can be example of this kind authority, in this circumstance, managers cannot be impertinent to their members or break the images expected of them.

Finally, the third type of authority being Rational-legal, this is based on followers’ belief in ‘the legality of rules and the right to those who have a position of authority in order to issue commands’ (Daft, 2004: pp.294). The role of this authority can be described as it is the foundation for both management and creation of most government organizations. As well as the most common fundamental of control in organizations worldwide, worth to detail, ration-legal authority is the form which is most widely used to govern internal work activities and decision making, especially in the large organizations.

Evaluation:

Essentially for Durkheim, one only has ‘to classify the different types of law to find therefrom the different types of social solidarity which corresponds to it’ (Spitzer, 1975). This is where in fact the whole study of criminal and civil law falls into place. As mentioned in the beginning of the introduction above, each of these laws acts as the essence of repressive and restitutive law respectively. Despite the claim that Durkheim makes on the evolution of mechanical to organic solidarity (and in turn the evolution from repressive to restitutive law) as society progresses, the discussion below demonstrates that ‘modern western societies regardless still preserve a combination of these two types of law’ (Adair, 2008: pp.97-120). The remaining discussion within this essay will focus on the rules and function of criminal and civil law within modern western societies. In addition to proclaiming whether Durkheim’s theory’s and ideas haves truly made him to be recognised as a discoverer of ‘society’ or not.

Weber declares his feelings of believing that the power of a class is not really a very important issue. Weber claims that when there happens to be a struggle for power, only then classes are considered important. Only then when declared they as a part of their class in their actions. Classes alongside with status groups are just unreceptive members in society. Only when a political party solely considers to addresses the class it becomes declared as active. This insignificance of classes dictates Weber’s direct concept that the economic issues within capitalism do not in fact affect the outcome of authority or the struggle for power (Barnes, 1996).

In Weber’s thoughts he declared that imperialism is not merely a matter of economics. He mainly justified that imperialism was more in fact a political tool. He defined it as a tool of esteem, to be used for the privileged and ways to address nationalism among the masses. Weber was right when stating that imperialism had not been created by capitalism, as imperialism was introduced way in time before the concept of capitalism was discovered. Imperialism however did in fact make an appeal towards all the members of ruling classes. It appealed to the esteem of the old leaders as well as it was declared as the source of money for the new leaders. But the appeal of prestige was by far the more important factor to Weber. Weber’s views on the concepts and theory of imperialism are an extension of expressing the struggle for power. This led him to being exploited with criticism, for restricting the impact of the economic aspects focus of imperialism during the power struggle. Weber directly declared the incomplete functioning of bureaucracy among the impact in created upon individuals. Its prime advantage resulted in efficiently accomplishing goals, which made it awkward in dealing with individual cases. The impersonality which happened to be crucial in attaining efficiency of the organization resulted in it degrading. However the major concern over bureaucracy’s threat to members of a particular organization had assisted to overshadow its effects on the larger society (Barnes, 1966). Weber became exceptionally troubled about the impact that rationalization and bureaucratization had on sociocultural systems (Elwell & Frank, 1996). According to its true nature bureaucracy generates a vast amount of unregulated alongside an unperceived social power. Due to the nature of bureaucracy’s superiority over other various forms of organization, they have thrived and have now dominated modern societies. Within Weber’s concepts he warned us of those individuals who control these organizations, also control the quality of our life, as they are primarily self-appointed leaders (Elwell & Frank, 1996). ‘Bureaucracy traditionally tends to result in oligarchy’ (Elwell & Frank, 1996) or the rules placed by the few officials in the hierarchy of the organization. The Larger formal organisations that dominate society always produce a potential threat that social, political and economic power may in fact become rigorous in the hands of those few individuals who have superiority in high positions as well as the ability of being the most influential personnel within these organisations (Elwell & Frank, 1996).

Weber’s end accomplishment for society involved the creation of a plebiscatory democracy which had the capabilities of being able to transform capitalism. He believed this change in society would eventually change individual power into a power to be utilised for the greater good for society. Weber disregarded the Junkers in Germany due to their egoist engagements (Norkus, 2004: pp.389-418). He claimed Junkers had only certain set tariffs as well as only following the rules that would benefit themselves instead of Germany as a whole. Although it relied on the individuality of one superiority, Weber was still highly interested in democracy not just for main the reason that consisted of the idea that masses could share the power to rule, but for mainly for the simple fact that it allowed the ability of potential new charismatic leaders to come into power (Kalyvas, 2008). Weber’s ideal democracy is one that consists of leaders that are recognised through masses, but even then the ‘masses still stay clear of the government involvement in letting the leaders rule with superiority’ (Kalyvas, 2008). Social stratification, according to Weber, was more based on three different ideas: economics, status and power. Further elaboration of his ideas of what constitutes a class, Weber states that “a class is not a community; rather, a class is a group of people who share situation is a possible, and sometimes frequent basis for action by the group” (Hughe, Kroehler & Vander Zanden, 2002). This basically means that just because people may live in the same town or city they are not automatically equal, but they are considered equal when their economic status is compared. Weber suggests that social order can be maintained by separating classes using determining factors such as the three aforementioned: class, status, and social power.

Durkheim on the contrary strongly believed a mechanical society operates in a different way than does an organic society. In a mechanical society, the term best suited to describe is “jack-of-all-trades.” This is because in that type of society, rather than assigning each person one particular duty to perform, most people were able to perform a multitude of tasks and responsibilities (Ritzer, 1992: pp140). Dynamic density, according to Durkheim, refers to the people of a certain society and their role they play in that society. A major problem that arises in dynamic density in a mechanical society is that when a society grows in numbers, conflict arises due to the fact that people will be competing against one another. As a result of the competition, people are given no other choice but to begin specializing in certain areas and only doing certain tasks, thus starting the transformation from a mechanical to an organic society (Ritzer, 1992: pp.190). The collective conscience of a society is the general feelings of the group. In a mechanical society the majority of a group thinks strongly about an idea or belief (Barnes, 1966). Therefore, it goes without saying that in a mechanical society, where there is little individuation in labour, there is also little individuation of the way that society thinks. Also, in an organic society, where there is diversity in labour, there, too, is diversity in the conscience of the society. People in organic societies tend to have differing opinions and feelings on certain issues (Ritzer, 1992: pp.193).

Durkheim proposed that the key to maintaining social order in a society is to have that society, if not already one, be transformed into a modern, or organic, society (Barnes, 1966). His reasoning for this is because, in a modern society, there is no competition between the inhabitants because there is a wide selection of areas readily available for each individual to specialize in. He also collaborated with two various types of laws that in fact helped his theory progress, in resolving how to maintain social order. Under a mechanical society, where repressive law is used, a crime usually results in a sever repercussion. An example of this is theft; stealing something of importance may result in the loss of a hand. However, it is much easier to achieve and maintain social order in an organic society because the consequences are less severe and harsh. Using the same example of theft, the punishment may be jail or simply repaying the cost of what was stolen. This is acknowledged as the term ‘restitutive law’ it helps to maintain order while preventing less fear in the people. Basically, under a modern society there is more freedom of the people and that allows for less disorder. When people are given more opportunities, and are allowed more freedom they are more likely to conform to society’s rules because it benefits them greater than if they didn’t.

