toptermpaper.com

The concepts of a nation in which individuals are left open the idea identifying with a territory calling it their identity gave way for the concept of nationalism. Nationalism in its context makes people conscious of the fact that they belong to a nation. This coupled with sentiments of security looking for advancement of the nation will enable visualise nationalism as the whole process of forming and maintaining nations or nation. [1]

Like Marx and Engels agreed with the theory of ideology as a system of beliefs that falsely stimulates the awareness of workers under an economic system established on private ownership of capital, Nationalism employs the concept of nation to achieve its political objectives thus serving as a political ideology.

Whether nationalism depicts an ideology in the sense that it can be seen as a political movement or a collective sentiment of shared identity or a form of loyalty or attachment to the state or a process of nation-building or a set of symbols and myths expressed through a common language or a proactive sentiment and behaviour towards protecting and enhancing the nation’s cultural heritage, it still has its philosophies centred around the visual modalities of psychological impacts in a community to the end that the nation is believed to be the vault for supreme loyalty [2] .

Nation in this context is referred to as a “large social group integrated by a combination of various kinds of objective relationships which includes economic, political, linguistic, cultural, religious, geographical, historical, and their subjective reflection in collective consciousness” [3]

In harmony with its own system of beliefs, Nationalism assumes that in an international pluralism perspective the world is naturally divided into different distinct existence called ‘nations’, each with its own indigenous right to exist, self-rule and be free from foreign encroachment. Although nationalism is perceived to lack political content rather encompasses national identity [4] it assumes that in light of politics being legally authorized, the nation is the ultimate source of political power for the person who rules it. It further supports that each nation has the right to determine it one’s own fate and to embark on its course of action without compulsion [5] . No wonder Breuilly referred to Nationalism as “political movements seeking or exercising state power and justifying such actions with nationalist arguments.” [6]

Taking a close look at how famous individuals define nationalism and comparing views, Handler, described “Nationalism in an anthropologic perspective as an ideology about individuated being. It is an ideology concerned with boundedness, continuity, and homogeneity encompassing diversity. It is an ideology in which social reality, conceived in terms of nationhood, is endowed with the reality of natural things” [7] while Breuilly from a historical perspective relates nationalism with political movements seeking or exercising state power. [8]

Accepting that there are normative differences between nationalist movements does not put in plain words why nationalism has taken such different forms in different societies. Therefore approaching this from an analytical angle will better explain the issue through classifying these dissimilarities.

Beginning with the class of nationalism that absorbs or incorporates culturally distinctive territories in a given state, this State-building type of nationalism which emerged as a result of the premeditated efforts of key leaders who turned a multicultural population into a population of uniform culture is exemplified in the period between the sixteenth and twentieth century when the leaders of England and France attempted to promote the growth of homogeneity by causing populations with distinct cultures in the Celtic regions to assimilate to their own culture. But in as much as this type of nationalism tends to focus primarily on culture, the underlying principle is often motivated by the effects of economic geography on the controlling influence of the state. Conversely, key rulers of a certain culture can unify their country by expelling or exterminating populations of unfamiliar culture.

In order to understand the general inclusive concept of nationalism as an ideology, a system of assumptions and standards that warrants the term and gives it meaning needs to be examined. This is why Michael Freeden logically laid out various key elements of the core structure of nationalism which in turn assists in constructing ideas that argue about and deliberate on the ideology and its application. Topping the list is “the prioritisation of a particular group – the nation – as a key constituting and identifying framework for human beings and their practices”. Followed by, “a positive valorisation is assigned to one’s own nation, granting it specific claims over the conduct of its members”. Thirdly, “the desire to give politico-institutional expression to the first two core concepts”. Fourthly, “the space and time are considered to be crucial determinants of social identity” and lastly, “‘a sense of belonging and membership in which sentiment and emotion play an important role”. [9]

Taking a critical look at the first element of nationalism, notice that nation in this context does not need any particular format to be clearly expressed because it might be envisaged as an entity of the same kind or with different and diverse ethnic, religious, or political backgrounds. Yet, regardless of this imagination, the state of being a nation will always inhibit other modes of categorising the humanity of a particular nation. In light of the above, recognizing that liberal nationalism adopts the existence of entities with the sources of identity and illiberal nationalism incorporates other areas under nationality, therefore in a similar way, the outcome of these nationalist classifications may either be affected equally or given support, the possible ways of assigning political ‘community’ in different categories will be reached. In the Functional aspect of this classification, people often identify with functional rather than territorial groups. This was why Marx, applied his awareness of this belief when he said: “Workers of the world unite!” [10] , a request for workers all over to become unified against the unfair conditions they shared, irrespective of their nationalities.

While the second method is focused on religion which ascertains and sets off loyalties that hardly lean on territorial location or boundaries. In many cases a factor of time and uncontrollable conditions can dramatically change religion as well as gender and class. The third method revolves around regionally and globally.

Having looked at the first key element of the core structure of nationalism, let us examine the second element which explains a nation that identifies with a pluralistic community where members with different ethnic, religious, or political backgrounds exist has slim chances to establish or make certain broad principles or rules centred on its expectations on the behavioural attributes of its members. Conversely, a nation that identifies with a uniform type of homogenous culture has the tendency to control its members. While valorisation in this context includes all spheres of “loyalty demands” and “superiority claims” there is no definite vital link between racism and nationalism. And even though this statement clearly connected with the former parliamentary government of Europe, for instance, the victory of National Front Fascist, Jean-Marie Le Pen in becoming one of the final two candidates to settle a tied election by running for the French presidency in 2002, the reverse was the case for liberal classes of nationalism belonging to the era of colonies becoming independent from the country that used to control them. [11]

Avner made a very important point concerning the forth element of nationalism that over the years, people give emotional attachment to their land [12] . For instance scenarios likened to Africans seeing themselves as sons of their motherland (nation). This depicts a broad view of the concept of nationalism which refers to its land boundaries, people living within the territory; history of people of the land as well as their culture and traditions usually makes people have a sense of belonging to the nation.

CONCLUSION:

After minutely examining the various subjective explanations of the meaning of nationalism both in an ideological perspective and with reference to nation, it is obvious that nationalism is a multilateral and powerful political ideology. Despite the fact that there are normative differences between nationalist movements, in a conclusive way, the elements of nationalism that served in constructing ideas that argue about and deliberate on the ideology and its significance.

Jonung defines the presence of occupational gender segregation as when women and men are differently spread across occupations than is consistent with their overall shares of employment, irrespective of the nature of job allocation. Gender segregation mean when the percentage of one gender is higher than that of males and females in an occupation. It reflects the gender differences in employment opportunity. The number of occupation with segregation against women is far greater than the number of occupations with segregation against men. Occupational gender segregation consists of two main component dimensions known as horizontal and vertical segregation (Blackburn et al, 2000).

Horizontal segregation is known as under or over representation of certain group in the workplace which is not ordered by any criterion (Bettio and Verashchagina, 2009). According to Anker (1998) horizontal segregation is an absolute and universal characteristic of contemporary socio-economic systems.

It focuses mainly when men and women possess different physical, emotional and mental capabilities. Such discrimination occurs when women are categorized as less intelligent, hormonal and sensitive (Acker 1990). Women are labeled as unreliable and dependent workers when they are pregnant. They are less competent as they will not work as long and hard as others. They become more stressful and sensible to tiny issues happen in the workplace. Martin (1994) declared that in masculine management style, most of the time women possess ‘soft skills’ and men possess ‘hard skills’. It is this concept which creates gender segregation in the workplace.

Vertical segregation referred to the under or over representation of a clearly identifiable group of workers in the workplace at the top of an ordering based on ‘desirable’ attributes such as income, prestige, authority and power.

Huffman (1995) finds that women do not possess enough supervisory authority at work, in education, occupational experience and prestige. One reason that women lack authority is because most women are more concentrated in female-dominated occupations which comprise fever position of authority than male-dominated occupations. Moreover, it is viewed that men’s have greater status value, that is men’s personality are more valuable than women’s and they are much more competent. (Broverman et al. 1972; Deaux and Kite 1987; Eagly 1987).

Men possess more powerful position in the workplace (Bridges & Nelson 1989). Women’s wage rates are lower than men’s even when their qualifications are similar. As women enter an occupation, this reduces the amount of prestige associated with the task and men leave these occupations.

Sex discrimination-discrimination, harassment and glass ceiling

In many parts of the world, women have experienced breakthroughs in their rights in employment. Despite these advances, women from every country and culture continue to face sex discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace. The international community has recognized both discrimination based on sex in the terms and conditions of employment and sexual harassment as violations of the fundamental human rights of women (Gudrun and Danya, 1998)

Although sex discrimination is prohibited by law, it continues to be a widespread problem for working women. There are three forms of sex discrimination that have an effect on women in organizations: overt discrimination, sexual harassment and the glass ceiling. Each has negative effects on women’s status and ability to perform well at work.

Overt discrimination

Overt discrimination is defined as the use of gender as a decisive factor for employment-related decisions. This type of discrimination was targeted by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited making decisions based on sex in employment-related matters such as hiring, firing, and promotions.

It consist such behaviours as to refuse to hire women, to pay them inequitably or even to steer them to “women’s jobs”. Overt discrimination also led to occupational sex segregation where jobs are classified by low pay, low status and short career ladders (Reskin, 1997).

Sexual Harassment

MacKinnon (1979:1) defined sexual harassment as “the unwanted imposition of sexual requirements in the context of a relationship of unequal power”. As in overt discrimination, sexual harassment is a persistent gendered problem for women in the workplace around the world. Sexual harassment, a form of sex discrimination, is but one manifestation of the larger problem of employment-related discrimination against women. It now appears obvious that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination.

There are three psychological dimensions of sexual harassment that continued to persist worldwide: sexual coercion, gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention ((Fitzgerald et al., 1995; Gelfand et al., 1995). The case of sexual harassment in the workplace is mainly due to obtain more power and status than the opposite sex (e.g., Baugh, 1997; McKinney, 1992; Piotrkowski, 1998; Riger, 1991; Welsh, 1999)

Statistical discrimination is another form of sex discrimination in the workplace, it consists of sex-typed job assignment (i.e. “error discrimination”-Aigner & Cain 1977, England & McCreary 1987, Bielby & Baron 1986a). For example, employers segregate men into jobs with physical demands and women into jobs demanding social skills (Bielby & Baron 1984, Farkas et al 1991). However, employers’ use of sex in job assignments exceeds technical or economic justifications: within the “mixed-sex” occupations that either sex could presumably perform, small differences in job requirements were accompanied by large differences in sex composition (Bielby & Baron 1986a:782).

