toptermpaper.com

There is a difference between what theorists believe managers should do, what managers believe they should do and what managers actually end up doing (Grint, 1995). Applying critical theory to determine what is what and who has what.

Critical Theory

The Frankfurt School of Critical Theory is the longest and most famous traditions of Marxism. This tradition is often referred as critical theory- meaning a special kind of social philosophy from its inception in 1923 by Felix Weil (Seiler, 2004). The critical theory of society of the Frankfurt School continues to excite interest and controversy (Kellner, 2001). A theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human emancipation, to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them. A number of critical theories have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimension of the domination of human beings in modern societies (Gutting, 2003).

Thus, the term ‘critical theory’ was used as the symbol of a philosophy which questions the effective order of political and social modernity through an order of immanent critique. It was mainly an attempt to regain a critical potential that had been overrun by recent intellectual, social, cultural, economic and technological trends.

The term Critical theory has its origins in the 20th century Frankfurt School, and now is associated with scholars across a range of disciplines. Its purpose of inquiry is to confront injustices in society (Clark, 2004). Critical Theory has been deeply concerned with the fate of modernity, and has offered systematic and comprehensive theories of the trajectory of modernity. Critical theory began by putting Marxian political economy at the centre of analysis, and early critical theory was materialist and committed to socialism (Gingrich, 2000).

Critical theory has generally been committed to the idea of modernity and progress, while at the same time noting the ways that features of modernity can create problems for individuals and society (Kellner, 2000). This is much reflected on the 21st century, though there is progress in many things, but still issues like globalisation tends to pose important problems for the society.

According to Heilman (1998), being critical involves understanding the sets of historically contingent circumstances and contradictory power relationships that create the conditions in which we live. Theory helps us to organize the world, to sort out the details, to make some coherent sense out of a kaleidoscope of sensations (Ayers, 1992).

When theory is theorized, as stated by Heilman (1998), the imperatives of practice bring the theory down to the ground. Phenomena are observed and experienced; this experience informs theory; and then the theory is further modified as a result of additional practice. Rather like fiction writing, critical theorizing is a process of imagining and describing a non-real but possible world.

The critical theorists have deeply influenced contemporary social theory, communication theories, cultural theory and many more for a number of decades. According to Clark (2004), Critical theorists are committed to understand the relationship between societal structures (such as economic and political) and ideological patterns of thought that constrain the human imagination and thus limit opportunities for confronting and changing unjust social systems. Critical theorists emphasise that theory and research must serve emancipator interests, to create a world that satisfies the needs and powers of social actors (Sanghera, 2004).

According to critical theory, people are dominated by a false consciousness created and perpetuated by capitalism in order to preserve the hegemony of those in power (Meyer-Emerick, 2004). Due to this cause, one can assume that it prevents people from freely pursuing their own interests. This dissent is only dismissed if people begin to see the contradictions between the social construction of the world and their lived experience.

Critical Management Studies

Critical management studies also known as ‘CMS’ which is the known as the term that describes the a diverse group of people that has adopted the critical or questioning approaches to management, this term emerged of recent years.

The report outline

The above statement sets the mood for this report, as the report will be looking at how the critical management theory of yesterday applies to the modern western approaches of management today. Another key aspect will be on trying to articulate the connections between the management perspectives of contemporary society in the critical theory.

The focus will be on Karl Marx and Michael Foucault as critical theorists and how their perspectives affect the management and leadership in today modern western era. Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism would, in its turn, replace capitalism, and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure communism; Marx economic relationship between managers and the workers. Whilst Foucault argued that patterns in disciplinary behaviour found in management practices.

management and leadership
Scientific management

Scientific management (Taylor System) also known as Taylorism is a theory of management that analysis and manufactures workflows to improve employee (labour) productivity. The idea was developed by a Frederick Winslow Taylor between 1880 and 1890, and it was the first published ‘monograph’ (written documents). Frederick Taylor believed that decisions based upon tradition and the rules of the thumb should be replaced by accurate procedures that are developed after a study of an individual at work. This means that there is a high level of managerial control over employee work practices.

Scientific management is a distinction on the theme of ‘efficiency’; it developed in the 19th and 20th century were instance of large recurring theme in the human life of increasing efficiency, decreasing waste and using experiential methods to dictate what matters rather than accepting pre-existing ideas of what matters. Management today is the greatest use of scientific management is a form to contrast a new and improved way of doing business.

Leadership

Leadership is having the ability to give guidance to those that will follow. Those that follow will help to complete the mission. It is an immature science and the body of knowledge in the field has developed through a series of fits and starts. Leadership is a soft science, just as anthropology, sociology and psychology. It can not be proven exactly what it is. Leadership is an art; the skilful application of leadership behaviours beyond techniques is much the same as the skilful application of brushstrokes by a master painter. Leadership is both rational and emotional. It involves both sides of human experience. It includes actions and influences based on reason and logic as well those based on inspiration and passion. Leadership is a social process shared among all members of a group. (Yolk, 2002)

Leadership also involves in political activity as in power activity; conversely, it is much more like transformational leadership. Political processes involve efforts by members of the organization to increase their power or protect existing power sources (Pfeiffer, 1981). Although the ultimate source of political power is usually authority, control over resources, or control over information, political power involves influence processes that transform and magnify the initial basis of power in unique ways

Karl Marx

A Marxist’s thought is based on this lifestyle, a science of logic called Dialectics. Thus, Marxism is both a theory and a practice. The theories of Marxism are based on a scientific method of thought called dialectal materialism. Theory is based on a particular set of conditions that are always finite, and thus, any theory is necessarily limited. To test the validity of theory, Marxists rely on empirical evidence as the criteria of truth (Basgen, 2005).

Marxism embraces modernity and Marxists argue that one of the main problems is that capitalism puts fetters on the progressive forces. The forces of capitalism are viewed as progressive in sweeping away the traditional, religious, backward, and feudal forms of society, spreading industrialisation and urbanisation across societies (Moody, 2003).

Michel Foucault

His studies challenged the influence of German political philosopher Karl Marx and Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. Foucault offered new concepts that challenged people’s assumptions about prisons, the police, insurance, care of the mentally ill, gay rights, and welfare (Ron, 2000).

The main influences on Foucault’s thought were German philosophers Frederick Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger. The connect.net website, describe Foucault’s thought as explored the shifting patterns of power within a society and the ways in which power relates to the self. He investigated the changing rules governing the kind of claims that could be taken seriously as true or false at different times in history.

critical analysis
Marx critique of capitalisms

Capitalism is the system that upholds the relationship between the owners of the means of production and workers. The former comprise the bourgeois class and the latter the proletariat

Marx’s critique of capitalism was that while this system had incredible power and potential to transform human society positively, in actual fact it resulted in exploitation and ultimately limited the possibility for further improvement (Powell, 2001). Moody (2003), describe this environment as workers were emancipated from traditional limits but became slaves of the new factory system, monopolisation resulted in limits on trade and further progress, and the state acted in the interests of the bourgeoisie rather than society as a whole.

Commodity Fetishism

Labour Power

To be clear about is what the capitalist has bought. The worker has sold not his labour but his ability to work. This Marx calls his labour power. Also, as Marx defines, ‘labour power is the abstraction of human labour into something that can be exchanged for money. In addition, capitalism can purchases labour power as a commodity.

In other words, ‘Labour power is a commodity governed by the same laws as other commodities. Its value is determined by the labour-time necessary for its production. Labour power is the ability of the worker to work. It is “consumed” by the capitalist in the actual labour-process. (R.Sewell and A.Woods)

Marx explains, “I use the term labour power or capacity for labour, to denote the aggregate of those bodily and mental capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any kind”aˆ¦ “The value of labour power, like that of every other commodity, is determined by the labour time necessary for the production, and consequently for the reproduction as well, of this specific article as well.

Capitalism Power

As Campbell (1981:34) describes, ‘aˆ¦as in slavery, where the producers themselves are owned by the slavery owners; in feudalism where the land is owned by the landlords; or in capitalism where machinery and factories (capital) are owned by capitalists.’ In capitalism, the ‘machineries and factories’ is not the only thing owned by capitalists (or factory owners), also labours. For example, in a car making factory, all the machineries are fixed assets to the factory owner, machineries can not make profit for the factory owner if no one operates them, and so labourers who operate machineries are the main assets to the factory owners.

In addition, labour power is a commodity (which is bought and sold on the ‘labour’ market), (The Marxist critique of capitalism) because it has an exchange value. As Campbell (1981: 38) says ‘all commodities labour power has an exchange value, its price (the wage), yet again like all commodities, it also has use value to the purchaser.’ The purchaser here is any capitalism or any factory owners. It continues ‘one purchased, like any commodityaˆ¦ Labour power is owned therefore, like a machine, and is put to work’ (Campbell 1981:38) As the labour power is a commodity, so once it is purchases by factory owner, the owner has the power to either use it or exchange it to others. Also, in capitalism, once the owner purchases new labour power, he has the rights to make decision on how much he will pay to his new labourers, and how long the new labourers will work every week; also he can fire any of the labourers in his factory any time if he feels not satisfied with them.

‘aˆ¦ in a capitalist economy the vast majority of people have only their labour power to sell in order to gain income with which to purchase food, clothing, housing and other goods and services. The means of production are owned by the capitalist class and if they are unwilling to hire labour, or wish to reduce the numbers of workers they employ, this puts workers prosperity immediately at risk’ (Campbell 1981:111)

Marx’s argument was against capitalism, which he referred to as a stage at which every society must go through that can bring about the seed of its own destruction. He indicated that human essence was labour and physical effort needed in the production of the means of subsistence. Hence, some forms of production are needed for survival. The suggestion being that it is acceptable for oneself but not for others because some individuals may have all factors of production (capital, entrepreneurship, labour and land), while others may have nothing but just their own labour, which eventually will result in uneven distribution of wealth and income. Additionally, Marx argued that capitalism deprives the labour force of their ‘creative fulfilment’, and since they are portrayed to be the already planned part of the production process, they are unable to achieve self-actualisation.

Exploitation and Alienation

For Marx, this alienation works as a process, but it can be broken up into 3 different aspects for analysis. The first aspect of alienation under analysis is how workers are alienated from the product they produce. Under capitalism, the object the workers produce is surrendered for the wages they receive. The workers then loose any relation to the object they are producing because they are handing it over. This is of course is different from the system of self-sufficiency, where the workers have a much more direct relationship with the object that they produce. As the workers become more independent of their product, they transfer power to the employer. As mentioned with Marx’s critique on the political economy, the more objects the worker produces, then the more power the employer possesses which will lead to a greater weakness to the workers. Therefore under this system, the workers are only competing to be exploited. This is a form of alienation, because the object that the worker produces becomes an alien entity to him, independent of his control and ultimately controls the worker.

Another aspect of alienation that Marx examines is how “the self” becomes another alien entity to the worker. Under the mode of capitalism, the working conditions are established by the capitalists and not by the workers themselves. These conditions are established along the grounds of the capitalists drive for profits, rather than the workers need for self-fulfilment. Marx felt that self-fulfilment was a major aim of a person, and felt that under the system of capitalism, where your working conditions are created by your employer, it was impossible for the worker to gain this self-fulfilment. He also felt that the capitalist employers were victims of this problem too because if they didn’t drive for profits, then they would be put out of business. The labour itself is described by Marx as “exterior to the worker, that is, it does not belong to his essence. Therefore he does not confirm himself in his work, he denies himself, feels miserable instead of happy, deploys no free physical and intellectual energy, but mortifies his body and ruins his mind” (David McLellan 2000).

Explain Marx’s articulation of exploitation. The practice of mistreat of workers in an environment that is deliberately designed to maintain it, i.e. capitalism,

Marx’s conforming – the workers alienated by/owners of the means of production to gain profits at the expense of the workers (e.g. managers forcing employees to undertake tasks outside their job description in order to cut costs and maximise profits) because people are alienated they conform to the demands of their employers in order to keep jobs safe.

Foucault disciplinary Power

Moves away from the economics of Marx. Looks at power and reconceptualises it. Management as a representation of power relations in society. Specific rules maintain, regulate and institutionalize practices in a work environment (office, factory, school, etc),

Power- Disciplinary power – the panopticon as a illustration of society, the middle tower is all seeing yet prisoners always obey without knowing for certain whether they are being monitored, by whom or by how many. The result is the creation of self-regulating, obedient and disciplined prisoners (at least in theory). Relate this form of disciplinary power to management.

Power as the central driving force in a society within a group of people in a working environment. Manager doesn’t create a system the manager merely plays along with the rules, thus maintaining the relations of dominance and dominated.

Critical Analysis on Leadership

Over the influence process of leadership, it needs power. (Northhouse, 2007). Leaders are usually described as wielders of power in the discussion of leadership because they are individuals who dominate others. Power is the capacity or potential to influence another party (Mint berg, 1983; Pfeiffer, 1981, 1992). It is talked as the basis of leadership according to many political theorists like Machiavelli through academic political scientists such as Marx in the twentieth century. People have power when they have the ability to affect others’ beliefs, attitudes, and courses of action. Ministers, teachers, doctors, and coaches are examples of individuals using power to effect change in people. In commercial, there are two major types of power, position power and personal power (Bass, 1960; Etienne, 1991): Position power refers the power a person derives from a particular rank in a formal organization system, for example, department heads have more power than clerical staff in position. It includes potential influence derived from legitimate authority, control over resources and rewards, control over punishments, control over information, and control over the physical work environment. Personal power refers the power a leader derives from followers. It includes potential influence derived from task expertise and potential influence based on friendship and loyalty. Followers give leaders power when leaders act in ways that are important to them. Power is also inherent in a person’s position in the organization. (Bass, 1960; Etienne, 1991)

According to Northhouse (2007) the current dominant leadership paradigm is the transformation approaches which is a process that changes and transforms people. The elements at the heart of transformational leadership are: idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration.

Critical Analysis on Scientific management

The Marxist theory of capital sees labour as a cost of production resulting in the alienation of workers as the need for labour surfaces from the physical needs “defined by the fundamental relationship between humans and their physical environment” (Hatch, 1997, p.27). Taylor’s ideas on scientific management (1990) have similar economic themes to Marx and Adam Smith. By viewing management as a science, he broke down the managerial problem into stages of research, definition, analysis and implementation. His principles were inherently based on the assumption that people put in as little effort as possible into their work and were soldiering on in order to earn money. This shifted all the responsibility from the worker to the manager and scientific methods were used to determine the most efficient way of working. After selecting the best person capable of performing the task, they were trained to work efficiently and their performance was strictly monitored. In hindsight, though this may have appeared to be a good generic strategy for the success of a firm, it heavily depended on whether the optimal method of producing could be found and whether or not the strategy was implemented correctly.

conclusion

Critical theory dates back to the Enlightenment and is connected to the writings of Kant, Hegel and Marx. ‘However, in the 20th century, critical theory became closely associated with a distinct body of thought, known as the Frankfurt School’. It states Devetak in Burchill’s and Linklater’s ‘Theories of International Relations’. It is the work of Horkheimer, Adorno, Benjamin, Marcuse, Fromm and more recently, Habermas that critical theory has acquired a renewed strength.