Conclusion:

Durkheim’s social theory is unique for the fact that it analyses society through the observation and measurement of scientific concepts and evidence. Viewing in this stance, Durkheim’s methodology indeed makes him the first major social theorist to truly discover the real meaning of ‘society’. As he, unlike many sociologists in his era, he in fact distinguishes himself away from the study of natural and human science in finding the answers for societal existence. Modern western societies, for Durkheim, has come a long way as reflected in the social and corresponding legal evolution, as discussed above. The characteristics and properties of organic solidarity best illustrate the situation of modern western societies, which include the rising emphasis on private individuals and the increase of interdependence between them as a consequence of the division of labour due to social density. In turn Durkheim has recognised a similar development of the function of law, which he sees as a moving target for sociological observation. The above discussion has demonstrated that modern western societies have retained elements of repressive (criminal law) as well as resitutive laws (contract law). Which both share the important function of coordinating growing interdependence by giving their utmost respect for the cult of the individual. The proliferation of regulatory law highlights that notion that social solidarity is not static and confirms Durkheim’s view on law as the ‘sociological equivalent of a thermometer’ to continuously reflect reasons for social cohesion. Thus it is important to realise that while Durkheim’s methodology (i.e the use of law as an index) has managed to provide a tool to truly discover society, one needs to be able tp continuously monitor this index to ensure that modern western societies are duly and truly discovered as well.

Weber’s theory of the bureaucratic form organization is regarded as a representation of a normal process of explanation in society as a whole, punctuating the value of mean-ends relations. An ideal type is constituted by the bureaucratic form of organization. There are many characteristics of this form such as obvious division of labour, higher formalization, and separation of organizational and personal lives, employment decisions are based on merit. Weber suggested that authority can be seen as critical to understanding power, but exercise of authority is different from the power. The power of position within a complete bureaucracy is always considered as exceptional, under the normal conditions of overpowering; due to bureaucracy’s political rulers face it as dilettantes of an expert. The most advantage of charismatic authority is its great power, which is rest on the intensity and strength of the force which lie unconscious in every human goal. A Church can be example of traditional authority, in this circumstance; managers cannot be saucy to their members or break the images expected to them. The role of rational-legal authority can be described as it is the foundation for both management and creation of most government organizations as well as the most common basis of control in organizations worldwide, worth to detail, ration-legal authority is the most widely used form to govern internal work activities and decision making, especially in the large organizations.

Outline the main features of Durkheim’s approach to sociological analysis, and discuss how this may be used to understand suicide rate.

Durkheim was a French positivist, with an emphasis on functionalism, which revolves around a biological analogy where in society, is seen as an organic whole with each component working to maintain the others, similar to the human body. Its main interest is seeing how these parts create a stable whole.

One of the main areas of Durkheims approach is the focus on social facts, these are social phenomena and ways of thinking and behaving that restrain individuals in some manner or other and can include institutions such as the state and education. They appear from collectively formed rules and practices, be they religious or secular and are beyond our control as individuals. Because of these social facts individuals have littler or no control over their own actions, rather than constructing their own world they are directed by the system as society needs certain social behaviours and phenomena to survive. These social facts are passed on from generation to generation and shared among the individuals. From this perspective it is not individual will that drives behaviours but rather the common norms and values of society that shape ones consciousness. “Not only are these types of behaviour and thinking external to the individual, but they are endued with a compelling and coercive power by virtue of which, whether he wishes it or not, they impose themselves upon him” (Durkheim, 1895 pp50). These social facts form the basis of a collective consciousness, which Durkheim sees as ‘the body of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society’ (Durkheim, 1893). This collective consciousness promotes solidarity, forging a common bond between individuals in a society, creating a form of order and stability. Without a form of moral consensus there would be conflict and disorder “From where interest is the only ruling for each individual finds himself in a state of was with every other” (Durkheim, 1973, p89) Since the collective consciousness is a social fact it too constrains individuals to act in terms of the greater good and for the good of the society and is deeply imprinted on the individual as without it there would be no society as we know it. These social facts can have problems if they regulate too much or not enough, without enough control the individual would give in to their own wants and desires, with too much they would feel repressed, inevitably both will lead to deviance, that being going against the norms and values of society.

From a collective consciousness come two forms of solidarity, organic and mechanical. Organic solidarity is based upon a dependence that individuals in an advanced society place on each other. It is common among societies where the division of labor is high. Though individuals perform different tasks and often have different values and interests, the order and survival of society depends on their reliance on each other to perform their specific tasks. Mechanical solidarity on the other hand is based upon the similarities among individuals in a society, within it people feel connected through similar work, education and religious practices. It primarily exists in societies that possess a low division of labour where this is little interdependence between individuals and where there is a basic or lack of organisation and compared to societies with organic solidarity there is more value placed on religion, society and its interests and there is a greater collective consciousness and less emphasise placed on individualism, that being where you count yourself as an individual rather than part of a group, putting yourself first etc (Haralambos 2004 pp??). From organic solidarity and individualism can come anomie, this is a sense of normlessness, where norms themselves are unclear, broken down or unregulated “If the rules of the conjugal morality lose their authority, and the mutual obligations of husband and wife become less respected, the emotions and appetites ruled by this sector of morality will become unrestricted and uncontained, and accentuated by this very release; powerless to fulfil themselves because they have been freed from all limitations, these emotions will produce a disillusionment which manifests itself visibly…”(Durkheim, 1972, p. 173) He noted that it was common in societies that possessed a less defined collective consciousness and a higher amount of individualism”…The state of anomie is impossible whenever interdependent organs are sufficiently in contact and sufficiently extensive. If they are close to each other, they are readily aware, in every situation, of the need which they have of one-another, and consequently they have an active and permanent feeling of mutual dependence.”(Durkheim, 1895, p184)