The Glass ceiling

The term ‘the glass ceiling’ refers to invisible or artificial barriers that do not allow women from advancing past a certain level (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission -FGCC, 1997; Morrison and von Glinow, 1990).

These barriers reflect “discrimination … a deep line of demarcation between those who prosper and those left behind.” The glass ceiling is the “unseen, yet unbreachable barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements” (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission 1995b:4; emphasis added). This official description suggests that the definition of a glass ceiling must recognize that it reflects a job inequality that is unexplained by a person’s past “qualifications or achievements”; it reflects labor market discrimination, not just labor market inequality. The usual, but imperfect, method for detecting discrimination is to look for inequalities that are unexplained by prior characteristics of the employees. Inequalities that derive from past discrimination in education or training or from choices that people make to pursue nonmarket goals such as family, volunteer work, or leisure are not generally considered as part of a glass ceiling. Therefore, glass ceiling inequality represents a gender or racial difference that is not explained by other job-relevant characteristics of the employee.

The glass ceiling is a third type of discrimination that affects women in the workplace and it is an important factor for women who do not get enough access to power and status in organizations. It also includes gender stereotypes, lack of opportunities for women to get promotion and prevent women to get higher income than men.

Hell’s Angel is book that gives you the brutal truth about the life after war in America. It gives personal insights to how the sub cultural life in the United States was impacted by the consequences of war. The book isn’t intended for the politically sensitive or readers who expect a romantic perspective of the post-war sub-cultural life in America.

It is a compelling and captivating personal account of a Sony Barger’s life and the scrapes that he managed to get into. Born in California in the year 1938, Barger spent his younger years growing up in Oakland. This was between the early 1940s and 1950s. His mother abandoned him when he was hardly four months old. Barger lived with an alcoholic father and an elder sister. He relay s that he was suspended from school on more than one occasion for physically attacking teachers and fighting with other students.

However looking back at those times now, Barger states that he doesn’t look upon himself as a bully or aberrant person. Despite of losing interest in school he continued to spend a major part of his time reading and working at a grocery store. He emphasizes that he didn’t resort to robbery or stealing. When he enlisted in the army in 1955, he was kicked out fourteen years later after it was found that he was underage (sixteen) and had submitted a forged certificate.

His return from the army led him to a few tedious jobs but he didn’t continue with them for long. He was on the lookout for a purpose in his life, a reason why he existed and he was to discover with time that his purpose in life would later turn out to be a member of a motorcycle club.

While still in high school Barger organized his first club called “Earth Angels” in 1954. Two years later, in 1956, he became the founding member of his first bike club namely Oakland Panthers. He left the club as fast as he had managed to make it because he felt a lacking of unity. In his own words said that he quit the club very early even though he was one of the starting members. Although they use to party a lot and he use to love it, but then there more selfishness than brotherhood.

He talked to some fellow bikers about starting another club, and suggested they name it “Hell’s Angels” after a patch that one of these fellows, Boots Don Reeves wore. The patch had a skull on it wearing an aviator cap and a set of wings. They went along with the idea and got more patches of the same design made in April 1957(Lavigne, 2004).

What is deviance?

“Deviance in a sociological context describes actions or behaviors that violate cultural norms including formally-enacted rules (e.g., crime) as well as informal violations of social norms (e.g., rejecting folkways and mores). It is the purview of sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and criminologists to study how these norms are created, how they change over time and how they are enforced.

Stephen Pfohl has described nine methods of conceiving deviant behavior.”

It is evident from the book that Sonny Barger was totally engaged in deviant behavior. However he failed to perceive his behavior as deviant or unnatural. He was convinced that he was doing “normal” or socially acceptable things like reading and working which he believed would balance out his deviant behavior.

The Classical Perspective

The Classical perspective as described by Pfohl was evolved from three major elements:

Rational choice

Deterrence

Incapacitation and Just Desert

The element of personal choice widely influences deviant behavior. People engage in deviant behavior on the basis of what their concept of rationality or rational choice is. Sonny Barger didn’t perceive that it was irrational to forge his birth certificate to get enlisted in the army. Why? Because people tend to choose any kind of behavior no matter if it is conforming or deviant, in Barger’s case the latter, based on their personal rational calculation. Central to this rational calculation is a cost and benefit analysis. Barger found more pleasure in deviance because it maximized his personal pleasure. Though the classical theory states that “choice can be controlled through the perception and understanding of the potential pain or punishment that will follow an act judged to be in the violation of social good” however Barger’s case was different. A complete understanding of the consequences of his act couldn’t make him stop what he was doing (Sampson, 1967).

General Deterrence is defined as follows:

“People will engage in criminal and deviant activities if they do not fear apprehension and punishment.”

Sony Barger’s case if summarized in a line can be defined as that of general deterrence. Since the beginning of his engagement in deviant behavior, he was aware of what the punishment would be but fear of punishment and apprehension didn’t exist in his mind.

The Social Disorganization Theory

This theory is believed to be one of the most important theories put forward by Chicago School. The theory directly liked high crime rates to ecological characteristics of the neighborhood. Young people from disadvantaged neighborhoods were believed to be participants of a subculture where being delinquent were an approved behavior. The youth acquired criminality through a process of social interaction in social and cultural settings.

The social theory stands on the basic principle that the location of an individual is equally important if not more with the age, gender and race of a person in determining whether they would involve themselves in illegal or criminal activities (Anne, 2004).

Taking Sonny Barger and his book into account it is evident from his family life and neighborhood description that he had a strong impact of the both on his personality and life which led him to engage in criminal activities later on in his life. Abandoned by his mother at the age of four months, and compelled to live with an alcoholic father Barger found solace in his deviant behavior. Assaulting teachers, forging birth certificates and attacking fellow students at school was all part of what he considered to be normal.

Barger has rejected the conception that Hell’s Angels was a criminal organization despite of admitting that its members have had a criminal record, most of us were card-carrying felons. He has admitted the usage of drugs when he said that acid was something we all had in common, selling illegal drug sold heroin from the late sixties into the early seventies directly to junkies, forging driver’s licenses was also printing up fake driver’s licenses.

The social disorganization theory goes on to say that some ethnicities even tend to encourage criminal activity since it is “not considered criminal or wrong”. Research has found that delinquent behavior is highest in those areas that suffer from economic problems. Economic instability and weakness is one of the major drivers of delinquent behavior.

Post World War 2 and in the 1940s and 1950s, Oakland’s shipbuilding industry disappeared and a decline in automobile industry was also observed. Jobs became scarce in this situation. The city was one of the six cities in the county that experienced one of the largest strike movements in history. All this led to the economic instability and downfall of the city and its residents. Financial instability and insecurity may have also triggered Sony Barger’s behavior of deviance and nonconformance. The lack of sense of protection and security that he faced as a child from his home, led him to constitute a club which had members who believed in supporting the fellow members and being united in even the toughest times. The story of Hell’s Angels Motorcycle club represents the best example of brotherhood in which men can even fight to death for each other without regard what the cause is. They stood up for themselves and they believe to be there no matter what happens.

The Functionalist Perspective

The functionalist perspective was shaped by Harvard sociologist Talcott Parsons during the mid of 20th century. However it has its roots in Emile Durkheim’s work. The definition of functionalism is as follows:

Functionalism has a concept that everyone in the society has some kind of purpose, which is the cause of existence.

This school of thought believes that people who are indulging in deviant behavior and nonconformance to societal norms and regulations serve a purpose as important as those who conform to the norms. A widely quoted example to explain this phenomenon is that crime, that is believed to be a nuisance by people all over the globe, is believed to serve a purpose by functionalists. It creates the justification or need of employment of lawmakers, police force, criminal investigators and more. It was concluded by Durkheim that crime and deviance serve three major functions for the society:

Deviant behavior reaffirms social norms. It helps clarify them

It promotes the concept of social unity

It questions or challenges the status quo

If Sony Barger’s life and happenings are looked at from the functionalist perspective, it rationalizes his doings. Despite of his denials that Hell’s Angels is a criminal organization or that he had engaged into any social and moral wrongdoings, his life’s account in the book will help readers realize the importance of conformance to norms. Deviance can prove to be beneficial for the society sometimes. Like in the case of Sony Barger who was convicted of conspiracy to violate federal law to commit murder and served a 4 year sentence in prison, people reading the book will realize how non-conformance will result in a negative repercussion.

Conclusion

In conclusion Sony Barger’s book “Hell’s Angel, The Life and Times of Sonny Barger and the Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Club” are a practical application of some of the major theories that have been analyzed by Stephen Pfohl in “Images of Deviance and control”. Stephen Pfohl’s work helps one gain a deeper insight on Sony Barger’s sociological perceptions and ideology. It helps you understand the reasons or factors that are behind the behavior that was adopted by Barger throughout his life.

Anomie and forced division of labour for Durkheim and rationalization and bureaucracy for Weber summed up the problem of industrial societies. Discuss.

Introduction

Emile Durkheim

Max Weber

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Anomie represents a concept that was introduced by Emile Durkheim (1997, pp. 303-304) in “The Division of Labor in Society”, which was first printed in 1893. Durkheim (1997, pp. 303-304) utilized the word to describe the deregulation of society whereby the rules representing how people should behave with respect to their interaction with each other was breaking down thus creating confusion as to what in what others expected from one another. In said book, Durkheim (1997, p. 184) advises that that term is where the moral and social norms are not clear, and the removal of behavioural limits represented a path to deviant behaviour. Durkheim is credited with turning sociology into a science as well as its installation as part of the academic curriculum on France, and is considered by many to be the father of sociology (emile-durkheim.com, 2006).

Max Weber (cepa.newschool.edu, 2007) is also recognized as one of the founders of sociology. He advises us on many instances that in the world of modernity, that the gods have deserted us (Turner, 1993, pp. 115-117). As Durkheim focused upon a set of social features that represented the subject of sociology, Weber essentially is considered as defining sociology (Marxists Internet Archive, 1999). This exercise shall delve into concepts and terms with respect to how anomie and forced division of labour under Durkheim, and rationalization and bureaucracy for Weber summed up the problem of industrial societies.