Thus, the term ‘critical theory’ was used as the symbol of a philosophy which questions the effective order of political and social modernity through an order of immanent critique. It was mainly an attempt to regain a critical potential that had been overrun by recent intellectual, social, cultural, economic and technological trends.

The Frankfurt School of Critical Theory is the longest and most famous traditions of Marxism. This tradition is often referred as critical theory- meaning a special kind of social philosophy from its inception in 1923 by Felix Weil (Seiler, 2004). The critical theory of society of the Frankfurt School continues to excite interest and controversy (Kellner, 2001).

A theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human emancipation, to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them. A number of critical theories have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimension of the domination of human beings in modern societies (Gutting, 2003).

The above statement sets the mood for this paper as I will be looking at how the critical management theory of yesterday applies to the modern western today. Another key aspect will be on trying to articulate the connections between the management perspectives of contemporary society in the critical theory. The focus will be on

The focus will be on as the location for cooperative, practical and transformative activity continues today. This attempt will be on determining the nature and limits of real democracy in complex, pluralistic, and globalised societies.

what is it, why is it applied to management)

Introduction part 2 (150): Marx and Foucault as critical theorists (an overview of their thought).

A Marxist’s thought is based on this lifestyle, a science of logic called Dialectics. Thus, Marxism is both a theory and a practice. The theories of Marxism are based on a scientific method of thought called dialectal materialism. Theory is based on a particular set of conditions that are always finite, and thus, any theory is necessarily limited. To test the validity of theory, Marxists rely on empirical evidence as the criteria of truth (Basgen, 2005).

Marxism embraces modernity and Marxists argue that one of the main problems is that capitalism puts fetters on the progressive forces. The forces of capitalism are viewed as progressive in sweeping away the traditional, religious, backward, and feudal forms of society, spreading industrialisation and urbanisation across societies (Moody, 2003).

Marx’s critique of capitalism was that while this system had incredible power and potential to transform human society positively, in actual fact it resulted in exploitation and ultimately limited the possibility for further improvement (Powell, 2001). Moody (2003), describe this environment as workers were emancipated from traditional limits but became slaves of the new factory system, monopolisation resulted in limits on trade and further progress, and the state acted in the interests of the bourgeoisie rather than society as a whole.

Followed by your argument (that they each offer a distinct analysis (Foucault as a critic of Marxism’s humanism, subjectivity and economic reductionism) but both are useful to evaluate management approaches – Marx for economic relationships between manager and worker and Foucault for patterns in disciplinary behaviour found in managerial practices.

CRITICAL THEORY

The term Critical theory has its origins in the 20th century Frankfurt School, and now is associated with scholars across a range of disciplines. Its purpose of inquiry is to confront injustices in society (Clark, 2004). Critical Theory has been deeply concerned with the fate of modernity, and has offered systematic and comprehensive theories of the trajectory of modernity. Critical theory began by putting Marxian political economy at the centre of analysis, and early critical theory was materialist and committed to socialism (Gingrich, 2000).

Critical theory has generally been committed to the idea of modernity and progress, while at the same time noting the ways that features of modernity can create problems for individuals and society (Kellner, 2000). This is much reflected on the 21st century, though there is progress in many things, but still issues like globalisation tends to pose important problems for the society.

According to Heilman (1998), being critical involves understanding the sets of historically contingent circumstances and contradictory power relationships that create the conditions in which we live. Theory helps us to organize the world, to sort out the details, to make some coherent sense out of a kaleidoscope of sensations (Ayers, 1992).

When theory is theorized, as stated by Heilman (1998), the imperatives of practice bring the theory down to the ground. Phenomena are observed and experienced; this experience informs theory; and then the theory is further modified as a result of additional practice. Rather like fiction writing, critical theorizing is a process of imagining and describing a nonreal but possible world.

The critical theorists have deeply influenced contemporary social theory, communication theories, cultural theory and many more for a number of decades. According to Clark (2004), Critical theorists are committed to understand the relationship between societal structures (such as economic and political) and ideological patterns of thought that constrain the human imagination and thus limit opportunities for confronting and changing unjust social systems. Critical theorists emphasise that theory and research must serve emancipatory interests, to create a world that satisfies the needs and powers of social actors (Sanghera, 2004).

According to critical theory, people are dominated by a false consciousness created and perpetuated by capitalism in order to preserve the hegemony of those in power (Meyer-Emerick, 2004). Due to this cause, one can assume that it prevents people from freely pursuing their own interests. This dissent is only dismissed if people begin to see the contradictions between the social construction of the world and their lived experience.

CRITICAL THEORY TODAY

The critical theorists analysed the integration of the working class into advanced capitalist societies and suggested the need for new agents of a social change. They seemed to provide more vivid descriptions of the present configurations of culture and society (Kellner, 2004).

According to my understanding, we look into the critical theory of the past to gain methodological insight and political inspiration to carry on the tasks of critical social theory in the present time. Critical theory is crucial for South Africa including the whole African continent, as we are undergoing vast transformations. Some of these transformations are promising to uplift our standard of living as the society, but others are threatening. Globalisation is one of the new transformations.

Revolutionary Marxists maintain that although change may arise as an unintended consequence of molecular acts of resistance, the importance of resistance is that it can generate collective agents capable of pursuing the conscious goal of social change (Hassard, 2001). This self-limiting resistance, orchestrated from above and aimed solely at affecting them as described by Hassard, is less likely to be successful in achieving even minor reforms than resistance that aims to effect a revolutionary transformation of society.

We have seen an interesting case here in South Africa opposed to what Marxists declared to be politically uninteresting which is labour process theory. Their argument is that it does not engage with the issues of political and trade union organization, which influence the consciousness and unity of workers (Hogan, 2001). COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Union) which is having close ties with the ANC (African National Congress) is making this labour process very interesting. Cosatu fights for the rights of workers while promoting the spirit of unity. They do this in a unified political activity.

Although the immediate interests of workers in production may diverge, their grievances and interests can be unified into a common political program, but that unification is a political achievement. This is more apparent on what happened recently with the case of Zimbabwe where Cosatu wanted to have talks with Zimbabwe’s congress of Trade Union. Cosatu believes that the unification of workers can have a huge impact on political changes as MDC (Movement for Democratic Change) is aiming at changing the political affairs of Zimbabwe ahead of Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF (the ruling party).

Marx’s critique of capitalism

Capitalism is the system that upholds the relationship between the owners of the means of production and workers. The former comprise the bourgeois class and the latter the proletariat. (Bourgeois managers, proletariat workers). Marx’s analysis of the factory can be translated to the office environment, the relationship between the two classes remains, e.g. office workers do not own the company, equipment and materials the belong to the company. Counter agreement is that companies give share to employees, however, shares are small they don’t give power to the employees but it is a form of making them employees feel part of the company in order to gain more out of them .

The bourgeois (managers that have control)

Commodity fetishism

Culture of the commodity, or what a capitalist organisation produces, as containing a value dependant on market factors, rather than on the activity of labour. This produces an objective relationship between commodities and labourers are reduced to the condition and status of the commodities they produce. Implications for critical theory looking at management approaches:

Prices of commodity go up and down and so does the price of labour cost e.g. recession

Salary: paid no matter how much they produce

Bonus: to encourage production to increase profits

Marx: (800wrds) Exploitation as Alienation

Explain Marx’s articulation of exploitation. The practice of mistreat of workers in an environment that is deliberately designed to maintain it, i.e. capitalism,

Marx’s conforming – the workers alienated by/owners of the means of production to gain profits at the expense of the workers (e.g. managers forcing employees to undertake tasks outside their job description in order to cut costs and maximise profits) because people are alienated they conform to the demands of their employers in order to keep jobs safe.

Foucault bound to rules,

rule-bound individual,

Marx’s Humanism

Foucault

Strucralist, came after Marx

Moves away from the economics of Marx. Looks at power and reconceptualises it. Management as a representation of power relations in society. Specific rules maintain, regulate and institutionalize practices in a work environment (office, factory, school, etc),

Power- Disciplinary power – the panopticon as a illustration of society, the middle tower is all seeing yet prisoners always obey without knowing for certain whether they are being monitored, by whom or by how many. The result is the creation of self-regulating, obedient and disciplined prisoners (at least in theory). Relate this form of disciplinary power to management.

Power as the central driving force in a society within a group of people in a working environment. Manager doesn’t create a system the manager merely plays along with the rules, thus maintaining the relations of dominance and dominated.

Discourses (rules that we work within and obey) and all to do with power

Power-Knowledge, all power engenders power and (hanin essay). The rules that are emplace are their to maximise profits and to make the workforce obedient, docile subjects ; alternative view to commodity fetishism, marx says the worker turns in to a commodity that is commodity fetishism, Focault would say that the individual is merely the collective of the discourses they obey. The two concerns are that’s 1. Marx looks at the economy 2. Foucault looks at power.

3 objections to ideology (Marx)

1. requires an opposing concept of scientific truth

2. implies that we are subjects(agents of history to change it)

3. relative to economic superstructure

MICHEL FOUCALT (1926 – 1984)

His studies challenged the influence of German political philosopher Karl Marx and Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. Foucault offered new concepts that challenged people’s assumptions about prisons, the police, insurance, care of the mentally ill, gay rights, and welfare (Ron, 2000).

The main influences on Foucault’s thought were German philosophers Frederick Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger. The connect.net website, describe Foucault’s thought as explored the shifting patterns of power within a society and the ways in which power relates to the self. He investigated the changing rules governing the kind of claims that could be taken seriously as true or false at different times in history.

Marx Vs Foucault

Foucault would argue that power relations are the units of analysis, not the individual; in other words the individual is created by power-knowledge (power is above all creative, it creates subjects). Marx puts the individual at the centre, where the subject is conscious of his role in the historical process.

Humanism (placing the individual at the centre of events, man as the agent, as the creator of history (what Foucault critiques as a structuralist philosopher). Marx’s humanism can be defined as

Power-Knowledge, all power engenders power and (hanin essay). The rules that are emplace are their to maximise profits and to make the workforce obedient, docile subjects ; alternative view to commodity fetishism, marx says the worker turns in to a commodity that is commodity fetishism, Focault would say that the individual is merely the collective of the discourses they obey. The two concerns are that’s 1. Marx looks at the economy 2. Foucault looks at power.

600 word on whether Scientific management theory can better cope with analysis of management than Marx and Foucault

Scientific management (Taylor System) also known as Taylorism is a theory of management that analysis and manufactures workflows to improve employee (labour) productivity. The idea was developed by a Frederick Winslow Taylor between 1880 and 1890, and it was the first published ‘monograph’ (written documents). Frederick Taylor believed that decisions based upon tradition and the rules of the thumb should be replaced by accurate procedures that are developed after a study of an individual at work. This means that there is a high level of managerial control over employee work practices. Scientific management is a distinction on the theme of ‘efficiency’; it developed in the 19th and 20th century were instance of large recurring theme in the human life of increasing efficiency, decreasing waste and using experiential methods to dictate what matters rather than accepting pre-existing ideas of what matters. Management today is the greatest use of scientific management is a form to contrast a new and improved way of doing business.

The Marxist theory of capital sees labour as a cost of production resulting in the alienation of workers as the need for labour surfaces from the physical needs “defined by the fundamental relationship between humans and their physical environment” (Hatch, 1997, p.27). Taylor’s ideas on scientific management (1990) have similar economic themes to Marx and Adam Smith. By viewing management as a science, he broke down the managerial problem into stages of research, definition, analysis and implementation. His principles were inherently based on the assumption that people put in as little effort as possible into their work and were soldiering on in order to earn money. This shifted all the responsibility from the worker to the manager and scientific methods were used to determine the most efficient way of working. After selecting the best person capable of performing the task, they were trained to work efficiently and their performance was strictly monitored. In hindsight, though this may have appeared to be a good generic strategy for the success of a firm, it heavily depended on whether the optimal method of producing could be found and whether or not the strategy was implemented correctly.

Conclusion

“Great managers know and value the unique abilities and even the eccentricities of their employees, and they learn how best to integrate them into a coordinated plan of attack” (Buckingham, 2005). Managers are only as good as their ideas, resources and workers. The way in which he deploys the resources at his disposal is essentially the making or breaking of a manager. Great managers are able to discover and develop what is different about each person who works for them. Strictly defining management and the role of managers can only be done after the managerial act has been observed in reality, the majority of the analysis is theoretical evaluation and speculation based on past examples. It is important to understand that the perception of what managers are supposed to do evolves with the industry and technology that runs parallel to the growth of a firm. Managers used to control by fear and use absolute power, however, a more humanistic approach is now used, in which the employee is valued in the decision making process undertaken by the manager.

Walt Whitman Rostow was an American economist who worked on growth and development. He was an economist who believes the growth and the development of the society is possible through the capitalist mode of production and the free market policy. He was a convinced liberal which he expressed in the commitment towards the development and his anti-communism (Simon 2006). Rostow presents his manifesto as the alternative to the Marxism (Gustafsson 1961). He has put forward the stages of economic growth through which every country passes for modernization of the developing countries. He also forwarded the transformation of the development from one country to another by transfer of technology and investment from developed north to the developing south which would help in development of south. Rostow believed that the Marxist was failed because he neglected agriculture and therefore the forces should be used to gain the stages of the economic growth that he has outlined (Simon 2006).

The stage of growth is the model Rostow has developed to show how the countries passes to modernization through different stages he has developed five stages through which each countries passes for the economic modernization of any nation. These five stages are

The traditional society

The precondition for take-off

Take-off

Drive to maturity

Age of high mass consumption

Rostow states that each country passes through these stages linearly and set out the conditions likely to occur in terms of investment, consumption and social trends at each state. However it is not certain that all the conditions are needed to be fulfilled to pass from one stage to another and the time it takes may vary countries to countries.

The traditional society

This is the primitive stage of growth. This period are marked by the pre Newtonian science and technology. The progress in any economic sector was limited. Though the progress was done with the improvement but the progress has the threshold limit to which it could not increase. It had a self sustained production. Because of low production of agriculture they had to devote high proportion of resources in it (Rostow 1960). During the period social and the political power as laid in few peoples who owned the land.