Imbalances in the amount of regulation caused by social facts and the amount of integration from solidarity are one of the main factors within suicide, less advanced societies having too much integration and regulation and industrial societies have too littler of either. Durkheim said that suicide was a social act, not entirely an individual one revolving around the relationships between the individual and society. He found that there was a correlation between the suicide rate and various social facts. For example he found that suicide rates were higher in protestant countries than catholic ones, he also found that there was a low rate during times of social and political upheaval due to the amount of solidarity that such events creates (Durkheim in Marsh, pp66-69). He laid out four types of suicide, depending on the degree that individuals were involved in society and on the degree that their behaviour was regulated. The four types being egoistic, anomic, altruistic and fatalistic. Egoistic suicide is common in industrial societies with high amounts of division of labour and comes from a high amount of individualism, which stems from a low amount of integration due to a weak collective consciousness from the social groups from which they originally belonged; in effect society allows the individual to escape it “In this case the bond attaching man to life relaxes because that attaching himself to society is itself slack” (Durkheim in Marsh pp67). This sort of suicide Durkheim said accounted for the differences of suicide rates between Protestants and Catholics, with Catholicism’s demanding a higher amount of conformity, in comparison to the Protestant church that encouraged the individual to interpret the religious texts in their own way without stigma. Another type of suicide common in industrial societies is anomic which results from a low amount of regulation. It occurs when norms and values are disrupted by social change, procuring feelings of uncertainty within the individual. “Whenever serious readjustments take place in the social order, whether or not due to a sudden growth or to an unexpected catastrophe, men are more inclined to self destruction” (Durkheim in K. Thompson, 1971, pp109) Durkheim found that suicide rates rose during positive as well as negative directions of social change. He noted that there was a rise after the crash of the Paris stock exchange in 1882 and the conquest of Rome in 1870 by Victor-Emmanuel which resulted in rising salaries and living standards but also a rise in the suicide rate.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is altruistic suicide that comes from a high amount of integration and strong feeling of society and solid collective consciousness. This form of suicide is mostly present in pre-industrial societies who possess mechanical solidarity. This was seen as a self sacrifice for the good of the group “This sacrifice then is imposed by society for social ends” (Durkheim in Marsh, pp68). It is not done because it seen as the best option but more out of a sense of duty to said group. For someone to do such an act out of duty then they must have little self worth, the individual being fully submerged into a group and feeling like just a part of a greater thing, thus highly integrated. “For society to be able to compel some of its members to kill themselves, the individual personality can have little value. For as soon as the latter begins to form, the right to existence is the first conceded” (Ibid, pp68) Various examples of this can be seen throughout history, Vikings considers it dishonourable to die of old age or sickness and so ended their own lives to avoid social disgrace. Durkheim placed no importance on fatalistic suicide, saying that it had more place in history than in modern societies. It occurred when society restricted an individual so much that they were repressed, feeling that they had no futures or dreams.

One of the major criticisms of Durkheim’s analysis is his concepts of integration and regulation. Durkheim gives no hint as to how one would measure integration or regulation for example – he simply asks us to assume that such “underlying” concepts are significant in relation to the explanation of suicide. He assumes that suicidal behavior results from a deviation from normal levels of integration and regulation. We are given no idea what exactly is a normal level, so we cannot say what amount of regulation and integration is normal or abnormal (Web ref 1). However with some work, it could be possible to come up with various test relating to theses concepts, so that we could measure them among different groups in society. A second criticism is that his work on suicide is based upon official statistics from the 19th century He gives us little idea about the reliability of the source of the statistics and the methods used in recording them could not be up to scratch, some could be wrong, since they were hand written things could be misread and so on. Another factor is that the determination of suicide involves is process of interpretation by numerous people such as policemen, doctors, coroners etc (Ibid). In this respect, we have no real way of determining either the reliability or validity of suicide statistics. The coroner is the one who decides whether death was due to suicide or not and various factors can sway his judgment towards it not being so. The individual’s verdict depends on their outlook on their work and on their outlook on suicide. Some would be thorough in the investigation whilst others would be concerned about not intruding upon the rights and feelings of the surviving relatives. For example if the victim was Catholic, since traditionally the Catholic Church view suicide as a sin, the coroner may well make his decision based on the effect that the stigma that a suicide verdict carries may have on the relatives. It is known that coroners in Catholic countries such as Italy and Mexico are more-reluctant to classify a suspicious death as suicide than coroners in non-Catholic countries. Another fact is that some countries suicide is classified as a crime, in such countries, coroners tend to be more-reluctant to classify a death as suicide than in countries where such a law does not apply, for example when suicide was illegal in Britain the punishment was that deceased property would be ceased by the state, so it would be justifiable to deem a suicide as something else to avert any more tragedy. Also where the victim was insured against death, coroners tend to be less likely to classify death as suicide than in instances where there is none, as such an act can void the coverage. One final criticism is that he does not take into look into individual action as a cause; however he does briefly acknowledge it but claims that it has no part in sociology (Ibid)

Bibliography
Durkheim, E (1973). Moral Education. Macmillan USA
Durkheim, E (1975). On Morality and Society. revised ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press
Durkheim, E (1982). The Rules of the Sociological Method. revised ed. London: The Free Press.
Durkheim, E (1997). The Division of Labour in Society. revised ed. London: The Free Press
Haralambos and Holborn (2004). Sociology themes and perspectives. 6th ed. London: Collin
Marsh.I (1998). Classic and Contemporary Readings in Sociology. London: Pretince Hall.
Thompson.K and Tunstall.J (1983). Sociological Perspectives. 9th ed. London: Penguin Books

Once he discovered that certain types of suicide could be accounted for by anomie, he could then use anomic suicide as an index for the otherwise unmeasurable degree of social integration. This was not circular reasoning, as could be argued, but a further application of his method of analysis. He reasoned as follows: There are no societies in which suicide does not occur, and many societies show roughly the same rates of suicide over long periods of time. This indicates that suicides may be considered a “normal,” that is, a regular, occurrence. However, sudden spurts in the suicide rates of certain groups or total societies are “abnormal” and point to some perturbations not previously present. Hence. “abnormally” high rates in specific groups or social categories, or in total societies, can be taken as an index of disintegrating forces at work in a social structure.

Durkheim distinguished between types of suicide according to the relation of the actor to his society. When men become “detached from society,” when they are thrown upon their own devices and loosen the bonds that previously had tied them to their fellow, they are prone to egoistic, or individualistic, suicide. When the normative regulations surrounding individual conduct are relaxed and hence fail to curb and guide human propensities, men are susceptible to succumbing to anomic suicide. To put the matter differently, when the restraints of structural integration, as exemplified in the operation of organic solidarity, fail to operate, men become prone to egoistic suicide; when the collective conscience weakens, men fall victim to anomic suicide.

In addition to egoistic and anomic types of suicide, Durkheim refers to altruistic and fatalistic suicide. The latter is touched upon only briefly in his work, but the former is of great importance for an understanding of Durkheim’s general approach. Altruistic suicide refers to cases in which suicide can be accounted for by overly strong regulation of individuals, as opposed to lack of regulation. Durkheim argues in effect that the relation of suicide rates to social regulation is curvilinear–high rates being associated with both excessive individuation and excessive regulation. In the case of excessive regulation, the demands of society are so great that suicide varies directly rather than inversely with the degree of integration. For example, in the instance of the Hindu normative requirement that widows commit ritual suicide upon the funeral pyre of their husbands, or in the case of harikiri, the individual is so strongly attuned to the demands of his society that he is willing to take his own life when the norms so demand. Arguing from statistical data, Durkheim shows that in modern societies the high rates of suicide among the military cannot be explained by the deprivations of military life suffered by the lower ranks, since the suicide rate happens to be higher for officers than for enlisted men. Rather, the high rate for officers can be accounted for by a military code of honor that enjoins a passive habit of obedience leading officers to undervalue their own lives. In such cases, Durkheim is led to refer to too feeble degrees of individuation and to counterpose these to the excesses of individuation or de-regulation, which account, in his view, for the other major forms of suicide.

Durkheim’s discussion of altruistic suicide allows privileged access to some of the intricacies of his approach. He has often been accused of having an overly anti-individualistic philosophy, one that is mainly concerned with the taming of individual impulse and the harnessing of the energies of individuals for the purposes of society. Although it cannot be denied that there are such tendencies in his work, Durkheim’s treatment of altruistic suicide indicates that he was trying to establish a balance between the claims of individuals and those of society, rather than to suppress individual strivings. Acutely aware of the dangers of the breakdown of social order, he also realized that total control of component social actors by society would be as detrimental as anomie and de-regulation. Throughout his life he attempted to establish a balance between societal and individual claims.