Durkheim

In defining sociology as an academic subject, Durkheim separated sociology from psychology, philosophy as well as economics and other disciplines through stating that sociologists study features of group life (About Sociology, 2007). Durkheim defines solidarity as representing the cohesion of society’s human groupings into social unity, which can consist of mechanical as well as organic (Durkheim, 1997, p. 13-14). Mechanical solidarity represents a condition whereby the individuals within a society are linked via a ‘conscience collective’ (Durkheim, 1997, pp. 61-65). The preceding represents a condition whereby the belief systems and the sentiments that are common in the citizens within the same society (Durkheim, 1997, pp. 31-33). Thus, the individuals within the society are connected, or linked to each other as a result of their common beliefs, thereby belonging to society as opposed to belonging to themselves (Durkheim, 1997, pp. 31-33). A horde is what Durkheim (1997, pp. 126-127) termed a group or collection of people whereby their cohesiveness is founded in resemblances. Such a group, horde, has no organization or form, and within this group the collective membership look upon each other as kin, whether or not such a relationship exists by blood or union (Durkheim, 1997, pp. 126-127). Within such a group, horde, punishments and responsibility are collective in action and nature and represent the more primitive, or non evolved societal types whereby individual personalities are submerged in the collectivity of the group (Durkheim, 1997, pp. 126-127).

As individuals come to rely upon others, outside of themselves for various aspects of life, they have, or are moving towards an organic solidarity (Durkheim, 1997, pp. 69-71). People become and are reliant upon each other whereby individuals have parts to contribute to society as a part of the whole, whereby responsibility to others is a trait as well as moral character (Durkheim, 1997, p. 77). The foregoing is important in understanding the interactions within society that he termed as the moral density (Durkheim, 1997, p. 201). The preceding, moral density is proportionately linked to the division of labor within a society (Turner, 1993, p. 3). Moral density represents an important factor in understanding what causes increased division of labor.

Durkheim’s (1993, pp. 113) believes in this revolved around two facets that he thought were responsible for the preceding, material density and social volume. The former, Durkheim states is (Turner, 1993, p. 113):

“Social life is based on a substratum whose size and form alike are determined. It is made up of the mass of individuals that constitute society, the manner of their geographical distribution and the nature and configuration of the whole range of phenomena that affect collective relations. The social substratum varies in relation to the size or density of the population, to whether it is concentrated in towns or scattered in rural areas, to the layout of the towns and houses, to whether the space occupied by the society concerned is large or small, to the kind of frontiers by which it is bounded, to the transport links which run the length and breadth of it, etc, On the other hand, the makeup of this substratum directly or indirectly affects all social phenomena, in the same way as all psychic phenomena are in mediate or immediate relation to the state of the brain. So these are all problems that are patently concerned with sociology and which, as they all refer to the same object, must be part of one science. It is this science we propose to call social morphology.”

Social volume, Durkheim states is (Turner, 1993, p. 116):

“…as the various elements constituting the group grow more numerous, yet without at the same time ceasing to be closely connected, individuals can only hold their own if they become differentiated, if each chooses a task and a lifestyle of his own in this enlarged battlefield, where the intensity of the struggle grows in keeping with the number of the combatants. The division of labor thus becomes the primary condition of social equilibrium. And indeed, this simultaneous increase in the volume and density of societies is the major new element distinguishing the nations of today from those of former times; this is probably one of the principal factors dominating history as a whole; at any rate, it is the cause which explains the transformations which social solidarity has undergone.”

Durkheim (Turner, 1993, pp. 98-99) brings together the facets of anomie, organic solidarity and “the abnormal forms of the division of labor” through “distinguished three pathological forms: the anomic, the enforced division of labor, and ‘another abnormal form’, which might be termed lack of internal organizational coordination”. With respect to the foregoing anomie “is expressed in economic crises, the antagonism between capital and labor, and anarchy in science, arises at times of rapid change, during which new organs and functions develop without a corresponding development of rules of cooperation and therefore of social ties” (Turner, 1993, p. 98). Anomie, represents the rapid as well as radical change in social conditions that presents itself as “the lack of regulation or deregulation” Turner, 1993, p. 98). Durkheim (Turner, 1993, p. 98) explains that the foregoing does not represent a “fundamental crisis of the system, but rather a crisis of adaptation, and continuous contact will eventually produce new rules and a new functional equilibrium between the divided functions, thus assuring social integration”.

Whereas “anomie can be eliminated by the gradual development of new rules, in the case of the enforced division of labor it is ‘these very rules themselves which are the cause of the ills” (Turner, 1993, p. 98). The preceding represents when the rules and underpinnings of society are not responsive to the underlying changes in the fabric of society, and thus the established order is retained by force (Turner, 1993, p. 98). This represents the abnormal form of the division of labor that is representative of privileged positions being held by birth and social standing as opposed to abilities and talents Turner, 1993, p. 99). The condition, asserts can be alleviated through the adoption of “formal equality of opportunity …” as well as “… freedom to choose a profession” (Durkheim Turner, 1993, p. 99).

Max Weber

Breiner (1996, p. 26) advises that the critics of Weber’s approach to social science have issues with his reduction of “all socially interpreted activity to instrumental rationality”. Those who interpret him in a sympathetic manner see “his focus on the interpretation of the meaningful conduct of social agents a strong argument in favor of the subservience of explanation to the rules or everyday understandings under which actions are intelligible” (Breiner, 1996, p. 26). Turner (1993, p. 4) advises us to be circumspect with regard to Weber’s approach to modernism and rationalization as “he remained highly ambiguous about the content and consequences” with regard to the foregoing. The preceding, Turner (1993, p. 5) states that the preceding is a result of “Weber’s ambiguities over capitalism were also expressed in his ambivalent attitudes to socialism as a rational planning of the market”. He, Weber, argues that “socialism was another step in the growth of rational management of resources; socialism represented a further development of the second serfdom—to calculation, planning, and instrumental rationalism” (Turner, 1993, p. 5). Turner (1993, p. 5) further informs us that “main issue in Weber’s political sociology is the absence of any analysis of the processes of democratization, about which Weber remained skeptical, if not dismissive”. He (Turner, 1993, p. 5) supports the preceding in stating that “In this respect, Weber was significantly influenced by Robert Michels’s theory of ‘the iron law of oligarchy’, which suggested that all mass-party organization would come to depend on an elite”.

To further understand Weber’s meaning, before we delve into the preceding further, we must understand vocational politics, which represents a vocation, stating that “For everything that is striven for through political action, operating with violent means and following an ethic of responsibility, endangers ‘the salvation of the soul” (Breiner, 1996, p. 6). Weber continues:

“If, however, one chases after the ultimate good in a war of beliefs, following a pure ethic of absolute ends, then the goals may be damaged and discredited for generations, because responsibility for the consequences are lacking and those diabolic forces which enter into play remain unknown to the actor. These [forces] are inexorable and produce consequences for his action and even for his inner self, to which he must helplessly submit, unless he perceives them”.

His “ambiguity over whether he is giving an impartial general account of the logic of methodical action or a subjective situation-bound account of the multiple logics that constitute the different terrains of action” along with vocational politics have bearing on his concept of rationalization as it tends to skew his view against democracy “by appealing to objective standards of feasibility while maintaining that commitment to either form is a matter of personal choice” (Breiner, 1996, p. 10). The foregoing has direct bearing upon Weber’s concept of rationalization (Breiner, 1996, p. 10).

The preceding thus permits us to explore Weber’s approach and concepts of modernisation within what Turner (1993, p. 12) calls “a Weberian conceptualization of modern social change”. Within modernity the social as well as cultural facets of life do not point us towards an orderly life, but instead “a number of life spheres whose demands are objective and not influenced by the subject” (Breiner, 1996, p. 59). Each of these spheres is represented by “its own logic of action” (Breiner, 1996, p. 59). Turner (1993, p. 16) advises that “In bureaucracy, rationalization produced a system of reliable, dependable decision-making for the realization of public goals”. Weber argues that “Secularization had liberated human beings from the magical world of the ancients”, and that “the very same processes of rationalization threaten to subordinate imagination and inspiration to the demands of standardized routines and technical procedures” (Turner, 1993, pp. 16-17). Turner (1993, p. 17) continues “they threaten to produce a new characterology of soulless, machine-like robots”. The preceding is contained in context in Weber’s address of September 1919 (Turner, 1993, p. 17).

“The fate of our age, with its characteristic rationalization and intellectualization and above all the disenchantment of the world is that the ultimate, most sublime values have withdrawn from public life, either into the transcendental realm of mystical life or into the brotherhood of immediate personal relationships between individuals. It is no accident that our greatest art is intimate rather than monumental, nor is it fortuitous that today only in the smallest groups, between individuals, something pulsates in pianissmo which corresponds to the prophetic pneuma which formerly swept through great communities like fire and welded them together”

Conclusion

The bureaucratic maze sees “the projects of political actors may collide not only with the maximizing logic of economic actors seeking power over the market but also with the logic or bureaucracy, which undermines this economic logic” (Briener, 1996, pp. 115-116). In order to overcome the preceding, Weber explains that the political actors “may have to mobilize masses of citizens under party machines” (Briener, 1996, p. 116). Turner (1993, p. 92) explains that under “patrimonialism, at each stage of the tax-gathering exercise and at each level of the bureaucracy, the tax-yield was progressively creamed-off by the bureaucracy”. The bureaucratic nature of the new state systems utilized bureaucratic level to administer programs that were overseen by inefficient levels of management and response to the public good, thus creating a tax based support system that stood upon the back of its supporters (Turner, 1993, p. 93). The preceding stifled creativity and innovation within the system as those in power seeking to maintain their power acted out of their own self interests and political interest first, as opposed to a view to the future that would have benefited their nation as a whole. This defensive posture of holding onto the popular and or accepted views in face of better approaches is a hallmark of bureaucracy which dehumises the human element in support of its own well being and safekeeping.

The bureaucracy nature of industrial societies is still in force today, whereby the conforming to the norm represents the belief systems for the majority of its populations thus making Weber’s “soulless, machine-like robots” Turner, 1993, p. 17)a reality for the lower and middle classes. An upper class still does exist as defined by educational attainment and or family heritage, and this can be found throughout the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan and other industrialized nations whereby the founders of major corporations have the heirs and or appointees installed as the operative heads of these machines of capitalisation.

This brings us back to Durkheim’s forced division of labor (Turner, 1993, pp. 98-99)which still exists and is a control factor in modern industrialized societies as indicated by the aforementioned educational and heritage facets. The existence of unions and associations to obtain rights and conditions for workers is proof of the foregoing, for if the machinery of society were in fact skewed to all of its individuals, then the need for these types of organizations would not be necessary. This is brings us to what Durkheim (Turner, 1993, p. 98) stated as a “fundamental crisis of the system, but rather a crisis of adaptation, and continuous contact will eventually produce new rules and a new functional equilibrium between the divided functions, thus assuring social integration”. Privileged positions are to a large degree still a factor of one’s birth, with specialised higher education and contacts representing a path to the upper echelons. Thus Durkheim and Weber were prophetic in their analysis and understandings on some facets.