The precondition for take off

This is the transitional period or stage where society passes from traditional stage to the take off stage by the use of science and technology in the sector of agriculture and industry. The basic requirements or infra structure that are required for modernization of the country such as transportation, communication gets developed. The state has to play a vital role for the development of these sectors. The precondition for takeoff was largely dependent on creation of social overhead capital such as road, railway etc (Rostow 1960). Rostow argues for the transition from traditional society to take off period there is need of social change from regional social economic and political setting to the national level. The predominance in agriculture should shift towards industries and commerce, so that new entrepreneurs evolve and could take the risk.

Take off stage

This is the third stage that the Rostow explains is the period when the obstacles to development are completely removed and the productivity rises and expands. The development of the social overhead capital, technological, and political is the main focus in the takeoff stage. The main important factor is saving over the investment though the high investment in social overhead capital which could be invested. He assumes about 10% of saving over the Gross National Product (GNP) and reinvests them for the economic development.

The drive to maturity

When the takeoff stage continue with the sustainable economic growth for a long period of time then only this stage comes. In this stage the investment rate should be 10-20 % of national investment so that it could outstrip the population growth. In this stage investment should be done in all and produce every things needed for the society. The new industries are established that are capable of producing the goods that supports the agriculture and the other economic sectors for e.g. Fertilizer, agricultural machinery etc. The industrial sectors improve and produce the goods that are imported and also produce the goods for exporting it to the foreign countries.

The age of high mass consumption

The last stage age of high mass consumption is the period where the state moves to the welfare state. People have access to the goods and services beyond the basic fundamental requirement. The focus in this stage is on the production of goods and services. More investment flows on the security and social welfare of society.

Rostow in his book has explained the experience as a white man. It seems that he wants to impose the theory to rest of the world. He has taken western society as the model for his theory, and has not mentioned about the society with the different social and cultural background. The transformation of the development from these developed nations might not favor the social, cultural and geographical condition of the developing countries. He has not taken into account the cultural, environment, social differences between this developed north and the developing south. He also has mentioned about the countries with the sufficient labor force, natural resources can make the sustained growth. Many countries today seem to follow the random sequence of the stages which confuses that in which stage the state is, and some has skipped the stage to gain the highest economic growth. What I think this theory has the compatibility problem with the other countries and other countries has different constrain for development.

Critical discussion of Shiva’s views on western science as a patriarchal project. Discuss whether you agree with her or not and give reasons.

Shiva vandana, a philosopher, an eco feminist, on her book “Staying Alive” writes about the western development as a patriarchal project. She says development is a post colonial project which is taken as a model by the world for progress without knowing the subjugation and the exploitation the colonization brings (Shiva 1988). She works out on this book from the perspective of eco feminism and has linked the exploitation of woman and nature by the development activities in the name of progress and is reinforcing themself. She has also equated nature with feminism principle and argued women plays crucial role in maintaining of nature. The patriarchal policies are expanding throughout the developing nation inspite feminist movement.

Development is compared with the economic progress, in terms of need, of produce and of growth, which utilizes patriarchal tools to subjugate countries, cultures, people, and especially women. Development is possible by colonization and colonization helps in capital accumulation. This will not only create wealth but also create poverty and dispossession (Shiva 1988). So the people struggle for the freedom from colonization and development. The dominant stream of science is created by particular group with the particular response. Shiva has traced the creator of modern industrial science, Francis bacon’s experimental science as central to development of masculinities science(Shiva 1988). He dichotomized between male and female as mind and matter, subjective and objective, rational and emotional. Within these differences bacon associated woman with the weaker or more irrational part of these and male were compared as strong, mind and rational. Shiva so thinks that science should be viewed as sexist metaphor not a neutral, objective and science should be viewed as “the masculine mode of aggregation against nature and domination over women” (Shiva 1988). Shiva, with the words of bacon explains science as the form of patriarchal violence against nature and women. Bacons model of modern science conceptualizes the nature and its inquiry as means of rape and torture. The mechanical invention developed by the discipline of science can not only have effect on nature it can have a severe impact on nature and can change the course of nature. “aˆ¦They have a power to capture and subdue her to shake her foundations.” (Shiva 1988).

What do you understand by Gramsci’s concept of hegemony and counter hegemony? Discuss the idea of hegemony and counter hegemony in the context of globalization.

Gramsci was an Italian political leader of communist party and an activist who was sentenced twenty years imprisonment by the fascist in 1926. He is one who is closely related with the concept of hegemony which in 19th century was defined as “political predominance, usually of one state over another”. But Gramsci, here hegemony means the domination of ruling class over the working class. Hegemony utilizes the legislative and executive power to maintain the ascendance of dominant elite. According to Gramsci, the intellectual first sustain dominant either by creating or popularizing themselves and then convincing the oppressed that they will favor and will not oppose or the subordination of the oppressor. And make them feel that their servitude is inevitable, suitable and just. Like this a social form is obtained with a few people in power and practicing power to keep other in influence of these people the people. Gramsci explains that the hegemony is not intentionally developed by people it was gradually developed by institutionalization and was practiced with the everyday experience. So then by the development of consciousness among the ruling class they then developed hegemonic idea which the masses accepts the existing political situation and the oppression from the ruling class. According to Gramsci, hegemony was popularized by the old traditional intellectuals through their control over the institution as in church, state (Amoore 2005).

The concept of hegemony that Gramsci explains can never be complete because it needs the participation of subordinate group and while implementing, defending and maintaining hegemony there develops intellectual who challenges it (Amoore 2005). There develops another kind of intellectual with a revolutionary thoughts from among the subordinate class. These groups of people gather and convince mass of people to develop a force to against the hegemony. They develop consciousness among the general population who are oppressed and then they are conscious about the oppression from the elite they would revolt against the existing hegemony. They would uproot the existing hegemony and they will create a new environment ruled by the worker. The counter hegemonic ideology developed against the hegemonic of traditional intellectual with the capitalist system will then brought to an end.

Gramsci with his concept of hegemony has provided four main apparatus that are useful for current days for defending Marxism today and also to organize and develop the movement today to fight the crisis today. These four main elements that we can draw with the Gramsci’s concept of hegemony are

Centrality of politics

Hegemony or leadership is always in even or implicitly unstated form is political, this means there should be one to take the leadership and take the position politically to lead the people. And these people in the political leadership should be act responsibly towards the people and the working class of the society. They should be able to provide leadership to the broader aspect of the society.

Necessity of the leadership of the working class movement

Gramsci is aware of that the modern economy is based on the exploitation of the labour. Therefore with the organization of those who involve in the productive labour force then they would be able to organize the genuine transformation of the society.

Necessity for clear political program

This does not only mean to the political programs to oppose the political resistance of the working class but also a positive policies and programs that would give an alternative to the working class people by the ruling class.

Necessity of building concrete institution

This is necessary to expand the capacity available to the members of working class for democratic participation. He is not only simply concern with hegemony led In abstract he is also concern with building the institution enable people to participate in own emancipation.

Amoore, L. (2005). The global resistance reader, Routledge.

Gustafsson, B. (1961). “Rostow, Marx and the Theory of Economic Growth.” Science & Society: 229-244.

Rostow, W. (1960). The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 4-7.

Shiva, V. (1988). Staying alive: Women, ecology, and development, Zed books.

Simon, D. (2006). Fifty key thinkers on development, Taylor & Francis.

It is obvious that research is an important element of our everyday life. Research is everywhere we go; it is background of everything we face in our present time like for example management, marketing or finance. There are two main streams of performing a particular research; it is qualitative method which is based mostly of words and statements or quantitative which involves statistics and empirical evidence. Two out of three most frequently discussed qualitative approaches which are grounded theory, ethnography and phenomenology would be discussed in this paper (Avis, 2003).

In the first part of this paper I am about to discuss the main idea of ethnography. I am going to discover what is it and I would talk about the methods of research ethnographers use in order to get information they need, for making a relative conclusion. In addition, in this research paper I would to talk about what are the problems the researchers face in obtaining and evaluating obtained observations. This part would present several example of how this method could be applied in everyday life.

Second part would show the differences between two approaches ethnography and positivism approach. The purpose of this part is to show the understanding of ethnographic research method from positivist perspective.

Third part of this research paper would debate about second most frequently discussed qualitative approach, grounded theory. What is it, what are main notions of this research method? Moreover, I would discuss main methods and techniques of this research and the areas where it is usually applied. In addition I would pay attention on the methods of hypothesis formation and testing.

In fourth part I would discuss grounded theory method from positivist point of view. I would argue why this research method would not suit positivist’s requirements. My argument would present the examples of how certain grounded theory research could be performed from positivist point of view.

Last but not least, this research paper would present differences between two most frequent qualitative research methods, grounded theory and ethnography.

Ethnography

In general ethnography is a qualitative research method that recognized as a participant observation, it is the method where researcher contributes his or her time examining, communicating or cooperating with a social group. By observing and communicating with a social group researcher could understand how a particular group ties their relationships among each other, how a particular culture was built and maintained in order to keep social group together (Brown-Saracino, Thurk, & Fine, 2008). Making research ethnographers mostly focused on actions and intentions of the social group. Researcher observing the social group on daily bases tries to understand what idea is behind of a particular deed or objective (Herbert, 2000). By getting new information about the group, understanding what they take for granted, ethnographer could identify structure of their actions. Detailed examination of the group’s behavior on daily basis separates ethnography from other qualitative researches, like interviews (Power, 2002).

“Any group of persons – prisoners, primitives, pilots or patients – develops a life of their own that becomes meaningful, reasonable, and normal once you get close to it, and a good way to learn about any of these worlds is to submit oneself in the company of the members to the daily round of petty contingencies to which they are subject” (Goffman, 1961, pp. 9-10).

There are various methods which researchers use in order to get a data about a particular group. One of the best examples of how ethnographer could participate in a group’s activities is research made by Burawoy (1979), he worked as a machine operator for ten months in a Chicago factory in order to answer the question, why workers of the factory do not work harder. Some researchers were trying to achieve more close relationships with the groups of study; however, some relationships are unchangeable. Ethnographers usually balance between being insider and outsider, they are trying to see everything through the eyes of the social group ethnographers trying to analyze and in the same time trying to see whole picture in general applying theories (Taber, 2010). According to Power (2002) ethnographer has to maintain two positions at the same time. One, he or she has to be a good actor, who can engage obtained information in ongoing interaction. Second, has to be rational and logical scientist to correctly interpret obtained information.

Interviews, surveys and questioners are completely different from ethnography because rather than to examine what people say, ethnographers examine both what people say and do. There is huge gap between described relationships and reality. The fact that ethnographer can differentiate between deeds and words make ethnography more informative methodology (Liebow, 1967).

Furthermore, ethnography involves more emotions and feelings. By getting inside of the social group researchers has to change his or her habits, sights and tastes. It is also an important factor in evaluation of observations (Dennison, Wintrob, & Brunt, 1972). The research made by Herbert (2000) in Los Angeles Police Department involved emotional responds because witnessing of suicide had a huge impact on him and this changed the observation results. Because of emotional effect, policeman’s job appeared to him very tough and only for people with strong heart.

Ethnography from positivist’s perspective.

Looking on ethnographic methodology from positivist point of view, we can agree and disagree in certain extent with ethnographers’ epistemology. First of all, both of them, ethnographers and positivists, make some kind of observations in order to get information. However, the information ethnographers get is completely different from what positivists trying to achieve in their research. As it was mentioned before ethnography uses observations and involvement methods in order to understand what is the culture and behavior of the social group. Taking as example the experience of Burawoy (1979), ethnographer who entered society of factory workers to obtain information about why workers do not work harder. The idea of research made by Burawoy was to see the world through the eyes of those workers he was working with, understand their feelings and emotions. Whereas, positivist researcher would not try to put him or herself in “shoes” of another person he or she would rather employ empirical analysis in this case and for example would pay attention on such factors as what is the duration of working day, how often workers have to stay overtime, how often workers go out to smoke or everything that affects workers’ productivity. According to Trochim (2006) the idea of positivism is to focus on what we could examine and evaluate, everything that goes outside of this scope is considered as impossible. Also Silverman (1998) stated that “there is no agreed doctrine underlying all qualitative social research”. Ethnographers do not have certain rule to perform their analysis, while positivists follow certain set of rules during analysis (Avis, 2003).

Date collection is general aspect of qualitative research mostly in form of words and statements, and the method of analysis they use do not involve statistics or empirical analysis (Cepeda & Martine, 2005).

In above paragraph I was giving the example of research made by Herbert (2000) who went to analyze policemen’s job. He was saying that case of suicide terrified him so much that his emotions affected his conclusion about his research. In case of positivism this is not acceptable; positivism states that this is only one truth (Somers, 1998). In case of positivism there cannot be to different interpretation of same results.

Moreover, if pay attention on the speed of research performance, positivists would say that ethnography is not efficient methodology. In order to get information ethnographer has to go inside of the company and spend ten, like in case of (Burawoy, 1979), or more month in order to obtain observations from a group of people. Whereas, positivists could obtain information of the whole company roughly in same period of time. Positivism covers bigger sample size rather than ethnography (Amaratunga, Baldry, Sarshar, & Newton, 2002).

Grounded theory

Originally, grounded theory was introduced by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in 1967 (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).Grounded theory was developed by leaning on the experience which they had in one of the Chicago school and also by taking into account the criticism; they developed their own strategy of data analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Design of the research frequently relies on the reviewing literature which leads to formation of hypothesis. After this, hypothesis would be tested in the real world. Whereas grounded theory examines the realities and analyses the data without any hypothesis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In the qualitative research the analysis of data can be described differently as the result of an interpretivist point of view on a certain event or action. In grounded theory the analysis of data includes searching for concepts which are behind the reality, by searching for codes, concepts and categories. Creation of the grounded theory passes three stages – induction, deduction and verification (Strauss, 1987), each of them are absolutely important to formation of the new theory. Also it is important to notice that all three stages, according to Strauss, will be involved in research not consistently, and to some extent are present at each stage of research.