From Coser, 1977:132-136.

At the end of the 19th century a French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, recorded an apparent link between high suicide rates and a breakdown in social structure and organisation. He coined the term ‘anomie’ for this state. This link has since been recorded many times in places outside France and appears to be real. However, its true significance has only recently begun to be understood with the development and exploration of the concept of social capital and its link, not just with suicide, but with health generally.

(“Stronger Communities One of” 28)

He wanted to demonstrate and establish sociology’s scientific status by providing a sociological explanation of that seemingly most individual of acts-suicide. In order to do this he had to define suicide as a social fact that would require explanation in terms of other social facts (social structures and forces as conceptualized in his multi-layered model). The social fact to be explained was not the individual act of suicide, which might be better accounted for by a case study method where, in favourable instances, there might be enough evidence to make inferences about the victim’s mental state-motives and intentions. It was suicide rates, as disclosed by statistics, that constituted the social fact to be explained as an effect of an imbalance of social structural forces. Consequently, he proceeded to define suicide with the least possible reference to mental elements, excluding any reference to intentions but allowing for the need to distinguish between accidental death and suicide: “the term suicide is applied to all cases of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim himself, which he knows will produce this result.” Comparative statistics for countries and categories of people within each country showed that suicide rates were relatively constant; therefore, it must be a social fact that a collective tendency towards suicide existed. These collective tendencies could be related to sets of causes to produce a classification of types of suicide. The sets of causes were theoretically postulated on the basis of Durkheim’s conception of possible imbalances between centrifugal forces (too much individualism) and centripetal forces (too much social pressure).

Two pairs of imbalances of forces are defined; one pair refers to the degree of integration or interaction in a group (egoism and altruism), the other pair refers to the degree of moral regulation (anomie and fatalism). The two continua of integration and regulation, and the four types of suicide, can be illustrated in Fig. 3.2 and summary:

The first type of suicide, at the low extreme of the integration continuum, was egoistic suicide. Here rates of interaction in egoistic groups were low, and so values, beliefs, traditions, and sentiments were not held in common by all members. The result was that they weakened each other whenever they came into conflict. The collective life was diminished and individual interests were asserted. The individual lost the beneficial effects of group membership, such as support and revitalization, and consequently found little meaning in group life. Thus suicide rates were higher for Protestants than Catholics, both in comparisons between predominantly Protestant countries and Catholic countries, and between Protestants and Catholics in the same society. It was not the case that one religion’s beliefs condemned suicide and the other did not, as suicide was severely condemned by both Protestantism and Catholicism. The difference was that Protestanism encouraged individual free inquiry and, unlike Catholicism, it did not offer priestly and sacramental supports. Where a Protestant church did offer more of those supports, as in the Church of England, which had kept some of the Catholic emphasis on priesthood and sacraments (and had more clergyman per head of population than Protestant countries) the suicide rate was mid-way between that of the Catholic and Protestant countries.

A further example of egoistic suicide was the higher rate to be found among adults who were unmarried compared with married people of the same age. And the larger the family, the lower was the chance of suicide occurring. Finally egoistic suicide varied inversely with the degree of political integration, the rate fell in wars and political crises.

Altruistic suicide was the result of too much integration. The individual absorbed and controlled by the group had an under-developed and so under-valued sense of individuality. Such a person could not resist the pressure to sacrifice the self for the group’s interests, even if it me ant committing suicide. Durkheim pointed out the similarity of the modern army and primitive society in this respect; in both there was a lack of individuality and a strong pressure towards self-sacrifice. Examples of suicides in primitive societies included suicides of the old or very ill, suicides of women on their husbands’ death, and suicides of followers or servants on the death of their chiefs. The much higher rate of military suicides compared with civilians in modern suicide was explained by Durkheim in terms of military morality being a survival of primitive morality, predisposing the soldier to kill himself “at the least disappointment, for the most futile reasons, for a refusal of leave, a reprimand, an unjust punishment, a delay in promotion, a question of honour, a flush of momentary jealousy, or even simply because other suicides have occurred before his eyes or to his knowledge” [1] p. 239.

The next type of suicide, at the low extreme of the regulation continuum, was anomic suicide. Anomie was the consequence of social change resulting in a diminution of social regulation. He discussed two forms of economic anomie-“acute” and “chronic”, and then “chronic domestic” anomie. They were all cases of an imbalance between means and needs-states of disequilibrium, where means were inadequate to fulfil needs. Durkheim did not believe that needs were given in man’s biological, psychological, or individual nature. Indeed, that was one of his main criticisms of the economic, psychological, and utilitarian theories of his time, because they ignored the socially-derived and variable nature of human needs. Passions, desires, appetites, ends, and goals could all become needs, and if such wants were not restrained they would bring unhappiness. The individual’s wants were boundless unless a limit was set on them by an external moral authority.

Acute economic anomie occurred in booms and slumps. In both circumstances old rules relating means to ends were inapplicable, and individuals were freed from social restraint, creating disequilibrium, unhappiness, and leading to an increase in suicides. Chronic economic anomie was a product of a longer term diminution of social regulation of the relation between means and ends. For over a century there had been an erosion of the influence of agencies that had exercised moral restraint over economic relations, particularly religious and occupational groups, and instead of being regarded as a means, industry had become an end in itself. Not surprisingly, suicide rates were higher in manufacturing and commercial occupations than they were in agriculture, because the latter still had traditions and customs that exercised constraint. (Not that Durkheim wanted to revert to older forms of organization, although he believed new occupational associations should be formed that would have some of the same functions as the old guilds.) Constant economic striving after limitless goals could not bring happiness, as was shown by the fact that the higher socio-economic strata had higher rates of suicide than the poor.

Acute domestic anomie was exemplified by widowhood, which represented a crisis for the surviving husband or wife, who would not be adapted to the new situation and so offered less resistance to suicide.

Chronic domestic anomie was discussed by Durkheim in terms of the way in which marital regulation affects the means-needs balance in men and women. He defined marriage as: “A regulation of sexual relations, including not merely the physical instincts which this intercourse involves but the feelings of every sort gradually engrafted by civilization on the foundation of physical desire” [1] , p. 270. Civilization had produced a multiplicity of triggers of man’s passions, and only marriage could channel those needs within attainable bounds; bachelors, however, experience limitless horizons, which lead to unrestrained passions that create a disjunction between means and ends, and a state of chronic anomie. Consequently, bachelors had a higher suicide rate than married men. Ease of divorce had a similar effect on married men, producing higher suicide rates. Women, who had long been more restricted within the domestic sphere, had not had their sexual aspirations raised to the same level, and so they required less regulation. Marriage served to over-regulate them, particularly if it was difficult

to secure a divorce (they had a lower rate of suicide in societies where divorce was easier than in those where it was difficult). As distinct from family life with children, marriage itself offered no protection against suicidal pressures so far as women were concerned. The interests of the two sexes were in conflict:

“Speaking generally, we now have the cause of that antagonism of the sexes which prevents marriage favouring them equally: their interests are contrary; one needs restraint and the other libertyaˆ¦. Women can suffer more from marriage if it is unfavourable to her than she can benefit by it if it conforms to her interest. This is because she has less need of it” [1] , p. 274-275.