Bibliography

About Sociology (2007) Emile Durkheim. Retrieved o 27 May 2007 from http://www.aboutsociology.com/sociology/Emile_Durkheim

Briener, P. (1996) Max Weber & Democratic Politics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y., United States

cepa.newschool.edu (2007) Max Weber, 1864-1920. Retrieved on 27 May 2007 from http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/weber.htm

Durkheim, E. (1997) The Division of Labor in Society. Free Press. New York, United States

emile-durkheim.com (2006) Emile Durkheim (1858-1917). Retrieved on 27 May 2007 from http://www.emile-durkheim.com/

Marxists Internet Archive (1999) Max Weber: Definition of Sociology. Retrieved on 27 May 2007 from http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/weber.htm

Turner, S. (1993) Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Moralist. Routledge Publishers, New York, United States

Turner, B. (1993) Max Weber: From History to Modernity. Routledge Publications, London, United Kingdom

NAME: LUCKY AMADI

DISCUSS QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS.

INTRODUCTION.

What is Research?

Research is an inquiry to describe, explain, predict and control the observed development. Research helps to acquire knowledge about a particular thing it is done to understand.

It can also be seen as the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.

Research methods are often divided into two main types:

Qualitative Research methods
Quantitative Research methods
Qualitative Method of Research.

Qualitative research which is also called Field research is done to gain a deep understanding of a specific organisation or event rather than the surface description.it is aimed at getting a better understanding through first experience, truthful reports and quotation of actual conversations, also aims to know how participants derive meaning from their surroundings and how their meaning influences their behaviour.

Qualitative research makes use of observation as a data collection method; this is the selection and recording of behaviours of people in their environment, observation is useful for generating in-depth descriptions of organisations or events, for obtaining information that is otherwise inaccessible, and for conducting research when other methods are inadequate. The context or background of behaviour is included in observations of both people and their environment.

Stages in Participatory Observation

Selection of a site and definition of problems, concepts and indicators.

The problem or phenomenon of interest is first identified by the researcher; he tries to discern what will yield the greatest understanding of that problem. The researcher then identifies preliminary concepts and what data will be gathered as indicators of those concepts.

The researcher chooses a strategy to move into the researcher.

This involves an overt or a covert role for the researcher, issues may include how to record observations (writing notes, tape recordings, video tape) as well as ethical issues (privacy, confidentiality, etc.)

Strategies include: adopting a passive role at first, learning the ropes; don’t seek data aggressively until later; be a researcher not a therapist, answer questions but don’t become closely identified with any one person until you are sure it will not cost you information in the long run, be non-persistence.

Selecting people and events to observe.

Primary sources also known as “key informants” of information are identified by the researcher. These people may be relied upon in the beginning to help the researcher get acculturated to the situation. The statements of key informants can be taken as evidence, even if their statements are somewhat self-serving. The researcher must also be aware of possible differences between the validity and intention of volunteered statements that are made in response to the researcher’s questions.

Develop relationships with the participants.

Researchers must have the trust and confidence of the informants. Researchers must speak their “language” and understand their “world”. The researcher can note the differences rather than accept one and reject the other. The researcher must determine whether certain things are not being said because of his or her role as “researcher” or whether they can use their position as “neutral outsider” to gain more information.

Analysing observations.

The researcher can check whether none, all or some proportion of behaviours or events occur under distinct circumstances. A preliminary model can be generated to explain the data collected. Further observations are then collected which can strengthen or weaken the researchers preliminary model.

Final analysis and interpretation.

Models are checked against the evidence. Advanced concepts and evidence for their support and refutation are checked. The major problem is how to present the data in a brief but meaningful form.

Advantages of Qualitative research.

It gives the researcher freedom to let the study unfold more naturally.
The researcher gains more detailed and rich data in the form of comprehensive written descriptions or visual evidence such as photographs.
It looks at the context and social meaning and how it affects individuals.

Disadvantages of Qualitative research.

It is time consuming.
It is difficult to code data.
It is not applicable to widely dispersed social settings
It is difficult to control for researcher bias.

Quantitative Research of Method.

Quantitative research can be seen as explaining phenomena by collecting numerical data that are analysed using mathematically based methods; this method reduces the data into numbers, the researcher helps to analyse the data with the help of statistics. The researcher knows in advance what he/she is looking for and all aspects of the study are carefully designed before the data is collected. Its objective is to develop and employ mathematical models, theories or hypotheses pertaining to phenomena.

Process of Quantitative research method.

Developing models, theories, and hypotheses of what the researcher expects to find.
Developing instruments and methods for measuring the data.
Experimental control and manipulation of variables.
Collecting the data.
Modelling and analysing the data.
Evaluating the results.

Principles of Quantitative Research.

Objectivity is important.
Methods and conclusions are examined by researchers for any possible bias.
Researchers go to great length to ensure that they are really measuring what they claim to be measuring.
External factors which might affect the result must also be controlled as it might be the other factor which produces the result.
When looking at results the P value is important, P stands for probability. It measures the likelihood that a particular finding or observed difference is due to chance, P is between 0 and 1, the closer the result is to 0 the less likely it is that the observed difference is due to change, the closer the result is to 1 the greater the likelihood that the finding is due to chance and that there is no difference between the variables.

Advantages of Quantitative method of research.

It allows researchers to measure and analyse data.
It helps to carry out test for hypotheses in experiments because of its ability to measure data using statistics.
The researcher is more objective about the findings of the research.

Disadvantages of Quantitative research.

It doesn’t study things in a natural setting or discuss the meaning things have for different people unlike qualitative method of research.
A large sample of population must be studied; the larger the sample of people researched the more statistically accurate the results will be.

CONCLUSION.

Each of these researches are done for a purpose just like Qualitative is done to gain understanding of a specific organisation or phenomena, Quantitative is done by analysing data with the help of statistics it has to do with numbers. Just like everything they both have their advantages and disadvantages.

REFERENCES

Anderson, ML and Taylor, H.F (2009) sociology.

The essentials Belmont C.A Thomson Wadsworth.

Feminism has a movement has gained momentum in recent pasts to the extent that there are a number of ‘gender’ gains the world over. The theories of feminism are categorized into five, some of which are distinct and other closely related. These are: Liberal Feminism, Socialist Feminism; Radical Feminism; Post-Modern Feminism; and Multicultural feminism. However, this paper zeroes down on two, namely Liberal and Radical feminism, in an attempt to show the contribution that feminism has made (or continues to make) in the contemporary social analysis.

Liberal Feminism

Some of the proponents of this category of feminism include Mary Wollstonecraft, John Stuart Mill, Betty Friedan and Rebecca Walker.

Liberal feminism is an individualistic form of feminism because it is generally based on women’s ability to assert their equality through their own actions and choices. This is what Eleanor calls ‘faith in rationality” (Eleanor, 1996). Accordingly, the starting point for promoting such equality is based on individual interaction between men and women and that women can change their circumstances. Liberal feminism looks at the personal interactions of men and women as the starting ground from which to transform society into a more gender-equitable place.

The issues important t to liberal feminists include reproductive rights and abortion access, sexual harassment, voting, education, fair compensation for work, affordable childcare, affordable health care, and bringing to light the frequency of sexual and domestic violence against women.

The basic tenet of liberal feminism is that it is anchored on legal and political reform as a means to ensuring equality between men and women. This, according to them, is tailored on looking at the government through lobby groups to bring about legislative changes that promote gender equity. This brings about social and economic equity. Susan Wendell, citing the work of Mackinnon (1987) () says that ‘contemporary feminism is committed to major economic reorganization and considerable redistribution of wealth, since one of the modern political goals most closely associated with liberal feminism is equality of opportunity which would undoubtedly require and lead to both. Liberal feminists argue that all people are equal and that rationality in correcting class differences should be the way to go.

How then does this contribute to social analysis? It does so by seeing the oppression of women as not structural feature of capitalistic economic system. Further, the concept of education as a means to changing women’s status quo has had remarkable gains in recent times. Additionally, the ongoing debate and actions in the world concerning expansion of women participation has fundamentally centered on inclusiveness into the socio-economic as well as the political mainstream,

Radical Feminism

Using Mackinnon, (1987:16), Eleanor observes that that radical feminism is not one form of feminism, but simply feminism ‘unmodified’. Therefore, many others forms of feminism was only a response to ‘male psyche’ modification of feminism as it were. (Eleanor, 1996)

Feminism in its radical sense has it that society is a patriarchy that primarily oppresses women thus radical feminists seek to disband patriarchy. In this, they recognize that women’s oppression is the ‘fundamental oppression’. They further assert profoundly that ‘sexism is at the heart of patriarchy” especially in the family. Willis (1981), for example, in an essay ‘Lust Horizons: Is the women’s movement pro-sex’ argues against making alliances with the political right in opposition to pornographyaˆ¦” In a way they in this sense, echo the Marxist belief that if women wanted to deal with the shackles of patriarchy, then they must deal with the issue of reproduction. (Willis, 1981)

According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, most radical feminists do not universally argue for the criminalization of pornography or objectification of women, but rather that in the absence of patriarchy, the public demand for such materials would drastically decrease as a much smaller percentage of the population would be aroused by viewing women’s oppression and degradation

Conclusively, radical feminism is anchored on total restructuring if society an extreme view which would call for severing relationships with men, that is ending heterosexual relationship with me.

Radical feminists seem to believe that the way to deal with patriarchy and oppression of all kinds is to address the underlying causes of these problems through revolution.

Q2. Cognitive Theory of Social comparison in explaining Crowd behavior at a large (50,000+) sporting events

Introduction

A crowd can be defined in a number of ways but the widely accepted definition of crowd is that of ”large groups of individuals in the same physical environment, sharing a common goal. Usually such individuals act in a different way than when they are alone”. (Reading, 1996):

In a football match scenario, understanding the behavior of the crowd can be grounded on cognitive theory of social comparison. This theory as advanced by Festinger (1952), asserts that people tend to compare their behavior with others that are most like them. Muss and Thulman (1986) using the ideas of Festinger gives a more specific assertion by saying that people, when lacking objective means for appraisal of their opinions and capabilities, compare their opinions and capabilities to those of others that are similar to them. In the process, they attempt to correct any differences found. Basis on this social comparison theory may explain crowd behavior in a football match in the following ways:

Common Stimulus between crowd participants

According to Muss and Thulman (1986), one of the social comparisons theory implications is group formation. This according to them happens to the extent that self evaluation can only be accomplished by means of comparison with other persons. Festinger attributes this to the fact people in a crowd are driven by the desire to belong to the group. In other words, they tend to move to a group which belongs to them and which share their opinion and who have almost similar ability. For instance, it is common to see football fans that support a particular team more interested in being within the physical boundaries of their fellow supporters or those who share in their fantasy.