To make the construction of theory more systematized, Glazer and Strauss offer several necessary strategies of the analysis in qualitative research. Firstly, analytical process must alternate with process of gathering information or even to go in parallel with it. Secondly, observance of this principle allows to create theoretical sampling in the process of research, purpose of which, is to represent not the investigated group of people (object of research), but the aspects, properties of characteristic or quality of the investigated phenomenon (subject of research). “Theoretical sample is a process of data gathering for theory generating by means of which the analyst collects, unites, codes, analyzes the data and decide, what of them to collect at a following stage and where to search for them to develop the theory in process of occurrence. “This process of data gathering is supervised by the appearing theory” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Thirdly, to make a continuous comparative analysis, this could be used at different stages of analytical process. Defining the place of the comparative analysis, in the developed methodological field, authors place it between two basic strategies, the approaches of the analysis. The first approach is the content-analysis at first the coding model must be set, and then data must be gathered regularly, estimated and analyzed on in advance certain, invariable and uniform scales for all of them which allow to give to the qualitative data, quantitative form. On the basis of the new structured data file by means of numerical model are proved preliminary put forward hypotheses (are accepted or denied). Glazer and Strauss connect second approach with a situation when it is necessary to develop some preliminary ideas or hypotheses. In this case operation of detailed coding can slow down the achievement of the objective, therefore “the analyst only looks through the data for a finding of new properties of theoretical categories and writes memos about these properties” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Such approach describes more likely an initial stage of coding and for theory construction is insufficient, as constant transformation and reintegration of the data in process of accumulation and the material review in the latter case is required. And the third corresponds to this problem, offered by authors, the approach. It connects in analytical procedures of constant comparison procedure of the developed coding the first and style of development of the theory of the second. The purpose of a method of constant comparison in which coding and the analysis, theory generating are united more regularly, than is supposed in the second approach, by means of use of the developed coding and analytical procedures. Being more systematized, than the second approach, a method of constant comparisons at the same time is not connected and with the first which is developed for preliminary testing, instead of theory opening.

Grounded theory from positivist’s perspective.

In my opinion from positivism point of view grounded theory is not quite correct decision for theory deducing. Strauss mentioned that in some cases it is better to start the research with an initial hypothesis which can be changed or evaluate during the research (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In this case I think that the initial idea can be lost which has been introduced originally in the research. Whereas from the positivists point of view the theory or hypothesis must be suggested and only then it must be tested, without changing its initially idea (Trochim, 2006). The result of this test should confirm or deny this theory or hypothesis. Use of grounded theory is useful in area as medicine; many researchers use the given approach for research of this area. For instance grounded theory was used in order to understand how Medical Family Therapy helps patients to “deal with complex family dynamics” that usually happens after hospitalization, also the therapy was directed to help people to avoid next hospitalization (Anderson, Huff, & Hodgson, 2008). In addition, as it was mentioned by (Trochim, 2006) positivist seeking to find one single truth, whereas one of the parts of the grounded theory research is coding the possible answers of participant, this is a certain type of interpretation due to the fact that every single researcher codes information in a unique way which is not acceptable by positivist researcher (Allan, 2003).

Similarities and Differences of Grounded Theory and Ethnography.

Grounded theory and ethnography can be very compatible; as ethnographic studies may give the wide explanation which can be extremely valuable data, for grounded theory analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Some of these compatibilities came from the similarities in the characteristics of these two approaches. Ethnography is observing and analyzing behavior in natural conditions and the grounded theory makes collecting of data in the natural conditions too. Also there are similarities in backgrounds, both grounded theory and ethnography came from sociology, but in addition to ethnography it has also anthropological background. The main focus of this approaches are different where grounded theory stands for developing the theory whereas ethnography describing and interpreting a culture. In data collection both approaches gather information through different kinds of interviews, but ethnography moved beyond using observations of other (Creswell, 2006).

Conclusion

In this coursework I talk about two qualitative approaches ethnography and grounded theory. These two approaches are used in many areas of our life. They help us to justify some undiscovered phenomena’s that we face. They both have similarities and differences which makes them unique in certain areas. As it was mentions above ethnography focuses on describing and interpretation of culture of the certain group of people. Whereas, grounded theory is used to “grounding the theory in the view of people” (Creswell, 2006).

I looked on these two qualitative approaches from the perspective of positivist. I found that mostly positivism do not support both of them. In my opinion both of this approaches are time consuming in discovering certain hypothesis or theory. Also, as it was mentioned above positivists are seeking for single truth, whereas in both qualitative approaches, grounded theory and ethnography, could be found multiple truths depending on research emotions, feelings and understandings. In addition, I mentioned that one more criteria that is used by positivists comparing to grounded theory and ethnography which is statistical or empirical data analysis. Only because both qualitative approaches use mostly words and statements positivists could reject such evidence.

There is a great deal of work within many disciplines, such as history, psychology and anthropology, on family studies, available to researchers. This undoubtedly serves to inform our awareness of the interdisciplinary, varied, and at times controversial, nature and lack of stability around the idea of family. Much of this research highlights a number of major perceived problematics: the related characteristic political discourses, social policies and cultural narratives, which differ dramatically from contemporary family relationships and formations of the 21st century.

In view of this, this essay critically explores the concept of the nuclear family. It discusses the political contexts and social discourse in which understanding of family has been set. It explores how and why understandings of what make family have changed, paying attention to how it is lived within contemporary society. It reflects on the practices that equate to family.

Section 1
Critical debate on nuclear family

Many early functionalist sociologists’ perspectives on the family (Murdock, 1949; Talcott Parsons, 1960) focus heavily on the idea of the nuclear family, which consists of a married couple (male and female) and their biological offspring.

There are many issues with the functionalist nuclear family model. For example, it assumes the family to be composed of a heterosexual couple, and that specific structures and practices exist which define this type of family (Widner & Jallinoja, 2008). Further to this, the nuclear family model makes assumptions about gender roles within these specific structures (OINONEN, 2008). It is heterosexist (Stacey & Davenport, 2002; Pothan, 1992), based on traditional historic ideas of what family should be (Richardson, 2001). For example, the man is the provider and the woman is the nurturer. It promotes hierarchies within the family, with the man situated at the top in relation to the woman, but also as adults in relation to the children (Taylor, 1998). This model can also be seen as ‘western’, and assumes a universal model rather than thinking through the historical and cultural specificity of family formations.

As a functionalist construct, some researchers (Weeks, Heaphy & Donovan, 2001) highlight the heterosexual functions and practices that families have assumed, such as the socialisation of children, where children and young people learn social roles and morals, what is right or wrong: the ‘norms’. Donavan (2013) notes this as the heterosexual assumption; similarly, Rich (2007) discusses this in terms of compulsory heterosexuality, assuming this is how gendered roles are transmitted and important for the development of sexualities.

The functionalist nuclear family model makes the assumption that specific family formation is not neutral, often with a privileging of heterosexuality (Donavan. 2013). This, however, is a certain form of heterosexuality, as not all heterosexuals are privileged in the same way, for example, if they live outside of the normative ways of living associated with the nuclear family model, such as single or gay parents. Therefore, it could be argued that the nuclear family model is heterosexualised, classed and racialised against these ‘none-normative ways of living’ (single and gay parents) and their forms of ‘inappropriate’ heterosexuality.

It could be claimed that the functionalist nuclear family model suggests that there is a particular form of living within a heterosexual way that becomes the pinnacle of how we should live, look up to and aspire to do or be. That is not just in terms of how we live with our ‘families’, but also the practices within and outside of society: the public and private, for example how we believe ‘authentic’ love happens.

To conclude, many early functionalist sociologists’ perspectives on the nuclear family (Murdock, 1949; Talcott Parsons, 1960) are now heavily criticised and outdated. However, what we do have are cultural, political and ideological discourses that equate the family to being a specific shape, structure and set of roles.

Section 2
Political and social contexts

Before discussing and evaluating the new terms and theories within and around family, it is important to reflect on the political contexts and social discourse in which understandings of family and specifically the nuclear family have been set.

The late 80s and early 90s were noted as the start of a neo-liberalist society, yet ideologically this era also promoted a particular way of living: a neo-conservative family life.

After reading up on some of the literature around government policy and practices from this period, I can see a real contradiction as to whether the state had any involvement in personal / private family lives or not. It tended to step away, detach and disengage in one sense, yet normalise, regulate and control in another.

For example, Thatcher’s views on family and what family was were simple: traditional Victorian family values and the nuclear family. Thatcher and the Conservative government argued that the 60s had started to tear apart this ideal of the family and promote inappropriate promiscuity and sexual freedom. Thatcher’s also disliked the fact that there were many social movements developing, such as the Hippy Movement, Civil Rights Movement and Peace Movement, and in the late 70s and early 80s, the conservative government felt like their ideal of the family was under attack (Holborn & Steel, 2012). Thatcher argued that this was “potentially the end of society and the nuclear family” and that she will “fight hard to regain the traditional family values”. It could be claimed that her neo-conservative intentions were to reinforce traditional Victorian family values in society, and re-establish the importance of the traditional heterosexual nuclear family.

There was a great deal of legislation created on the basis of Thatcherism, a new hegemonic politics in which the Left was increasingly marginalized. For example, Section 28 (also known as Claus 28) of the local government act 1988 was a controversial amendment to the UK’s local government act 1986. Enacted on the 24th May 1998, the amendment stated that local education authorities “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”.

After Section 28 was passed, there was a lot of debate as to whether it actually applied in schools or whether it applied only to local education authorities. Most teachers acted extra cautious due to not knowing what they were actually permitted to do. Some sociologists (Weeks, 2007) believed that Section 28 enlisted teachers to stigmatise part of our society; and this then caused schools to fail to engage in basic social justices.

In relation to these concerns; and a call for further explanation by numerous professionals working in the pedagogic environment, the National Union of Teachers published a statement, remarking that:

whilst section 28 applies to local authorities and not to schools, many teachers believe, albeit wrongly, that it imposes constraints in respect of the advice and counselling they give to pupils. Professional judgement is therefore influenced by the perceived prospect of prosecution.

Similarly, the Department for Education and Science (1988) made the following statement regarding Section 28:

Section 28 does not affect the activities of the school governors, nor the teachers. It will not prevent the objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, nor the counselling of pupils concerned about their sexuality

Many Conservative backbenchers disagreed with the above statements, and supporters such as Baroness Knight of Collingtree (then Conservative MP Jill Knight) who introduced Section 28, and wanted to back up her initial justification for the act, discussed the history behind initially setting up Section 28. She was the chairman of her local Child and Family Protection Group, and was contacted by numerous concerned parents who strongly objected to the fact that their children were being taught about homosexuality through specific literature that was being used to teach their 5 and 6 year olds. For example, a book called The Playbook for Kids about Sex, in which brightly coloured stick men showed all about homosexuality, and how it was done. Another book called The Milkman’s on his Way explicitly described homosexual intercourse.

In retrospect, the above statements seem to suggest something of an internal problem: a problem with the literature that was being produced for the pedagogic environments.

This was also brought to light in 1983, when the Daily Mail reported that a copy of a book entitled Jenny lives with Eric and Martin, portraying a little girl who lives with her father and his gay partner, was provided in a school library run by a London Education Authority.

There was a large political response towards Clause 28; and this served to galvanise the disparate British gay rights movement into action; and the resulting protests saw the rise of now famous groups like Stonewall, started by, amongst other people, Ian McKellen and OutRage!, subsequently led by Peter Tatchell, who is still now an iconic gay activist (Tatchell, 1993; LGF, 2008).

Although Section 28 has been repealed on the 18th November 2003 by section (122) of the local government act 2003, there are still a number of complex issues to be tackled with regards to the teaching of homosexuality, gay marriage and contemporary family life. Faith school are a major problem (LGF, 2008), and as Waller (2009) suggests religious views need to be addressed more. More debate is needed on love, respect and diversity within and outside of contemporary family life for faith schools, as this would then avoid the so called promotion’ of homosexuality and pretend family relationships, and focus more on the diversity of sexuality and family life. Gay rights activists, such as Tatchel (2001), discuss their concern for the lack of progress within this area, and mentioned that there is going to be more of a battle to beat the last acceptable prejudice within our education system (LGF, 2008).

In contrast, Waller (2009) suggested that as sex education in England and Wales has been regulated solely by the Secretary of State for Education since the Learning and Skills Act (2000) and the Education Act (1996), it could be argued that Section 28, before its repeal, was already largely redundant. Local education authorities, such as Manchester, continued to deliver training to their staff on how to deliver their services without discrimination against lesbians and gay men; and these pioneering works were never once challenged by the act (Waller, 2009).

There is, however, one case of Section 28 being used to bring a case to the courts against a council. In May, 2000, the Christian Institute unsuccessfully took Glasgow City Council to court for funding an AIDS support charity which the Institute alleged promoted homosexuality and disrespectful family relationships.

It could be suggested that in order to create change, we must consider the psychology (Hanley, 1993): mapping the information against the general certificate of secondary education (GCSE) curriculum, and making it accessible to the children. Training the teachers so that they are confident in delivering it correctly, as at present, many teachers are not equipped to discuss the complexities of the human sexuality and contemporary family life. Cookson et al, (2009) suggests that this personal and professional development should be a priority for any local education authority.

Schools should be encouraged to expressively forbid discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation within their codes of conduct, whether the school has a religious character or not (Cookson et al, 2009). Then, at an appropriate stage of the national curriculum, students should be encouraged to examine the variety of views on human sexuality and family life, and as Waller (2009) suggests, this will then allow them to develop their own position within their understanding of and within these complex areas.

However, despite the controversy around Section 28, it should be noted that Thatcher supported legalising homosexuality in the 1960s, and in the face of severe opposition from Tory traditionalists, in 1967, she voted in favour of the decriminalisation of homosexuality in England and Wales.

The Conservative government still however caused much uproar, as although the hegemonic legislation was in force, to ostracise; to an extent it did the opposite. It made people fight. Fight for their right to have equality, to be a family, or at least have that choice. Although many gay communities had been decimated by the AIDS epidemic, something extraordinary happened. People joined together, from within and outside of their communities, as a family, setting up support groups, lobbying parliament, fighting for their right as a community, and as a family. Not blood-related though, but as families of choice (Donavan, 2012; Weeks, 2001). They had connectedness, cared for each other, and were loyal: and not the “drug-taking, promiscuous loons” as described by one Tory MP at the time (Briggs, 1987).

Over the following years, many of the HIV positive men died, and during this period further inequalities became stark. Partners, who had supported, cared for and loved their partner for many years were not recognised legally, for example, during the sale of a house. Blood family members of the deceased or dying would deny same sex partner’s access to their dying partner’s bedside or attendance at the funeral. These harsh inequalities highlighted through these challenging times, but also politicised a generation (Donavan, 2013).

Weeks (2007: 2) support this notion of politicisation, and suggests that the

longer term perspective tells us something different as despite the setbacks, pain and loss of the 1980s and early 1990s we can now see that under the surface of events, dramatic changes in sexual and intimate life were taking place, a sort of grass roots revolution, that have transformed the possibilities of LGBTQ lives

In view of Weeks (2007) quote, it should therefore be argued that the battle for legislative reform is about a formalisation of a right to exist in the public sphere, and a public declaration of, for example, love, marriage, equal opportunities and family.