Fatalistic suicide was at the high extreme of the regulation continuum. He only discussed this condition of excessive regulation once, and that was restricted to an eight-sentence footnote. Examples were the situation of childless married women (presumably where divorce was difficult), young husbands, and slaves. He described it as the suicide of “persons with futures pitilessly blockedaˆ¦or all suicides attributable to excessive physical or moral despotism.” For some reason, not specified, he decided that “it has so little contemporary importance, and examples are so hard to find aside from the cases just mentioned, that it seems useless to dwell upon it” [1] , p. 276, footnote 25.

Although Durkheim used the categories of egoism, altruism, and anomie (not so much fatalism) to distinguish suicidogenic currents, and collective tendencies, he admitted that in practice it was very difficult to separate the currents of egoism and anomie as they flowed from a single source-the loss of mechanical solidarity and the failure to develop a genuine organic solidarity. A moderate amount of egoism and anomie was necessary for progress. A certain amount of individualism was necessary for the growth of the division of labour; it was excessive egoistic tendencies that produced a pathological level of egoistic suicides. Similarly, with anomie, “among peoples where progress is and should be rapid, rules restraining individuals must be sufficiently pliable and malleable; if they preserved all the rigidity they possess in primitive societies, evolution thus impeded could not take place promptly enough” [1] , p.364.

The language of forces and currents in states of disequilibrium was symptomatic of Durkheim’s effort to demonstrate that a sociological explanation of suicide could reveal hidden causes-in this case social forces that were as real as physical forces. Although his references to suicidogenic currents sound like an over-drawn analogy with electrical currents, in fact they refer to phenomena specified in his multi-layered model.

Thorough researches have been done on the complex accounts of human hereditary, yet it has not been exhausted. The history of human hereditary stretches from the era of the Greek materialists to our contemporary time; presented as theories of generation with in-depth analysis “on the relative contributions of nature and nurture to the formation of the physical, mental, and moral characteristics of people (Rapp et al. 2001, p. 386). Tribute is given to Gregor Mendel, whose discovery of genes and subsequent founding of the science of hereditary has greatly simplified this research. Based on his fundamental discovery, people could easily delve into the details of the phenomenal work and thereby shed more light on it. New vocabulary such as genotype, phenotype and chromosomes weltered in the research.

Precise generational analyses that were almost cumbersome for biological scientists previously, became a doable venture. Rapp and others, argue in their book that the classical scientists endeavored to classify, taxonomize, and experiment with the building blocks of life; to fathom family resemblances (Rapp et al. 2001, p. 387). The modern biologist now find is rather easy to correctly assess a person’s background through the use of modern equipment and refined knowledge that they have acquired since the days of Mendel, Bateson (William), Johanssen (Wilhelm), Morgan (Thomas), and now Watson (James). It is on this account that this paper debates whether our genes define who we really are in the context of our ethnography.

Introduction

The paper is divided into four parts with the major aim of explaining, with illustrations here and there, how our genes do or do not define who we are. The first part shows various scenarios where a person’s genotype defines who s/he is in fundamental terms. These are brought about by the chemical composition of the chromosomes. Issues such as of gender and race are extensively explained as direct consequences of particular genes. Similarly, certain conditions that manifest themselves in man are purely genetical such as schizophrenia.

Environmental factors are also cited as indispensible contributors to an individual’s character. But it is the combination of both that attempts a correct definition of a person. Another factor that explains the way we behave and socially interact is the hereditary traits which extend from our inherited genes.

Finally, the reader should not conceive of some ideas herewith as the writer’s. It is a scholarly work that has been intensely researched from the jumbled opinions of academicians of varied spectra. My analysis comes after juxtaposing and thereby synthesizing the said views

How Our Genes Influence Our Behavior

The discovery of the sex chromosomes was touted as the definite indicator of an individual’s sex, replacing the traditional method. One’s gender was previously determined by a mere look at the genitals. It was therefore impossible to distinguish a boy from a girl in cases where genitals did not provide clear answer. Such cases are nowadays solved by chromosomal test (Schaap 2002, p. 33). Within the chromosomes, we have the genes that determine, to a large extent, our abilities, preferences and emotions. Rabinow define genes as segments of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) a code for proteins. DNA is a composite of four bases bonding into two kinds of pairs wound to form a double helix (Rabinow 1996, p. 94). They are the conduits of information of cells thus their functionality should not be underestimated.

Rabinow foresaw that the advent of the new genetics would be an immense force to reckon with in re-modeling society and life. Far much greater, a force, that the revolution in physics for the reason that it will be embedded across the social fabric. Moreover, he noted that at the dawn of a new genetics, the phenomenon will be a systematic flow of identity terms and restriction loci, in which a truly novel type of autoproduction will appear (Gunning & Holm 2006, p. 48).

Genetics, no doubt, define man as a myriad of scientific research have shown. One’s race for example is definitely a genotypic chemistry. An offspring of black parents will definitely be black unless some mutations occur in the gametes thus deleting melanocytic genes; and the result is an albino. Whites will always have a white offspring, while in the cross racial mating; a mulatto will be born for example the current US President.

These differences in hair texture and color, skin complexion, color of the eye, our voices et cetera; is generated to a large extent by our genes. However, Brian Smedley argues that even though one’s race is determined by one’s genes, the ideology of racism encompasses to a large extent the cultural environment where it originates (Smedley & Smedley 2005, p. 19). He thus says:

“Race therefore can be seen as an ideology or worldview, and its components have often been spelled out explicitly in social policy. The ideological ingredients can be analytically derived from ethnographic reality (i.e., from descriptions of racist behavior, and especially from the hundreds of historical publications that document the existence of race and racism in North America)” (Smedley & Smedley 2005, p. 20).

According to Lumsden-Wilson theory of gene-culture coevolution, genes code for epigenetic rules determines the probability of changing from one behavioral trait to another. This is a rather obvious fact in human sociobiology where genes are said to dictate a particular trait (Alper & Lange 1981, p. 2). It is little wonder then that James Watson, a Nobel laureate, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, and first leader of the Human Genome Project, quipped: “Now we know, in large measure, our fate is in our genes” (Jaroff 1989, p. 62).

It is evident that our genes determine our behavior and thereby define who we actually are. Certain conditions such as schizophrenia have been reported as linked to a particular gene. As a result, anyone carrying this gene is either schizophrenic or has its mild symptoms. Accordingly, these patterns of behavior unique to every individual are direct repercussions of one’s genetical composition.

The Influence of Nurture on Nature

In the foregoing argument, environmental factors have been identified as of considerable influence on one’s genes and hence, together they define who one is. One is wont to believe, naively though, that one’s holistic personality is a sole consequence of genes. Not quite so. Intricate as it is, environmental factors play a crucial role in the determination of an individual’s character. It is the combination of the two that gives the overall picture of one’s characteristics. For instance, the gene that is associated with our gender is inherited directly from the respective parent without any interference of the environmental factors. But, how an individual will grow into maturity will be dependent upon the cultural and geographical factors of the locality.