Imitational behavior

Using Festinger ideas, Muse and Thulman (1986) explains that ”the existence of a discrepancy in a group with respect to opinions or abilities will lead to action on the part of members of that group to reduce the discrepancy”

This should explain some behaviors in a football match setting, including one person starting to sing and the others who support the same team following swiftly. Other examples would include, booing a player, usually started by one person and followed swiftly by others.

A more propounding illustration is such crowd behavior in an event of a stampede. Usually people will tend to run to one direction regardless of if the cause of fear is genuine or not, as long as the one of their own signals them to do so.

Q3. Use sociological theories or concepts to help explain ‘Listening to music on a portable music device”

Introduction

It is common today to see people across all ages and gender alike carrying and listening to music through portable devices publicly. This happens when they are in the office, driving, reading and even walking among others

While there should be a number of theories that can explain this phenomenon, system theory, does that at best in trying to justify the tight schedules that the contemporary society puts on people and the dilemmas therein. In so doing it zeroes on ‘multitasking’ as the issue or as a prime causality to this.

System theory

System theory may be traced back to the ideas of George Hegel (1770-1831), who saw the world as operating within the push of different poles, in the process creating a conflict which negates a ‘solution’ for the functioning of the whole system. Hegel imagined that the world was controlled by two opposing poles pulling towards opposite direction. He called one pole the ‘thesis’ and the opposing side the ‘antithesis’. According to him, these two struggle to create an agreed position he called the ‘synthesis’, which interestingly also come to create the thesis, the antithesis and the cycle goes on and on. In a way, one would argue that this corresponds directly to the conflict theory, but for the purposes of looking at the phenomenon as a response to holistic demands, the perspective is tied to system theory. (Pippin, 1989)

Notably, the person who qualified system theory as we know it today (within a structural functionalism paradigm) is Von Bertalanffy is a book titled ”General system theory: Foundations, Development, Applications” in 1968. He, as a biologist, endeavored to employ organismic knowledge to use the word system to describe those principles which are common to a general system.

In the book, he says that ” …there exist models, principles, and laws that apply to generalized systems or their subclasses, irrespective of their particular kind, the nature of their component elements, and the relationships or “forces” between them. It seems legitimate to ask for a theory, not of systems of a more or less special kind, but of universal principles applying to systems in general”

System theory is based on the belief that for a system (a being, an entity, an organization among others) to work sufficiently, all the parts of that system must be in order, and that there is interrelatedness of the parts.

To qualify this theory in understanding the portable music system public use phenomenon, it is important to relate it to the numerous issues that today’s human responds to, within the confluence of multitasking and not able to respond to other demands of life. Therefore, listening to portable music while responding to other systems, not only works to perpetuate interrelatedness of demands of today but also in satisfying his/her needs.

Death can be defined as the indisputable biological end of life. In order to study and understand this phenomenon, one has to delve into the human perception of it. Woody Allen once said “I don’t mind dying, I just don’t want to be there when it happens”. The experience of such a loss, especially within a group of people as dependent of one another as is the family, is often the cause of grief for the bereaved individuals. The perception of death, nevertheless, seems to differ from culture to culture, as do the rituals encompassing the coping of the family (Kart, and Kinney, 2001).

Zoroastrianism, one of the oldest religions to have ever existed, was characterised by its belief in one God, as well as the need for reservation of the pureness of the elements. Death for the Zoroastrians meant a reuniting of the soul with its guardian and protector, fravashi. The dead were kept in the Tower of Silence, traditionally, to be purified by nature. Life and death were thus not a beginning and an end but parts of a greater hoop of life. East to these Persian grounds survives up-to-day Hinduism, India’s main religion. Hinduism stands for the indestructibility of the soul and hence its cycle from birth to death, before it is reborn. Death again is not regarded as the end, but merely as a stage within a greater loop of meaning. Here, however, cremation is obligatory, minus some exceptions (Garces-Foley, 2005).

Japanese rituals differ in the fact that a bigger part of the community is involved, than the family, mainly due to their collectivistic culture (Kart, and Kinney, 2001). After death, a bedside service is performed where the family is consoled and bathing of the dead body occurs. This is thought to enable the spirit to move on to the next world. The western culture on the contrary, tends to dissociate the living from the dead by allowing as little interaction and exposure to death as possible. A complete stranger is assigned the organising of the funeral, while the hospital cares for the body itself. During the funeral, mourners are to show as little grief as possible in public. Still, the impact of social class is evident here, since the amount of mourning expressed by the family depends on their social and educational background. (Kart, and Kinney, 2001) .

It becomes evident from the above, that a promise to afterlife and the perpetuation of some part of the current existence (soul, body, chemicals, etc) as well as the idea of a “better place”, was and still is intending to help the family proceed with their everyday lives after the bereavement and grief. Apart from religious factors, the difference between cultures might also demonstrate different attempts of people to cope with the grief of death.

Death can be viewed from a multitude of different standpoints, which contribute to the management and expression of mourning from the family and family members. This makes generalisation of behaviours towards grief hard, if not impossible (Bates et al., 1993).

The philosophical approach to death and bereavement suggests the existence of two types of death; good and bad death. For the family, the distinction of these two, very vague notions, depends on the conditions with which the dying person dies. According to Grosz (2003), the dying person must have his/her pain controlled by the treatment, as far as possible. Other conditions for a good death include the ability of the patient to make conscious decisions of his/her own for the treatment, as well as be handled as an individual, bound with experiences from life, and not as an anonymous patient. Moreover, the dying person must have come to terms with his/her disease and manage any unfinished conflicts such as family, busyness or personal affairs. If these conditions are met, then the semblance of a good death could be acquired, thus permitting the surviving members to access their everyday lives faster and healthier, having dealt with the coping of the bereavement faster and more successfully than if a bad death had occurred.

2. Definitions of Bereavement, Grief and Coping

Bereavement is the condition the family and/or individual are involved with, after the death of an important person (Stroebe et al., 2008). This deprivation is only likely to cause grief, the natural response to a loss. Grief can be defined as the internal manifestation of the strong emotions, raised from bereavement (Stroebe et al., 2008). It is often used interchangeably with the term mourning, which is though the external dealing with grief. That is to say, mourning is the exhibition of grief in public, which eventually leads to the addressing and dealing with the latter state (Stroebe et al., 2008). Because the line between grief and mourning is this slim, the two have come to be used as umbrella terms (Grosz, 2003). Coping is the demanding task of adapting oneself psychosocially, to challenging, threatening and/or harmful circumstances (Moshe, 1996). The stress is managed or even eliminated under behavioural and cognitive endeavours (Lazarus, and Folkman, 1984; Moos, and Schaefer, 1993).

Some people though have been observed to have difficulties in reintegrating themselves within their older daily routines or in pertaining to relations with other persons. Maladaptive coping can hinder the recovery rate of the family and/or individuals, giving rise to feelings of loneliness, depression, hallucinations and even health problems related to stress, as is the abdominal pain and breathing difficulties (Parkes, 1972). People who have suffered bereavement very unexpectedly, or experienced it under shocking conditions, like suicide and homicide, are the ones most likely to acquire maladaptive coping (Grosz, 2003).

How individuals cope with bereavement, grief and mourning, depends on a number of factors. Firstly, as it has already been mentioned, spiritual and religious beliefs or practices and culture of the person, tend to affect their way of viewing death, thus promoting a number of different coping methods, which are to be investigated later on. Again, the way death was experienced as well as the bonding the person had with their important one, before death, seems to also affect the coping. The more dependent the person was to the deceased, the harder it is to let go (Grosz, 2003). Finally, the family itself is a factor pivotal to the dealing with the death of the important one, especially when it comes to children and young adults. If the family is open and caring towards each of its members and is ready to share the pain and experiences, then the whole process of dealing with the death of the deceased is greatly facilitated and rapidly overcome (Walsh, and McGoldrick, 2004). All the above factors are, nevertheless, influenced by the very personality of the mourner, which at the end of the day is the most important of all factors.

Stemming from the aforementioned considerations, related to the impact of one’s death on his/her environment, the ultimate aim of this essay is to investigate how people cope with the death of a family member. Further, a number of relevant theoretical points have been introduced for the better understanding of the issue, along with empirical evidence.

3. Stage Theories of Grief

I. The Five Stages of Death (DABDA)

Back in 1969, top thanatologist Kubler-Ross influenced the viewpoint of medical and health psychology, as she sensitised the world public opinion on terminally ill patients and their treatment, in her book On Death and Dying. There, she describes the five stages of grief people undergo while in loss of their important ones. It is of utmost importance as she has underscored many a times herself, to understand that not all people are the same or experience the five stages in the same sequence, for the same amount of time, or even confront some at all. As she supports, it all depends on the individual and their environment. The stages were first thought to only apply to the patients, but later, their application was broadened to any type of loss as is the case of a divorce, loss of occupation, death of a family member.

Denial is considered to be the first of the five stages put forward by Kubler-Ross (1969). She initially correlated this phenomenon to a number of factors influencing the patient, and in our case, the family. She considered the fact that the way one is told of the irreversibility of the terminal disease, along with the pre-existing experiences with the dying person and dependence on him/her, affects somehow the extend to which one is involved with the particular stage. However, though she suggested that everyone did go through this stage at some point, she only noted a very few cases that had kept the denial barrier up until death. Often, the individuals grew more and more confident of the idea of dying.

Anger is the stage thought to follow denial, even if no real pattern can be identified for all individuals as of the sequence of stages, progression and management. Strong emotions as rage and fury, are said to overwhelm the person who displaces this anger to all directions. This, is what makes this stage the most difficult to be dealt with since ire erupts almost at random. To Kubler-Ross (1969), this stage is again something everyone does go through sometime in their grieving period.

Bargaining, although not quite as famous as the rest of the stages, is thought to be of significant importance to the mourning family. At this point, the person would crave for an amendment of the situation or for the time to go back to when ignorance of the event prevailed. Experiencing the death of an important one is often very painful, disrupting the habitual life of the family. This is enough reason for one to be wishing to go back to what they used to consider normal, before the knowledge of death. Bargaining, the asking of a favour in return for another, could be targeting the very self of the person, or even God, the doctors, or chaplain. These favours are often kept confidential, concealing quite often, unexpressed guilt.