Weeks (2007) supports this critique and proposes that this shake up also started to deconstruct the idea of a family unit, and so destabilise specific social norms and boundaries, which existed between the public and the private. This political and social shift is important, as when public and private start to collide, the old school family unit that is ideologically engrained within society and culture is challenged (Richardson, 2000). This is a powerful, and much needed shake up, which has had considerable consequences further down the line, and has attacked many discriminative social forces and factors underpinned within many forms of discrimination. It is also important to acknowledge the processes and changes underpinned within the wider political, economic and cultural realities, and how these may have been challenged. In de constructing the idea of the family, we can then start to challenge the tradition behind it, which takes away its power, its right to dominance, govern and lead. This idea of tradition is still however problematic, as Weeks (2007) notes, due to the fact that the evidence is limited when looking at tradition beyond specific recent time frames and histories, and that due to this lack of ’empiricability’, can we be certain people always follow tradition, and by tradition I mean as how we see it. It could be argued that this was not the case, and tradition, as we see it, has shifted over time, context and reality. What we see now as tradition may have at specific points in history been its opposite, with the normal of our tradition shifting to the abnormal of our non-traditional realities. Therefore, it could be argued that tradition and its underpinnings are by no means monochrome, in any historical, political and / or cultural reality.

Williams (2004) conceptualises this well and terms this ‘re-traditionalisation’, yet Weeks (2007) still argues for more of a ‘de-traditionalisation’. Whatever the term used, it could be argued that either or suggest that back in the 80s during the birth of Stonewall and other political and social equality movements, and also now, as we were (and still are) searching for an individualism, or a framework that supports this. It could be maintained that if people were allowed to manage their own lives, their own way of living, without fear or discrimination, different forms of community and / or individual arrangements would develop, assisting life in its creative, problem-solving, innovatory way.

This process of social restructuring (or as Williams (2004) terms ‘re-traditionalisation’ and Weeks (2007) terms ‘de-tradionalisation’) is important to consider with my research when thinking about my research, and the participants (also my own) political, cultural and social histories and contexts, and how these have been changed, adapted and developed within and outside of tradition as we see it now in this specific context and reality, during their specific coming-out process.

Section 3
Why / how family has changed and how it is now lived + reflections on family practices.

These previously discussed political and social developments highlight the fact that ways of living have changed, causing major variations in the compositions and practices of families and intimate relationships. At the core of the debate sociologists such as Finch (2007), Smart (2007), Donavan (2013) and Stacey (2004) emphasise that the old concepts no longer capture the realities of contemporary family living and that new definitions, concepts, ideas, ideologies, terms and legislation are needed.

Smart (2007: 84), a feminist sociologist and academic, defines the family as:

a set of personal relationships that are forged together to create dynamic and multidimensional connections held together through shared histories and memories.

Smart’s (2007) quote suggests that individuals live in a diverse array of living conditions and relationship formations, within and throughout a major social institution and a locus of much of an individual’s social activity. It also highlights the importance of shared histories and memories, not just blood ties or relations.

Smart’s (2007) definition recognises that this new conceptualisation of family highlights the significance of ‘dependencies’, ‘interdependencies’, ‘connectedness’ and ‘relationalism’ as central features within social grouping identified as family.

All the above suggests there are many factors that shape the experience of family life, for example, social class, race, sexuality (lesbian or heterosexual couples) and family structure, for example, nuclear family, extended family and single-parent families. This adds a new dimension to the study of family as it links family experiences to other influences in society, signifying that the family is not an isolated entity but rather an integral part of the wider social system with society.

Calvin (2011), on the other hand, disagrees with much of Smart (2007) observations and defines the family as:

a social unit created by blood, marriage, or adoption, which can be described as nuclear (parents and children) or extended (encompassing other relatives).

There remains many obvious problematics within the Calvin (2011) definition. For example, extended family may not be relatives, but could be friends, neighbours, work colleagues, and / or ex or current partners. The nuclear family concept has also been critiqued by many (Finch, 2007, Smart, 2007 and Donavan, 2013) (also see section 1) and holds many perceived problematics: westernised, heterosexist, gendered, and assuming a universal model which alludes to the historical and cultural specificity of contemporary family formations. It could be argued that in contemporary society, many individuals now live in households that are single-parent, gay, lesbian, interfaith, international, interracial, intergenerational, and increasingly single-person, not to mention families of long-term companions, adopted children, or half-siblings. Calvins (2011) definition does not seem to take this specificity and multidimensionality into consideration.

Fields, Jason and Casper (2001:67) support my critique of Calvin’s (2011) definition, and suggest that it is generally assumed today that the modern family has “undergone significant transformations in its structure”, and that societal changes have contributed to a “harsh reduction in the percentage of classical typical families, predominantly nuclear families”. Replacing these are “childless families, one parent families, other family formations, and quasi-family units based on non-marital cohabitation” (Fields, Jason and Casper, 2001:69), which includes (and will include more so after the recent legalisation of gay marriage in the UK) gay parents and families.

Sociologists such as Finch (2007) and Smart (2007) have clearly highlighted the many diverse arrays of living as a family, and how this must be recognised within the literature. However, there are also many terms that underpin these theories, for example, families of choice (Weeks, Donavan, and Heaphy), postmodern families, and families of origin (Morgan (2007). There has been much debate as to whether these sit alongside the idea of the nuclear family or in opposition. There has also been much debate around a shifting postmodern nuclear family.

This section of this essay will therefore discuss and evaluate some of these terms, critiquing the literature.

Donavan et al (2001) incorporated the term ‘families of choice’ (also known as ‘families we choose’ coined by Kath Western, 1998) which means literally asking the participants for names of people they see as family. For example, if I decided to use this term within my research and one of my participants stated that 2 of his friends, his step brother and his second aunt were the people he recognised as family this would be fine. Similarly, if another participant involved no blood relatives this would also be fine. Families of choice literally mean people choose their families. Donavan (2001) does however express some concerns with this method and notes that within her 2001 study with Weeks and Heaply, two well-known social constructionists, as many of the heterosexual participants named blood family when ask to discuss family; whereas many of the non-heterosexual participants named mainly friends and (ex) lovers as family. Although this does not suggest an obvious issue, it does suggest a lack of closeness, or ‘connectness’ with the LGBT participant’s and their blood family compared to that of their heterosexual counterparts. Although this term sits well for my research, the same issue could occur. A way around this could be to break the question down further. For example, ask the participants to name 5 people who they feel are most important to them in their life. And once a list has been put together, ask them to decide who they see as family. This 2 staged question may be a way of getting around this issue around participants misunderstanding the term family. Not including the term family would be helpful until I understood who they classed as family. On the other hand, by using the term families of choice, I am giving the participants a choice to choose whoever as their family members, and this open-ended approach is enabling them to decide. Therefore, would it really be an issue if they did not include any blood relatives, or included all blood relative?

Modern policy (Children and Adoption Act, 2006; Equal Marriage Bill, 2013; Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, 2008) has noted a shift to two parents of any gender (but still a demonization of single parent families due to an underlying stigmatization mainly but not exclusively enhanced by stereotypical negative Media perceptions). The question is could we call the 2 parent family of the same gender a nuclear family and would we want too? Donavan (2013) suggests it is not, although structurally it looks the same, i.e. two parents, 2 children, a household, but if you look at the social roles within it, it is very different. For example, there may be no men or no women involved, and usually there is at least one parent who has no biological relation to the child.

It could therefore be argued that the term postmodern family sits better here (and also potentially within my research). This term suggests it can be what it is, in this specific moment in time, through the specific structures and practices it has/uses. This concept also recognises that what you describe as your family now may not be family in 5 years’ time for example. Although it could be argued that the term postmodern family is doing nothing apart from saying meaning of family can change historically. On the other hand, terms that help to destabilise gendered and heterosexist terms like that nuclear family model are a welcome addition.

There are many different ways of theorizing family and the practices within it, but in reality, when it comes to gay youth and my intended area of study, many of these individuals will come from heterosexual family set ups and have been exposed unconditionally to heterosexual family practices. Therefore, using the a term like families of origin (Morgan, 2007) could be beneficial as it describes the setup of your life at that point in time, whether it be step families, friends, blood mother or adopted father. This again gives the participant flexibility in their choices. The term origin however may be confusing as origin suggests where you have come from, which then suggests blood or adopted family, with the exclusion of friends, (ex) partners, and work colleagues.

It could also be beneficial to ask my participants about their understanding of families i.e. where they see their families being, or who is classed as their family, as during Weeks, Heaply and Donavan’s (2001) study, many of their LGBT participants failed to recognise blood family as family members. This would suggest that they may have disconnected from their ‘families’ of origin and that it did not occur to them to speak or include them into their LGBT sphere, or private world. However, this study is now 12 years old, and many changes have occurred since then, potentially highlighting a shift in generational understandings and acceptance of how, who and why we consider certain people to be classed as our family.

In view of the above, Finch (2007: 71) notes that the way in which we consider our family is “qualitatively orientated”. By this she means decided by a number of internal and external factors including, location, relationships, love, employment, religion, sexuality and friendship. In view of Finch’s (2007) consideration, it could be argued that this ‘process’ of qualitative orientation demands considerable creativity when initiating the “design, composition and practices” of the family, and how these “intimate networks are constructed, perceived and maintained” (Stacey, 2004: 359). It could also be argued that as Stacey (2004) has identified this as a ‘process’, this then suggests a considerable shift from the previous definition of family and the nuclear family, through the household or through kinship: set and defined, to a more holistic way of thinking, friendly and accepting to the diversity and variation of modern family formations.

Gabb (2008: 22), who is an interdisciplinary sociologist, terms this the “extended family”. Her research consists of a combination of autobiographical, anecdotal and empirical methods and methodologies, which re-situate emotions at the centre of ‘family’ studies. She suggests that the ‘process’ of ‘family’ selection mentioned by Stacy (2004) requires “an extended approach; a wide angle research lens that can record the evolving matrix of intimacy” (Gabb, 2008:17). I agree with Gabbs (2008) comments on the “matrix or intimacy” and argue that this idea places much emphasis on relationship formation, which in turn constitutes and creates family life. Contemporary psycho-sociologists Mcload and Thomson (2009) support this critique, and suggest that Gabb’s (2008) idea of the “extended family” places increasing importance on the way in which relationships are built, with ideas of social change at the forefront of this ‘process’.

The contemporary research above highlights the importance of recognises fluidity within the composition of the family unit and also highlights briefly how we select family; however, it is also important to discuss how contemporary family life is defined more by ‘doing’ family things rather than ‘being’ a family.

For example, Morgan (1996) is one of the most influential sociologist who initially highlighted the importance to shift sociological analysis away from “family as a structure to which individuals in some sense belong”, towards understanding families as “sets of activities which take on a particular meaning”, associated with family, at any a given point in time (Finch, 2007:66).

Morgan (1996) defines these ‘family’ practices as:

a set of practices which deal in some way with ideas of parenting, kinship and marriage and the ‘expectedness’ and obligation which are associated with these practices.

The key features of the practices approach in general are as follows:

aˆ? An attempt to link the perspectives of the observers and the social actors;

aˆ? An emphasis on the active or ‘doing’;

aˆ? A sense of the everyday;

aˆ? A sense of the regular;

aˆ? A sense of fluidity or fuzziness;

aˆ? A linking of history and biography.

Morgan (2011) uses the term family practices as an illustration of wider currents of thought in sociology engaged with understanding how social relations are enacted and represented as symbols, combining a number of key concepts that other scholars have used to analyse contemporary families. These include ‘fluidity’, ‘diversity’, and ‘multi-facetedness’, by rooting our understanding of ‘doing family’ in the everyday and the routine. These everyday routines are where individuals constitute certain actions and activities as family practices, as family (defined by Morgan and Finch) “is a facet of social life, not a social institution; it represents a quality not a thing”.

A good example of this routine that constitutes family practices was in Finch (2007) where she discusses 2 examples of her own family practices: the weekly phone call which she makes to her sister; and her care in assuring that a step child gets Christmas presents as valuable as those she gives to her own children. These are actions that allow her to regard these people as part of her family. Finch (2007:55) also quotes “from my perspective these are family practices”.

When discussing these practices, Morgan (1996: 190) recognises that these

practices are often little fragments of daily life which are part of the normal taken for granted existence of practitioners. Their significance derives from their location in a wider system of meaning.

Finch (2007:66) supports Morgan (1996) quote and suggest that “the emphasis is on social actors creatively constituting their own social world”. It could therefore be argued that an individual’s understanding of family is subject to change over time and locations, deeply rooted in individual biographies and realities. This is something I need to

According to the definition offered by the World Health Organisation (WHO) (1948) health is ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.’ This paper seeks to offer critical analysis on the definitions of health and illness in respect of prominent academics in the field. Furthermore an in-depth discussion will be raised on the ways health can be perceived in a social context with regards to the relationship between negative social factors and health through the use of studies and surveys.

To find the definition of health one can refer to Kenworthy (2002) who revealed the apparent links to theories that directly relate to health care. A noticeable theory consists of the biomedical concept. This concentrates on the belief that being healthy is to be without recognisable disease. One can see a direct contradiction of the biomedical concept of health in contrast to the definition offered by WHO (1948). On the other hand the WHO recognises that health is not ‘merely the absence of disease or infirmity.’ This undoubtedly questions the strength of the biomedical concept in its definition of health.

The definition revealed by WHO (1948) has similarities with the holistic concept of health which makes reference to the various dimensions of health each relating to each other and the need for health care professionals to treat the individuals and not just one aspect of their health. Ewles and Simnett (1992) made reference to the individual’s physical, mental, emotional spiritual, social, sexual, societal and the environmental aspect of their health.

Equally important is the definition of illness. When the elements of the WHO definition are not fulfilled then the individual may be regarded as ill. This is reflected by the definition offered in Mosby’s Medical Dictionary (2009) [2] . He defines illness as ‘an abnormal process in which aspects of the social, physical, emotional, or intellectual condition and function of a person are diminished or impaired compared with that person’s previous condition.’ McWhinney (1987) [3] described illness as the subjective perception by a patient of an objectively defined disease. This is an interesting argument as it tells us the extent to which a patient may perceive their own illness. Indeed acknowledging this may be helpful in understanding the definition of illness. However on the other hand it does not allow for a uniform concrete definition as we are made aware that social aspects come to play as well as the individuals own perception.