The environmental influence often takes a sociological trajectory to a large extent. Indeed it synchronizes with the genetical aspect of a person to model him/her into a quite unique individual when fully grown. Eleanor Maccoby, a psychologist at Stanford University illustrates how nurture comes in once nature has done its part in the life of an individual. She uses gender development as her case study discussing the relationship between family gender socialization and childhood sex segregation:

“Individual boys, each primed by parents to respond positively to overtures of rough, arousing play, will choose each other as playmates and build up a group, in the process of playing, more distinct from female-type. And girls individually sensitized by their parents to other’s feelings, or in a state of greater readiness to receive socialization inputs of this kind from their parents, will use these development attributes to build a new and distinctively female type of interaction with their playmates. Participating in these forms of interactions will make girls more likely to seek other girls with whom they experienced satisfying forms of female-type interaction. And by virtue of the same-sex group interaction that occurs, a group identity, a group esprit, is built up, distinctive to all-girl or all-boy groups”(Lippa 2002, p.198).

Furthermore, Lippa argues that in modern-day, nurture eclipses simple socialization explanations of gender and models an individual against the backgrounds of societal roles, gender segregation and peer influence, stereotypes, and current social settings (Lippa 2002, p. 206).

According to Kail & Cavanaugh in their book Human Development: A Life-Span View, human development is always shaped by both nature and nurture and their influences are mutually interactive. The duo illustrates this cordial relationship by giving an example of individuals who inherit a disease that leads to mental retardation upon the consumption of dairy products. But, if their environment does not contain dairy products, then they develop normal intelligence. Another similar example is cases of heart attacks where hereditary are one risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Nevertheless, the life-style factors such as diet and smoking play crucial roles in determining who gets heart attacks (Kail & Cavanaugh 2002, p. 4).

Lastly on this intricate interaction, it is debatable whether, against the backdrop of universal versus context specific development, there is just a single way of development or several. The writer argues that even though there seem to be differences in development, only a single fundamental developmental process there is for everyone. Differences in development, as matter of factly, are merely variations on fundamental developmental process in the same way that car as different as a Chevrolet, a Honda, and a Porsche follow the same fundamental procedures during manufacturing processes (Kail & Cavanaugh 2002, p. 6).

Human Hereditary Characteristics

Certain behavioral patterns of man are reckoned to pervade the ancestral lineage. Research has shown that traits that occur over and over again throughout a number of generations can either be a boon or a bane to the individual. These hereditary traits do occur regardless of their repercussions. The genes that embody them are always passed down by parent thus making the offspring to develop alikeness with either of the parents. Eventually we find ourselves as somewhat conditioned by these genes. It is mostly in the forms of illnesses that these inheritable genes become a bane. Diseases such as, diabetes, some forms of cancer, mental retardation, sickle cell anemia et cetera, are just but a few of the illnesses that define us as cascaded by parental genomes Among the hereditary qualities that come to our advantage is the ability to sing.

In Rudolf Steiner’s Manifestations of Karma, an example is given of a family (Bach’s) which produced numerous gifted musicians over many generations; actually a whooping twenty talented musicians were born there (Steiner 2000, p. 107). He argues though, that it is not a case of pure inheritance that breeds a musician, other factors come into play (environmental of course, as explained somewhere in the paper). The writer agrees with him to the extent that these factors do not act in isolation, that is to say, without recourse to a particular inherited (in this case) genotype. Steiner refers to this ‘inheritable genotype’ as the ‘ability to.. ‘ (or is it a case of utter confusion?) when he explains that one can have the external characteristics yet lack the ability to sing. It is this remark that makes the writer points at the gross misinterpretation of the term (Steiner 2000, p.107).

The science of eugenics developed by Sir Francis Galton in 1883 to encourage interventions in a bid to “improve the quality over generations of human populations” (Rapp et al. 1996, p. 386) is chiefly based on the simple fact that gene inheritance is a crucial phenomenon in defining our personhood. Although its designers were good intentioned, the moral implication that the science creates is repugnant. It will breed super humans thereby interfering with natural process of coming into being. In coming up with this theory, Galton must have assessed the crucial role played by gene-inheritance to conceptualize a hybrid thesis (Rapp et al. 2000, p. 386).

In the transmission of these hereditary characteristics, one is prone to encounter gradual cultural transformation. Some hereditary behavioral dispositions are so malevolent that they give a repugnant stereotypical connotation to a society that hosts such individuals. For instance, in the colonial Central African Republic there was an abnormal libidinous behavior among the indigenous population. So when they encountered the French and lured them to their hyper-rated groinal proclivities, they got infected with syphilis which almost wiped out the entire population (Hunt 1994, p. 111).

Hereditary diseases such as epilepsy, though affects the body, can be linked to the mind. The mind is likely, as a result, to become unhealthy. Madness may set in with its devastating consequences to both the affected individual and the society. In addition, culture that relies primarily in the power of the mind will be jeopardized by this malady (Thomas 2002, p. 35).

Conclusion

After all is said and done, the writer can assert with unwavering authority that our genes do define us. As has been said by scholars of different stature, the overall personhood of an individual is a result of a complex and sometimes inexplicable interaction between one’s genotype and the environment. Therefore the phenotype of one is the total sum of nature – nurture phenomenon.

However, caution must be taken when studying mutational differences. For example, a black person may lack melanocytes -the skin pigmentation cells – not because s/he inherited the deficiency from parents (which may be the case sometimes) but because of nuanced alterations in the structure of her/his DNA. That is to say, not a hundred per cent of one’s personhood is given, some are acquired. In most cases we have encountered scenarios where a child exhibits a radically different characteristic alien to his or her parents. The best explanations people always give to such cases leave no doubt about the external acquisition

Domestic Violence WomenIntroduction

The principle purpose of this report is to provide details on the current domestic violence situation for Women’s Aid. The report also aims to put forward recommendations for improving the response to domestic violence.

Methodology

For this report no personal research has been undertaken, instead the report takes the form of a review of existing literature on the issue. This information has been obtained primarily from the Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Office and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

3.0 Results of enquires
3.1 What is domestic violence?

The definition of domestic violence which is used for the purposes of this report is: ‘Any incident of threatening behaviour, Violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) by one family member against another or adults who are or have been intimate partners, regardless of gender and whether a crime has occurred or not, will be recorded as domestic.’

Domestic violence and abuse is a serious problem. It has a devastating impact on victims and their families. Each year in Northern Ireland around 5 people are killed and over 700 families have to be re-housed as a result of violence in the home. On average, every week, the police attend over 400 domestic incidents and deal with over

100 domestic assaults on women and men, yet we know that most domestic-related incidents are not reported. The abuse affects people right across our society from all walks of life, from all cultural, social and ethnic backgrounds and across all age groups. The vast majority of victims are women, but a significant number of men are also affected and abuse also occurs in same-sex relationships. Violence in the home is particularly disturbing for children and local research shows that at least 11,000 children here are living with domestic violence on a daily basis.

3.2 Common misconceptions regarding domestic violence

Domestic violence is a crime. It is abhorrent and often hidden. Within our society, traditionally, the issue has been a taboo subject, not discussed openly and dismissed by many as a private matter, with little or no emphasis on prevention.