After the family has dealt with the new burden of knowledge and emotional awareness of the death and loss of a family member, depression may be often observed. Along with the person, plagued by his/her disease, the family suffers as well. The emotional burden to bear is huge and frequently fights between the members of the family arise. However, this is only a tip of the family’s problems. Funding the treatment of the dying person is quite the times, responsible for the loss of ability to purchase items and needs that were previously thought commonplace. The tension and depression could grow more rapidly from the absence of the dying person, in case the family was dependent on his/her role before the knowledge of the terminal disease. Such could be the case of a money-making husband/wife or mother/father to children.

Acceptance is the last stage to come, according to Kubler-Ross (1969), and unlike the common belief, it is a stage of no happy emotion. As a matter of fact, it is a stage of no emotions whatsoever, but looks more alike a giving up to the inevitability of the situation, weakened and unable to fight it any longer. The family has gone through many hardships and still does, due to their dying important one. However, at a point, the family understands that they cannot affect the situation or death itself, leaving any type of action to the doctors. After acceptance has been reached, re-assimilation to everyday life begins.

Kubler-Ross’ (1969) stage theory has been formulated via many interviews and case studies on terminally ill patients, which were later generalised to the whole of losses. The sampling she used was relatively limited to the USA, and particularly Chicago, Illinois where she first began. Empirical evidence has demonstrated that this stage theory if partially accurate. The study by Maciejewski et al. (2007) studied 233 bereaved people living in the state of Connecticut, USA and for three years. The results added to the psychology of death, elucidating the five stages of grief. People initially demonstrated disbelief, which had been regarded as similar to the stage of Denial, towards the new information. Disbelief diminished gradually, until it disappeared one month post loss. Yearning was the second stage to be identified as it reached a zenith upon the fourth month post loss, and was characterised by the urge of the individual for the bereaved family member. Anger, the ensuing stage, reached a climax of its own five moths post loss and contained the violent emotions of the individual, displaced toward all directions, as the stage theory suggests. Six months post loss were characterised by depression, which was finally followed by acceptance; a process which has escalated from the initial apprehension of bereavement, 24 months post loss. This evidence agrees with Kubler-Ross (1969) and her stage theory, to some extent. The same pattern of organising the mourning of a bereaved in stages is followed, and even some of them are very much alike the stage theory’s ones. Disbelief and anger could be running parallel to denial and anger. Nonetheless, the theory and study class one another, on the basis of grief display. While Kubler-Ross (1969) seems to position Denial as a first illustrator of grief, the results of Maciejewski et al. (2007), propose Yearning to be the main indication of grief from the first month of loss to the twenty-fourth. Moreover, Acceptance is not thought to be an end-stage, but one which develops throughout the mourning period and reaches a peak at the end of it.

The theory of the five stages of death has been overly criticised based on two major areas of clash. Firstly, the theory is said to be solidly based on Kubler-Ross’ personal experiencing of terminal diseases, bereavement and coping. Since 1969, no further evidence other than the interviews has been put forward to fully explain the existence of the five stages of grief as well as their development. While it is a fact that due to the nature of the subject, empirical evidence is hard to obtain, studies as Maciejewski et al.’s (2007) does not portray or confirm any validity or reliability of the theory. Friedman and James (2008) go as far as saying that the stages are more of a misconception of the public and media, who have come to relentlessly utilise the stages of death, than they can be considered a theory. The interviews and case studies Kubler-Ross (1969) puts forward as evidence of the existence of stages, are thought to be too biased from her own assumptions and expectations, to be considered as support to the theory. Nevertheless, it is important to take them into consideration, since they are among the few ways of studying this particular topic of death and dying, without breaking the ethical code. What could be a limitation to her research though would be the small sampling she used, of people in the USA, thus making generalisations only available to similar cases and not for example, people of collectivistic cultures.

Secondly, Kubler-Ross’ (1969) theory has been criticised of being very broad with its description of stages. Due to her saying that not all five stages have to be completed in any particular order, or duration while mourning, the theory has been criticised of being too vague. Stages are supposed to be having a beginning and an end, a duration, and be characteristic to all individuals from at least a group of similar individuals i.e. dying patients and their families. Since the above conditions are not met, they cannot be considered stages. Additionally, the use of the term ‘stages’ is said to cause more harm than good due to the misconception of time. Once one refers to stages, time is involved and people in mourning are likely to stay inactive, waiting for the ‘symptoms’ of the stage to allay. This can of course give rise to more complex psychological traumas and thus harm the individual (Friedman, and James, 2008). When it comes to stages as Depression, the fluidity of the stages of death can be fully seen, due to the free use of the term. That is to say, depression is more of a psychiatric diagnosis of illness rather than ‘sadness’ or any other such emotion. When is the person considered to be sad and when depressed? Subsequently, how to diagnose depression and treat it when it is imposed as a natural stage in the theory of mourning?

Due to the nature of the subject, not much empirical evidence can be gathered for either fully supporting Kubler-Ross’ (1969) theory or proving it inefficient and harmful. All evidence is partially anecdotal and coloured by the researcher’s interpretations, as was Kubler-Ross’ interviews or Friedman and James’ (2008).

II. Alternative Explanation to Grief

An alternative theoretical approach to grief due to the death of a family member, is Bowlby’s theory of grief (1961), where the psychophysiological components are greatly considered. Here, four main stages are to be considered. Numbness to protest is the first of the stages and consists of the confusion and breakdown of the bereavement paired with the psychological and physical dejection, where elevated blood pressure and heart rate might occur. This seems to be the first reaction to the new lifestyle imposed on the family members due to the loss of the important one, and need to get acquainted with the new life. Bowlby has studied the reactions of the body to the stress and strain of bereavement, only to find they match the stages he has put forward. Such indications include abdominal pain, hallucinations, etc.

Alike the indicators put forward from the study of Maciejewski et al. (2007), yearning is identified as the crave to be closer to the deceased, whether that be with the help of inanimate objects, people or even places that trigger memories of the past live with the person. When this second stage is overcome as well, the third of disorganisation and despair arises.

A comparison of Marx and Weber’s theories with respect to their ideas and interpretations on capitalism.

Marx’s view of the industrialist society he lived in was one of inequality and driven by capitalism. His ideas and interpretations of capitalism are based on historical precedent and industrialism. He calls the capitalist ownership class, the bourgeoisie, owning the means of production, whilst describing the working class, the proletariat, who provide the means of production. He viewed this capitalist system as being an unjust and unfair one which exploited the proletariat to provide profit and gains for the bourgeoisie. Marx saw capitalism as merely a progression of previous modes of production, such as slavery and feudalism, becoming a system of production of commodities which exploited the workers for the profitable gain of the capitalist bourgeoisie. In the feudal and slavery systems, however, the medieval lords and slave owners were responsible for the welfare of their workers. Whereas, in the capitalist society he saw the capitalists taking unfair advantage of the workers, with a minority owing and monopolising the ownership of the means of production, whilst gaining big profits at the expense of the workers.

Wage labourers produce commodities, goods which are produced for exchange. The commodities are sold on the market, and the capitalist pays the labourer a wage. The capitalist gives up some of his capital to the wage labourer in the form of wages in return for the use of his/her labour- power. Labour-power is thus itself a commodity; it is bought and sold

A labourer depended on the market value of his skills, or production, to earn a living which the capitalist would sell for maximum profit. However, this profit did not feed back down to the worker, instead it went into the pockets of the already wealthy capitalist. He believed that the workers were exploited for their labour in order to survive.

Marx believed that society had progressed through stages of history with each stage providing its own destruction to allow it to progress to a new stage. He believed that every stage of history only progressed to the next stage through a social revolution of some kind and gave it the term Dialectical Materialism . He believed that the economy and materialism are the driving forces behind historical change. He saw the main difference between men and animals, as man’s ability to produce his own living, in other words, man owns his own mode of production. However, he saw the workers ability becoming diminished in the factories and with manual labour, with the worker being alienated from his means of production by being given solely specific tasks to complete in a production line. Ultimately, he proposed that through the progression of history, capitalism would be overcome by a revolt of the working class in order for them to overcome their oppression by the capitalists, giving way to a fairer and equal society. He argued that economic structure should be planned to suit the people. Unfortunately in some cases, his theories were taken and twisted by others, giving way to an even more oppressive society, for example, communism in the Union of Soviet Republics (Russia) and the Republic of China, where the control of the working classes were still in the hands of the select few. In contrast, Weber believed that Marxist theories were too simple as he thought Marx saw mainly economic grounds being the driving force behind capitalism.

Weber’s ideas and interpretations on capitalism are predominantly derived from his major work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904-05). From most of the readings done for this essay, it would appear at first sight that Weber views religion as the driving force behind capitalism. However, this is too simplistic a view. Weber was not only interested in the role of religion in capitalism; he was also very interested in discovering the values behind the individual’s social behaviour. He saw workers doing what they do because of their commitment to their family, which is why people go to work although the work may not be great and the pay not very substantial. Weber is more interested in the actions of the individual and the affects of society on the individual; therefore, he defines sociology in a different way than Marx, believing that individuals are shaped by their own motives and desires. He liked to use categories and typologies, using three main categories, tradition, charismatic and legal rational authority. Weber had a wide range of interests, class, social stratification, modernity and religion. Being interested in discovering why capitalism was a ‘Western’ phenomenon and developed in certain European countries during the industrial revolution, he undertook a study of these countries. In his work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904-05), Weber makes a connection between protestant beliefs and the emergence of capitalism. Although religion did not bring about capitalism, Weber suggested that religion can cause social change, which in turn could fuel the process of capitalism. He uses Calvinism as an example of how change can be brought about. Calvinists believed that you were already predestined to go to heaven and were either among the “elect” or not, before you were born. Nothing that happened during your life here earth would alter this election. Calvinism was a puritan form of Protestantism, focusing on self denial, hard work and a predetermined selection for entrance into heaven. As Calvinists did not have any way of knowing whether or not they were part of the “elect”, they had to act as if they had been chosen; therefore, they lived good lives here on earth and worked hard. It was this ascetic work ethic that Weber believes drove capitalism as making a lot of money was a sign of hard work and no play. As they denied themselves any comfort and pleasures in life, the money they had over and above their meagre living expenses was ploughed into the business making them different from other money makers, in so much that, they made money for money’s sake which was not spent on the frivolities in life. Weber theorised that this Protestant ethic gave rise, encouraging and promoting modern capitalism. He argues that formal rationalisation (the rationale behind making money) would overtake religion and do away with it altogether. Weber saw capitalism as a process of rationalisation and argues that there are six factors which are necessary for capitalism to succeed :

The appropriation of material means of production;
Market freedom;
Rational technology (principally mechanisation);
Calculable law (forms of adjudication and administration which allow for predictable outcomes);
Formally free labour (persons who voluntarily sell their labour-power but must do so to stave off starvation);
And the commercialisation of economic life.