Kenworthy makes an interesting argument when he outlines that health is seen in the context of the distribution of illness, epidemiological patterns and class structures of that society. Helman (1992) builds upon this when he states that the presentation of illness and the way in which an individual responds to it is largely determined by sociological factors. In addition to this he elaborates that these factors influence the perception of which symptoms and signs are abnormal in a given culture. He gives the example of how a child growing in a particular culture learns how to respond to, and express a range of physical or emotional symptoms or social stresses in a culturally patterned way. (Helman 1992) This respect that everyone’s perception of illness will vary.

Abraham & Shanley (1992) [4] have adopted a health belief model which raises four key components of a person’s belief about their own health. This includes how susceptible we are to the illness in question, the seriousness of the illness, the potential costs and the effectiveness of this action in relation to possible alternatives.

The reasons behind the recognition of the socially constructed concept is illustrated by Kenworthy (2002) who points out that nurses for example have become “more person centred and individualised” whereas prior to this there was a more medical -disease orientated approach. This is emphasised by Corbett (1995) who identifies the recognition of the patient in healthcare as an active participant rather than a passive recipient of care Thus it is arguable that with the changing emphasis of care the study of the sociological aspect of patients has become almost a central feature in the education of nurses and doctors.

According to the Poverty Site [5] (2009) poverty and health site the relationship between poverty and health is complex. Various factors are considered such as poor environmental conditions, poor housing, pollution, low education levels and unawareness of needed medical care, financial barriers in accessing health services, and a lack of resources necessary to maintain good health status which may entail poor diets.

The Hillingdon Crime Survey 2004 [6] is a good representation of the direct effects of crime on health. Although it was carried out five years ago it does offer insights into figures as to the direct and indirect effects of crime on health. The survey was based on a random sample of over 2400 residents on the electoral register of whom 25% responded. Twelve point six percent encountered direct effects of crime including physical injury, disability and death resulting from violent assaults, abuse and accidents, including those caused by

dangerous driving. It was discovered that when asked the impact of crime on their health almost seven per cent reported an injury; ‘6.1% onset or relapse of an eating disorder; 9.4% increased use of alcohol, drugs and/or smoking; nearly 60% increased stress or anxiety, 28.2% depression and about 17% each reported isolation and insomnia’. (Hillingdon Crime Survey 2004).

On the other hand the indirect effects of crime on the victim’s health consisted of time off work, financial losses and changes in home circumstances. The findings also disclosed that for some victims, there were long term consequences of higher rates of mental health problems, smoking, alcohol and drug misuse, neglect of their health and ‘risky sexual behaviour’ [7] . The Acheson report () [8] supports this finding as it revealed that fear of crime and violence can affect people’s quality of life and also be a cause of mental distress and social exclusion.

The British Medical Association (2003) [9] identifies the important contribution made to health and illness by the standard of accommodation. Undoubtedly the quality of accommodation is strongly related to income, Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that those with a satisfactory or higher income can minimise the adverse effect of poor housing resulting in better health. The report also reveals that social and physical characteristics of the surrounding area are also vital in maintaining good health. Indeed the fact that poor quality accommodation is often situated in impoverished surroundings contributes further to making vulnerable individuals housebound. The report cited the elderly, the very young and those suffering from long-term ill health amongst the vulnerable individuals who are at particular risk. Thus these groups have the greatest exposure to many specific hazards.

These studies and surveys highlight the importance of social and economic factors as an adverse effect of poor health. We can see that especially those in poor housing conditions and those habiting in deprived high crime areas are most likely to suffer ill health.

However there are encouraging policy and legislation which exists to minimise these social factors on the health of individuals such as the Health and Social Care Act 2008,

The Health Act 2006 prohibiting smoking in certain premises and provides a minimum age of persons to whom tobacco may be sold and the Health Bill 2009 that attempts to improve the quality of NHS care and public health [10] .

It is apparent that the definition of health and illness endorses not only the individuals’ objective medical condition but also the impact of social factors. Whereas the biomedical model of health has a more individualistic approach the socio medial approach is more valuable in giving a considered perception of the definitions of health and illness. Indeed one agrees with Helman’s analysis (1992) as he reveals that the presentation of illness and the way in which an individual responds to it is largely determined by sociological factors. It is also evident that whilst applying the social medical approaches that the relationship between poverty and health should also be acknowledged. If the individuals perception of health is to improve positively then negative social factors which contribute will need to be addressed further; such as low educational attainment levels, poor housing, and dangerous environments including crime levels.

Introduction

Jock Young once said: “At heart, the extent of crime is a political as well ^[1]as a behavioural matter … The figures for crime … are not hard facts in the sense that this is true of the height and weight of physical bodies. They are moral not physical statistics”. It is apparent from this statement that there are inherent flaws in all types of theories of crime causation whether these derive form the sociological, psychological or biological traditions. Nevertheless, crime causation theories form a significant part of modern criminology and have been used extensively to form policy and legislation.

Bearing in mind the limitation of these theories, this essay will try to address the question why sociological theories of criminality suggest that social deprivation and poverty are two of the most significant factors that lead to criminality when two of the most poverty stricken groups, women and the elderly, have low rates of crime.

Crime and poverty: A sociological approach

There are many schools of thought that deal with crime causation. Sociological theories of crime focus on the social dimension of criminality, trying to analyse the sociological reasons that push individuals to commit crime e.g. poverty, shaming, social deprivation, fear etc. Sociology, in general is “the study of social organisation and institutions and of collective behaviour and interaction, including the individual’s relationship to the group”^[2].

As early as 1893, criminologists such as Durkheim asserted that social deprivation and the division of labour in society puts disadvantaged groups in need, often leaving them with no other option but to resort to crime^[3]. Very close to this analysis is the approach of Radical Criminology. This uses Marx’s ideas of capitalist society and social classes claiming that “much proletarian offending could be redefined as a form of redistributive class justice or as a sign of the possessive individualism which resided in the core values of capitalist society”^[4].

Radical Criminology went a step further by arguing that individuals from working classes who resort to crime are in reality victims of a false consciousness that turns proletarian against proletarian. The ultimate goal is to preserve unequal class relations, masking the real nature of crime and repression in capitalist society^[5].

Irrespective of whether we adopt the sociological explanation of the Traditional or Radical Criminology, there is still a paradox that both theories seem to overlook. If crime is closely related to class, social deprivation and poverty – regardless of whether this is a construct of capitalism or simply a means to survival – there is still not an adequate explanation as to why the female and older groups that form great part of poor classes render very low criminality rates.

The correlation between, crime, poverty and gender/age

The two most powerful demographic features that discriminate between offenders and non-offenders but at same time provide a good explanation of criminal behaviour are gender and age. At one time there was so little criminality from female and older groups that criminologists turned their attention to it.

John Hagan justified the low crime levels within female groups by saying that male groups often see crime as a source of fun and excitement, which is not often the case with female groups which are more family-oriented due to the maternity role they carry^[6]. Moreover, daughters are believed to be more frequently subject to intense, continual and diffuse family control in the private and domestic environments and this gradually develops among female groups a stronger feeling of emotional sanctions than physical or custodial controls. Therefore, shaming methodologies and the withdrawn of love and affection have greater impact on female groups than incapacitation. This system does not need the intervention of the criminal justice system but of close family guidance. Finally, this close family control also encourages female groups to stay away from the “purview of agents of formal social control”^[7].

Carlen’s findings reinforce this theory as he collected evidence that showed “female criminals were most likely to emerge when domestic family controls were removed altogether”^[8].

With minor exceptions the crimes of the elderly have not been in the focus of criminological attention^[9]. Stephens argues that older people who belong to poor classes are more concerned with survival issues and do not feel empowered to resort to crime apart from occasional petty offences. They also lack the physical and psychological motivation to commit serious crimes such as murder or robbery.

However, this is not the case with older people from wealthy classes as these groups are most often characterised by power, greed. They also carry the advantage of experience. However, again, they lack the physical energy to commit violent crimes and that is why they tend to focus on financial offences.

Conclusion

It is apparent from the above analysis that sociological theories that use poverty and social deprivation to explain crime do not clash with the low levels of criminality within female and older groups. Male groups from poor classes render higher rates because they do not experience the same control mechanisms that female and older groups receive. When these mechanisms are lifted (e.g. because there is no close family control or because the feeling of survival is not that evident), then the risk is the same.

Bibliography

Box S (1983) Power, Crime and Mystification, London: Tavistock.

Carlen P (1988) Women, Crime and Poverty, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Durkheim E (1953) The Division of Labour in Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Rock P (1997) “Sociological Theories of Crime” The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haggan J (1979) “The Sexual Stratification of Social Control” 30 British Journal of Sociology.

Stephens J (1976) Loners, Losers and Lovers. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington.

Young J (1988) “Radical Criminology in Britain: The Emergence of a Competing Paradigm” 28 British Journal of Criminology

1

The phenomenal stretch of Globalization has touched and affected, positively or negatively as well, practically every aspect of human existence, through its varying tentacles in its ever-propagating areas of influence. The recognition and acceptance of the phenomena of Corporate Social Responsibility (hereinafter referred to as CSR), in developed as well as developing countries, is a doting example of the same. It needs a special mention that CSR is nowhere a legally sanctioned document or observance, but it indeed, has come forth as a minimal standard as to the governance of business at global level, with international reference standards set by the United Nations, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines and International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions.

The primary reason as to why this phenomena is rising at such a fast pace, is the global competitiveness ensuing between the business houses of different countries. The corporates mainly demonstrate the extra responsibility to earn the goodwill of the market, and CSR helps in building loyalty and trust amongst shareholders, employees and customers. In this sense CSR denotes a voluntary endeavour by the big business houses to look into the varied issues and concerns of the public at large, apart from the profit-maximising objectives.

CSR is closely linked with the principle of sustainable development, which argues that enterprises should make decisions based not only on financial factors such as profits or dividends but also based on immediate and long term social and environmental consequences of its activities. CSR has a significant role in controlling the perils of uncontrolled development, satisfying the needs of the present generation and at the same time ensuring that the resources of future generations is not jeopardized. [1] The inclusion of the objective of ‘sustainable development’ within the CSR agenda magnifies the duties and responsibilities of the big business houses, upto a large extent, which cannot be made limited as per any parameters. The realization of the ultimate objective of sustainable development is a long and continuous process, and is rather more inclusive, which includes the interest of the developing nations also.

The impact of CSR in context of developing nations, as evident, is rather a negative impact. The primary reason as identified by the authors seems to be the inappropriate approach towards the practical applicability of the CSR in the developing countries. There is lacunae in the structural approach towards implementation of the CSR agenda within the developing countries, mainly due to the irresponsible inactiveness on the part of the government of the developing countries, in framing its policies and regulations as per the international norms and requirements, as CSR is largely a global phenomena.

In this research paper, a structural and conceptual analysis is done with regard to the difficulties faced by the developing countries in implementing the CSR initiatives. This paper is an attempt to identify such issues which attributes to the failure of CSR in developing nations, and also identify the correct possible approaches to properly reap up the benefits of the CSR agenda and initiatives evolved mainly through the internationalization of the initiatives taken in the developed countries, by various approaches to be discussed herein.

EVOLUTION OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AS A FULCRUM OF SOCIAL RESPONSIVENESS

What exactly is inferred from the social responsibility of the corporations? The corporations are generally expected to strengthen and mobilize the economy by enhancing profit, the social implications of which are highly overlooked. The concept of CSR refers to the general belief held by many that modern businesses have a responsibility to society that extends beyond the stock holders or investors in the firm. That responsibility, of course, is to make money or profits for the owners. [2] In 1960, Keith Davis suggested that social responsibility refers to businesses’ “decisions and actions taken for reasons at least partially beyond the firm’s direct economic or technical interest.” Also it has been argued by Eells and Walton (1961) that CSR refers to the “problems that arise when corporate enterprise casts its shadow on the social scene, and the ethical principles that ought to govern the relationship between corporation and society. [3]

The current wave of interest in CSR dates from the early 1990s. [4] However, in recent years the CSR has emerged as an inclusive and global concept to embrace corporate social responsiveness, and the entire spectrum of socially beneficial activities of businesses. It follows the trend of a diffusion process of policy instruments from North to South and therefore of a global convergence of policy structures. [5]

Now the term ‘social’ within the CSR is again a vague concept and enlarges the sphere of the corporate responsiveness. The social dimension of the CSR can effectively be attributed to the organizations’ stakeholders, who are in the immediate connect to the corporation. Stakeholders denote the group of persons who have a stake, a claim, or an interest in the operations and decisions of the corporation. This bond of the corporation with the stake-holders practically denotes the area of social operation of the corporations. The

The idea of CSR cannot be traced as to the place of its origin and evolution, since it is mainly a progeny of the globalization, which is encumbrancing in itself, the world at large. Therefore, the concept of stake-holder management becomes an effective instrument to analyse the social impact of the corporations. This methodology can have, or rather it has appeared to be an aberration, which practically excludes the impact on the developing nations, as it is a very common fact that the activity of the stake-holders of the developing nations cannot match upto that of the developed ones.

One tangible result that has certainly been achieved by the current CSR”movement” is that it “has got people talking about worker rights, global governance, sustainable enterprise and all manner of topics that have relevance to the well-being of the poor and marginalized”. [6]

The effective implementation of CSR in developing countries has come forth to be recognized as a challenge after the vision in the year 2000 was instilled in the Milleneum Development Goals (MDGs) as ‘a world with less poverty, hunger and disease, greater survival prospects for mothers and their infants, better educated children, equal opportunities for women, and a healthier environment’.

CSR AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: IDENTIFYING THE CONNECTION

The CSR in connection with developing countries can be considered as ‘to represent ‘the formal and informal ways in which business makes a contribution to improving the governance, social, ethical, labour and environmental conditions of the developing countries in which they operate, while remaining sensitive to prevailing religious, historical and cultural contexts’. [7] The analysis of the effectiveness of the CSR cannot be considered to be complete unless its impact on the developing countries is identified, as they represent the most rapidly expanding economies, providing for a lucrative market for the growth of the corporate business. It is a common fact that the world’s poor are distressingly plentiful, and despite of the vastness of their market, they are largely unexplored by the multinational companies, in assumption that the people of the developing countries are more busy in sustaining their normal living rather than going for any developmental incentives. Also it is assumed that various barriers to commerce – corruption, illiteracy, inadequate infrastructure, currency fluctuations, bureaucratic red tape etc, make it impossible to do business profitable in these regions.