Some myths exist about the causes of domestic violence and abuse. These myths include loss of control by, or provocation of, the perpetrators. Many people also believe that alcohol is the main cause. There are clear links between alcohol misuse and domestic violence, in that the problem may be exacerbated and the violence more severe when there is alcohol involved, but alcohol is not the cause. In reality domestic violence and abuse is usually a pattern of persistent behaviour by the perpetrator designed to achieve power and control over the victim.

3.3 How prevalent is domestic violence in Northern Ireland?

Data from the PSNI’s statistical review¹ show the following:

Between 2004/05 and 2005/06 the number of domestic incidents increased by 2,100 (+10.0%).
There were 10,768 domestic crimes recorded in 2005/06, an increase of 11.5% (+1,112) on 2004/05 when breach of non-molestation order offences are included for both years.
During 2005/06 two thirds of all crimes with domestic motivation fell within the category of violent crime (offences against the person, sexual offences and robbery). There were 7,206 such offences, representing 66.9% of the total. Of the remaining offences, criminal damage accounted for 15.3% and breach of non-molestation orders represented 13.1% of the total.
The overall clearance rate for crimes with a domestic motivation in 2005/06 was 77.5%.

Table 1: Domestic Motivation: Incidents and Crimes

2004/05

2005/06

Change

Total number of incidents

20,959

23,059

+10.0%

Total number of crimes

9,656

10,768

+11.5%

3.4 Crime statistics in context

It is important to recognize that the rise in incidents being dealt with by the police does not necessarily mean that there is an increase in the level of domestic violence. Rather, it is a combination of factors including the PSNI’s more proactive approach in recognising domestic abuse as a crime and taking the abuse very seriously. Also, domestic violence is now on the agenda for society in general and women in particular.

More women in abusive relationships are aware that support is available. PSNI statistics show that there are three times as many domestic related crimes as drug offences; nearly twice as many domestic related crimes as there were car thefts and more domestic crimes than domestic burglaries. Most shockingly, six women were murdered last year.

Despite the fact that PSNI figures indicate that domestic violence is a very prevalent crime, it is believed that it does not show the true extent of the abuse happening in Northern Ireland. It is likely that there are thousands more people who are living with abuse and have not yet contacted anyone for support.

3.5 What is the government’s response to domestic violence?

The Government is determined to hold perpetrators of this insidious crime to account for their abuse. The introduction of legislation such as ‘The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004’ focuses more attention on perpetrators and provides better protection for victims, for example, by giving the police greater powers of arrest.

Millions of pounds are spent every year across a range of services in dealing with domestic violence and its consequences. It is estimated that the direct cost of services plus the loss of economic output in Northern Ireland due to domestic violence could amount to about ?180 million each year.

3.6 Criminal justice system progress

In recent years the Police and the Courts have developed better support for victims; in particular the provision of dedicated PSNI Domestic Violence Officers with specialist training, in every police district.The Domestic Violence Officer receives information about every domestic incident and will contact the victim to provide support, information about police procedure and legal proceedings. And there has also been the introduction of more informal proceedings and special measures in court (such as live link and the use of screens) to assist victims.

In addition, the Probation Service, in conjunction with Social Services has undertaken some successful work with perpetrators aimed at reducing the incidence of re-offending while offering increased support to victims.

Clearly, therefore, a lot of good work has already been done. These developments and the ongoing work of a variety of agencies have collectively contributed to an increasing awareness among the general public about domestic violence and its consequences and about the services available to victims.

4.0 Discussion of findings

So what does the above information reveal about the current situation of domestic violence in Northern Ireland? Well, as the statistics clearly indicate domestic violence is still a major problem in our society. There are various reasons for this

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

Domestic violence is a complex issue that requires a strategic approach. It can be very difficult to deal with because much of the violence and abuse takes place behind closed doors. Many victims suffer in silence, afraid for themselves and their children and so most incidents of this crime go unreported.

Some myths and outdated attitudes remain within our society about a form of violence that was historically acceptable. The abuse occurs in relationships where emotions may be high and loyalties divided. Victims may disregard their own safety and stay in abusive relationships for reasons such as embarrassment, fear and confusion, financial insecurity or a desire to keep their families together. These difficulties may have been complicated by an overall response which has not always been consistent and has not been co-ordinated across Northern Ireland.

There is still a need:

To raise the profile of domestic violence much further
To develop education and training
To transform attitudes
To extend preventive work
To make improvements in service provision
To advance co-operation and co-ordination among the range of policy-makers and service providers who have a role in addressing the problem

This project aims to look at the underreported crime of domestic violence with individuals who identify as homosexual either male or female, the professional view on services available and a focus group with gay individuals to outline if these services are known about.

Domestic violence is the act directed towards an individual whom the perpetrator is often involved in a romantic relationship. According to the Home Office this violence can be psychological, physical, sexual or emotional and it can include honour-based violence, female genital mutilation, and forced marriage. (www.homeoffice.gov.uk) domestic violence is mainly looked at from a male predator view, perpetrators are equally likely to be men or women (Johnson, 2006). Three types of domestic violence are identified in the British Crime Survey covering emotional, physical and sexual behaviours. Emotional behaviour is various behaviours that control individuals due to emotional control. These range from being isolated from friends and relatives, being insulted and put down, spending and housework controlled to suit the abused and threats of future abuse. Within gay relationships being outed is a huge form of control, emotional control results in being frightened and trying to please the abuser to reduce abuse Physical behaviour is injuries that are outward and treatable, these include being slapped, punched, restrained or physically threatened. Many people affected by domestic violence are prevented from getting help for injuries. Sexual assault is a drastic form of domestic abuse that is often hiden in heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Sexual assault is being touched in a way that caused fear, alarm or distress, being forced into sexuality activity or threats of sexual assault.

Since the 1970s domestic abuse in heterosexual relationships has been of increasing public concern in the UK, domestic abuse in same sex communities has only more recently become apparent. A number of factors may be seen to have contributed to the greater invisibility of same sex domestic abuse, including fears of making obvious such problems within communities already considered ‘problematic’ in a homophobic society. The Sigma surveys of gay men and lesbians (Henderson 2003) found that one in four individuals in same sex relationships probably experience domestic abuse at some time. Homophobia also explains why gays and lesbians are not equally protected from domestic violence. Homophobia is a fear of homosexuals” (Burke,1998, p. 165). Reed (1989) reported that gay victims of same-sex battering were both physically and verbally revictimized by the police. As a result of homophobia and heterosexism, community knowledge’s (Weeks et al. 2001) exists in LGBT communities that public agencies are not able to respond appropriately to the needs of those in same sex relationships. Most services are currently using a heterosexual model of domestic violence in which the female survivor is understood as the physically smaller and therefore more vulnerable person against the physically stronger and more powerful male perpetrator. Which causes an unequal power ideology when asking for help in a same sex relationship specially for gay men who are undermined generally for being male. There have been well-founded political fears about disrupting this ideology, such as a fear of contributing to negative stereotypes about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans populations (Ristock, 2002).