All these conditions are necessary ingredients in the rise of capitalism in Weber’s view . Weber also saw bureaucracy as playing a major role in capitalism.

Bureaucracy is the form of social organisation in and through which rational-legal authority is exercised and maintained. It is also the form which clearly takes hold with the advent of capitalist economic order. One does not cause the other to arise; they have a h3 affinity

Where Marx felt that alienation of the workers from thier products by division of labour within the capitalist system allowed exploitation of workers for capitalist gains, thereby limiting their true freedom, Weber believed that it was bureacracies and rationalisaton that restricted human freedom. Marx believed that man’s freedom under capitalism was deceptive and not true freedom. He believed that capitalist wage labour restricted the worker and was really a form of forced labour as the worker relied on his wage to live. The worker could only sell his labour for the price the capitalist would pay for this work or production and for Marx, capitalism was predominantly as system of commodity production and an economic driven system.

Weber argued that workers lost control of their work through the forces of rational controlled production and believed that it was inevitable that the bureacracy of the capitalist system would change processes in labour and production order to gain the best profit. “But capitalism is identical with the pursuit of profit, and forever renewed profit, by means of continuous, rational, capitalistic enterprise” . Weber argued that in a capitalist society the individual join the organised structures and orginasations which are put in place to ensure an effecient structure to ensure the best profit. By joining these organisations, the individual loses their individuality and get cut off themselves and lost in the officialdom, and therefore, become alienated.

Weber tends to be seen, or portrayed, as much more pessimistic than Marx. Weber sees society becoming locked in an “Iron Cage” through bureaucracy, rationality and authority.

This order is now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production which today determine the lives of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism, not only those directly concerned with economic acquisition, with irresistible force. Perhaps it will so determine them until the last ton of fossilized coal is burnt. In Baxter’s view the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the “saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment.” But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage

Marx was much more optimistic and saw the possibility of social change through a working class revolution, believing that social democracy is an alternative to capitalism.

Interpretive anthropology or scientific anthropology? This is a question which has been argued by many scholars for many decades. Scholars for many years have tried to come up with a conclusion in determining which discipline cultural anthropology should take account in and whether is should be identified symbolically or scientifically. To this present day this question is left unanswered. Cultural anthropology is referred to as the type of anthropology which deals with a variety of different human cultures, and states their differences symbolically. The subject of anthropology generally has two comparable perspectives which are often argued by numerous anthropologists. Anthropology is often regarded as being a scientific discipline while the opposing perspective argues that it is an interpretive discipline because of the way in which individuals and events are defined symbolically. Although each group consists of its own individual groups, the majority of anthropologists have taken a more diverse approach and combined the two disciplines with one another. Anthropologist Eric Wolf concluded a remark which states that anthropology is both the most scientific of the humanities and the most humanistic of the sciences. Wolf argues that the interpretive and scientific perspectives are significantly different from one another and thus this illustrates that cultural anthropology has had difficulty trying to incorporate the two disciplines with one another into one symbolic discipline.

To conclude this comparison; interpretive anthropologists employ intuitive insight and creative imagination in the attempt to evoke and interpret cultural variability. However, the opposing side; scientific anthropologists create logical analysis and empirical investigation in the effort to describe and explain cultural occurrences. The goal of interpretive analysis is to produce relative interpretations which are informative, while the goal of scientific analysis is to produce causal explanations which are analytical. In this paper I would like to examine and observe the comparison between scientific and interpretive anthropology and state the symbolic differences between the two and thus examine Clifford Geertz’s perspective which states that interpretive anthropology is a science in terms of the history of the philosophy of science and scientific practices.

To begin with the comparison of the two contrasting disciplines one needs to define science and the effects which it has amongst anthropology. Science may be well-defined as an objective and systematic method for acquiring accurate knowledge. Scientific ideas have the ability to come from various sources. Scientists have many demands regarding the scientific knowledge and procedures. Scientists often require that the procedures which are employed in the collection of evidence be replicable by independent observers, as this confirms that the claim to knowledge is openly provable. In many cases scientists demand that the claim needs to be falsifiable in order to ensure that the entitlement of knowledge is testable. The test of falsifiability, which is most closely associated with the philosopher of science Karl Popper, is the single most important rule of science. It is the one standard which assures that all scientific statements are testable, and it is the outstanding feature which distinguishes science from other ways of knowing.

The scientific method consists of a sequence of five steps known as: stating the problem, reviewing the literature, formulating the hypothesis, collecting the data, and stating the conclusion. For every step scientists restrict themselves to openly verifiable procedures replicable by independent observers. To summarize, science is an objective method for acquiring fake propositional knowledge based on the regular application of logic and observation. The essential defining element of science is the requirement that all claims to scientific knowledge be falsifiable. Science does not claim to be a faultless approach to factual knowledge or to be permitted of subjective bias, error, or fraud. As an alternative, science claims to be a greater approach to factual knowledge which is then better able to perceive and correct subjective bias, error, and fraud than any other approach which has been developed. Anthropologists are capable of understanding the individual they study because not all human behaviour and awareness is culturally determined, nor are all cultures so dissimilar as to be incomprehensible to unknowns. The validity of different ethnographic descriptions and theories of culture can be critically evaluated based upon the degree to which such explanations correspond to an observable, knowable reality. However, this is not stating that scientific anthropologists are not concerned with the ideological setting in which a certain research is carried on and on which particular ideas and concepts arose (Kaplan & Manners 1972). They recognize that theories and ethnographic descriptions are influenced by how the researcher perceives the experimental phenomena under observation.

The question of whether anthropology is a science or not, and how it interconnects with science is relevant, because, to the degree that scientific practises can examine issues beyond ideologies, power structures or interpretation, scientific socio-cultural anthropology can offer understanding and ways of solving problems which are exclusive, captivating and beneficial due to the variety of practices and procedures.

The theoretical approach of anthropology is frequently undergoing transformation as new theories develop, change, and are inevitably re-constructed because the conditions under which those theories were originated to change. Culture, which is referred to as the component of human behaviour is often subjected to illustrate the possibility of becoming an non-existent concept. Culture itself and the study of culture have to experience certain changes and face becoming obsolete. It has been suggested that culture, instead of following a model of physical science has to be treated as a psychological phenomenon (McGee & Warms 2000:467). Thus, interpretive anthropology is defined as the theory which illustrates that culture does not exist beyond the individual; rather it lies in the interpretation of events around that specific individual. Influenced by the works of linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf, whose analysis of language as symbols served into the theory which states that culture too is based on the interpretation of symbols (Foley1997:15). This would suggest that culture and language are inseparable by nature if one were to take into account the notion which illustrates the meanings of a word and demonstrates the structured aspects around cultural practice and are therefore constrained to that culture (Foley 1997:16).

During the 1960’s anthropologists Mary Douglas, Victor Turner and Clifford Geertz began to step back from the traditional structuralist views of anthropology as a physical science in order to explore the more psychological and analytical aspects of cultural significance. They had the advantage to define culture symbolically, each giving their own specific interpretation of a given culture. However, the views of symbolic anthropology have been criticized by other anthropologists due to its lack of explanation of the practices used to interpret the meanings of cultural symbols. Therefore symbolic anthropology released the field of cultural interpretation to further theoretical development. (McGee & Warms 2000:468-469) Clifford Geertz in particular has become one of the more recognizable scholars associated with symbolic anthropology. As a result of viewing culture as a “system of public meaning encoded in symbols and articulated through behaviour” (Foley 1997:16) Geertz was concerned with both how symbols transmit meaning and how the individual interprets that same symbols. In his work Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight Geertz attempts to draw lines between the symbolic act of Balinese cockfighting and deeper social structures. (McGee & Warms 2000:497) By suggesting that cockfighting implies deeper social and psychological implications than simple recreational activity Geertz compares it to the importance of baseball to an American audience. “As much of America surfaces in a ball park, on a golf links, at a race, or around a poker table, much of Bali surfaces in a cock ring. For it is only apparent that cocks are fighting there. Actually, it is men” (McGee & Warms 2000:499). While it is usually glared upon to make comparisons between cultures, Geertz validates that by establishing a common idea between American and Balinese cultures might in turn provide his audience with a more clear understanding of his theoretical implications.

Like many other anthropologists, Geertz began to draw upon on Boasian anthropology in order to guide his particular research methods and to be able to illustrate his translation of signifying culture as a significant text. Victor Turner alternatively took a slightly different approach to symbolic anthropology. In contrast with Geertz, Turner was interested in the way symbols were used to perform various social functions, and simply not how they affect the way individuals think. He was concerned with how exactly symbols were able to operate in the overall interest in conserving a society (McGee and Warms 2000:467).

In his article Symbols in Ndembu Ritual, Turner attempts to distinguish his analysis of symbols with more psychologically founded approaches. During his opening paragraphs Turner defines a symbol as “the smallest unit of ritual which still retains specific properties of ritual behaviour” (McGee and Warms 2000:478). According to Turner it is also important to keep interpretative and observational materials separate when examining them. By suggesting that each ritual has is designed with its own meaning he also suggests that certain dominant symbols are able to maintain a constant identity. For example, he mentions the use of fruit bearing trees and female fertility used in ritual context to illustrate the significance of ritual interpretation. Had the fruit bearing trees not been used in conjunction with female fertility, the entire interpretive outcome of the ritual might have been different. Here Turner mentions the limitations of anthropological analysis of such symbols (McGee and Warms 2000:486-487). The interpretation of symbols however, is not limited exclusively to the study of ritual practices, or socially constructed events.

Mary Douglas, another anthropologist known for symbolic anthropology challenges the generalization which suggests that most symbolic anthropologists fail to describe culture as universal (McGee and Warms 2000:468). Like Turner, her work bears the influence of British structural-functionalism yet her work focused largely on the symbolic interpretation of the body and its functions. In External Boundaries, Douglas uses hygiene and pollution as symbolic directors which influence everything from social status to eating practices. According to Douglas “body symbolism is part of the common stock of symbols” and “rituals draw on those commons stock of symbols selectively” (McGee and Warms 2000:472-473). Thus, by Douglas’s theoretical approach rational categories such as the act of various bodily secretions would provide individuals with a psychological ordering of the world (Miller 2002:90). For example, Douglas uses the Indian caste system to illustrate this point. In such a caste system even the division of labour is effected by what the body does and does not come in contact with. The holiest member of such a system comes into contact with nothing that might “pollute” them, where individuals prescribed the job of cleaning away excrement such as blood or feces are considered to be the lowest on the social ladder (McGee and Warms 2000:474-475).