The authors assert this fact that the above notions and assumptions are largely outdated. It is well-evident in the current scenario that the large number of corporate houses prefer the markets in the developing countries only, as it provides them with ample oppurtunities to maximize the profitability, and the restrictions assumed are hardly existent. Moreover, certain positive trends in developing countries – from political reform, to a growing openness to investment, to the development of low-cost wireless communication networks – are reducing the barriers further while also providing businesses with greater access to even the poorest city slums and rural areas. [8]

Since in developing countries, rural areas represents more than half of the population, for instance in India, 60% of GDP is generated in rural areas. The critical barrier to doing business in rural regions is distribution access, not a lack of buying power, but new information technology and communications infrastructures – especially wireless – promise to become an inexpensive way to establish marketing and distribution channels in these communities. [9]

CURRENT STATE OF CSR IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

It is argued that the practice of CSR is a work in progress. The idea of evolution of CSR as a concept clearly envisages the fact that it has mainly evolved through an active participation of the developed world, and then it got internationalized, and ultimately it is in a process of reaching to the developing ones also. In the present scenario, no matter what kind of effect it is producing, but it is propagating at a very fast pace, in the developing countries due to the ample market available therein. It has been seen that the developing countries also opened up their economy and whole-heatedly welcomed the advent of foreign companies into their territory as a part of their liberalization strategies. It has been quite beneficial for the foreign investors as well, since the developing countries enrich them with huge profitable market. With increased emphasis on the profit-making, the CSR development agenda has definitely taken a backseat in the developing countries. In his analysis of the relationship between companies and poorer local communities, Newell concluded that “mainstream CSR approaches assume a set of conditions that do not exist in most of the world. CSR can work, for some people, in some places, on some issues, some of the time” [10] . And in the process, the CSR looses the connect with the real life situations of the developing world.

Following are the bases on which the CSR is rendered ineffective in context of developing countries:

The Stakeholder Concept

It has been observed that, in the present time, it benefits some people and some companies in some situations. The success of CSR initiatives can be linked to the stakeholder dialogue and stakeholder engagement, who can bring together representatives of business, non-governmental and public sectors in order to identify and address aspects of social responsibility. However, in context of developing countries, this stakeholder dialogue cannot be effectively realized due to various unwanted barriers such as language, culture, education and pluralistic values, which adversely affects the negotiations and decision-making.

Moreover, one more obstacle that hampers the positive advantage of CSR in developing countries is the prioritization of the interest. As the stake-holders represents the common will of the civil society, but it depends upon their priorities and interest, the success of the CSR, for instance, those groups whose issues and problems are not taken up by the civil society organizations may also be ignored by firms. Notwithstanding the role of organized labour, the unorganized sector can rarely present a threat to a firm’s productivity, nor is the firm’s dependence on them likely to be high. Elaine Sternberg alleges that stakeholding is unworkable and destroys accountability within a firm, as the stakeholders are usually seen as all those who affect or are affected by a corporation. [11] This shows that the CSR for the unorganized sector, which represents a significant proportion of the population in developing countries (more than 50% in India) is highly neglected.

The CSR business case

It is a common practice that the companies are generally meant for their profit-maximising attributes based on the competitive advantage, and to maintain corporate reputation, the beneficial impact on staff morale, etc, and thereby the lessening the involvement of theirs in developing countries. The business case is simply the arguments and rationales as to why business people believe these concepts bring distinct benefits or advantages to companies, specifically, and the business community, generally. One of the possible explanation to the business case of the corporate is given by Simon Zadek, who says that the corporate follow the defensive approach, i.e., companies should pursue CSR to avoid the pressures that create costs for them. [12] The second approach identified by Zadek is the cost-benefit approach, which holds that firm will undertake those activities that yield a greater benefit than cost. The third approach can be that the firms will recognize the changing environment and engage in CSR as a part of a deliberate corporate strategy. As a consequence, CSR is commonly focused on add-on measures and technical solutions, to a certain extent neglecting the contextual environment or even the intended beneficiaries that are addressed by the CSR measures. In this sense, the big business-hubs only act so as to maintain their healthy reputation, and thereby neglecting their social responsibilities, and even if they pursue their social responsibilities, the interest of the developing countries is even not represented there, as the issues are normally evolved in the developed world, which are quite different to that of the developing world.

The inappropriate CSR agenda

Though CSR has evolved as an umbrella concept, but still there many issues which are left unaddressed under the ambit of CSR, and which renders the effective applicability of CSR in developing countries, a potentially difficult task to achieve. The CSR agenda are mainly framed in developed countries, and hence they could not identify the practical situations faced by the developing world, like tax avoidance and transfer-pricing problems, the resource curse effects of the influx of the foreign aid or revenues, etc. This problem is ever-propagating since there is inactiveness on the part of the developing countries, mainly represented through the very few stakeholders, who do not at all represents the actual situation. The appropriateness of the CSR agenda can be ascertained once the representation of the developing countries is adequately ensured while framing the agenda, so that a more inclusive approach can be taken into consideration, including the varied concerns of the developing countries, ab initio.

POSSIBLE APPROACHES TO EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENT THE CSR IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

So far, the concept of CSR has mainly evolved through the concerns and interest of the investors, companies, campaign groups and consumers based in the developed countries. As a result of this, the CSR agenda with regard to the developing countries is very difficult to realize. It has been observed that the impact of CSR in context of the developing countries is rather negative, due to various conceptual as well as structural inadequacies. However, as observed, the developing countries are a potential hub for the growth of CSR accordingly to achieve its ultimate cherished goal of sustainable development. Although the CSR is a global phenomena, its implications can very well be sensed at the local boundaries of the individual States as well. Due to various structural differences within the developing countries, the ‘State Activism’ needs to be enhanced to properly harvest the ripe benefits of the CSR initiatives. The States need to mould the national policies so as to recognize the concerns of the stakeholders of the developed countries. The following initiatives could go a long way for procuring the positive outcome of the CSR in developing Countries:

Free acces to market

As it is well-known that the markets in the developing countries provides for a potential market and the CSR mainly acts through the stake-holders, the CSR objectives can be effectively realized by making possible maximum number of participation from the consumers, so that minute interest of the consumers which are often neglected being unidentified, can be given due consideration. The market policies of the States should be so formulated, as to promote extended participation from the consumers. This becomes especially relevant as more and more companies from developing countries are globalizing and needing to comply with international stock market listing requirements, including various forms of sustainability performance reporting and CSR code compliance.

Socio-Political Reforms

The Government of the developing countries should induce political reforms so that the problems and issues at the ground level can be identified, and then only the CSR initiatives could be effectively realized forthwith. For example, De Oliveira (2006) argues that the political and associated social and economic changes in Latin America since the 1980s, including democratization, liberalization, and privatization, have shifted the role of business towards taking greater responsibility for social and environmental issues. [13]

Enhancing the investment incentives

It is a common assumption that there is not much scope for investment in the poorer countries as they are largely occupied by the fulfilling of their basic requirements. There comes the responsibility of the concerned Government to frame policies so as to promote ‘socially responsible investment’ (SRI), so that the corporate houses could be attracted to invest in the developing countries. For instance, In some developing countries, like South Africa, the SRI trend is well documented (AICC, 2002). In addition to featuring prominently in the SRI movement in the 1980s through the anti-apartheid disinvestment phenomenon, since 1992, South Africa has introduced more than 20 SRI funds nationally which track companies’

social, ethical, and environmental performance (Visser, 2005a).

Propagating Stakeholder Activism

As discusses earlier, that the CSR mainly works with respect to the stakeholders, who have certain pecuniary interest in the whereabouts of the business house, and they represent a very segregated part of the actual mass of population, and hence, the interest of the large part of the developing world could not be identified. The stakeholders are generally confined in the furtherance of their own petty interest, and therefore, it becomes impossible for the Corporate to identify the interests of the consumers at large. And hence, the onus shifts on the concerned government to intiate such policies to enhance stakeholder activism. In the developing world, the stakeholders agencies such as NGOs, Trade Unions, International Business Associations could be mobilized to ensure their participation in CSR activities, as they represent the class of stakeholders who mainly work at the primary level and are well aware of the existing issues and circumstances. Newell identifies the Stakeholder Activism in developing countries as civil regulation, litigation against companies, which go a long way in procuring the interest of the developing world. There are numerous examples of civil regulation in action in the developing world of which South Africa is a rather striking case in point. This has manifested itself mainly through community groups challenging companies over whether they are upholding the constitutional rights of citizens. Various landmark cases between 1994 and 2004 suggest that, although civil society still tends

to lack capacity and resources in South Africa, this has been an effective strategy. Stakeholder activism has also taken a constructive approach towards encouraging CSR, through groups like the National Business Initiative and partnerships between business and NGOs. [14]

The theory of ‘Organizational Legitimacy’ as a possible solution the implementation of CSR in developing Countries

This theory of ‘Organizational Legitimacy’ can have various dimensions, but through a strategic view-point, the focus rests on the organization and assumes a relatively high degree of managerial control over the legitimating process. In the institutionalist tradition, a broader perspective is taken (“society looking in”), focusing on how organisations or groups of organisations adapt to their institutional environments in order to manage legitimacy. Here, legitimacy is not seen as an operational resource, but rather as a set of external constraints, forming the actions of the organization. [15] Therefore, this theory of organizational legitimacy imposes upon the business houses, a certain kind of ethical constraints, to be complied with, for effective implementation of the CSR agenda. Suchman defined Legitimacy “as a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions”. This definition denotes the principle of moral legitimacy which the organizations follow to appear consistent with one’s external expectations in order to be able to continue business as usual. This theory need not be made universally applicable as in the judgment whether an organization and its actions are legitimate or not, is rather socially construed, and therefore subject to change depending upon the socio-political environment, the organization is established into.

CONCLUSION

In view of the above discussion, it is well-evident that the CSR has not been able to properly stretch its tentacles in the developing world, due to various conceptual and structural obstacles. The reason could be primarily attributed to the fact that mostly the issues are not recognized and thus have not come forth within the ambit of the CSR agenda, due to the shortcomings in the policies of the developing countries.

It is pertinent to observe the conceptual aspects of the CSR beyond the customary approaches being carried thereon. It cannot be necessarily assumed that CSR is ineffective in context of developing countries, rather there is problem with the identification and acknowledgement, of the issues which needs to be addressed. If the CSR standards with respect to the worker’s right and natural resource management are looked into, it is observed that for people in developing countries, it has been inadequately addressed. This issue of identification of the problems at the ground level can be mainly attributed to the fact that the stakeholders, who are primarily in touch with the CSR agenda, represent a very minimal proportion of the actual working population, and also the stakeholders are primarily bothered about their own self-interests. The policy of Stakeholder Activism initiated by certain States is a welcome move in this regard, and this could go a long way in ensuring the representation of the larger mass of population in the mainstream CSR agenda.

Thus it is inferred that the failure of CSR agenda in the developing countries is a mainly a structural inadequacy rather than any practical or procedural aberration. However, regarding CSR in the context of developing countries, the explanatory power of organizational legitimacy goes beyond its customary tradition. The institutional array of organizational legitimacy proves as a useful body of theory to inform CSR in a developing country context, since it is able to address cultural factors and goes beyond business case considerations. Therefore, the CSR initiatives being seen through the organizational legitimacy theory can effectively solve the problem of non-implementation of the CSR policies in the developing world.

It is pertinent to observe at this juncture, that ‘State Activism’ is urgently required to mobilize the dormant effect of the CSR policies, in the developing countries. The State needs to frame regulations and policies, in their municipal laws so that CSR initiatives could reach to the people at large, rather than being confined to the minor stakeholders. The ineffective realization of the CSR policies is mainly a structural aberration, which needs to be solved by taking into consideration the issues and problems at the ground level.

Transformations in agriculture, natural resource management, exploited tourism, and absentee ranch ownership have changed the face of many rural communities. Several of these changes and other factors have led many rural communities to experience serious declines in their economies during the past decades. These changes have been exacerbated by recent economic hardships further depleting the economy and resources of rural communities. Thus, the precursors and consequences of poverty for families in these communities deserve attention. While Wilson (1987) brought the demographic changes related to urban poverty to light, larger explanations of rural poverty have been less of a research focus. Families living in rural communities are sometimes expected to be buffered by the effects of poverty by maintaining strong family and community connections. However, many of the changes related to family structures and community involvement that often lead to negative outcomes have also become characteristics of rural living (MacTavish & Salamon, 2003). In studying rural families in poverty, I propose two theoretical perspectives, symbolic interaction theory and social exchange theory that can help guide research and illuminate some of the issues related to families in poverty in such communities.

Symbolic Interaction Theory

Symbols are used by humans, according to their contexts, to describe the meaning behind physical objects and occurrences. Socialization is considered the propellant of symbols in society. Individuals comprehend situations through symbols and perceived roles of self and others. Human behaviors actualize through the process of perceiving symbols and roles (White & Kline, 2002; Blumer, 1967; Mead). Thus, symbolic interaction theory emphasizes how people perceive themselves within and outside the family environment. Several assumptions are captured in this theory, including that people live in a symbolic world, people learn about selves through interactions with others, individuals have minds and can analyze the self, and people learn their roles within society from the society (White & Kline, 2002). Thus, images and symbols are found throughout the ecological system, including how the individual perceives, family interactions, and community interactions found within a rural community. Symbols about rural living are also carried throughout the broader macro system and expectations of the larger society. Symbolic interaction sheds light on rural families coping in poverty on two important fronts. First, understanding the symbols, meaning, and interactions related to poor families in the community can bring awareness to communities and hopefully allow for more social mobility among their residents. Second, understanding the symbols, meanings, and interactions within the family can help families sense of cohesion and ability to cope (Kaplan & Hennon, 1990; Turner).

Stigmatized symbols related to poverty are often made explicit as a person conducts their daily life. For example, using food stamps at the grocery store especially in a small community is in full view. A family in poverty cannot hide this in private life; there is typically not a front about this (Goffman, 1963). Poor youth in schools will confront meanings about the clothes they wear (name brand or not) and what it means to stand in line for a free or reduced lunch. Students from families who may be struggling to make ends meet may need to stay in after school programs which may also hold a negative connotation with other school youth (McLoyd et al. 2009; Pogash, 2008). These negative connections to symbols may follow families and youth throughout a lifetime in rural communities. For example, a parent may have a poor interaction with the youth’s school, not knowing how to navigate its systems. The school may then come to expect a child’s poor actions and soon a youth may experience this in the grocery store and throughout the community. These interactions may then be tied to a family name. This addresses one of the several mechanisms through which stratification in a community is maintained by legitimatizing certain stereotypes (source). These are beliefs that are widely accepted and taken for granted, for instance the meaning behind a family name. Furthermore, there may be symbolic people in the community who maintain power and perhaps perpetuate poverty within a community (Bourdieu, 1986). A person may be in charge of a manufacturing company and the workers must buy all manufactured owned products by shopping at the manufacturing grocery store. Then everything goes back into the system where a small group of people or one family retains power. For example, plantation owners gave low wage jobs to keep poor in “their place” and limited their education which equaled low literacy rates for workers. Thus, people in poverty cannot move upward. This has often also happen through racism in the US. Thus, it would be important to understand who has the symbolic power in a community and it may be important to trace this back further than expected in order to clearly understand the history of a region and how certain families have maintained power or even remained poor (Duncan, 1996). A lack of distrust of certain families can occur and arbitrary power can be carried over into the state of contemporary communities. Hence, people forget to see the political nature of their problems and poverty gets seen as a personal problem as highlighted through Mill’s (1956) concept on the sociological imagination.