Domestic violence is power control, gay and lesbian couples experience the same issues of power and control as heterosexual couples. All relationships have the potential to become abusive, these behaviours are jealousy, quick involvement, controlling actions, isolation, blaming feelings and problems on others, sexual violence, verbal abuse. Abusers often threaten violence to control, past battering occurs due to situational circumstances. Same sex partners can be lesbian, gay,

bisexual or transgender (LGBT) according to statistics domestic abuse occurs in 30

to 40% of LGBT relationships. Research on same-sex battering has tended to focus on one section of the population, such as on lesbians or gay men, rather than on the entire gay community. Few studies have examined the factors related to reporting practices of gay and lesbian victims of either bias crimes or same-sex battering. It is hard to find statistics, which are current and up to date as crimes often remain unreported due to the stigma and fear of reporting. Inequality in the legal protection from domestic violence may explain why so many incidents of same-sex domestic violence go unreported to criminal justice authorities (Burke, 1998). As in opposite-gendered couples, the problem is underreported, many homosexual individuals fear reporting domestic violence as it also involves coming out to more people, at the moment the level of service available is not at the same level as a heterosexual victim. Robson (1992) states that “laws on domestic violence use words such as “battered wife” or “abused spouse,” are not inclusive of gay or lesbian persons.

A study in 2003 by the Georgetown University Medical Center outlines that “homosexual men are just as likely as heterosexual women to be victims of domestic violence,” Studies show that as many as a third of lesbians have been victims of sexual assault or coercion at the hands of another woman. “The fact that few cases are ever reported shows the near complete lack of support for women who have survived a same-sex sexual assault” (http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/) Men often find it extremely hard to ask for help, they are likely to feel deeply shamed, frightened, experience a loss of self-worth and confidence. Men can be victims of sexual abuse, more common within same sex partners, many men in abusive relationships do not feel in control of their own sex life and feel manipulated. (www.hiddenhurt.co.uk) Letellier (1994) found that gay men are more likely to be killed by their partners than by strangers. Turell (2000) reported data about an extremely broad range of physical and nonphysical abuses that same-sex partners inflict on each other. Results strongly suggest that there is little to no difference between the varieties of abuses that same-sex partners, compared to heterosexual partners. The research towards the gay community is often bias and hard to evaluate as statics often vary. Domestic violence in same sex and heterosexual relationships share many similarities, isolation and fear are the same yet there is number of aspects that are unique to same sex domestic violence. Within same-sex partnerships there is an added issue of sexuality. Many couples have one individual out or out to a greater extreme, a major issue is these relationships is using outing as a source of control. The individual threatens to out the individual by manipulating this power, this in turn controls the individual but causes the abuse to be associated with sexuality and not the individual. When sexual identity becomes associated with the abuse, the abuse is blamed on being gay or lesbian causing problems with self image and self esteem this negative image with the gay label can cause a detachment from the gay community. This detachment can be increased by an abusive partner as when retaining contact with the gay and lesbian community, means an individual lacks a support service and only has heterosexual individuals to compare relationship with. http://ssdv.acon.org.au/information/index.php

The gay community offer supports as a friendship basis, if these friends cannot be accessed it is easy to be isolated and feel alone, the abusive partner forms the base of all activities which in turn causes further control and isolation from other forms of support. The gay community in the past have been found to hide domestic violence to keep the myth that there are no problems. Victims of same-sex battering may be hesitant to report domestic violence incidents to the police because they fear ostracism by the gay community. Talking about domestic violence can reinforce the ideology that relationships are “abnormal.” This can further cause the victim to feel isolated and unsupported, or feel they deserve the behaviour towards them. Survivors may not know others within the LGBT community, meaning that leaving the abuser could result in total isolation, if the abuser has been controlling for many years it is hard to leave the situation with the added fact of being outed families may of cut ties. Ristock (2002) identifies first relationships as high risk for domestic abuse due to the risk of outing and support available. The traditional domestic violence services lack the training, sensitivity, and expertise to adequately recognize and address abusive relationships. The Gay community have much more problems when overcoming domestic violence as many individuals have difficulty in finding sources of support than heterosexual women who are battered by their male partners. Many individuals within the gay community have reported hiding their gender of the batterer to be perceived as heterosexual, this can cause problems within counselling and opening up about the violence. Lesbians face additional safety issues within shelter locations as the abuser has opportunity to pose as a victim to gain access. The only option to dispute being heterosexual is ” to come out” which is a major decision. http://www.lambda.org/

The Home office produced a paper in 2003 called Safety and Justice (Home Office 2003). The government was seeking views to measure incidences of domestic violence and of the effects of strategy to reduce it; how to raise awareness about domestic violence among the general public, particular groups and key professionals within the criminal and civil justice. The gay and bisexual community in Northern Ireland has suffering from disproportionate rates of domestic violence. In 2007, 142 people died in domestic attacks within Northern Ireland, including 38 men. http://www.broken-rainbow.org.uk/

Shaun Woodward the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland states in ” the government is committed to tackling domestic violence throughout the United Kingdom, research shows that one in five young men and one in ten young women believe that violence towards a partner is sometimes acceptable.” Recent research into violence towards the Gay and Lesbian community in Northern Ireland outlined problems faced by reporting crimes against them. The lack of support available for the gay community and the beliefs surrounding the institutions lead to a lack of confidence in the systems and mechanisms to those who require them. In the study carried out in 1993 by McWilliams and McKiernan, Bringing it out in the open – Domestic Violence in Northern Ireland, one of the difficulties faced in determining the prevalence of domestic violence was that 31.3% of victims of domestic violence report the incident to the police (2000 British Crime Survey). However, Henderson, L, Prevalence of domestic violence among lesbians and gay men, London, 2003, found that 86.9% of women and 81.2% of men had not reported the abuse to the police. (Cited in rainbow) This explains current statics are a higher majority than previous thought.

The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 provides for a range of protections for victims including making common assault an arrestable offence. It is PSNI policy to investigate all reported incidents of domestic abuse in a consistent, robust and proactive manner. Police officers will take positive action at all domestic incidents to prevent crime, ensure public safety and protect the rights and freedoms of all parties, in particular the victim. Within Northern Ireland there is support for the gay community yet there is a stigma in accessing the service. The introduction in 1995 of a 24-hour Helpline by Northern Ireland Women’s Aid Federation and the continuing development of Women’s Aid services has provided enormous support for female victims and their children. Lesbians can access women’s aid yet the myth of having to be heterosexual has been hard to squash, with many victims hiding their true sexual orientation. There is a small percentage of groups available to the gay community in Northern Ireland, Lesbian Line provides a confidential Helpline and Befriending service for Lesbians & Bisexual Women. Men’s Advisory Project offers a service to men who are victims of domestic violence The Rainbow Project aims to address the physical, mental and emotional health of gay and bisexual men. The rainbow project is the only gay male specific counselling and support service available in Northern Ireland.

Professionals in order to be effective in working with same-gender couples, must be

familiar with the complex issues related to domestic violence in these relationships. It is not sufficient to apply a general professional background in the areas of domestic violence, trauma, couples therapy, or divorce. At the moment there is limited training of counsellors with regard to both gay and lesbian issues and to domestic violence

A major problem encountered by lesbian couples in counselling for domestic violence has been the contraindication of working on the issues in the context of couples’ therapy (Hammond, 1989).