While symbolic anthropology opens numerous of new abstract approaches towards the understanding of culture on a more personal level, one can’t help but feel that some of initial approaches provided by Turner, Geertz and Douglas harbour minor flaws. The largest among these however is their approach to interpretive anthropology as a whole because it leans towards being far too generalized (McGee and Warms 2000:468). According to the works of Douglas, she suggests that social categories are artificial because it is society which imposes them (Hicks 2002:48). Conversely, social categories are constructed by society and have in the process become part of the cultural construction of that society. This is not to say that these different categories cannot be altered, but they cannot merely be dismissed as imagined social constructs either.

The greatest fault to the symbolic approach of anthropological interpretation is that the interpretation of symbols is certain to the individual interpreting them. One researcher may not view the same act in the same way; therefore, the specific interpretation of a particular ritual is inconsistent. Although the solidity of symbolic anthropology has been questioned by scholars critical of its methods, symbolic anthropology is still used as a method of research by cultural anthropologists within the present day. Its approach to studying culture in the terms of symbols is found in research of all kinds. Mary Douglas, or any other symbolic ritual acted out by historical or psychological practice. Each is an equally important component to the complex nature culture. Therefore, by identifying these symbols through observation and interpretation one can only hope to obtain a clearer understanding of the cultural practices around them in their natural context.

Clifford Geertz was mainly recognized for his interpretations of symbolic anthropology. Symbolic anthropology is regarded as a basis to which gives a significant amount of attention to the various roles of different symbols which create public meanings. Taking into account the work of Geertz entitled The Interpretation of Cultures Geertz defines culture as “a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which people communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life” (Geertz :89). This suggests that Geertz understood that the role of anthropologists was to try to signify the importance of symbols from specific cultures. Geertz work known as the Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight characterizes the importance of thick description. Thick description is an anthropological practice which explains in significant amount of detail the reasons behind every human action and behaviour. Geertz argument suggests that anthropology is a process of interpretation, which involves examining layers of meaning defined as fiction. Geertz specifies that anthropology is a form of science because it involves what he states as thick description which is the process of a human behaviour, one which explains not just the behaviour, but its context as well, such that the behaviour becomes meaningful to an outsider.

Geertz argument suggest that interpretive anthropology is a science. One would agree with Geertz perspective and argue that the study interactive, human phenomena can provide the basis for understanding and problem solving and that anthropology’s role as a science is in development. Geertz uses German sociologist Max Weber as a reference in order to develop an argument which illustrates that interpretive anthropology is concluded as a science. Geertz also demonstrates that for individuals who want to understand what science really is, they have to look in the first instance and not at its theories or its findings. Geertz next argues that anthropology is a process of second and third order interpretations, of writing fiction, in the original sense of the word fictio “of something made,” (Geertz, p. 17) which is also science. He argues that it is important not to “bleach human behaviour of the very properties that interest us” (Geertz, p. 17), in order to argue that the “the line between mode of representation and substantive content is as undrawable in cultural analysis as it is in painting” (Geertz, p. 17) but in so doing he doesn’t take into consideration the relevance this lack of bleaching has to his assumptions such as the one based on Weber’s web of significance. Obviously, one’s choice of premise influences one’s argument: a potential theory based on an evolutionary epistemology, or any one of many other premises, might shape a different theory of the way sociocultural anthropology relates to science. He concludes that the role of theory in anthropology is problematic and that there isn’t such a thing as a general theory in anthropology, seeming not to examine in depth the implications because science usually employs processes of induction his has for it as a science.

In conclusion, the pattern of interpretive anthropology has been established upon two premises. The first premise suggests that evocation and interpretation, rather than description and explanation are sufficient and appropriate goals for anthropology. The second premise suggests that scientific descriptions and explanations of human matters are unachievable. This paper identifies the logical errors of postmodernism and suggests the understanding between scientific and interpretive approaches in anthropology. Although Geertz is a leading supporter of the interpretative approach to the social sciences, providing a rationale as well as a concrete model of what the results of such an approach would entail, his account has serious limitations. In addition, on Geertz’s view social science is subjectively limited to providing interpretations such as thick descriptions and no other tasks are permissible.

Those who visualize a conflict between science and humanism fail to understand the true nature of either. Central to the philosophy of humanism is the conviction that human beings are uniquely responsible for discerning and defining the meaning of human life and that they should do so through the exercise of skeptical reason while respecting the freedom and moral equality of all individuals. As such, science is absolutely essential to humanism, for the certain reason that normative conclusions are always founded upon existential premises.

The reason anthropology should not be considered a science is because it doesn’t even try to use the scientific method which is the sole basis of all sciences. It is also why philosophy is not a science. Everything from their literature research to their fieldwork is entirely conjectured. The only method widely accepted in anthropology is participant-observation, which means that the scientist participates in the study. In all other, true scientific fields, this would invalidate the importance of any data because the scientist had manipulated the data. Anthropology is in-depth research into the history of small populations and their religions.

Sources:

McGee, R. John and Richard L Warms. 2000 Anthropological Theory; An Introductory History. 2nd edition.

Harrison, Faye V. 1997 Decolonizing Anthropology: Moving Further Toward an Anthropology for

Liberation. 3rd edition. Arlington: American Anthropological Association

William A. Foley. 1997. Anthropological Linguistics: an introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Geertz, C., Shweder, R. A., & Good, B. 2005. Clifford Geertz by his colleagues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ed. J. Platt 1966. The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concept of Mind. In New Views of the Nature of Man. Pp. 93-118. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Geertz, C. 1973. Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Pp 3-30. New York: Basic Books.

Kaplan D and RA Manners 1972. Culture Theory. Waveland Press Inc., Prospect Heights, IL

Discuss the similarities and differences between any TWO societies. In your answer, make reference to the role of cultures, norms, values and inequality in social organisation.

The twentieth century is packed full of History. The revolution that hit Russia in 1917 is arguably one of the most economic interpretations of History in the twentieth century. This led to one of the first and definitely the biggest Communist state the world has ever seen. Spanning over Seventy years the Russian revolution had a huge impact on world affairs. This essay will look in to the similarities and differences in the norms, values and inequalities of social stratification, between Communist Russia and modern day Capitalist Britain.

Everyone in Communist Russia was required to have jobs. Children, retired and disabled were the only exceptions. If you did not have a job in Communist Russia you would then be considered a parasite on the proletariat (Jary,D.Jary,J.1995) and could end up in jail for such an offence. Income was not the same: However, your salary was determined by the nomenklatura government. If you were a factory worker you would be able to achieve a bonus, this was only if you did not question and were a great worker. With your salary you were unable to buy land. The land was and maybe still is owned by the state. (Oxley,P.2001)

In modern day Capitalist Britain we have cultural diversity, and perceive things in an ethnocentric way. Not everyone in modern day Capitalist Britain is required to work. We have a very beneficial welfare state (Jary,D.Jary,D.1995) which looks after every member of society not just the people who cannot work. Also if Britons wanted to buy land they could do such a thing. Saunders (1990) sees the old class divisions based on work becoming less and less relevant. For Saunders, what you do with your money is more significant than how you get it. (Saunders, P.1990 cited in Moore, S.2001)

In Modern day Capitalist Britain over the past few years, people from all types of heritage have had greater access to higher education through a meritocratic society. Because of this, wealth distribution is altering and social mobility is occurring. The British class system is still very much in tact although in a more subconscious way. The British believe the playing field has levelled, but British still pigeon hole people dependent on class. (www.kwintessential.co.uk).

In Communist Russia, despite Marxist-Leninist notions of a classless society, there were a Capitalist ruling class, the nomenklatura, which consisted of party officials and key personnel in the government and other important sectors such as heavy industry. This class enjoyed privileges such as roomy apartments, country dachas, and access to special stores, schools, medical facilities, and recreational sites. The social status of members of the nomenklatura increased as they were promoted to higher positions in the party. (http://www.country-data.com )

Many people in modern day Capitalist Britain believe in the idea of equal educational opportunity. They believe that everybody within the society should attain an equal chance and their educational qualifications should be based on merit, on their ability and effort. If a person is “clever” and works hard they should do well no matter what his/her social class or background may be. (Haralambos,M.1996)

People knew little about the educational system in Communist Russia. After the coup that brought down the Soviet Empire, Russia released many of its secrets including those involving its education. Communist Russia did not let non-Communist teachers teach. They had a huge mission to ensure Communism was drilled in to them at a very early age. (Corin,C.2002 and Fiehn,T.2002)

After 1917, Russia based its entire school system on the teachings of German philosopher Karl Marx (1818 – 1883). Marxism states that “one should achieve freedom through giving up the self to benefit the state”. This Marxist theory created an unpopular form of government from a democratic point of view; however, it made Communism an efficient educator. (http://www.milford.k12.il.us)

Marxists argue that the working class rarely challenge Capitalism. This is because the people who have the control on economy also control the family, education, media and religion – in fact all the cultural institutions that are responsible for socialising individuals. Neo Marxist Althusser (1971) argued that the function of those cultural institutions is to maintain and legitimate class inequality. (Althusser,L.1971 cited in Moore,S etal 2001). This is very similar to modern day Capitalist Britain

The social structure of Communist Russia was characterized by self-perpetuation and limited mobility.

“Access to higher education, a prerequisite to social advancement, was steadily constrained in the post-war decades. Moreover, the sluggish economy of that period reduced opportunities for social mobility, thus accentuating differences among social groups and further widening the gap between the nomenklatura and the rest of society”. (http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-11420.html 20/10/2010)

In modern day Capitalist Britain Social class is an ‘umbrella’ category. Being of a different class may involve differences in culture, economic circumstances, educational status, dietary preferences, housing conditions, property

Ownership and power. There will always be ‘fuzzy edges’ with people who could be counted in more than one category and people who have encountered social mobility. (http://www.ucel.ac.uk)

There are many differences in norms, values and the social structure in Communist Russia and modern day Capitalist Britain. Looking at the impact the nomenklatura government has had on Russia and how that stopped any sort of meritocracy, and in turn they had a sort of ascribed status. If the people of Communist Russia did not work they could have faced a prison sentence. Also it looks at how Karl Marx had a huge impact on Communist Russia. How much affect did it have, as there was no room for non – Communist teachers? This was there secondary socialisation and it moulded how the youth of Communist Russia were to think. However it can be seen that social mobility is occurring in modern day Capitalist Britain. The British believe that there is a level playing field however; subconsciously, Britons are still classed individuals. Modern day Britons also believe everyone has a right to equal education opportunities. Evidently, social mobility in modern day Capitalist Britain is occurring. Posing the question, ultimately is there a difference between Communism and Capitalism?