Finally, the researcher may meet with families to understand how symbols within their one family unit are carried out. This has been used as a helpful therapy tool for families in conflict. Many poor families experience extreme stress related to a lack of resources and so understanding the role strain within families and different meanings attributed to certain actions would also be important for families in poverty (Kaplan & Hennon, 1990; Turner; Seccombe, 2006).

Thus, regarding research questions, the researcher may pose several inquiries related to the symbolic power in the community and the symbolism related to being poor in the community. The researcher would ask about the certain families that have power in the community. What does it mean to live in a certain area of town? What actions are socially approved in the community? When do you feel like your family is not receiving social approval? How is social status distributed in the community? Also, family members would be asked how they view their specific situation within their family. What burdens do they experience because of their role in the family? What is the meaning behind certain conflicts in their family?

Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange theory can help researchers consider why families stay in their communities when there may be other alternatives out of poverty if they moved. Social exchange theory describes the characteristics and motivations for humans’ social behaviors by a system of perceived rewards and costs. Social exchange theory arose out of utilitarian ideas, emphasizing how people are motivated to act in relationships by maximizing their perceived rewards and minimizing their perceived costs. A reward is anything perceived as a benefit to an individual, family, or relational unit; costs are anything perceived as a reward forgone. Social exchange theory asserts that people rationally calculate while assessing decisions based on the profit ratio of costs and rewards (White & Kline, 2002). Theorist such as Homans (1961) believed in generalized rewards that most people would adhere to – he suggested social approval as the main generalized reward and motivator for humans. Other theorists have proposed generalized rewards such as love, personal attraction, instrumental services, respect, and power (Blau, 1964), status, services, goods, information, and money (Foa & Foa, 1980), autonomy, predictability, security, agreement, and equality of resources (Nye, 1979).

Thus, a researcher would assume that a family would rationally calculate about why they decide to stay in a rural environment in poverty when there may be other alternatives. The researcher would want to understand how families’ situations may apply to the described rewards or costs above. The other alternatives for families must also be understood. The value and meaning of living in a rural community must be elucidated; thus, ideas related to symbolic interaction would also be employed to enhance understanding. On one hand, families’ choice to live in a rural environment may have higher benefits compared to the costs of living in an urban environment. We must understand what the costs mean to families. The benefits and costs may relate to rural living sentiments (Elder & Conger, 2000). Rural families may view a huge cost associated with moving and starting over in a new community. A benefit for staying would be familiarity, perhaps a connection to the land, and social supports in the community (Elder & Conger, 2000). However, a cost of living in the rural environment may be unsteady work and lack of job opportunities. We might also want to consider why poor young adults would choose to stay in the rural community versus leaving the rural community. The researcher would want to understand the costs and benefits of things associated with leaving and going. What are the social stigmas associated with staying or leaving? What job opportunities, educational attainment, marriage choices, and lifestyle choices exist relative to leaving or staying? We would also want to clearly understand the comparison levels of alternatives for the families in poverty. If they see limited job opportunities in new areas, the comparison level is low and they will not be motivated to move. This may be the case for young adults as well, if they view the comparison level of alternatives as low they will likely stay where they are. However, if the comparison level of alternatives is high, they will likely move and change their situation (White & Kline, 2002). Homans (1961) also thought people gravitate toward social equals as people can gain more social approval this way, what he labeled “the cost of inferiority”. This may help explain why certain parts of a town remain more poverty stricken as people with similar social and human capital gravitate toward one another. It might also be important to understand how this has worked out in community life in a rural environment.

The researchers may also want to understand these choices at a larger macro level. In this view, parents, schools, and government make investments in the human and social capital of families and children (Haveman & Wolfe, 1994; Strauss). Thus, the researcher may meet with community leaders to understand how they are investing in poor families and youth to understand their cost to benefit ratio. Do they see investments in the social mobility of families as reaping long term benefits that outweigh the social problems related to poverty?

Regarding specific research questions, we would want to ask specifically what the advantages of staying in the rural community are. What are the costs of leaving and what are the costs of staying? We would want to clearly understand the meaning of the costs and rewards through in depth qualitative interviews. What does rural living mean to them? These would be similar questions also relevant to the symbolic interaction questions. What symbols are associated with moving and how does this lead to views related to costs or rewards? Why do families live in certain areas of the community? What are the cost and benefits to community leaders of helping poor families with social mobility?

Related to the two theoretical perspectives, the types of data the researcher collects would also be important. Associated to symbolic interaction we would want to do in depth observations in the community trying to understand the different symbols related to statuses and families in the community. This would require observations at several institutions; the researchers would meet with people from all different power statuses within the community. We would hopefully gain access to the private life of several families where perhaps less filtering is done (Goffman, 1963). We may ask many clarifying questions related to the symbols and reflect on our own biases about these symbols. We would want to look for places within the community and related to different families where these symbols matched or had discrepancies. Related to social exchange theory, we would likely gain the most information from the in-depth interviews with families and young adults understanding the exact costs and benefits these families associate with their lives. Our work with symbolic interaction theory would most likely enhance our understanding of the benefits and rewards related to these families as they reflect on why they stay or go. Data should also be collected on community leaders regarding their views of the costs and benefits related to assisting poor families in their community.

Limitations

The suggested theories may lead the researcher to many interesting questions and data collection efforts, however, the suggested theories also pose several limitations. Social exchange theory for instance is a bit behaviorist, implying all human interaction is a response to a benefit/cost ratio. Researchers must account for the symbols related to rewards and costs as rewards may be unseen and not understood by others. A closed system of understanding rewards may be found in several communities (Acock). Clearly defining rewards and costs would be an important first step before asserting research entirely from a social exchange theorists view point. Clearly, this is an area where symbolic interaction could enhance social exchange theory.

Furthermore, asserting that humans always act rationally may be an overstatement. Social exchange theory may also not account for individuals of younger ages who have not fully developed their ability to calculate rationally. Social exchange theory also asserts that individuals are motivated by their own self-interests, some theorists have allowed for people to act in the best interest of their families but clearly understanding the mechanisms of how an individual’s desires transform into the family’s self-interest may pose a hardship in research (White & Kline, 2002). Understanding these explicit processes is an area for future research. Additionally, decisions based on the profit/cost ratio may be made sub-consciously and bringing this subconscious information into the forefront of research may also pose challenges. However, it is important to examine the cost and rewards associated with why people choose to stay in or leave rural communities as these reasons are critical for the economic vitality and in understanding how to encourage others to move or stay within their community. Understanding these motivations for young adults and youth who will be the face of rural communities in the future is especially important. Understanding the exchanges for families in poverty is also important to ascertain mechanisms that may help their social mobility.

Symbolic interaction may also pose limitations in this study. Symbolic interaction does not deal very well with how people handle emotions (White & Kline, 2002). When looking at coping in poverty, emotions certainly play a large role in how families deal with their situation. Furthermore, this type of research is hard to generalize to other communities or cultures as the symbols used are likely only highly relevant to the community being researched. Symbolic interaction also emphasizes the importance of meaning to individuals – how the individual views others, is viewed by others, and behaves related to meaning. As this research is specifically studying families, it may be hard to keep the unit of analysis as a family group. Symbolic interaction tends to view the family as a collection of individuals. This may or may not pose issues with the research depending on the unit of analysis of interest.

The “sexual revolution” opened the way for greater expression and practise of female sexuality, at least in Western cultures. However, society has historically and still does exert control over female sexuality. This control, in fact, underlies men’s general control of women in society. Such control is accomplished through gender definition and social pressure, and economic and political oppression.

First, women are conditioned to certain, often oppressive, gender roles by hegemonically male society. Connell (1995) first introduced the term ‘hegemonic masculinity’ as a description of the most valued definition of manhood in a given society. He held that whilst in any society there are many possible types of masculinity, only a few will be the most valued or “ideal” (Connell, 1995). Society then provides power and benefit to males fitting in this hegemonic definition, establishing their dominance in relation to what is considered feminine and in relation to other, less ideal masculinities. As such, hegemonic masculinity becomes justification for both the hegemonically masculine man’s domination of women and over other men (Cohn and Weber, 1999).

For example, Butler (1990) found that most women are trained from early childhood that caring for a home and family are appropriate women’s activities. She describes how little girls are given dolls and encouraged to nurture, versus little boys who are given blocks and encouraged to build things. Certain behaviours are also considered acceptable for girls but not boys, and vice versa. Girls are allowed to cry and be more emotionally expressive in their gender roles. Boys are allowed to be more aggressive and assertive (Butler, 1990). In terms of female sexuality, girls are often taught to be “little ladies,” who do not spread their legs whilst wearing a dress or express their sexuality. Female sexuality is presented as something to be guarded, and young women are encouraged to be “good girls.” Such gender roles are reinforced by various authority figures, such as teachers and parents. Barnes (2003) finds social workers, for example, will often assume a “disciplinary gaze” to communicate their understandings of appropriate behaviour for women, typically reinforcing traditional gender roles (149).

Gender roles tend to be more strongly reinforced and women’s sexuality typically more constrained when opportunities for women outside the home expand. For example, during World War II, when many women occupied jobs traditionally held by men, there is strong reference in the media regarding chaste women as “patriotic” (Hegarty, 1998). “‘Promiscious’ female sexuality became a prime target during wartime” (Hegarty 1998, 115). Acceptable male behaviour of the same period, however, included “drinking, gambling, fighting, and picking up women” (Hegarty, 1998, 121).

Hegarty (1998) describes in society how the “virtuous wife / mother and virginial daughter, devoted to domestic pursuits in their place – the home” is often presented as “a symbolic measure of social stability” (113). Sexually open women, in contrast, are considered “deviant” and refered to by negative language such as “slut,” “whore,” and “prostitute.” There are few negative words in the English language that refer to a sexually open man. Male virgins are often a subject of ridicule in movies and television, whilst promiscious women have historically been portrayed in the media and in culture as destructive to individuals and society, and as spreaders of venereal disease (Hegarty, 1998).

These gender roles, embedded in Western society and reinforced through family, authority figures, and the media, create social pressures that exert control over women’s sexual activity. Whilst there has certainly been a relaxation of attitudes towards sex in recent decades, women are still expected to exert more restraint and control than men regarding their sexuality and sexual practices, and are more likely to be judged or condemned for sexual openness.

Economic and political oppression is another way that female sexuality is controlled. In some cultures and countries, this is through political legislation or religious rules. For example, women in many Arab countries, such as Saudia Arabia, are not legally allowed to vote, drive cars, or own property (Berk, 1985). Religious restrictions in some Muslim countries even prevent women from wearing anything but a very loose garment or from uncovering their heads in public, lest they “entice” a man. This strongly portrays such reaction from men to women’s appearance as the woman’s fault. Such practice occurs in Western society to a lesser extent, although not regluated by legislation. Victims of rape, for example, are often portrayed as enticingly dressed or “loose” in their sexual expressions as justification for such crimes (Butler, 1990).

A number of countries with strong religious foundations for their governments also directly legislate birth control and abortions, thereby exerting political control over female sexuality. Many countries with Muslim or Catholic foundations to their government restrict the use of birth control and do not allow abortions for any reason (Butler, 1990). As such, these governments control female sexuality, as women must then be concerned regarding unwanted pregnancy, often curtailing their sexual activity. Men obviously do not face such issues, and are therefore less curtailed by such laws (Butler, 1990).

Economically, unequal vocational opportunities and a social responsibility for housework place many women in a dependent state on the men in their lives. A woman with small children and little work experience, for example, is in a much more difficult economic condition to leave her husband or make decisions contrary to his wishes (Berk, 1985). Baxter (2001), in review of multiple studies on gender and housework , concludes “women do a much larger proportion of child care and routine indoor housework tasks than men, regardless of marital status,” educational attainment, or vocational duties (19). Such duties leave them in an economically dependent state, where their sexual wishes are often subverted to accomodate the men on whom they depend (Oakley, 1974).

Acceptable expression of sexuality, therefore, becomes one that is either controlled by or designed to serve men (Butler, 1990). For example, pictures of attractive women provacatively dressed in popular magazines serve as both a reinforcement to women that their attractiveness to men is of prime importance, and provide men with stimulating pictures. Hawkesworth (1997) contends that many men would be happy to look at such pictures, but not for their wives or daughters to dress or portray themselves as such in public. As such, women are constrained to dress or behave a certain way at the bidding of men, not as a direct expression of their own wants or desires (Hawkesworth, 1997)

Such social pressure, political and economic oppression allow not only control of women’s sexuality, but of a more general control of women by men in society. As social systems were typically designed by men and with their best interests in mind (such as the wife staying home to ‘serve’ her husband, whilst he participates in career and other interests and even equally employed women retaining responsiblity for many hours of unpaid household labour each week), the control of women and keeping of them “in their place” becomes a need in regard to stability (Oakely, 1974, Hegarty, 1998). Expressions of women that conflict with such traditional power relationships, including that of female sexuality, therefore threaten both the fabric of society and the power position of men within it.

REFERENCES

Barnes, A. 2003. Social Work, Young Women, and Femininity. Affilia, Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2003, pp. 148-164.

Baxter, J. 2001. Marital status and the division of household labour. Family Matters, Vol. 58, Autumn 2001, pp. 16-21.

Berk, S. F. 1985. The Gender Factory. Plenum: New York.

Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge: London.

Cohn, C., Weber, C. 1999. Missions, Men and Masculinities. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 1999, pp. 460-475.

Connell, R. 1995. Masculinities. Polity Press: Cambridge.

Hawkesworth, M. 1997. Confounding Gender. Signs, Vol. 22, No. 3, Spring 1997, pp. 649-685.

Hegarty, M. 1998. Patriot or prostitute? Sexual discourses, print media, and American women during World War II. Journal of Women’s History, Vol. 10, No. 2, Summer 1998, pp. 112-36.

Oakley, A. 1974. Housewife. Pantheon: London.